Which is more accurate: digital or vinyl?

Since you mentioned hospital lighting,the next time you go in for an operation, ask them to do the job by candle lite ,because it makes you feel more comfortable.

I would agree that most audio systems reveal certain aspects of the truth,so it can be said that the most revealing systems should be the most truthful?
I think they are.

Where you want to stop is your choice,as I stated, most people have only heard a fraction of the musical detail that is on the recordings thay have purchased.

And that's just not because they aren't chasing the latest class A components.

It's mostly because they have failed to optimize the system that they have that is the reason why they are being robbed of all of the music.They don't sweat the details, or go the extra mile to properly set up the system, and fail to optimize the power, the room and place the gear on proper stands.
I never felt a stand was anything but a stand until I got my Grand Prix audio rack.
Again, everything matters,you get back what you put in.

Hey I can enjoy music on modest system,because I enjoy the music.
Put that music on an even beytter system and I enjoy it even more.

My first system was a humble all in one TV, radio, record player built into a console purchased in the early 50's by my parents,mono only.

Then I was introduced to a friend's system of separates in the early 1970's and when I heard for the first time background vocals and instruments on my lps,things I never knew were there, I was hooked.

This is why I can't go back.
The old system did it's job of playing music ,it made me want to listen and I could learn the bass parts,but oh my, I was missing so much more.

The added information added to my enjoyment.

This is what intrigues me.

People have embraced High Def TV,and I doubt would ever want to go back to old black and white tv of 1970's quality, yet they long for that old sound of the hifi gear from that era.

So what's so evil about a high def audio system?
Why are the folks who have such systems named "gear heads" and those who don't are called " music lovers"?

Why is one group reviled and the other revered?

Aren't they listening to the same thing, music?

I think the reason for the outbursts of anger for the newer more resolving gear is a backlash at the cost of entry for such systems.

Or it's nostalgia, and that has nothing to do with the music per se, we can be nostalgic about anything at any time in history.Go listen to Archie Bunkers lament about the good old days.

The past will always be golden, the big firsts in our lives can never be duplicated.Remembered, but never duplicated.

70's music played back thru 70's gear may bring back golden memories and warm and fuzzy feelings, but they won't bring back the hair you've either lost or that's turned grey.

It's memories and memories are great and can be relived,but why relive them at the level you did way back then?

When I go back and play some of my music from my youth,I am amazed at how some of those recordings stack up to the best of todays recordings.
And that is from a musical point of view.

Most of the new music of today I find very derivative.
And that's not a bad thing.
Rock and roll is a captive of it's own making.There's only so much you can do within the confines of the style of the music.
And yet it has continued to flourish and never went away as they said it would in the 50's.

Listening to some of my early Chet Atkins lps in mono through the Steelhead reveal how really well recorded those simply recorded lps were.

The music is fresh and lifelike, even thought the style is dated,the muscianship and the sound of the lp is much better than when I used to listen to it back in the day on the old folk's system.

There's no going back for me.

"Since you mentioned hospital lighting,the next time you go in for an operation, ask them to do the job by candle lite ,because it makes you feel more comfortable.”

Thank you for making my point. Your interest seems to focus on the science of reproducing sound. Notice that I didn’t say music, I said sound. And that’s fine. But not for me. I can’t prove what I believe - that music has a substance and appeal that goes beyond what our cognitive mind can even hear. But take all the sound measurements you want of a piece of music, and I’ll bet that those measurements can be duplicated non-musically.

Only a fool believes that the more facts he has, the closer to the truth he is.
And I would suggest the same relation holds between details and music. Music is more that a collection of details. And I’ll go even further and say that, IMO, it is possible for details to actually lead away from the musical truth.

There is no rationality to our enjoyment of music. It’s appeal has nothing to do logic or reasoning. But those are exactly the tools that some of us insist on using in order to determine musicality. I think it’s fair to ask: When does sound become music? When I was 9 years old, I began taking trumpet lessons. My family and neighbors would take great issue with anyone who suggested that the product was ever musical.

Phaelon, as you may be aware, many modern composers in fact believe that all noise, even silence, is music. John Cage being the primary exponent of the theory. Nice post, by the way.

“...even silence, is music."

Hey! That’s what my neighbors used to say :-)

RE***The intense lighting in a hospital operating room will be more revealing than the light emanating from a fireplace, but I will always prefer to gaze at, even the most flawlessly beautiful woman, by firelight. It’s not less truthful, it’s just another aspect of the truth.***

I like that.

Did anyone get the point i was trying to make with the "moving goal post analogy" and the "inherent futility of seeking... quote unquote... "hi fidelity" across a BROAD range of recordings?

Am i alone and crazy on this point or what? Yay or nay? (smile)

While i can appreciate how moving up to more exotic gear (so called "higher fidelity"(yes and no)) can improve the sound of SOME recordings ...I don't appreciate what it does to OTHER recordings. These other recordings, i would argue are not necessarily "poor" recordings. SOME of these just APPEAR to be poor. The problem is...that the system is too revealing so as to not compliment certain BRANDS of recordings.

Take for example... "tape hiss". If a state of the art system reveals tape hiss but a lesser system does not and therefore does not let that aspect interfere with the music...How can it be said that the state of the art system is categorically better? Isn't a system that doesn't reveal the tape hiss but still keeps the music in tact, isn't it actually "better" since being able to hear the "tape hiss" wasn't the goal or intention of either the producers or the artists as part of the playback? That is they would not want or expect a system to playback the "hiss" ALONG with THEIR MUSIC and have it be called a good playback system.

It doesn't mean they had a "weak system" with which they recorded since they couldn't spot the hiss when they were in the studio mixing room. For that time it might very well be they had a very good studio system.

So, say you are sincere about your quest for hi fidelity and want to make no compromises in any area!...how are you going to get it across a broad range of music? ..."hi fidelity" (hi fidelity my foot!)

It seems we would need to own several system's to accommodate each era of recording quality and "type". Now, if you don't want to do that (i certainly don't)...you're basically stuck? How do you achieve your goal of hi fidelity? You don't. You ultimately have to compromise. But "hi fidelity" and "compromise" ...to me... is a contradiction in terms? That's my beef with "hifi". (I mean, i am happy and content with hifi in some areas but in others i am not)

Some recordings are in fact not poor (as some highly resolving system would seem to tell), they are just DIFFERENT and are better served on a different kind of system belonging to that period.

Their will of course be exceptions and it should be understood this is true in degrees.

Take for example the 80's ? song "never surrender" by cory hart.

Why can it be said that on my lesser system years back, i concluded it to be a "great sounding recording" and with my new system i conclude it to be a "good sounding recording"?

The former was more pleasurable than the latter. What criteria or test do we determine the truth of whether or not it is a good recording? The new system?.... that reveals "a tape hiss" or ...the older system?... that does not?

Which is "hi fidelity" in this one specific example and which is not?

On a different recording you may have a different winner.

***The intense lighting in a hospital operating room will be more revealing than the light emanating from a fireplace, but I will always prefer to gaze at, even the most flawlessly beautiful woman, by firelight. It’s not less truthful, it’s just another aspect of the truth.***

Beauty or truth?

Maybe the best way to determine whether or not one has a "hi fidelity" system is to ask oneself "how MUSICAL is this system...how much do i enjoy listening to ALL my collection?"(irregardless of ANYTHING else...) and when you can say it is in fact very musical! then you have in fact found YOUR brand of "hi fidelity".

.