Which is more accurate: digital or vinyl?

"Quantization of a 2 volt full-scale range into 64 bits
would mean that the least significant bit corresponds to
about 0.0000000000000000001 volts."

I wonder what the comparative resolution of vinyl in volts
can practically be?

How about compared to 16 bits even?

I doubt there are many if any lps constructed perfectly
enough for
it to matter.

Also since record playback involves movement of a stylus
that has mass, I've always believed that inertia is an
inherent barrier to what
can be achieved practically with vinyl playback, similar to
quantification parameters being the potential barrier with
any particular digital format.

Mapman, That is an excellent question and rationale in last para.
We have good arguments from both Digital(Red book and beyond) and Analog (Vinyl). Lot of discussion automatically assumes Analog to be continous (theoretically) but like Mapman implies what is the practicality?

Has any one plotted signal pick up of say a same sinusoidal test tone recorded both on Vinyl(played back on most accurate set up or even a cutter) and 16/44.1 to compare continuity of these curves?

Al is right, my 64-bit idea is mostly fantasy :)

Here is the problem, in a nutshell, the problem that seems to plague **all** aspects of audio:

There are the Rules of Human Hearing/Perception, and there are the specs on paper. They are not the same- the specs on paper for the most part don't give a damn about human hearing rules.

Now I have gone off about this a lot in the Amps/Preamps forum and won't belabor those issues as examples. Instead, let's look at how the ear treats noise, specifically analog hiss: Normally, our ears employ a masking feature, IOW the presence of a louder sound will block the presence of a quieter sound to our perception. Hiss is the one exception to that rule. I suspect its an evolutionary thing myself- the idea that hiss is similar to the effects of wind in the environment is not that far-fetched to me.... Anyway, we have the ability to hear about **20 db** into the noise floor of an analog system.

(if the noise floor is not composed of hiss, but instead is harmonic or in-harmonic noise related to the signal, our ears will not penetrate that, and so that type of noise floor will define the limit of low level detail that can be retrieved.)

With modern tape, 1/2" format, this means that you have the possibility of a 110 db dynamic range, if you include the range above 0 VU, a range that digital does not have.

This simple fact explains why an analog system of rather modest noise specs can have more low level detail than the best digital systems -*even though it appears to be noisier*. Add to that the fact that digital systems use less bits to resolve lower level signals (IOW, they have loose resolution as signal level decreases, which is why the normalization process is so important in the production of a CD) and you have a great part of why digital systems **as they are** can't keep up with analog.

IOW, part of it has to do with how we hear, and for the most part digital audio has ignored that, which has been a common problem with audio in general in the last 45 years or so :( Put another way, analog just happens to work better with the way our ears work.

Mapman, suggests another good point. With vinyl there seems to be much more dependency on the accuracy of many more mechanical stages from beginning to end (user), and how does that actually turn out in overall real use?
In the end, even with the issues of availability, convenience, portability, record-ability and durability aside, it may come down to which format comes closer to the bulls eye, more often? How that is judged will perhaps be very personal. Some scoring more isolated cases of nearness to perfection higher, others scoring consistency higher. Even within those parameters, the scoring might vary, e.g., with some dismissing different levels of extraneous noise to different extents, and other penalizing extraneous noise to different extents. And, the same kind of scoring could be applied to what ever other various criterion different individuals prioritize differently.
At the risk of being redundant, I have yet to be convinced that one format consistently outperforms the other. With that said, I choose to consider those issues I previously suggested be put aside, availability, convenience, portability, record-ability, and durability and add one other, value(!) when I choose a format.
Except for those with an existing compilation of a particular format, or those rare few, for which cost is not even a consideration, I would offer that good digital can be quite a bit less expensive than good analog, and the extra funds might ultimately be better spent on music, rooms, DSP, speakers, etc..

Atmasphere,

Are you trying to change the subject?

The how we actually hear stuff is fine but I don't see how what you say applies to analog only. Both analog and digital are shooting for similar results as best I can tell and I have heard both do quite well despite the inherent limitations of each.

I suspect you may have some bias in your viewpoints regarding digital given your background and interests.

Nothing wrong with that, we all believe what we believe and are all biased in some way.

I like the idea of making comparisons in the common voltage domain and trying to quantify things there if possible? Not sure to what extent it is but I think it makes sense. Then we could talk in quantitative terms about what is really going on. That's the only way to ever really know.

I am on board with all the how we hear stuff, but I do not think good solutions in this regard is limited to any single paradigm or technology necessarily, though the challenges with each is clearly different.