Why not magnetic tapes in stead of vinyl records?

Large format tape done well blows away ANY other format in existence to-date. I think that is pretty much a well documented fact. Comparison demos with vinyl and CD format digital I have heard in recent years clearly supports that.

Hi res digital may have a chance to match or surpass it someday in terms of both sound quality and ease of use.

Too bad nobody ever figured out a way to make the format work well commercially. Most people would not want to have to deal with handling and care of raw tape reels, especially these days.

You do not realize the sonic limitations of the music formats used today until compared with a high quality large format reference recording played on top notch gear.

I also am not likely to ever want to have to dabble with reel tapes, no matter how good they might sound.

Even back in the mid seventies when RTR tape units were commonly seen and found in audio stores, I never liked having to deal with them.

For technical hobby folks with an interest only I would say.

"To them, digital was a step backwards."

It was at first, but no technical reason why it must be that anymore.

I would much rather move forward to the extent needed with very high resolution and quality digital gear than go back to analog tape. Even if studios producing music did, I would not feel the needed. Good digital conveys artifacts of good analog sound quite well, even at mere CD resolution, I have found to-date.

If the potential of 331/3 lp was fully realized with many vinyl recordings, I would then have to consider a move back to analog tape or digital in that the cost and work involved to keep a phono rig capable of delivering maximum results doing that would prevent me from ever going there. Tape would be much easier in comparison.

One of the reasons most lps are as limited as they are is because few have the phono rig needed to play the best possible at all. The whole analog record format is inherently flawed from this perspective in terms of reliability, which matters to most. Most people lived with abysmal sound off records with their cheap home players for years for this reason, ie getting good sound our of even an average recording was beyond their abilities or desire.

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.

"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.

Converting formats of computer files, when needed, is relatively easy.

I just converted all my .wav files to FLAC, something I knew I would do eventually when I started several years back.

I did it with free MediaMonkey software, a few mouse clicks, and my existing external drives.

I converted about 200 CDs worth of files, about 1Tb in .wav format to about .5 Tb in lossless compressed format FLAC. IT did take about 48 hours for all files to convert given that volume of data, but it all worked as it should.

I expect FLAC to be around for quite a while. I do not know of anything at this time coming down the pipe that will necessitate a change again anytime soon, but "never say never".

I would love to convert all my large record collection to digital, but the work and cost involved to do that is prohibitive by far, not even remotely feasible, so I will keep playing those records as well as needed for teh foreseeable future and only convert the "must haves" to digital as time permits.

Whoops I converted about 2000 CDs actually, not just 200 as I typed prior.

That would take 1/10th the time to convert. :^)

Baked tapes.....yummy yummy!

Why not as long as one knows exactly what one is doing. That would not be me in this case. :^)