Which is more accurate: digital or vinyl?

In addition, harmonics are always presented as a lower frequency affecting a higher frequency, but never how higher frequencies affect lower frequencies. I'm saying these higher, inaudible frequencies affect lower frequencies. Can anyone shed light on that.

Please pardon me while I abuse the analogy to extrapolate enough to put the ladder on shaky ground; one might presume that the more rungs that are actually there, the less the brain has to work at filling in the missing rungs, even if one is scaling the ladder blind folded.

Oops, I think I may have fallen off the high end, and into the deep fertilizer. :-)

While "harmonics" are unrelated to the subject, they are very much related to what we hear as audiophiles.

My new stance on this subject is totally unscientific, because "high end" audiophiles hear things that go beyond any instruments ability to measure. When CD's came out, I bought them to hear the same music I had on LP, only better. One CD in particular was inferior to the LP, it lacked "nuance"; and as jazz lovers know "nuance" is everything.

I down loaded this LP to my computer, and on playback all the "nuance" was there; complete with record noise. What do you make of that?

Which is more accurate, digital or vinyl; was the question. Although the question implied CD, it was not implicitly stated. Computers operate in the digital realm.

While the CD was inferior to the LP, when the LP was transferred to the "digital" realm of the computer; the analog playback came back completely intact including "nuance" and record noise; therefore, one has to ask "Which digital are you referring to?"

FWIW, I didn't read it as though digital was limited to CD.