@atmasphere : You was in recording studios from the 70’s and maybe you knew or meet J.Renner or S.Ricker both were involved in almost all the Telarc digital LP recordings, the former as the sound engineering and Stan at the mastering job.
A few years ago FIM label made a re-issue of the 1812 where were as advisors S.Ricker and J.Blloomenthal. This one member of the Telar recording team as digital recording and editing job along that Jules was the co-designer of the Soundstream digital recorder.
Obviously that I would like to know what all those elarc team members think about the analog tape vs digital recorders.
Btw, even that the FIM re-issue comes in a 200grs. vinyl ( I think the original came in 120grs. vinyl. ) and that was mastered trhough an " ultra high definition 32-bit mastering and with D.Sax as mastering engineer differences in between the original LP and the re-issue is way difficult to really say: here is better than there, at least in my room/system. The original 1812 LP is part of my whole evaluation/comparison proccess tests so I really know it as the fingers of my hands. The comparison sessions tells me that the Telarc original recording team were truly excellent.
If you don’t own both LPs try to buy it and listen to it, a fun and good experience. I'm sure that the experience could be a challenge even for the most demanding audiophiles as @mikelavigne and ceratinly a full challenge for any room/system speacially for the cartridges/tonearms.
Anyway, what I still can’t get on your statement:
"" big difference between digital, tape ........ is cost, not sound. ""
Yes, my poor knowledge level but how comes that if the digital signal recorded is immutable to all the tape drawbacks and compared vs an analog recorded signal that is affected/degraded for each one of those drawbacks differences is " not sound ", how comes?
R.