No, it had nothing to do with tape being bad; simply it was that you were removing one (or more) stages in the recording process. Of course, there were disadvantages to the D2D process too, primarily the inability to edit the performance as well as putting a lot of stress on the mastering engineer having to read/know the music as they works the lathe. I think even you can admit that one less gain stage in an electronic component is usually a positive move.
Plus there were very few companies recording classical D2D??? If you're referring to the early Telarcs, they are horrible. I think there were a couple on Crystal Clear and maybe a couple on M&K and Shefflield but not a whole lot more. BTW, the M&K [early] digital sonically stink compared to their LP releases. I also don't think the Sheffield classical don't sound very good either. They sound like they were recorded in a barn. Sid Marks wrote one of his first letters prior to joining TAS to HP criticizing the sound of the early Sheffield classical. So they weren't very good even before digital was a glimmer in the eye of the major record labels.
In what alternative dimension was digital better than D2D? It's not even better than the best of ordinary vinyl. So what does that say about D2D? Everyone that I know thinks that the sound of a D2D LP is the penultimate.
