The good thing about analog recoding is that it may sound better than the original signal

Assuming a signal path from singer's vocal chords to listener's brain. Not from microphone to loudspeaker!


The above consideration does not only include electrons but only molecules (acoustic path), and our brain.


The input electronic signal to an analog recorder would not be the same as the output. And this is a reason it may sound better considering the whole system from singer's vocal chords to listener's brain.


Example set up, signal path:


Ordinary bedroom - male singing voice - Electro Voice RE-15 microphone with low cut - Pleiades V5 prepreamp - Marantz CP-430 - Sennheiser HD580


By comparing the original and reproduced signal in real time using the 3rd head, the playback sounded more natural. Both source and reproduction sounded excellent. A systematic error may be the artificial double tracking effect.


The microphone was 1-2in from acoustic source.


The reasons why may be too many. Not only change in frequency responce, dynamics.,,,


To describe subjectively the reproduced voice appeared more full, more real to listener's brain.


Hiss was non existent in both cases due to the very low noise microphone and electron tube preamplifier.


Some of the processing on very high peaks may had been done by the 2nd EF183 stage of the battery powered Pleiades V5.


Reference:


Tubes vs Transistors, is there an audible difference? - Russel O. Hamm - JAES


Flat frequency responce from singer's vocal chords to listener's brain, Sound Picture Recording and Reoroducing Characteristics - Journal of the motion picture engineers