So it looks, little by little, we are reaching conclusions in this thread.
1 - We have concluded that we CAN listen to digital all day, (depending on how the album was mastered is a big part)
2 - We have concluded that analog sounds more "pleasing" which does not translate to accuracy.
3 - We have (almost) concluded that digital is more accurate. mshilarious has graciously proposed a test that I'm for.
Sorry. i take issue with #1 as I stated in my post. I cant listen to it all day. I think there is something to digital fatigue.
This discussion mirrors the age old debate (argument?) of which is better a Ford or a Chevy. It is a subjective taste for sure. I grew up in the day of analog, getting educated in their operation and repair in middle school. I got out of it for a fairly good gap in time. That gap straddled the transition to digital, so when I became re-interested in recording I started with digital (Mac Tascam us1800). I dont know I just didnt like it. I then set about getting analog gear to do the same stuff, only old school LOL. Once I got it up and running I suddleny realized that one of the things that was so different is the esoterics of it all. I may be the only one that feels this way, but while not affect the end product at all I missed the smell of (tape and tubes) the visuals of it, reels tuning, analog meters dancing, anything that is lit or lights up isnt an LED. I dont know, the "experience" is more fun for me. Plus it sounds better! J/K