Which is more accurate: digital or vinyl?

"Medusa looks better when her photo is not accurate.”

Curious... shouldn’t you be stone? :)

Once again, the "sound", the tone/timbre of music becomes the focus of the discussion. More important issues are overlooked. Time and rhythm is what gives music it's vibrancy. That is where the soul of the music is; the human touch. It is also what gets distorted the most by the recording/ playback process. Ideally, live unamplified music should be the standard. But live amplified music can also serve. The immediacy and impact of a miked kick drum at a concert in an arena, or the grandeur of a full string section making a crescendo during a Mahler symphony cannot be duplicated by even the best sound systems. Those deficiencies make the issues of wether the sound is a little bright here or a little bloated there seem petty by comparison. I find the argument that there are too many variables, too many different sounding halls, different engineers, yada yada, to be a tired argument. It's all about familiarity with the sound of the real thing.

"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."

"Time and rhythm is what gives music it's vibrancy. That is where the soul of the music is; the human touch. It is also what gets distorted the most by the recording/ playback process.”

Frogman,
Ever since this thread began (actually long before), I’ve been searching for the words to express the point of view you have so eloquently posted here. Thanks.

That's right - you tell 'em, Frogman! :)

Frogman, I totally agree with you in regard to "time and rhythm" giving music its vibrancy.

If i may...I would like to say the same thing but in different wording...that music at its most primal level is received and appreciated by its "beat". If we don't feel the "beat" we start to yawn.

It is only in the last 6 months or so that the light is coming on for me (so ta speak) about the primacy of macro dynamics, macro transient speed without blurring and "weight".

One powerful example is Nirvanas "come as you are". The song starts off relatively quiet and stays that way til "the turn". The change happens when dave grohl "pounds" the drums twice, signifying that the song is going to be taken somewhere else. This turning moment is a great test for a system's, macro dynamic transient speed/weight without blurring...at this moment things should just EXPLODE!(i don't know of any other recorded moment like this one) and you should be moved by the moment ...if you're not... better shop for a better power cable or speaker or amp...something isn't quite right.

At this point in my ...exxuse the expression "audiophile journey" i have come to a place where i believe the two primary essential non negotiable elements on which hi end stereo systems stand or fall are...

Yes...1. Macro dynamic transient speed without blurring/weight "the beat"

and...

2. Timbre (often overlooked and consistently neglected)

Get these two right and you are 90 percent of the way there!

After 6 years and thousands and thousands of dollars later i am still in pursuit of these attributes.

It took me about that long for the light to come on about their primacy. Its amazing how hard it is to find what you dont know what youre looking for. If someone knows and understands this...i think they are in a great position to become a satisfied audiophile.

Ever been 5 feet away from a single violin as it plays? Take that emotional response away with you and that is the value of correct timbre! Now if its stereo playback speed is too slow, too fast, ie hyped up or blurred (assuming the timbre is impeccably reproduced) you still lose something there. (now i am talking about #1 (the dynamics) get both right and if the song is good you are in for a good trip!

Switching gears...

RE***"But just saying "live" music will be the standard by which we measure accuracy by.... is...i think...insufficient... since even "live" music is not a precise enough definition."***

To labour the point further...How many times have you heard audiophiles say "i go to hear live music and that is the standard by which i measure the quality of my stereo playback"?

Thats fine if you are in the 5th row of a all acoustic unamplified orchestra or jazzz band but what about seeing U2, Guns'n roses, Taylor swift, in a "live" amplified, noisy stadium? That's live too! but should that be useful for measuring "accuracy of timbre" for your home system? The natural timbres of those acoustic instruments are now amplified and PA'd.

So judging acoustic unamplified instrumental timbres and small amplified jazz or large concert hall rock shows must be distinguished from one another in regards to using "live music" as my standard. They are two very different categories when it comes to timbre fidelity. Some live music is the most distorted, noisy, inaudible stuff you can listen to! Give me my studio recorded album's kybosh live!

One is acoustic jazz/classical/folk...the other category is electric rock!

But to be fair...I do think i have a pretty good idea if bob dylan's ELECTRIC highway 61's album sounds timbrally right through my speakers or not. I have heard it done right and sound amazing and i have heard it done not so right and fall a bit flat. So, maybe a case can still be made even for the accuracy of amplified music too.

I guess the bottom line is...whatever the genre...when it sounds like music ...its hard to define...but when you hear it...you just know...regardless of genre...it sounds like music and your connecting with it. Maybe that should be the standard and forget all the debate. Thanks...

.