Why not magnetic tapes in stead of vinyl records?

Before cassettes the major labels did release albums in the reel to reel tape, quarter inch format. Today, the vast majority of recordings originate in a digital format so transferring them to analog tape doesn't really make much sense.

Research The Tape Project for limited edition high quality R2R recordings being done now.

Professional tape recorders and tapes exceed vinyl in resolution, signal to noise ratio and dynamic range. Do some research. And yes, tape duplication is more complicated than record stamping, but cassette recordings outsold vinyl disc immediately prior to the introduction of the CD format. So somehow and somewhere a few large companies figured out how mass produce magnetic tape recordings. Apparently it can be done.

Whether at home or in the recording studio digital tech is far more flexible and convenient than tape. For the chosen few that's not an issue. Solid state is more practical than tubes, automatic transmissions are easier to use than manual, planes get you there quicker than ocean liners and call girls are less troublesome and more predictable than meeting someone, having a real relationship and possibly having your heart broken. Are you a tourist or a traveler?

I believe Ralph K. was referring to direct to disc recordings as having better performance than analog tape. As a format I believe direct to disc's popularity ranks well below DVD-As and only slightly above Elcaset. In other words, it's really obscure. In the normal record production process all vinyl discs were sourced from analog tape so it would be impossible for the vinyl copy to exceed the performance of the tape original.

Revox made and sold any number of home oriented reel to reel tape recorders. They were more expensive than the typical Sony or Pioneer and generally had better transports, but did not necessarily sound better. One of the major uses of home reel2reels was recording FM concert and classical music broadcasts.

Kijanki, there was a time when most major studios got rid of those tubed German large condenser microphones. The solid state replacements were supposed to be so much more reliable. The tubed mics are now highly desirable collector items prized for their sonics. Studios also got rid of their large analog consoles and replaced them with digitally controlled consoles. Mixes could be automated and settings saved and recalled. The fact that the newer consoles didn't sound as good as the older ones just wasn't that important a factor. Recording studios are a business and the ones that last understand that they have to compete with other studios. It's a hard sell to tell a potential client who is use to 200+ tracks of instant access ProTools computer audio that a 24 track R2R with razor blades for editing really does sound better. And you need to budget at least $10k for tape costs.

A small number of artist and producers still like to record to R2R and a larger number of them when they record digitally mix down to R2R. They like the sound.

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.

This issue isn't whether it effect either of us, but how it effects future generations of music lovers. Will the music being produced today be accessible to them? A CD may physically survive, but will there be the specific hardware or operating systems needed to access the stored music?