Which is more accurate: digital or vinyl?

"Had this problem been addressed properly from the get-go, I suspect that about 90% of the D vs A debate in the last 30 years simply would not have occurred. "

Would would constitute addressing it properly?

I do not hear the brightness you refer to categorically associated with CD or digital in most of my CDs compared to vinyl or other references I have heard. So my ears tell me that there is no redbook plague associated with the format that makes it incompatible to human ears (which I understand are not ruler flat in response, so what, we hear everything the same be it coming out of a stereo or real). I do understand though that it can be a common plague with many CD rigs and has been in mine as well in the past. But I do not understand how the format itself or even being digital precludes this.

I listen to CDs with Class D amps that use negative feedback and still have no issues I can go as loud as I want with my rig with little to no fatigue or brightness. So my experience does not correspond to what you are saying.

I will not question that digital and SS amps with negative feedback in practice have been more plagued by this. Only that it is not inherent to teh technologies categorically, end of story. It can be done extremely well in either format. I do suspect though that R2R is in another league though, for whatever that is worth practically to most.

Thanks, Al :-)

Vbr,
Sam

Mapman, the in-harmonic issue is easily demonstrated. I have to admit I was shocked the first time it was demonstrated to me. You take a sine wave sweep tone and play it back- listen for the 'birdies'.

If your not hearing the brightness of digital there are really only three explanations- either you have a high frequency rolloff in the system that complements the digital artifact or you have a high frequency rolloff in your ears. The third explanation is you have not heard a good analog playback on your system. Of the three, the latter is the most common- most people can hear digital artifacts just fine- I know someone who was deaf in one ear and 50% in the other and he had no problems discerning digital vs analog.

It is very common to hear really excellent digital recordings these days that make you wonder if they are finally there. The real question is, no matter how good the digital, 'what would this have sounded like if an analog recording system was used?' For that I recommend to anyone to try it themselves, of course they might have a bit of a time chasing down the analog equipment :)

I run a recording studio so we see this sort of comparison all the time. I get asked, 'why do you have all this old analog crap?' all the time. I just sit them down and play the difference. They never leave with any questions.

Ralph,

At what frequencies does the harmonic issues occur?

I am not aware of any speaker system that is said to be able to pass a sin wave unaltered so perhaps nothing unusual in sin wave artifacts, chose your type or not.

Original OHM A or F full range Walshes perhaps, but I think even those only went to 16 khz or so.

Maybe when I was 18 years old and tested as able to hear pretty much up to 20khz I would have heard something.

I think for every digital artifact one could point out a different one with analog to counter, so chose your artifacts.

Some matter more than others . To me, if I don't hear it, it doesn't matter. If others do, I suppose it does.

Funny that I think many guys who hate digital are older guys like me who probably can't hear anymore beyond 14 Khz or so whereas the younger kids who should be affected are all into their ipods or maybe slightly better digital if tehy even care.