Which is more accurate: digital or vinyl?

i've not read every post above, so forgive me if this has already been said.

to me the issue is which format is most complete. which is different than most accurate. sampling (digital) can be accurate but it's inherently less complete. there are gaps. so at those particular moments when the sample was taken, it may be more accurate. but it turns out that our ears like complete more than accurate.

an analogy i use is "consider a perfectly clean mirror". break it into a million pieces then glue it back together. then look at it. it is accurate. in all the places you see the reflection it shows an accurate refection. but; there are all the areas of the mirror (where you see little cracks filled with glue) without any information; so in the whole it does not look real. then consider a mirror that is dirty, there are not areas which are missing, but the slight amount of dirt is there. it's dirty but it is also complete. the reflection looks real.

i like digital and am not anti-digital. i listen to it often and enjoy it. it does not need to change to be worthy. but in direct comparison to the best analog it comes up short.

MikeL,

I like your assessment and the mirror analogy.

Its a matter of degree though. You could say that the record is made of individual molecules but they fit together perfectly and occur at a scale that makes it insignificant. Similar with digital. It all depends on sampling frequency, sample size, (and accuracy of the device that creates the samples). Gets back to Nyquist Theorem or similar models assuming the minority opinion perhaps that Nyquist does not cut it as teh basis for CD format. I think it is an extremely close call in theory especially for younger better ears (although older ears are better trained perhaps even if not able to hear above 12-14Khz or so in general) but a good one in practice. Plus, as time goes on and technology improves and becomes more affordable, teh bar can be raised further if needed until it finally becomes clearly insignificant, like those molecules.

Digital is clearly improving all the time. Vinyl format stopped getting better probably almost 50 years ago now. The conclusion down the road seems inevitable if not already the case.

Ralph,

Out of curiosity, what was the analog set-up that you had to compare to the high dollar digital playback?

Do you really think vinyl playback has progressed much if at all over the last 50 years? How about 20?

Maybe for a price. The cost of the best rigs today is outrageous compared to those days. And there certainly are not many good new records being produced.

So lets assume there is some progress but at significant ocst that most will not be interested in to play poorly made overpriced modern lps. Digital is still moving ahead at light speed in comparison and my rig is evidence that very good digital can be had these days for not very much. A $72000 digital system makes me laugh especially when the final judgement is the vinyl is still better.