By "digital audio tapes" are you strictly referring to the DAT format, or do you mean digital recording in general?
All digital formats use 1's and 0's, but the red-book CD technology is basically something that was developed in the early 80's (late 70's?). Things have changed a lot since then, but unfortunately, the general market is still extremely committed to that old format. I don't know how to describe the differences in an effective way, but try to think of the musical event as a book. The book is written using a 26 letter alphabet. 24 bit/192khz digital recording is limited to 24 letters, so it captures 90-some percent of the book. The final printing (Red-book CD technology) is limited to 16 letters, so you're taking a book written with a 26 letter alphabet, re-writing it with 24 letters, and then trying to publish it on a printing press that is limited to a 16 letter alphabet. That's a very general (and maybe lame) analogy, but I think it does the trick. Good analog equipment is able to capture all 26 letters used in the original book (though it does fatten a few of them up). :-)
I don't know the technical specifications of the DAT format. I think they were 20 or 24 bit and capable of various sampling rates (depending on the unit), so that would mean that they are capable of better resolution than red-book CDs. As far as professional recording eqipment goes...there are tape-based (and hard-disk based) systems that range from 16/44.1 to 24/192. Any newer digital recorder should be able to capture more information than a red-book CD is capable of holding. Current digital technology is finally getting to the point where it can capture the same amount of information as analog tape (many 24/192 units, and especially things recorded using Sony's SACD process and the DVD-A process). A good analog process is technically capable of holding more information than red-book CDs...vinyl included (assuming all the equipment in the recording / mastering / playback chain is up to the task). A well done digital recording could sound better on vinyl than red-book CD because the vinyl could, theoretically, capture more of the information from the master tape. Red-book mastering technology has come a long way...CDs do sound better than ever before...it's just that the format is ultimately hampered by the old 16/44.1 technology.
The "digital vinyl" is recorded exactly the same way that any vinyl is recorded, but it's source is a digital one (playing through analog outputs) instead of an analog tape...that's the only difference.
I hope I managed to answer a question or two in my rambling. Are you trying to figure out which is better?? I'd say that depends on who is doing the recording and mastering. A recording made on a professional 16/44.1 system by talented people (with great mics, preamps, and circuitry) could sound better than a recording made on a cheap 24/192 DAT...it all depends. A well done digital recording could sound amazing on a well made LP. It could also sound amazing on a well made CD too, but the LP should *technically* be a more representative copy of the music. On the other hand, a poor digital recording will probably sound like crap on both formats.
There was a trend that started in the late 80s and it continues today...especially on LP reissues. The labels have been cutting their LPs from the digital master tapes that were made for the CD release. That's okay (and unavoidable) if it was originally a digital recording, but it's a little lame when they do it to analog-recorded material. Why convert the signal from analog to digital, and then back to analog? I know it's a financial decision on the labels' part, but it doesn't make sense to me. I don't think there's any way that a digital re-master could sound as good as all-analog LP mastering...not if it's done right.
Okay...I'm done.
All digital formats use 1's and 0's, but the red-book CD technology is basically something that was developed in the early 80's (late 70's?). Things have changed a lot since then, but unfortunately, the general market is still extremely committed to that old format. I don't know how to describe the differences in an effective way, but try to think of the musical event as a book. The book is written using a 26 letter alphabet. 24 bit/192khz digital recording is limited to 24 letters, so it captures 90-some percent of the book. The final printing (Red-book CD technology) is limited to 16 letters, so you're taking a book written with a 26 letter alphabet, re-writing it with 24 letters, and then trying to publish it on a printing press that is limited to a 16 letter alphabet. That's a very general (and maybe lame) analogy, but I think it does the trick. Good analog equipment is able to capture all 26 letters used in the original book (though it does fatten a few of them up). :-)
I don't know the technical specifications of the DAT format. I think they were 20 or 24 bit and capable of various sampling rates (depending on the unit), so that would mean that they are capable of better resolution than red-book CDs. As far as professional recording eqipment goes...there are tape-based (and hard-disk based) systems that range from 16/44.1 to 24/192. Any newer digital recorder should be able to capture more information than a red-book CD is capable of holding. Current digital technology is finally getting to the point where it can capture the same amount of information as analog tape (many 24/192 units, and especially things recorded using Sony's SACD process and the DVD-A process). A good analog process is technically capable of holding more information than red-book CDs...vinyl included (assuming all the equipment in the recording / mastering / playback chain is up to the task). A well done digital recording could sound better on vinyl than red-book CD because the vinyl could, theoretically, capture more of the information from the master tape. Red-book mastering technology has come a long way...CDs do sound better than ever before...it's just that the format is ultimately hampered by the old 16/44.1 technology.
The "digital vinyl" is recorded exactly the same way that any vinyl is recorded, but it's source is a digital one (playing through analog outputs) instead of an analog tape...that's the only difference.
I hope I managed to answer a question or two in my rambling. Are you trying to figure out which is better?? I'd say that depends on who is doing the recording and mastering. A recording made on a professional 16/44.1 system by talented people (with great mics, preamps, and circuitry) could sound better than a recording made on a cheap 24/192 DAT...it all depends. A well done digital recording could sound amazing on a well made LP. It could also sound amazing on a well made CD too, but the LP should *technically* be a more representative copy of the music. On the other hand, a poor digital recording will probably sound like crap on both formats.
There was a trend that started in the late 80s and it continues today...especially on LP reissues. The labels have been cutting their LPs from the digital master tapes that were made for the CD release. That's okay (and unavoidable) if it was originally a digital recording, but it's a little lame when they do it to analog-recorded material. Why convert the signal from analog to digital, and then back to analog? I know it's a financial decision on the labels' part, but it doesn't make sense to me. I don't think there's any way that a digital re-master could sound as good as all-analog LP mastering...not if it's done right.
Okay...I'm done.