The PDF at that site has a synopsis, covers all the important points. The test attempted to make an analog disc from a digital file, then re-digitalize that LP for the DBT. A lot of effort went into the experiment, clicks and pops were digitally removed [always a dead giveaway], levels matched, many of the processes typically used to make the transfer of source to disc easier were skipped, in order to resemble the source as close as possible. Short and skinny: "Results from the listening tests suggest that for our sample population, the digitised vinyl was the least favoured of all the formats." Analog purists will, of course, say: "But digital!" Also [Mikey recently] " . . . there are many great vinyl records digitally sourced that sound better than the file from which it's made just as many records sourced from tape sound better than the tape...."accuracy" is a load of bologna." I'd use a different term aimed in a different direction myself, but it's a loser's game attempting to troll a troll. What I understand is, like it or not, the source for a modern production is digital 99.99% of the time. I do not see how a mastered digital source will sound better after the bass is summed to mono, treble is limited to reduce sibilance, dynamics are limited to fit a fat file into a small groove. Same would apply to music sourced from an analog tape.
What kills me about the "Microtime" article is citing Neil Young as some sort of expert on sound quality. If anyone is going to suffer permanent hearing damage from playing Rock 'n' Roll at volumes past the threshold of pain, it's Shakey. The market failure of Pono points to multiple bad decisions made by this "sensitive, world-acclaimed innovator". "Is that a Toblerone in your pocket . . . ?"