How is it possible with that data, please ?
I think Amirm is talking about the RECORDING - the music on the tape. He's got a recording directly from the studio session (or a 2st generation copy of such a tape) - this is a recording that captured what the musicians played before some engineer or "mastering expert" did all kinds of EQ overdubbing, compression, etc to "master" it for pressing to an album or converting to digital for making a CD. Having the recording from the studio of the ORIGINAL SESSION from (for example) 1972 is going to sound WAY better than the album that was released after a dubious process of "mastering" which is often done according to the MARKETING people and not the musicians or anyone who knows what good sound is.
So if they recorded some musicians in the studio back in the day, then took this original session tape and mastered the hell out of it, and then pressed vinyl and then later "remastered" it to compress the dynamic range to comply with the record label's idea of "good loudness" - well both the vinyl and the CD will sound worse than those original session tapes. It's not a matter of analog somehow sounding better than digital - it's a question of listening to a well-recorded studio session compared to something that has been F'ed up by some mastering engineer who can no longer hear above 7,000 Hz because his hearing has been destroyed by loud sound over the years.....
If they had a digital recorder at the studio in 1974 to record the original session, then THAT recording would sound better than an analog tape made during that session. But they had no such digital recorder back then, all that might exist is a pristine original or first-generation copy of the session tapes.