Back to what I was getting at earlier in the thread: The relationship between the technical and measurable differences in the digital vs vinyl process, the actual results in terms of perception, and the issue of "sound quality."
I've been told that on this site "Sound Quality" refers to measurable accuracy. That's cool and the emphasis on understanding what's actually happening objectively is why I have enjoyed reading this site lately.
Though it seems to me that perhaps merely the term "Accuracy" or "Fidelity" may be a more suitable term, as "Sound Quality" generally has a heritage of meaning in terms of what we actually hear. After all, something can be measurably accurate, but that doesn't actually tell you what the "sound quality" will be of anything you'll actually listen to. Put a truly crappy recording on and no matter how accurately the system measures, you will be hearing what all would likely agree to be Bad Sound Quality. So it seems more conceptually clear to refer to a system's "accuracy" rather than it's "sound quality" if one is referencing measurements rather than perception.
But...that's my opinion. I'm keen to hear other opinions.
I don't believe that using "Sound Quality" - how something actually sounds to listeners - necessarily leads to pure subjectivism, as if it must be indistinguishable from "preference." Being able to agree on what something is like, beyond mere personal value judgements, is why we human beings come up with descriptions in the first place. I was over at my friend's place listening to his system. When we talked about the sound, we both agreed as to which descriptors applied. It was just insanely clean, clear, airy, transparent and detailed sounding.
And yet he loved how it sounded and I really did not, and I couldn't wait to get home to my system. So we can have different subjective preferences, but in principle we can agree on the "sound quality" as to the specific features of the sound.
Which gets back to the issue apropos of "why would any audiophile choose vinyl?" - we have this issue of the technical vs the perceptual; how much different something measures vs how different it actually sounds, if it does at all.
The descriptions of the vinyl-making process can easily lead to the conclusion that digital recording/mastering is vastly more advanced. (Which, it certainly is in a sense). But does an apt description of "vastly more advanced" or "much more accurate" automatically entail a commensurate description in what we'll actually hear?
I put on another LP I received recently, a collection of electronic/synth-based pieces from the late 70's early 80s. They are often quite good recordings. It had been put out simultaneously on CD and vinyl not long ago, and I've lived with the digital version. I put on the vinyl and...the background noise was super low, essentially inaudible from my listening chair. I put on the digital version and went back and forth between them.
Whatever the story of how each was made, and however they may measure differently, in terms of the actual sound quality I could perceive, it was essentially a toss-up. The vinyl version sounded super clean and clear. Try as I might, I could not hear any details gone missing on the vinyl vs the CD - every drum hit, cymbal, kick drum, guitar parts, all the variety of synth burbles sharp and dull - and every nuance of any bit of reverb, all seemed as intelligible and clean on each format. Both produced excellent sound quality.
The only difference was in a slightly different character to the vinyl presentation. It was a bit more forward and present tonally, with a sort of more palpable texture and density. Instrument imaging seemed a bit more put in relief, more as if they were "right there in the air" with more separation from each other, a really high level of discernability. And the sound generally seemed a bit more exciting in the upper mids, and a bit more full and punchy in the bass. Drum parts, from toms to kick drums, cracked the air a bit more and felt like they had somewhat more sense of "drive." The vinyl version had a bit more "bursting from the speakers" energy, the digital version sounding a tiny bit more canned and reserved in comparison.
So this may be some combination of deviations from the digital version for any number of reasons, including whatever the person mastering for the vinyl might have done differently. But the end result to my ears is very comparable "sound quality" with slight differences where people may differ in which they prefer.
I think the digital version is a bit more subtle in terms of instrumental timbre - my sense is that is particularly where I'm catching it being more accurate to the source, even lower distortion than the vinyl. But it's quite subtle, and it's amazing to what degree the sound from of such an old technology can hold up to the current one, and I can easily see why the vinyl version could be preferred on sonic grounds by some people. In fact, I found myself preferring the vinyl overall.