Vinyl / High qual analog tape / High-res digital -- One of these is not like the other

Now you got me curious. What are they?

"Most of Springsteen - Nebraska was done on a cassette TEAC portastudio.... give it a listen, it has some jump factor spots..."

I recently bought Nebraska, ahem, LP. 2014 issue. I will not claim it is realistic, or not, but it is eerily good. First side better than the second one, for whatever reason. I would recommend it to anyone. Way more pleasant to listen to than an old CD or relatively recently remastered CD. I am not saying vinyl is better format, I am just saying this particular one is more pleasing.

What happens if we consider albums that were recorded digitally? As I understand it, most music has been recorded digitally for the last 40 years. Let’s say it was recorded digitally at 96/24 and I have a download or stream at 96/24 that hasn't been dynamically squashed (there are a lot of those out there, you just have to get out of the pop mainstream a little). Is it missing anything? Does vinyl have something that the digital doesn’t? If it does, is that good?

What happens if we consider albums that were recorded digitally? As I understand it, most music has been recorded digitally for the last 40 years. Let’s say it was recorded digitally at 96/24 and I have a download or stream at 96/24. Is it missing anything? Does vinyl have something that the digital doesn’t? If it does, is that good?

it’s not that simple. yet in some ways it is.

in the late 60’s solid state was replacing tubed gear for recording and mixing, and more and more multi-track and plugs-ins and such were used. so from there into the late 70’s it was still analog mostly but the process was changing. then early 80’s it’s all digital plus those previous changes.

so if you compare the golden age of 2 channel analog it’s mid 50’s to around 1970. you have the relative purity of the process and the gear. those recordings are hard for digital to compete with. plus in many ways the expectations to make ’live’ recordings were much greater on the artists. and more resources were devoted to the process by the labels. the best of this era can’t be touched by the digital era.

fast forward to today and still the artist and recording quality is paramount; with the format helping the sum of the whole to another level. how often do we get all these elements to line up? statistically since there are vastly more digital recordings today, the best of those will end up at the top of the heap; but all analog recordings still will potentially sound the best.

the current crop of direct-to-disc Lp offerings are untouchable by digital, as well as the few done to tape and offered as tape to the public.

vinyl and tape (when well done) have a palpability and presence digital misses. a rightness and ease. yet digital has degrees less of those things. it's 'good enough'.

does this mean a recording done with 96/24 or 192/24 (or dxd and Quad dsd) is worse than analog? all other things being equal......yes (some would reasonably beg to differ). but it’s very rare that all other things are equal. the best music well recorded still serves us well......regardless of the format. i love all my classical digital and it’s a big important part of my listening.

mikelavigne your posts are the best opinions I read about this subject....Not only you are not dogmatic or obsessive but your gear and room qualities can gives to you the real possibility of experimenting and experiencing about that debate most of the times badly informed... Thanks....