Which is more accurate: digital or vinyl?

RE***What are some examples of music that does not sound like music?***

There aren't any because if its "music" then it sounds like music!

The are many examples of noises that try to fool you into thinking its music though! (but ultimately cant and doesnt)

It's a great cliche and true..."a superlative system will make the gear disappear."

Our systems can be very good approximation's of the real recorded musical event. That's the good news.

Remember the police's album..."the ghost in the machine"?

Open up the top of your amp or cd player. Can you see the music there amongst the capacitors and wires? Where is the music and what is it? What makes it come?

Both mediums are flawed and neither is 100% accurate to the original live event,and I mean event, not the recording of that event.

It's always amazed me at how more realistic and lifelike some of my old mono lp are when compared to even new vinyl releases.

I think minimalism is one important aspect that often is overlooked in modern recording.

If you can, throw in the kitchen sink and go with as many tracks as you can,in other words too much audio techno for techno sake.

The old pros only rode the volume control and yet most of those analog recordings sound very lifelike, and it's amazing when you think of all the time that has passed since those recordings were made.
And how far and advanced(?)modern recording technology has come since then.

But I have to shake my head everytime I listen to a vinyl or cd of music recorded in the last few years and wonder what the heck happened?

This I think is why analog is more accurate if it was done in a minimalist way when the music was recorded.

I think a lot of the "accuracy" is lost the more you veer off the path of simple recording with good mics and even better recording techniques.

The old fix it in the mix and band aid, frankenstein multi studio patch jobs have robbed most of todays music of any shreds of accuracy to the original event.

If you want accuracy , go out and support the live musicians(unamplified is preferable),cause you ain't gonna get it with vinyl or digital.
You may prefer the sound or convenience of one over the other,but accuracy is something that cannot be determined.
There's just been too much junk placed between the musicians and your ears , rendering accuracy moot.

Stick with what sounds best, and forget about the concept of accuracy.

It doesn't apply in this hobby, which is all about illusion and not accuracy.

"It's always amazed me at how more realistic and lifelike some of my old mono lp are when compared to even new vinyl releases."

I find that mono can often be more realistic and lifelike also even with mono CDs, especially good remasters of older mono material.

Works especially well with blues, R&B, R&R, and other older forms of popular music. Beatles, Chuck Berry, Buffy Holly, Muddy Waters, Elvis are a few examples.

I know this is veering off the topic of the thread kind of...but one thing i think that is often or always overlooked is that when you listen to music live, you are having both a sonic reference to the experience but also a live visual reference/experience!

Take a moment to consider just how good listening to live music blind folded would be? This makes it a more fair comparison with our stereo systems.

That is...i think people tout the live event [the holy grail refernce/standard] as being so much better than our stereo's because of the visual aspect AND the physical aspect of being at the event!

I have never seen this addressed on any forums anywhere! but i think it applies to the discussion and topic.

You've heard of blind comparisons right? What are they for? So, that you are not biased/manipulated by what you see but are left only to discern with your ears alone. Its about quality control of test results/conclusions.

So, when people compare live music to their systems they should compare both blindfolded or they should at least take note of the fact that they are getting visual stimulus from the live event along with musical info.

In a live venue you can turn your head around and see the room, the people behind you, someone steps on your foot when you are on the concert floor, how can 2 speakers compete against all these extra senses being triggered and adding to the "experience of the "music""?

I would venture to guess that some very good system's are as good as or extremely close to the live event to the point where the differences are negligible. [blindfolded]

Is that audiophile heresy? (smile)

I can confirm some of the stuff i'm saying by giving an example.

Ever watched/listened to Nirvana unplugged with the lights low in your room and through your hifi?

This is a very well recorded dvd and when you combine great audio playback ALONG WITH VISUAL CUES (and in low lighting so where you are ..."gets blurred")...i have been BLOWN AWAY with the feeling Kurt cobain is still alive and singing right there before me! The audio recording of that event is just superb in my opinion. Anyways...if while watching the show, the tv suddenly died, the "powerful illusion" that i am there gets diminished because you lose the visual contributions to your "suspension of reality".

So, in defense of our systems, being at a live musical event is in someways an unfair comparison especially if you don't take into account the degree to which visual cues are adding to your degree of pleasure while at the event.

Comparing both blind is a higher quality comparison since you should be judging sonics with sonics NOT Sonics plus visual with just sonics.

I am not suggesting people need to go to live events blindfolded, i'm just stating ....whether they know it or not ...that its to some degree an unfair comparison. Not TOTALLY unfair but to some degree, AT LEAST... it is.

.

No doub't all senses in play at a live event.

I always close my eyes when attempting to assess listening live versus at home. Its a valuable exercise to use live events as a reference (as well as to listen to various "reference" systems in different settings) as long as you are able to filter out extraneous sensual factors and also take all the factors that make the difference with the sound alone (like room acoustics)into account. Otherwise, you are doomed to be continually chasing both a moving and nebulous target.