Why vinyl?

To answer your question from the viewpoint of someone who still uses open reel tape as a source in his system, the problems are as follows:

1)Commercial open reel tapes are copies, not original masters. In this sense they are removed several generations from the original just as an LP or CD copies are.

2)As volitile as LPs are, tapes are often more so. Oxide shedding, stretching of the backing material and magnetic print through are common problems. Many compositions are particularly sensitive to temperature, heat and light.

3)The range of music available on open reel tape was quite small compared to the LP and the Compact Casette.

4)Most commercially sold open reel tapes are recorded at 7.5 ips. This is a very compromised speed from a sonic standpoint; archival quality machines found in studios generally run at 30ips.

I still believe that the more sources the better and even have a modified 8-track in my system as well as the tweaked Revox A-77 open reel machine. Most of my listening is still done with LP, as much to do with the depth of my collection as anything, with CD and FM tied for second followed by open reel and 8-track.

Thanks for the kind words Judit. Marakenetz, I was speaking of archival tape recording and 30ips is commonly used in this application as well as in many studios. It is a superior alternative to 15ips assuming the caveat that you identified of reduced recording time.

I love the way the original question concerned open reel tape and the respondants have coopted it into a thread contrasting CD and vinyl replay.

No, Albert, I can't read it the way that you do. The question asked is, if LPs are held in high regard sonically, why isn't open reel tape the preferred sonic medium as it is closer to the original. As far as there only two mediums left to discuss, that is your opinion, clearly not the opinion of the originator of the thread. Oh, and Lucky's doing fine, got him some flea powder, that did it.
Marty