What makes tape sound better than vinyl ?

Geoffkait, I've been trying to put across the "emotional involvement"(of analog) idea for a long time.  I used examples such as:  thinking about the next song, or doing something else, and admiring the quality of the sound-all of which is an indication of digital's lack of "emotional involvement".  Some people think digital is more accurate.  To them I say, if it doesn't get this immeasurable quality, how can you say it's more accurate? 

Bingo! I liken digital to the Porterhouse steak that Jeff Goldblum sent through the transporter pod that came out in the second pod in the movie, The Fly. It was molecularly discombobulated and reassembled. It look like steak, it cooked like steak. But it didn’t taste like Porterhouse steak. It tasted horrible.

Good vinyl can have as much as 70dB dynamic range on the outer edge.

Its easily higher than that (I run an LP mastering operation); but compression and tape are often the reasons why you don't see that in practice.

Direct to disc recordings will not solve playback problems, one of the reasons why it was virtually abandoned.

Nothing solves playback problems on the record side :)

The reason you don't see much in the way of direct to disk is simply because its really hard to do! Musicians have to play all the tracks on a side perfectly and that's assuming you don't overcut because a performer is playing 10db louder in record than he was when the levels were set!

So its a bit of a trick but when it all comes together its magic.

+1 atmasphere.

A good example is the Sheffield Labs D2D of Dave Grusin "Discovered Again." Listen to the D2D recording, and then listen the Seffield Labs "Treasury" recording of that same album. The Treasury version is from the backup tape recording of that same session. The D2D record is light years ahead of the tape version, sonically. Absolutely no contest.....

Atmasphere? I feel like Rodney Dangerfield! ;-)