Which is more accurate: digital or vinyl?

The whole point of being an audiophile is ..."to be moved by a piece of music"

A piece of music, is something ineffable. this might be bad news but you can be moved by a piece of music heard over a used $5 dollar am radio you bought at the salvation army!

A good song transcends fidelity because songs are more than that.

bob dylan has listened to music via cassettes on a getto blaster to explore music.

Songs have a life of their own because of the words and the melody. Hi fidelity is just "getting a kick out of trying to reproduce real life instruments through gear as you hear them in real life"

"Which is more accurate?" There is no definitive answer. I suppose some are deriving pleasure from asking the question and that's ok. But we need to let go and enjoy. Perhaps i'm preaching to the choir but maybe not for some...

Sound reproduction is as varied as cooking. No two apple pies are identical and each must be compared to another on a case by case basis.

There are a plethora of contingencies involved in each form of playback, in each individual case that meaningful discussion becomes futile.

Both formats are hit and miss. But i still feel persuaded to say, that the BEST playback i have ever heard, when the planets align, was vinyl.

So, if the question was...""when the planets align", which is the most accurate format:digital or vinyl?" (and by "accurate" you mean as a virtue "best sounding so as to move you" ...I would answer by saying..."vinyl is more accurate".

Also...

RE***More accurate, mind you, not better sounding. ***

This makes no sense to me. So therefore "more accurate" necessarily must equal worse sounding??!!

No.

"Accurate" necessarily must be understood as a sonic virtue, therefore "accurate" necessarily should equal "better sounding".

Its a contradiction to say something is more accurate but NOT better sounding.

Accurate should be understood as a sonic virtue and not a sonic vice.

Impeccable "Accuracy" should lead to emotional involvement with zero negative effects, at least that is how i define and understand "accuracy".

The best accuracy i have ever heard was with vinyl, though that level of accuracy sometimes eludes me because of several factors but when everything is right, its like "wow!"

Sadly because vinyl playback involves physical/mechanical parameters to be optimal ...it is more work and more difficult to realize and acheive these optimal conditions but with that said...i argue when those optimal conditions are realized it IS the BEST.

So, with all this said, I will answer the question as i see it.

Which is more accurate: digital or vinyl?

When everything is right and it relatively, rarely is...

Vinyl... is more accurate than digital.

(and..."a good song" transcends "the hair splitting" of anal retentive "hi-fidelity" audiophiles.)

A good song has a life of its own that doesn't depend on hi-fidelity to enjoy its life.

95 percent of its value can be hear on a 500 dollar system the last 5 percent... is made manifest on a 25,000 plus system.

*

Some good points above, Vertigo.

The comment "More accurate, mind you, not better sounding" makes no sense, but belies the common (among audiophiles) lack of understanding of what accuracy means. Unfortunately, accuracy is seen as something that is independent of a verifiable reference. The more a listener spends time listening to live music, the easier it becomes to recognize and define accuracy. Familiarity with live music is the only way to attach real meaning to the term; anything else is just an expression of preference.

Many audiophiles have a notion of what constitutes accurate or euphonious sound that is not rooted in reality. Being used to the "accurate", thin and tipped-up sound of most digitally recorded strings, I think they would be very surprised to hear how "euphonious" a great string section playing the Dvorak Serenade For Strings in a great concert hall can sound. Conversely, they would be equally surprised at how incredibly abrasive and strident a soprano saxophone can sound heard live and up-close in a club. In both cases, if a piece of equipment can
convey this, it approaches accuracy. And then we have the really elusive, non-tonal aspects of music that define accuracy (or not); the rhythmic and dynamic subtleties that are heard in live, unprocessed music that are almost destroyed by most equipment.

Vertigo, I believe your apple pie comparison is misplaced. Apple pies might more likely be compared to recordings, and the formats might be more appropriately compared to the pans they're baked in.

Frogman, despite the digital dig, I think your point is right on.

Medusa looks better when her photo is not accurate.

Aphrodite's beauty is portrayed best in an accurate photo.

SO in terms of gaining pleasure from our senses, this is best achieved with an accurate representation of something beautiful accordingly. This is closest to the audiophile scenario IMHO.

When something is not so beautiful to start with, less accurate representations might actually be preferred. Depends on how ugly it really is I suppose. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder to a certain extent.