Why not magnetic tapes in stead of vinyl records?

I had a stink with hifi VHS recording back in the 80's using a very good Akai recorder. I got into it thinking of it as a decent modern technical substitute for RTR. I could not find anything near as good to replace it when it died within a few years. I still have some recordings of NPR FM broadcasts I made with it back then that still sound quite nice when played on the Sony Hifi VCR that I still keep around.

HiFI VHS seemed to have some promise in its day, but even that went to the wayside once DVDs and digital recording took over video world as well.

Nowadays, digital audio and video is it. I still like to play my old records and tapes though mostly because I have them already and they have their own unique charms.

Kijanki, I'm not having a cow- its pretty apparent you jumped in without reading the rest of this thread:

The original question was "But, why don't they just copy the magnetic tape to other magnetic tapes and sell us those?"

I've tried to explain inconvenience of using R2R - nothing else. I don't have anything against analog but limited amount of available recordings made me concentrate on CD/computer playback. As for storing tapes in the attic - it is possibly the worst place to keep magnetic tapes since tapes are affected by high temperatures the most followed by temperature changes.

Ampex 1/2" might be nice sounding but it was in 50s. Servicing or repairing would be difficult today. Most people used 1/4" tapes running at 7 1/2 inch/s (half of the minimum studio speed). Prerecorded tapes were available but recorded with Dolby B (that was garbage). Dolby C and S (not to mention SR) or DBX never got to prerecorded tapes (at least I haven't seen them). Newer technologies like Akai HX-PRO (servo on the Bias) extending frequency range of the tape came to Compact Cassette machines when R2R was practically phased out. Again, where do you get analog recordings from?

Ralph says LPs are best and another party says tape is best and I pretty much agree with both statements.

How? If the tape is absolute top quality it will win. However, even "master" tape from sources like Tape Project can get walloped by LP, at least in my system.

One tape I have is undeniably the best, a true original safety from an artist done in his recording studio. This was back up tape for a recording session and so untouched, it is primitive hard left and hard right 2 channel (no mix down) and never duplicated. I'm guessing based on the music it was recorded on an Ampex 350. This tape kills every source, regardless and by a mile.

However, tapes from other good sources that are "master dubs" do not compare to this safety and sometimes not even equal to the best possible LP.

How might this happen? I suspect the true original tape is seldom pulled for anyone. A copy of this master is at hand and that is duplicated when required and sent out.

Now this user gets a "master" that's two or three generations away from the original and even Tape Project frequently dubs again to 1/2" and then that is copied over to 1/4" for subscribers.

Look where we are now compared to true master.

A friend of mine in the record business said that a digital master file at the studio was absolutely amazing and in some ways better than analog. However, the first time it's moved, transferred or copied something happens to it and it's never the same (his words).

So the answer to what is best quality depends. Tape potentially is supreme but most of us do not have access to even one of these at best example, much less a usable library.

As for why not tape instead of vinyl records, I think most points have been stated accurately. My comments are based on listening with my equipment and perhaps a better tape machine could change the outcome.

However, for me to spend more than I already have on a tape machine would be foolish. My Studer A810 with full restoration is already my most expensive source when divided by number of software titles. Basically, my LP library is the most precious thing in my system.

"A friend of mine in the record business said that a digital master file at the studio was absolutely amazing and in some ways better than analog. However, the first time it's moved, transferred or copied something happens to it al tdigind it's never the same (his words)."

No doubt, digital data can be replicated at will with NO loss if done with that goal in mind.

Usually, that is NOT the goal though. Data volumes involved and ability of commercial gear today to handle it is the probably the main reason. There may be other more "artistic" ones as well.

I would have to believe that the digital source formats possible with good pro gear today is capable of surpassing anything prior, but must be watered down still for most to be able to use it practically.

The long term storage of digital music files is problematic and most likely require the periodic porting of files to different (newer) file types. A record from 75 years ago can be easily played with some uncertainty about speed and EQ settings, but it can be played. It's not clear that a WAV file will be decipherable in 2089.