Which is more accurate: digital or vinyl?


More accurate, mind you, not better sounding. We've all agreed on that one already, right?

How about more precise?

Any metrics or quantitative facts to support your case is appreciated.
128x128mapman
Yes, Unsound, I realize that Orpheus 10 was responding to Terry9. That in no way invalidates what I said, however. In this particular context, I mainly wanted to make the point that far too many audiophiles rely on measurements instead of their ears, especially when "distortions" are in question.
I was responding to the fact that I'm a technician, and the question is not "audiophillic" if there is such a word; but technical.

As a technician, I rely on my ears as opposed to measurements when we are in the "audiophile domain", and as an "audiophile" I'm sure you know what I mean. Nothing can measure subtle nuances.
Orpheus10, I don't think that a 'scope is the best way to investigate this.

I can clearly hear differences between waveforms that look identical on a scope, such as small differences in IM distortion. The resolution is simply not there. That may be because a scope's display is painted on a phosphor-coated screen, and it cannot react very fast. Only specialized phosphors are likely to react faster than 1KHz, much less 20 KHz. Knowing this, the scope's manufacturer is likely to have embedded averaging routines, so that one does not observe an event, but an average of events. Therefore, the question reduces to the temporal resolution of the instrument's display, as distinct from it's electronic frequency response to periodic waveforms repeated over thousands or millions of cycles. Alternately, specialized electronics "freezing" the action would work - but not a garden variety scope. Not being an expert, I may have got this part wrong - if so, please correct me.

I also note that consistency is a poor substitute for accuracy.

Second, digital representations of waveforms near the Nyquist criterion (half the sampling frequency) are aperiodic, except over several waves. To see this, consider a 20KHz sine wave being sampled at 44KHz. It is sampled, on average, at a rate of 44,000/20,000 = 2.2 times per wave. Since the wave evolves over a period of 2pi, the distance between two samples is 2pi/2.2 ~ 2.856. Without loss of generality, assume that the first sample is taken at point 0, the second at 2.856, the third at 5.712, etc. Then

Point Sin
0 0
2.8 .28
5.7 -.54
8.6 .76
11.4 -.99
14.3 .99
17.1 -.99
20 .91
22.8 -.76
25.7 .54
28.6 -.28
31.4 0

Which then repeats.

A linear interpolation of these points is the best a digital algorithm can do, unless it makes assumptions about the character and frequency of the waves. That linear interpolation results in asymmetrical triangular waveforms with peaks ranging from an absolute minimum of .28 to an absolute maximum of .99. The result is a waveform periodic over 5 of the original 20KHz waves, or 4KHz. Thus a 20KHz signal is rendered into a highly complex waveform which waxes and wanes over a 4KHz period. Furthermore, the waveform must be triangular and asymmetric, with attendant beats, unless heroic processing is invoked. And even if it is, that 20KHz tone must wax and wane over a 12dB range.

Clearly the effect worsens as one approaches the Nyquist frequency. The brick wall filters which prevent signals higher than Nyquist also impose their own distortions and phase shifts at lower frequencies, but that is another matter.

Finally, thank you Learsfool, for supporting my point about different types of distortion, especially those which have yet to be characterized. I think you may have said it better.
Terry9, vinyl doesn't deliver the degree of consistancy needed for the measurements you're talking about, and you must have consistency for any scientific comparison. Unfortunately, digital and vinyl are apples and oranges; consequently the only comparison that can be made is subjective.
The human hearing system, meaning the ear combined with the brain's perceptions, is still not fully understood. It is definitely more sophisticated than any machine yet made. To name just one example that affects the audio world, it has been proven by research that the brain does indeed perceive frequencies above 20,000Hz, even though supposedly the ear cannot hear them. This phenomena has not been explained. However, it is my understanding that the vast majority of designers of digital audio equipment still routinely process out all frequencies above that, on the theory that we can't hear them.