Which is more accurate: digital or vinyl?

With the influences that friction, drag and vibration have on vinyl, is it possible that part of the appeal of vinyl is that (like tube amps) it can be tuned to the listeners taste?

"Medusa looks better when her photo is not accurate.”

Curious... shouldn’t you be stone? :)

"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."

"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.”

Frogman,
Ever since this thread began (actually long before), I’ve been searching for the words to express the point of view you have so eloquently posted here. Thanks.

Atmasphere,

I don’t know if 'personal timbre’ is the right word either, I always call it ‘tone’. But you’re so right. To me, it’s a quality that is most conspicuous among trumpet players. From Harry, Louis, and Al to Miles, Chet and Freddie, each achieved a very unique and easily identifiable tone; and I believe that, even taking into account that they weren’t playing the exact same trumpet.

Lacee, I agree with you completely. Great post.

"I stand by my statement that if someone cannot distinguish between live and recorded music, then they have a hearing problem of some kind.”

Maybe not a hearing problem, but a listening problem. All of our senses are subject to the selectivity of our mind. Whether music or visual art, our minds tend to disregard or filter elements that are subjectively less important than other elements. As an example, some people can be very content with severely rolled off frequency extremes while others will find it a critical omission. I hope I’m not offending anyone; all I’m trying to say is that when one audiophile doesn’t hear what is so clear to another, it is not necessarily clinical but perhaps a matter of focus.

"They sell all the nice audio toys and retreat in defeat to a simple integrated amp system”

Hey! I did not retreat in defeat to my simple integrated amp system. :)

"I am still hoping though.”

Me too Marqmike. After all, do we really have to recreate the entire output of a symphony orchestra in all its grandeur and subtlety? Or just, what I suspect, is the more achievable objective of reproducing what the human ear can detect.

"The materials and how they are executed in that instrument set the boundaries and limitations of the variable ways it can potentially sound but no player can ever play outside of those boundaries.”

Maybe we should think of it this way: "Boundaries and limitations" suggest that their is a range of timbers and that timber is only realized when the instrument is played. Therefore, musician+instrument= timber. And since ‘musician’ is a variable...well, you get the point.

"and how the air uniquely resonates IN that person.”

Ah-Ha! And who determines how the air uniquely resonates in a wind instrument? The musician! That’s who. My formula survives the first wave. :-)

"The joy of discovery is what moves me."

"I would presume it to be akin to the archeologist,who after painstakingly rubbing off thousands of years of dirt and debris,discoveries a treasure that was hidden behind all that muck.

"Why not want to hear it all?” "The way it really was,in all it's sonic splendor or inspite of it?”

Lacee,
While I appreciate audio's scientific and technical achievements , they aren’t what endear me to audio.

The intense lighting in a hospital operating room will be more revealing than the light emanating from a fireplace, but I will always prefer to gaze at, even the most flawlessly beautiful woman, by firelight. It’s not less truthful, it’s just another aspect of the truth.

"Since you mentioned hospital lighting,the next time you go in for an operation, ask them to do the job by candle lite ,because it makes you feel more comfortable.”

Thank you for making my point. Your interest seems to focus on the science of reproducing sound. Notice that I didn’t say music, I said sound. And that’s fine. But not for me. I can’t prove what I believe - that music has a substance and appeal that goes beyond what our cognitive mind can even hear. But take all the sound measurements you want of a piece of music, and I’ll bet that those measurements can be duplicated non-musically.

Only a fool believes that the more facts he has, the closer to the truth he is.
And I would suggest the same relation holds between details and music. Music is more that a collection of details. And I’ll go even further and say that, IMO, it is possible for details to actually lead away from the musical truth.

There is no rationality to our enjoyment of music. It’s appeal has nothing to do logic or reasoning. But those are exactly the tools that some of us insist on using in order to determine musicality. I think it’s fair to ask: When does sound become music? When I was 9 years old, I began taking trumpet lessons. My family and neighbors would take great issue with anyone who suggested that the product was ever musical.

“...even silence, is music."

Hey! That’s what my neighbors used to say :-)