Digital recording techniques offer phenomenal dynamic range, which analog simply can't match.
I gotta jump in here...maybe I've got my terminology wrong, but the dynamic range in the digital domain is capped at 0dB. That is sonically neutred. Music-eunoch...that's one of the major problems for me...actually it wouldn't be such a problem were it not for the level-wars. Were it not for the level wars digitally reproduced music would sound great, but would have a much lower perceived relative SPL. Check out Toto's "Toto IV" album on CD. The mastering engineer left some headroom...he/she didn't squash it and you know what? I think it sounds great, but it is relatively quiet. I grappled with this on my last project, caught in the get it loud whirlwind...customer demand...I'd have it hot and sounding pretty good and if I backed off the soft-clip limiter plugin (and then backed of the master level to keep it from clipping) it sounded SO much better...everything breathed, the kick had kick and character to it...man! Analog, with contemporary high output tape can push WAY over 0dB, especially depending on how much harmonic distortion fits the project or piece. This, for the most part (depending on the tape format) nullifies the big analog vs. digital push regarding noise. Yes digital inherently is hiss-free...better signal-to-noise specs for sure, but if the program material buries the noise-floor who cares?? And if you've a wider dynamic range and wider bandwidth...I could care less about hiss...I'm not a digital-basher. I appreciate both camps. My problem with digital is the contemporary application of it, not the media itself. As I've stated elsewhere, people didn't run to digital because it sounded better (by people I mean professional engineering and production folks), they jumped because it was cheaper and faster...less resource outlay in gear and editing labor means lower rates to the customer = more customers...its a simple matter of economics in this facet about which I am writing. Of course there is so much more to it, and of course it is (and should be) deeply personal, but that's my 2p.
and certainly much better than mp3
I pretty much can't stand the mp3 format...I much prefer the .wma format which is similar to my ears to the .aac format. I've done lots of A/B comparisons and I think .wma/.aac romps all over mp3 in bitrate to bitrate comparisons...being a microsoft stooge I use .wma when I need to use a compressed digital format.
keep your player's heads clean (you can buy "cleaning cassettes" to do this)
I really don't think cleaning cassettes are a nice thing for cassette decks, except for, as was mentioned, automotive decks where access is an issue. The pads don't pull the dirt and oxide away from the heads and basically rub it back-and-forth. It becomes a light-duty scouring pad. Take care of your deck and use cotton pads or the swabs with the proper cleaner. The cleaning cassettes also don't clean the whole tape path or clean the pinch roller.
I REALLY don't recommend the demag cassettes either. Get a demag wand. For cassette decks the cheapey eBay $10 unit will do the trick...for anything else get the Han-D-Mag. Treat your gear right.
Sorry to propogate the thread hijack.
Great topic. I think the cassette format is great. Still have my Onkyo TA-2058 from 25 years ago and it keeps going and going and sounding great. Good quality decks using good quality tapes (CrO2) sound great.
Hey remember the TDK MA-X series? (I think that's what they were) I still have a bunch of those tapes laying around...the ones with the alloy shell...
I love cassettes, not as much as my 1/4" reel to reel, but cassettes can sound damn good if done right. I've used Maxell XL-II cassettes for various things for about 20 years and the older ones still sound fantastic. The bonus is that is what works best in my 424mkII. 
I do have to say this is one time that I am glad I stand corrected!
