Which is more accurate: digital or vinyl?

01-31-12: Orpheus10
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.

I'm not sure I understand the question. The character of what we hear is a function of the combination of fundamental frequencies, harmonics, and broadband spectral components that are present at any given time.

As Learsfool and I stated, seemingly credible studies have indicated that frequencies that are significantly above 20 kHz can be sensed under some circumstances, particularly if lower frequencies are simultaneously present.

02-01-12: Orpheus10
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?

Orpheus, an obvious question: What makes you assume that the CD and the LP were mastered identically?

Frogman, thanks very much the kind comment in your post of 1-26.

Regards,
-- Al

My point was, that the computer, which is digital; reproduced the LP as good as any TT I've ever heard, as a matter of fact it was identical. When comparing the CD to the LP, there are many possibilities and variables. This was an early CD, and I hear they've gotten better.

In regard to the harmonics, we are all in agreement. When we listen to music, high frequencies affect low frequencies, and the question of harmonics is really "moot".

I also agree on frequencies above the "audible" range. We hear, or sense with our entire body.

Let me settle this once and for all. Since there is no such thing as a "nuance meter", and a computer and a vinyl LP can both reproduce something that is beyond any meter's ability to measure; lets call it a draw.

Terry9 says:

"Were it true that ultrasonic distortion was inaudible, SACD would be no improvement on CD, which is not observed. Therefore, I stand by the assertion that total distortion is what is important, until it is proved otherwise."

Actually, on various hybrid CD/SACDs from Telarc and Mobile Fidelity, so the recording is the same, this is exactly what I have observed. I still have very good hearing, and on a moderately high-end system (Revel Salon 2s) I can't hear any improvement with the SACD layer over the CD layer. Not a bit.

I suppose there will be those that say my SACD player isn't good enough (Sony 5400ES), or that I'm not a good listener, or whatever, but if there is a difference it is very subtle.

I think a lot of CDs don't sound very good because they weren't mastered very well. I think a lot of SACDs sound better than CDs because they were mastered well. But I've never heard an SACD that sounds better than the best CDs I own.

I have downloaded a few high-res files, but I can't directly compare them to CD, because I don't have CD versions. But the high-res stuff are all purist recordings, so naturally they sound good.

Is analog better than any digital format? Better for recording than 24/192? 30ips 1/2 inch tape is pretty good, but can it compete with a noise floor at least 20db lower? Or no wow and flutter at all. If I were trying to make the world's best recording I'd start with digital.