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
Digital is only a way to store the information, not less accurate. If the sampling rate is high enough and the bit word length is long enough, say 24/192, or more, or SACD, done well, analog is just too inconsistent, and a bad storage medium. Master tape is very good, but degrades over time, and is not convenient. How many people are rushing to turn in or yard-sale their inaccurate digital cameras of 15+MP for film ones???? Digital cameras are just evolving faster than audio is, but hopefully audio will catch up and digital will obsolete analog once engineers adopt a good format like SACD, and implement it correctly. And yes, I have both analog and digital, and like them both, but like digital more and more. The future is digital, and CD's are on their way out, once inexpensive storage is available, in quality, and simplicity, it will happen very fast. I see many .99 cd sales. Sell them fast or better yet, store them on a hard drive, like a mac mini. jallen
Good tapes and mastering will decide the winner. Both can be accurate. Like a paint job the bodywork is 90% of a great job. The clear coat and paint itself is going to show a crappy bondo job. Poor tapes and mastering is obvious.
I believe you have to throw the almighty dollar into this equation. For the poor man, digital has it all over vinyl in every way. However, if you have a coral Koetsu and everything to go with it, there is a good chance that vinyl is the best.