Which is more accurate: digital or vinyl?

As I have said before, I have yet to hear a consistent superiority of one format over the other.

Analog might(?) be the entire sound, and then some. That entire sound is often masked by extraneous noise.

Atmasphere, I have to agree that audio does seem to get the short end of the stick, and has for a very long time. After all, it would seem to me that the original cylinders would be a better performing platform than the flatform record platters that replaced them.

I suppose one could make the argument that on the molecular level, analog tape provides no more than random samplings.

Hifihvn, no, not unless the analog tape's sampling is very much larger than microscopic.

EBM, even limited to the analog domain, vinyl isn't even a pretender to the throne.

Mapman, suggests another good point. With vinyl there seems to be much more dependency on the accuracy of many more mechanical stages from beginning to end (user), and how does that actually turn out in overall real use?
In the end, even with the issues of availability, convenience, portability, record-ability and durability aside, it may come down to which format comes closer to the bulls eye, more often? How that is judged will perhaps be very personal. Some scoring more isolated cases of nearness to perfection higher, others scoring consistency higher. Even within those parameters, the scoring might vary, e.g., with some dismissing different levels of extraneous noise to different extents, and other penalizing extraneous noise to different extents. And, the same kind of scoring could be applied to what ever other various criterion different individuals prioritize differently.
At the risk of being redundant, I have yet to be convinced that one format consistently outperforms the other. With that said, I choose to consider those issues I previously suggested be put aside, availability, convenience, portability, record-ability, and durability and add one other, value(!) when I choose a format.
Except for those with an existing compilation of a particular format, or those rare few, for which cost is not even a consideration, I would offer that good digital can be quite a bit less expensive than good analog, and the extra funds might ultimately be better spent on music, rooms, DSP, speakers, etc..

Could it come down to one's preference between; sins of omission vs. sins of commission?

Vertigo, I believe your apple pie comparison is misplaced. Apple pies might more likely be compared to recordings, and the formats might be more appropriately compared to the pans they're baked in.

Frogman, despite the digital dig, I think your point is right on.

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".

Orpheus10, are you suggesting that the brain can somehow fill in the mathematical missing rungs (gaps) of the harmonic ladder? If so, it does seem somewhat plausible. If not, then what? Please accept my apologies if I'm going too off topic here.

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. :-)

Orpheous10, brings up a good point.
In practice rather than in theroy, how much distortion is produced in typical vinyl rigs?

Learsfool, I find the ticks and pops much more objectionable.

Sorry, clicked too soon. I think Orpheus10's remark was in response to Terry9's post.

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