Arguments for & agin' "Vinyl" and "digital" are like comparing apples to oranges, and decades apart in era. Analog and digital recordings sound different
especially because of their different distortion mechanisms. Digital's artifacts are minimal if even audible using 24bit 88.1+kSa/s sampling for pristine capture and transparency, and should remain so for most acoustic music (classical, jazz) to sound good on fine replay systems. However mastering and distribution of pop music played on low quality systems typically entails abusive level compression and intentional clipping.
Vinyl was the most hi-fidelity distribution in its day (1953~80), and will be for a while the archive of most of the 140yr of recorded history, sourcing much digital distribution from that archive. Excluding the artifacts of two tape generations if not direct-to-disk, most vinyl distortion is a function of replay errors due to stylus shape, several forms of misalignment, cantilever-tonearm resonance, skating, poor frequency\phase response due to improper cartridge loading and inaccurate RIAA, etc. If users\installers optimized these effects to the degree mastering engineers did, then vinyl replay still qualifies as "high-fidelity."
The best vinyl can be is already waiting in the groove, to be cleaned, scanned with the best stylus, tracked with an aligned tonearm, then properly amplified. Unlike digital reproduction that is largely self-obsoleting and disposable, the phonograph was and is made to last and able to be maintained. Unlike digital, with "nothing serviceable inside," users are invited inside their turntables to make better sound, with the help of a good reference, with two inexpensive maker projects for an accurate RIAA preamp with controls missing on nearly all off-the-shelf, and a low distortion transcription-length tonearm. Or just to know the science of the phonograph.