Which is more accurate: digital or vinyl?

Vertigo, I don't know how much clearer I can be.
I think you are starting to get it, as you are repeating things in your post that I first stated.

No I don't use the Fidelity Research,my vinyl set up is a modest Rega P-9, Exact 2, into a Manley Steelhead.

Not my most ambitious Vinyl set up.
In the past I owned the LP12 with the FR arm and cart, An Oracle Delphi versions 1, 2, with an EMT air bearing arm, then a Sota with SME V arm, then VPI SCout, and now the Rega.

My friend's vinyl system is my reference for what a great vinyl system is capable of-SME 30/12, Clear Audio Strad cart, Audio Research Ref phono stage and AR 40 Anniver pre amp,all top flight Siltech cables and all top flight power cords and conditioning.

It was on this system that I clearly could discerne how much more there was to hear on a vinyl recording than what most of us think is as good as it gets.

I can never tweak my gear enough to even come close to this type of resolution, and clarity.
It clearly ditinguishes between great and less great recordings,and his digital Scarlatti gear is a great vinyl/digital comparison.

But I digress,my whole point all along has been that the more resolution, the better, and that the more resolution you have the easier it is to distinguish between the wheat and the chaff.

And in this case you don't have to use one limited amount of "reference' recordings" that you've read about somewhere to prove the point.
It's there on all recordings.
There are great recordings that folks know about( and are bored with aka P.Barber)and some recordings from lesser known groups and labels that can astonish you with their realism.Check out Fidelio,I have several of Rene's recordings and they are very well done, yet not many outside of a small community know about them.Art Duddley does ,but just recently.

But I wouldn't voice my system to them.
A well set up system doesn't need to be voiced to any small set of recordings.

Or to any one type of music.

If it does sound best with one type of music, then that is not for me.
But there are folks out there who listen to string ensembles exclusively and seek out systems that compliment this one style and no harm in that.

I like several female vocalists and Cassandra Wilson and Liz Wright come to mind.Ive seen Diana Krall in a small venue at the beginning of her career, and I also like a young woman by the name of Anne Bisson(Fidelio again)but I wouldn't voice a system around any of them, as good as they are.

Talk about diverse vocal timbres.
Who would you choose to voice your system around?

If you tip the scales in favour of one and voice your system accordingly, you'll do a disservice to all the others.

Poor Norah Jones might get left out in the cold.

The more resolve you have when the system is properly set up, the more you can tell the difference between recordings and vocalists.Or so you should.If they all sound the same then the system is not accurate,it's painting everything with the same brush.
Everyone sounds like Pat Barber.

I have a few old 6 eyes and old Columbis of jazz in mono from the 50's & 60's that can run circles around most of all the "reference" recordings that get all the press.ONe of my faves is the Louis Armstrong plays WC Handy- original pressing, mono.
I believe it's now been re-issued, It's a great primer on how they used to get it right, that somehow has been forgotten.

And yet I never would think about setting my system up around this lp as good as it is.It is only one example of how diverse the music and recordings are and I like the diversity.

Which is what I find so strange about your approach.

When all the components are set up optimally, when care is taken with where and on what the gear is seated and the power to the gear is addressed, as is the room itself, then there's no need to fine tune it so that a few "reference" recordings sound great.

They will,and so will the lesser well recorded material, and you will like everything you play, yet be able to hear quality differences and recording techniques that lesser systems aren't capable of.

If the kick drum in a vintage recording is not as deep as your reference recording is,why alter it ?
Or on the other hand why fatten out all the sound because the kick on your reference is fuller than the old mono disc recorded the kick?

Why try and alter what was the original sonic truth and super impose another set of "reference" sonics to it?

Isn't it better to be able to hear the differnce?

In a highly resolving system everything will not sound the same, as I keep saying, you won't have a collection of all C grade material.
You will have A grade, B grade, C grade, and even F grade.

And you'll love them all for what they are.Because they are what they are and haven't been altered to sound like some "reference" disc.

Most folks never attain this type of resolution or are reluctant to do so because they fear this will render a great majority of their music unlistenable.

It is the complete opposite ,and completely opposite to setting up a system that is optimized to only make a few recordings sound great, aka P. Barber recordings.

A system that is set up properly and that consists of gear that doesn't impose a sonic signature or has sonic limitations,will sound great on any music that is played back through it.Hence no need to voice the system around lite jazz or the squeals of P.Barber.

I play all types of music and so does my friend.
Neither of us voiced our systems to a specific type of music or to any specific discs.
Both play back everything we feed them.
Classical or rock,Holst's Planets from Fidelio, or vintage Zimmerman from Columbia.
Again this is what I expect from an audio system.
No curtailment at the frequency extremes and great clarity .
Both of our systems accomplish this.

His just plays back better than mine.

And so it should.

Lacee, You've almost got it. Re read my posts and then i think everything will finally crystallize.

You seem to think there is an objective truth about what is the constitution of "a good recording". In the final analysis every recording and every playback of a recording is a interpretation or rendition of "the truth". If you seek to actually mimic reality you need to use live instruments as your litmus test and then manipulate the flaws/inherent limitations of recordings into something else to turn out something that sounds absolutely real but if you choose to do THIS you will find you walk a razors edge of fine tuning, so much so that only a few recordings can be made to sound practically real. If this isn't your goal... one, by DEFAULT is making everything sound generally better but nothing close to real. You have to leave the shore of generalizations in order to reach the shore of practically real. And i mean this not at a class C level but at a Class AAA level. None of this will really mean anything to you or applies to you when you are using only a Exact 2 cart.

My friend you think I am talking about the Rega Cartridge?
You had better go back and read my posts and pay attention and then don't regurgitate what I've said and try and take the credit.

When I talk about a high resolution vinyl playback chain, I never said mine was.
Go back and read carefully.
I stated my friend's system, and so I am not bragging about how good my cartridge is or how much gold it contains.

There's lots of gold in them thar Siltech cables of his also, and if we are talking dollars to donuts his interconnect and speaker wires alone cost more than your system.

I repeat, I am not talking about my set up.Never bragged about my system.

You, however, seem to feel that my system can't give me any resolution, and that only you have found the "secret" recipe for success.
So I will have to go on the defensive.

Well, the secret isn't so much in the components as it is in the context of how those components are implimented.

Nowhere in your posts have I seen reference to what type of room treatment that you use, what type of power cords you use,if you use dedicated lines,balanced power,power conditioning etc.

I do.
If we need to get into a P fight about spending money on gear,my focus shifted away from mega buck components and into the realm of power and room conditioning.
My power cords cost over ten grand , if that impresses you.It doesn't impress me.
If I could have gotten the same results and spent less, believe me I would have.

My friend with the mega buck system didn't just call it a day when he bought the components.He spent large on power products.
He showed me the way.This was new territory for me 8 years ago.Before this all I focused on was speakers, amps, cd players and turntables, sound familiar?

I couldn't achieve his level of resolution because I didn't have the bucks to buy the gear that he has.
But I could afford the ancilliaries that so far you either have neglected to mention or just plain neglect when it comes to your search for the truth.

High resolution systems don't need the most expensive coil on the block to be high resolution system.
And I might add that you perhaps have never heard how good your system is if you neglect the power and the room.

In other words you only think you are nailing it.

You are therefore spot on when you state that you only get it right with a few recordings and on a few days.

It's because you are compromising the gear you have,and crippling it if you aren't doing any upgrading in the power cord, room or even fuse department.

The best MC you can buy isn't giving you what it's really capable of , no matter how much you fool with it.

What phono stage are you using?Do you have ablity to dial in the capacitance and load the cartridge for optimum performance?

I can do that with my Steelhead, even though I don't because I use a MM.
And don't slight a MM, they have virtues of their own, go read about them.No hot rising top end,as some coils have.
I"ll have to read up about your cartridge, but just for a reality check,all coils and cartridges have a sound and impart a sound to the music.

Again, they are not neutral, nothing is.
And when it comes to cartridges you can only like or dislike what they do to a recording.
It's just personal preference.
There's no clear cut winner.
Some are better than others, but so far I've never read about the ideal cartridge yet.
It's all about tradeoffs.

If you tweak your cartridge/system and tailor it's sound to suit what YOU think is a decent recording, (and judging from the recordings you state as reference,you haven't heard much), you are making a mistake that a novice makes.

Years ago when I started out and before you ever came upon this hobby, people only had analog as a source.

For most of us we bought Linn Lp12 TT, or after that I bought the Oracle and fitted it with an ET Two linear tracking air bearing arm and back then a nice Dynavector Ruby coil.

Then along came digital, and we (myself and my friends)spent a lot of time trying to make it sound as pleasant as when we spun vinyl.

But it didn't.So we started to re-configure our systems and in so doing, lost the magic that we had.

In the early years , getting both mediums to sound as good as the other was impossible.
Getting one to sound good, ruined the other.
You almost needed two systems.

So for most of us , vinyl still ruled and the perfect sound wasn't what they said it was.

Today things are different.Digital has gotten very good.
My friend and I both prefer his SME system, but the full blown Scarlatti isn't too shabby either, and in some areas outperforms the vinyl.
No, I am not talking about the absence of snaps and crackles.

He hardly has any and I hardly have any.
If people talk about the inferior sound of vinyl and the noise, then they haven't listened to a proper set up.
And I can get that with my set up, and using the Planar 9, the Exact 2 cartridge and the Manley Steel head phono.

I have no more noise than my friend has, whose cartridge alone is worth more than my entire vinyl set up as mentioned.

So the point is,your cartridge, or anybody's isn't perfect.

There's no perfect vinyl or digital set up, mine, yours or my friends,that is absolutely true to the recording.
Everyone of them is colouring the sound, no matter what you think or how perfect you think you have it.
The hard cruel fact is you are no closer to the truth than any of the rest of us.Perhaps further from it if you seek to compromise your system to only a select few frequencies and recordings, which your list illustrate are mostly studio created altered reality type recordings.

I am closer now than I was before, thanks to my friend.
He has shown me that no matter how good or expensive the gear is, it can be compromised if you don't sweat the details.
I can easily tell on my system as I can on his, the studio gimmicks on most of todays recordings, that are absent on the old jazz mono recordings from the late 50's early 60's.
Which tells me I am going in the right direction.Closer to reality not further from it.
The lines are cleanly drawn betwen the two, and I ,unlike you, do not wish to alter the reality of those recordings.
I want to hear differences, and I have a system that can do this, (more now than it did before), the same as my friends expensive system does.Score one for the cheap little MM.

My friend IS closer than I am, and you are somewhere in between,and unlike you I won't say your system is lacking anything although you think mine is lacking. I will say that you perhaps have some decent gear, but may lack a bit of experience as to how to get the most out of it.

The lesson I've learned thru the decades in this hobby is that there is no substitute for the truth, and that if the truth means hearing the tape hiss from a recording because it's on the recording, then that's better than hidding it.
Because to hide the tape hiss or try to make a sonic bandaid and cover it up somehow with euphonic colourations, isn't striving for the truth.
That's running away from it.
If you are missing the hiss, then what else are you missing?
My guess is the decay and trail of the music, especially on cymbals.
If hiss is on the recording but yoiur system isn't capable of retrieving it or you've done something to hide it because you find it detracts from the music, you've also just lost some of the music.You've lost detail.The hiss is a detail,and take it away you take away subtle decay and any other frequencies that ride in the frequencies of the hiss you find so offensive.
Point- it's not just hiss you are removing.
Or, if you aren't hearing the hiss thru your system(when it's there on someonelse's)you aren't hearing other parts of the music either.

And going back to preaching again, when mediocrity becomes the norm and something to adulate,then all the stuff that is truly good has no importance.

When you allow the slow learners to advance with the smart ones, you aren't doing either any favours.
If no one fails,it rewards the slackers and does nothing to encourage them or those who excelled to excell any further.

The playing field eventually is levelled and the score is average at best.
In other words,more in the lower middle, few or none at the top.

When you kill off the top audio gear and find nothing but fault because it is so good at revealing the truth and distinguishing between good and bad, you breed mediocrity.

It's evident,some don't want this type of brutal reality.

They would rather tinker with it, and try to render all recordings to sound nice than live with the reality that no two recordings will ever sound the same, nor should they.

Some are just poorly recorded.But that doesn't mean that they aren't fun to listen to.
If you like the music you'll like the flaws,and learn to appreciate the better recordings because you have a system that can do that.Not a system that makes everything sound the same, or a system that was voiced around one type of medium(vinyl/digital).

Vertigo has at times in his posts taken my statements out of context and twisted them around to make it appear that my ideas were his ideas all along, which of course they aren't.

I never once stated my aim was to strive for a system where the flaws are masked.And I've stated my system is able to distinguish between good and poorly recorded material.
I've assembled a system that is resolving and not fatiguing, and it sounds good all the time and on all music, good recordings or bad.It tells the truth.It doesn't hide from it.Or try to alter it and make it all sound the same.
I've stated all along I revel in the distinction between good bad and poor recordings, and strive for a system that has the resolution and detail to make this possible.How did Vertigo not get this?Why did he distort my statements?
How did he come to the conclusions that he did?
How could he know how good my system is, let alone my friend's, and is he really that dillusional to think that he has a system that has all the answers?
If he hasn't adressed room issues and power treatment I am certain he isn't even close yet to where his gear could take him.
My friend will tell you, he hasn't even gotten there yet.

I want the truth, Vertigo wants to colour it to his liking, both in his music reproduction system and in his posts.

Analogue. Do the mathematics:

By the Fourier Theorem, we must only consider sine waves. A sine wave must be sampled 250 times to achieve 5% RMS distortion or less (the bear is when they cross zero, if I remember my simulations correctly). Undamaged adults can hear to 20KHz. Therefore a signal must be sampled at 250 x 20,000 = 5MHz to achieve less than 5% distortion throughout the accepted bandwidth.

And I will shriek if I hear Shannon's Information Theorem (mis) quoted again. That theorem requires a continuous Fourier Transform - i.e. has been infinitely repeating since minus infinity, through the present, and on into plus infinity, whereupon the samples may be reassembled to give good results. But the universe is only 13,000,000,000 years old - a long way from infinity (infinitely long way, actually).

So digital will rival a Revox A77 when sampling frequency exceeds 5MHz. As for rivalling a Studer ... no way.

01-24-12: Terry9
A sine wave must be sampled 250 times to achieve 5% RMS distortion or less ...

With all due respect, as someone who has taken several advanced courses dealing with digital sampling theory, and has designed digital circuits implementing FFT's and other digital signal processing functions, I have never before encountered such a statement.

Are you sure you are not confusing sampling with quantization? Are you sure you are taking into account the low pass filtering or other techniques that are used to reconstruct the analog waveform during the d/a conversion process?

In any event, can you provide some supporting documentation or rationale for that claim?

Regards,
-- Al