What makes tape sound better than vinyl ?

Funny that you should ask.  Let me suggest first that In most situations vinyl disks are made from master tapes.  Assuming that entropy works for audio too, information theory tells us that the process of tape to vinyl will cost us information, there will less in the vinyl media than the tape because the Law of Entropy says so.  The traditional solution to this has been direct-to-disk recordings.

Second is that the vinyl reproduction has a high level of 'surface noise' added to the signal, I jokingly call that 'clogging the holes between the notes".  Consider that the silence between notes is important to the illusion of our stereo systems.

Audio Entropy, lot's of if. I have written about this in the audio system at 
http://www.austinaudioworks.com/design-philosphy/audio-entropy

Relax, it is all an illusion anyway.

Actually I just wrote on the subject of audio and entropy in the last five days on one of the threads here. Oh, the Michael Fremer thread. What you’re describing is actually not really entropy. It’s simply losses in transfer from the master tape that depend quite a bit on the skill of the person doing the transfer. Entropy is measure of disorganization. It is a statistical thermodynamics principle. Gee, I must have taken Statistical Thermo in school. 😛

Furthermore, as I pointed out in my recent post on audio & entropy, on the Michael Fremer thread, the main problems - in terms of information retrieval - occur in the playback system and *the room* in which the recording is being played, with the local environment. It’s a long story. A very long story. As I pointed out, “room clutter” in quotes acts to reduce SQ. But not via the usual acoustic type things folks naturally think of. Other Feng Shui principles may or may not apply to audio SQ. Some do, some don’t.

Conversion of electrical into magnetic and back to electrical is not the same as conversion of mechanical into electromagnetical. Ralph, you know it better than I do. As for if something is altered in any case - probably. To use an analogy, converting water into ice is not the same as converting water into wood or stone.

The analogy does not hold up. Yes, there are two different processes involved and they both do quite well. Saying that one is inherently better than the other strictly out of the process ignores the progress of that technology. However we do know the specs that are out there and they have been there for a while- tape has not been advancing as much as the LP in recent years as there are very little in the way of modern tape machine producers. The LP sector has new pressing machines, new tone arms, new turntables and so on and so enjoys the advantages that come with newer technology.

How do you compare these specs to whatever it is you are referring to?

30Khz bandwidth is good for tape- but the LP has had bandwidth beyond that since the advent of the Westerex 3D cutterhead (1959). Its electronics are bandwidth limited at 42KHz. The head can go higher than that but the bandwidth limit is there to prevent damage to the head due to the RIAA pre-emphasis (which is +6db per octave). The bandwidth has been there in playback since sometime in the early 1970s.

The distortion is comparable, depending on the playback. A well set up arm and cartridge will have lower distortion figures; a poor setup will be much higher. 

The noise floor of a **well-pressed** LP exceeds the best of tape even with Dolby S. Inferior pressings will be considerably noisier (note added emphasis).

The signal to noise ratio of Dolby SR is around 90dbs.

We'll let others decide what holds up or not and to what degree if it does. And experiment with tape and tape machines.