Which is more accurate: digital or vinyl?

One of the most thoughtful, and poetic attempts at answering this
question appears in Peter Ledermann's answer to Neil Gader's question in
a recent interview:

"Aside from it's ease, warmth, and feel-good sound, it (analog) is
approachable, do-able, difficult, and satisfying to master and accomplish.
It is a hoop shot from across the court. Impossible to sink, but, when it
works, makes you stand up and dance. It is visceral as opposed to virtual,
marvelously and delicately ephemeral in contrast with the concrete yes
and no of digital."

I love that. I would like to offer a different perspective from what has been  
discussed mostly so far, and which points to what I think Ledermann is
saying. I won't get into the technical issues as my understanding of them
is limited, and some can do a much better job than I (thank you Ralph).
But, I know what my ears tell me, and I trust them. I believe that both
technologies are capable of excellent sound (obviously), and there are
obvious tradeoffs involved with each. I have made a living trusting my ears
for thirty five years, and their message is pretty clear.

More times than not, when this discussion comes up, the opinions as to 
one technology's superiority or inferiority revolve around tonal issues. One 
is considered brighter or warmer than the other, high frequency cut-off
points, etc. But to me, the main issue with digital vs. analog is not tonal or
timbral. It has to do with what I think Ledermann is alluding to: the feel-
good quality of analog. Whatever the issues may be with sampling rates
that many feel are responsible for tonal resolution deficiencies or
limitations with digital are, to me, even more important as concerns their 
effect on time and dynamics. Time is where the soul of music lies. The
ability to capture the extremely subtle gradations in dynamics and rhythm
that musicians use to convey a message is where the difference between 
the two technologies is most obvious to me. The grooves set up by James 
Brown's rhythm section are always a little deeper with good analog. The
difference between the softest and loudest moments in a crescendo by a
great string section in an orchestra is always more exciting with analog.
Even when digital offers a louder ultimate volume, what happens between
the softest and loudest points is more coherent, more vibrant, with good
analog. The difference may be subtle, but it is real to my ears. Those are
the subtle details that give music meaning and excitement. It is ironic,
since digital has the theoretical advantage when it comes to speed
stability. But time accuracy between point A and point B does not a groove 
guarantee. What happens between those two points seems to matter a
great deal.

There is a saying among musicians: "No-one ever got fired for
having a bad sound". What is meant by that is that what matters
most is not the most beautiful sound, but the ability to play with good time
(rhythm).

Some good points above, Vertigo.

The comment "More accurate, mind you, not better sounding" makes no sense, but belies the common (among audiophiles) lack of understanding of what accuracy means. Unfortunately, accuracy is seen as something that is independent of a verifiable reference. The more a listener spends time listening to live music, the easier it becomes to recognize and define accuracy. Familiarity with live music is the only way to attach real meaning to the term; anything else is just an expression of preference.

Many audiophiles have a notion of what constitutes accurate or euphonious sound that is not rooted in reality. Being used to the "accurate", thin and tipped-up sound of most digitally recorded strings, I think they would be very surprised to hear how "euphonious" a great string section playing the Dvorak Serenade For Strings in a great concert hall can sound. Conversely, they would be equally surprised at how incredibly abrasive and strident a soprano saxophone can sound heard live and up-close in a club. In both cases, if a piece of equipment can
convey this, it approaches accuracy. And then we have the really elusive, non-tonal aspects of music that define accuracy (or not); the rhythmic and dynamic subtleties that are heard in live, unprocessed music that are almost destroyed by most equipment.

Once again, the "sound", the tone/timbre of music becomes the focus of the discussion. More important issues are overlooked. Time and rhythm is what gives music it's vibrancy. That is where the soul of the music is; the human touch. It is also what gets distorted the most by the recording/ playback process. Ideally, live unamplified music should be the standard. But live amplified music can also serve. The immediacy and impact of a miked kick drum at a concert in an arena, or the grandeur of a full string section making a crescendo during a Mahler symphony cannot be duplicated by even the best sound systems. Those deficiencies make the issues of wether the sound is a little bright here or a little bloated there seem petty by comparison. I find the argument that there are too many variables, too many different sounding halls, different engineers, yada yada, to be a tired argument. It's all about familiarity with the sound of the real thing.

++++ A bit off topic here, but it seems to me that a lot of classical musicians spend a heck of a lot of time working on their "tone".+++++

True, but I assure you that even more energy is spent on good rhythm. But interestingly (and this points to some of audio-related issues being discussed here) while rhythm is something that can certainly be "worked on" or practiced by a musician, the kind of rhythmic flexibility and control that defines an artist as opposed to, simply, a good musician is something that is difficult to learn. Many times (not always) it is something that is innate. Tone can be worked on and developed more easily. The control and flexibility that define an artist, and which allow him/her to be expressive in a way that really touches the listener is what gets distorted very easily by recordings.

I think the subject of timbre/tone, personal or otherwise, deserves a more-in-depth discussion. Vertigo, I have recovered (somewhat), so I will give it a shot :-)

The term "timbre" is often used to describe the sound of a particular type or family of instruments- "the timbre of a saxophone vs. that of a piano" for example. The term "tone" is often used to describe something more personal, like the sound that a particular player produces- "Chet Baker's tone" for example. But, the fact is that the two terms are synonymous. They both describe the characteristic sound produced by an instrument, voice, or anything else capable of producing a sound. The two terms are interchangeable.

As Learsfool pointed out, and Atmasphere corroborated, there is such a thing as a "personal timbre". This is a very real phenomenon, and one that players on every instrument deals with. It is important to consider that there are several things that contribute to the final sound produced by a player/instrument, and the relationships between these is complex and don't lend themselves to "black/white" explanations; there is a lot of gray. 

First let's consider the instrument. Each individual instrument has a built-in "timbre". There are "brand" similarities, but within brands there are differences among individual samples. For instance, Yamaha saxophones are, as a rule, brighter and less complex sounding than Selmer saxophones (although they have other traits that are advantageous). Similar tone distinctions can be made of just about any brand of instrument. There is a built-in "leaning" towards a particular sound signature within each brand. Of course, there are many exceptions having to do with the vintage of a particular instrument, but that's a different discussion. 

Likewise, every player has a built-in "personal timbre". This has nothing to do with playing style, although the two intertwine (gray). The incredulous (Vertigo) will say "How is this possible?". Think of the explanation in audio terms: Why does a turntable sound different when placed on a maple platform than it does placed on granite? Taken a step further: Why does granite give ALL turntables placed on it (regardless of brand) an identifiable sonic quality vs. that of maple? The answer is that the platform becomes an extension of the turntable, and maple and granite each have distinct resonance characteristics. Likewise, the musician's body with it's unique shape, weight, and size of vocal cavity, chest, and fingers become an extension of the instrument. A good player can control the sound produced by any instrument to better suit his/her style, but not completely. There will always be a limitation to how much control over the sound there will be because of the built-in sound of the instrument and the player's "personal timbre". This is not necessarily a liability, but a potential asset in artistic expression. It is true that the stronger the musician's musical personality is, the more he can overcome a particular instrument's propensity  for a certain sound; that is, if the musician wants to.

Atmasphere was surprised at how different one of his flutes sounds when someone else plays it. Consider this: among wind players it is a well known phenomenon that if a player loans his instrument for any length of time to a player with a drastically different approach to tone production, the instrument will feel very different to it's owner afterwards, and will need some time to settle back to it's familiar feel.

I think the parallels to things audio are many and obvious. There are many things about music's production and reproduction that we simply don't fully understand. Personally, I think that's part of the beauty and magic of it all.

Vertigo, I feel dizzy. More to follow; I need time to recuperate.

Almarg and Terry9, thank you for a fabulous exchange; extremely informative and a model of civility. Very impressive.