Which provides the more accurate playback - vinyl or CD/digital?

[chris@panteg]

If you have the original master tape and a machine to play on then you can judge, but otherwise how can you know for sure?

Having heard such a machine at Whittlebury last year, I'm not sure either get that close unless you go seriously high end, don't really care TBH.

[Tim]

I have amended the first post slightly as some seem to have either misread it, or not read it?

I am just asking for a personal opinion - its not that tough guys

[Oldpinkman]

I voted vinyl - partly because of a couple of very recent surprise experiences. I guess it depends on your definition of "accurate".
If "accurate" is a ruler on a frequency response its digital
If it is dynamic range, oh ok lets give digital that one too
If accurate includes harmonics from frequencies outside the human audible range, then it ain't red book CD
But if "accurate" is sounds like music, rather than sounds like a copy of music, then its vinyl for me. Assuming as has been pointed out, the vinyl hasn't been abused, and is being played on decent equipment.

[nat8808]

If you have the original master tape and a machine to play on then you can judge, but otherwise how can you know for sure?

Having heard such a machine at Whittlebury last year, I'm not sure either get that close unless you go seriously high end, don't really care TBH.

With comparing to master tape you are comparing a stage removed to a stage removed, a variable on a variable.. Many albums are recorded to digital directly so what then would happen if you transfer that digital original to master tape?

You might well find that you still prefer the sound of the master tape and therefore claim it to be more accurate because it sounds more "real".

And hardly accurate several years down the line or after many plays when much treble has been lost - might still tick many important boxes for "realism" on a subjective level of course but still less accurate (which is what the question is about).

The brain has an amazing ability for filling in the gaps and so the overall most accurate medium might not always give the most believable account if it's lacking in some particular areas in practical reaity.

[Audioman]

If we are talking about analogue tape as a source of the music a high quality vinyl set up will likely be more accurate. Music remains in the analogue domain eliminating extra stages of D/A or A/D conversion. If the original recording is high res digital then a high res playback source such as DVDA or DSD would likely be the most accurate.

In either case 16/44.1 is unlikely to be the most accurate replay source as both dynamic range available and non-capture of out of band harmonics will impact on the music. Of course if the master is 16/44.1 whatever source used is unlikely to improve on red book CD.

All this does not take into account other variables in terms of production of vinyl lps and cds. Either format can be seriously limited by the mastering quality most notably brickwalled CD. Also it is unlikely that any CD player in practice is able to reproduce even a full 16 bit resolution.

[Tim]

Some very interesting responses, thanks chaps

[loo]

I wouldn't have a clue, but having only ever collected records I have never felt any need to move to a different format

[Macca]

Digital has better signal to noise ratio, higher dynamic range and lower distortion. Better channel seperation and awider and more accurate frequency response. How can it be less accurate?

[Tim]

Digital has better signal to noise ratio, higher dynamic range and lower distortion. Better channel seperation and awider and more accurate frequency response. How can it be less accurate?

Your inbox is full Martin

[Oldpinkman]

Digital has better signal to noise ratio, higher dynamic range and lower distortion. Better channel seperation and awider and more accurate frequency response. How can it be less accurate?

Potentially because it is digital. It has to convert soundwaves into measurements of soundwaves. "Analogue" is a continuously variable copy rather than a stepped sampled one. Physical limitations of the systems making that copy may make it imperfect, but it has the theoretical potential to be perfect in a way digital can't. I think it depends a bit what we meant by "digital"

I meant material I want to listen to that I can readily lay my hands on, rather than esoteric sample material from enthusiasts. For me that effectively means redbook atm. Granted, in the recording studios, 24 bit 96K is a different kettle of fish.