Yes they are directly linked, this is where you are mistaken.What makes it technically-wise less high fidelity, and what makes it sound more or less high fidelity, isn't necessarily related things.
I get that some added distortion may make the sound more pleasing to you, but it never makes the sound a more accurate representation of what the mic's heard or the artist & recording engineer attempted to present to their audience.
Bob this is not really a CD vs Vinyl debate but simply a discussion on the roots and goals of what's High Fidelity.This is a good point and I would ask folks to refrain from going down the path of “what format is superior”. Current recording and playback technology is provably better than vinyl, there is no doubt that is the case.
Elsewhere you will find places where folks spend a fortune on SET amps and huge horn speakers from the 1940s that create large amounts of distortion and a very non-linear frequency response, then sit back and say "doesn't it sound glorious"? Well it may to them, but it sounds nothing like what the folks in the studio heard or hoped you would enjoy.
That's the "sounds good to me" crowd you find at the other subjective sites and magazines. Not what we do here.
There are a ton of good reasons why vinyl brings many people pleasure and that's great. But it's distortion isn't a point that should be praised as a positive. Better to discuss things like needle alignment and shape that need to be optimized, preamps with accurate RIAA EQ, low noise and distortion used, proper cartridge loading, etc, etc to reduce it as much as possible are points to cover here. Work to improve the mediums weaknesses not praise them.