Which is more accurate: digital or vinyl?


More accurate, mind you, not better sounding. We've all agreed on that one already, right?

How about more precise?

Any metrics or quantitative facts to support your case is appreciated.
128x128mapman

Showing 2 responses by tomcy6

Digital, not cd, has the potential to deliver a bit perfect copy of the original master recording of, say, a 24 bit 192khz resolution recording. I don't know how close we are to reaching that potential at the moment, but I'd guess we're not too far off. So I'd have to say that digital soon will be or is now more accurate.

Digital doesn't make all those crackling and popping noises either.

If anyone prefers vinyl over digital, I will not argue that you should not. Enjoy whatever you enjoy.
3 inch master tape is a fine way to record music but it is going extinct, just like photographic film. I don't think much of it is being made and that which already exists is decomposing. I know that remasters of albums made in the late 60s and 70s have noted that the tapes were "baked" to get one last read off them.

Most music is now recorded to a hard drive or some equivalent and in the not too distant future all new recordings will be made on digital equipment.

So you can rant and rave all you want but the future for recording and playback is digital.

Digital has been improving rapidly and will continue to improve until only the diehards think that vinyl sounds better.

Compression has nothing to do with digital. It is a fashion in mixing. If your records are highly compressed, you're listening to the wrong records.

Again, if you prefer vinyl to digital, that's fine with me. I would lose the hatred of digital, if you have it, though. You're missing out on a lot of great music available only on cd or high-res digital.