Vinyl sounds better (shots fired)

Digital recording has a hard ceiling and a hard floor. Meaning, when your recording level is all '1s' anything a ove that is clipped, totally. Anything below all '0s' doesn't exist. Analog had 3-6dB headroom above 0dB and at least 10dB below the noise floor. Recording and mastering engineers had to re.earn a careers full of technique to go digital.

Similarly, low level information, ambiance, string sounds, the difference between a Stradivarius and other violins, a Strat vs. a Les Paul,  has fewer bits with which to be described, thus less detail is captured. Note this is y-axis data, and has nothing to with sample rate and Nyquist Theory - that's all x-axis. 

Digital has this limited operating 'space' to which the recordings must be confined. Analog is much more forgiving in that regard. To get a digital recording space that is greater than analog requires enlarging both bit depth and sample rate. 24-bit and 96KHz sampling accomplish that, but that was not technically oe economically feasible for a mass market product when the  16-bit, 44.1Khz sample rate CD was developed. 

The final piece of the puzzle is the DAC. Analogous to the role of the phono cart, it is the transducer between the digital and analog domains, just as the phono cart is the transducer between mechanical and analog domains. And while there's are lots of ways to convert all the bits successfully, reconstructing them into an analog signal absent distortion artifacts require a 'reconstruction filter'. It is in the execution of that where a DAC adds the vast majority of its audible signature. 

@grislybutter ....*L*  Since clarity 'round here counts....

Which 'mine' is yours? ;)

-hipster movies, with or without...
-rocks in grooves....(Not 'that rock' or 'that groove')
-a blunt; dosage your call
-shotguns, gauge   "     "
-W LP's, with or without skids

As for attending louts....anyone wanting to attend the next 'shoot-up'....
Bring your own gun and loads of preference....

Vaguely related note, bid and won 'bout a dozen transcription discs of varied conditions, 'white rust'..... old musical bits, the 'in-show' commercials per the labels.  Bought for the *Grins* of it.....
Thinking of making some sort of floor lamp, chandelier....too 'quaint' to shatter loutishwise........show some semblance of surly to the style... 

...turn one to on/dim/off....changes disc every time you use it....

I recently read that almost every vinyl record since the early 1970s has been cut on a lathe that utilized a digital delay line for the source material. This allowed for the lathe to “anticipate” transients to facilitate widening the groove spacing accordingly. If true, and I’m not an expert here, that would mean that vinyl is actually from a digital source. That being said, the actual act of converting to a physical, analog copy in vinyl might be the filter you enjoy if you prefer vinyl. I welcome more insight on this.

The sound of vinyl vs digital depends upon the original mastering and the payback equipment.  Good recording engineering played back on good equipment sounds wonderful regardless.  I have heard vinyl albums such as some 1960s DG offerings that have a more fatiguing treble shrill than some 1970s digital masters when the technology was in its infancy.  I find current streaming digital equivalent or better than vinyl. No clicks, no pops, no ritual (retrieve, clean, play, change sides every 30 minutes), less equipment maintenance (no bearing, arm, and cartridge alignment maintenance, and no demagnetizing, cleaning, and neurosis over stylus and cantilever damage). 

Good points @jsalerno277 although TBH the "ritual" stuff you mention are part of what I LOVE about vinyl, and I suspect the same is true of the majority of analog fans out there. It's not for everybody, but for those of us that enjoy it, it is not a "chore" at all, it's a labor of love.