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


I think the subject of timbre/tone, personal or otherwise, deserves a more-in-depth discussion. Vertigo, I have recovered (somewhat), so I will give it a shot :-)

The term "timbre" is often used to describe the sound of a particular type or family of instruments- "the timbre of a saxophone vs. that of a piano" for example. The term "tone" is often used to describe something more personal, like the sound that a particular player produces- "Chet Baker's tone" for example. But, the fact is that the two terms are synonymous. They both describe the characteristic sound produced by an instrument, voice, or anything else capable of producing a sound. The two terms are interchangeable.

As Learsfool pointed out, and Atmasphere corroborated, there is such a thing as a "personal timbre". This is a very real phenomenon, and one that players on every instrument deals with. It is important to consider that there are several things that contribute to the final sound produced by a player/instrument, and the relationships between these is complex and don't lend themselves to "black/white" explanations; there is a lot of gray. 

First let's consider the instrument. Each individual instrument has a built-in "timbre". There are "brand" similarities, but within brands there are differences among individual samples. For instance, Yamaha saxophones are, as a rule, brighter and less complex sounding than Selmer saxophones (although they have other traits that are advantageous). Similar tone distinctions can be made of just about any brand of instrument. There is a built-in "leaning" towards a particular sound signature within each brand. Of course, there are many exceptions having to do with the vintage of a particular instrument, but that's a different discussion. 

Likewise, every player has a built-in "personal timbre". This has nothing to do with playing style, although the two intertwine (gray). The incredulous (Vertigo) will say "How is this possible?". Think of the explanation in audio terms: Why does a turntable sound different when placed on a maple platform than it does placed on granite? Taken a step further: Why does granite give ALL turntables placed on it (regardless of brand) an identifiable sonic quality vs. that of maple? The answer is that the platform becomes an extension of the turntable, and maple and granite each have distinct resonance characteristics. Likewise, the musician's body with it's unique shape, weight, and size of vocal cavity, chest, and fingers become an extension of the instrument. A good player can control the sound produced by any instrument to better suit his/her style, but not completely. There will always be a limitation to how much control over the sound there will be because of the built-in sound of the instrument and the player's "personal timbre". This is not necessarily a liability, but a potential asset in artistic expression. It is true that the stronger the musician's musical personality is, the more he can overcome a particular instrument's propensity  for a certain sound; that is, if the musician wants to.

Atmasphere was surprised at how different one of his flutes sounds when someone else plays it. Consider this: among wind players it is a well known phenomenon that if a player loans his instrument for any length of time to a player with a drastically different approach to tone production, the instrument will feel very different to it's owner afterwards, and will need some time to settle back to it's familiar feel.

I think the parallels to things audio are many and obvious. There are many things about music's production and reproduction that we simply don't fully understand. Personally, I think that's part of the beauty and magic of it all.
"The materials and how they are executed in that instrument set the boundaries and limitations of the variable ways it can potentially sound but no player can ever play outside of those boundaries.”

Maybe we should think of it this way: "Boundaries and limitations" suggest that their is a range of timbers and that timber is only realized when the instrument is played. Therefore, musician+instrument= timber. And since ‘musician’ is a variable...well, you get the point.
Lacee,

I don't know if i misunderstood you or not but i would not necessarily look to studio's as a reference for hi fidelity. I don't mean this as a blanket statement but i think it's fair to say that the goals of studio systems and home systems are slightly or greatly different. Isn't the goal of their speaker set up more as "monitors" to dissect the music to facilitate the recording process whereas home systems try to... you know, reproduce a musically satisfying sound?

Don't some studios set up speakers up high, behind mixing consoles and in positions that would be considered poor to audiophiles?

Lacee, i hear what you are saying about the "paradox of high resolution". I understand and know what you mean.

High resolution in systems CAN BE a paradox but it doesn't necessarily HAVE TO BE a paradox and certain cases isn't.

It is only when high resolution renders instruments timbres with artificial attributes that one experiences this paradox but what if the resolution goes way up but artifacts go way down at the same time?

Take for example that dylan harmonica track. First, i will mention that solid gold in the allaerts mc 1b mk2 cart creates this rich, lush, dense, tonal shading to certain instrumental timbres that you have to hear to understand.(this thing gives me a better chance/headstart at achieving the goal imho) Now what i have done and what i continue to do (when i'm up for it(not irritated by all the tweaking) is... i play back the track and try and pinpoint the unnatural artifact in the harmonica, if i note one then i try and adjust vta and vtf or cartridge torques. When i change one of those three paramaters then, naturally the others are effected and therefore a whole new range of possibilities is introduced again.(this is good news and bad news at the same time)(bad in that it increases the potential but bad because it means more tweaking!) It's a bit like looking for a needle in a haystack. I try to get things sounding as best as i can with those contingencies but if the harmonica still doesn't sound real, then i go to moving cables around or interconnects, play the track and again try to pin point an artificial attribute in the timbre. Sometimes a change will introduce the attribute that is missing, like say, its correct timbral weight but in doing so i lose its resolution , in that the resolution now sounds mechanical. Ok no good...keep going! In retrospect, components that i felt weren't going to take me closer to the goal leave the system and others are introduced...so i guess it went something like this...

Years x many components x sourcing exotic components with exotic materials and designs x tweaking til the cows come home x failing x hundreds of listens x crossing my fingers x thinking...

Eventually you can dial in all the timbral attributes present in a harmonica and remove all the attributes that don't pertain to a harmonica.

How many attributes does the timbre of a harmonica have? 10, 20, 50, 100, ?

If one by one you topple each attribute and present them all at the same time what do you get? the sound of a real harmonica.

Anyways...as i am sure you will agree? resolution isn't in itself a bad thing. The question becomes of what order is the resolution? Is it mechanical, hashy, cold, clinical, like information not an instrument?

Or is it clear, neutral, uncolored, rich, natural?

Recently i discovered synergistic research cable company. The designer impressed me because he does not claim his most expensive cable is "what will do the trick" No, he grants that one of his cheaper cables "might do the trick" "better". I assume it is because he understands tweaking is necessary to find synergy and synergy is blind to dollars spent and even to materials utilized and the quantities in which they are present.

Anyways...once the harmonica is dialed in...i play a different record or genre and then poof, no more magic. Waaah!

I want to recommend to people to try solid pure gold as one of many materials to dial in good sound. Especially if you like classical, jazz,folk and vocals. These are the allaerts forte.

If...and its a big if...but it still might be true...if in order to reproduce timbres like reality a solid gold conductor is a necessary ingredient then even if a 50,000 dollar cd player wired in copper is utilized it still won't be able to reproduce reality irregardless of its price tag.

I think putting together a good system is an art as well as a "science". But...tell you guys something you didn't know!!!

.
Phaelon, Frogman. Some really great points there! I like how you "tweaked" the definition of timbre, adding to it a new nuance.

So,essentially a harmonica HAS NO timbre!...that is...til it's played! (smile)

Agreed, but now there is the boundaries and limits of the degree of variation between the bodies that play it. There are alot of differences but imho the differences are not vast. We all basically know what a x brand trumpet sounds like or can learn what x brand trumpet sounds like if we wanted to and tried.

I just did a google search and i did discover what personal timbre is...

In regard to the human voice it is the unique way in which each persons vocal chords are uniquely structured/distinct and how the air uniquely resonates IN that person.
"and how the air uniquely resonates IN that person.”

Ah-Ha! And who determines how the air uniquely resonates in a wind instrument? The musician! That’s who. My formula survives the first wave. :-)