Both articles focus more on experience than on the theory behind it, and both are good as a starting point, but it’s important to think about which one to choose to assess quality.

In terms of experience, IMO vinyl is the best, and it’s also quite clumsy which is why I don’t always use it. In terms of measurable quality (not necessarily audible), digital is superior. Since MP3 is a completely different discussion, I’ll take CD as an example:

A CD can contain music at 44.1 kHz, resulting in a nyquist frequency of about 22 kHz, 2 kHz above the best possible human hearing. So a CD can reproduce any frequency that humans hear. With vinyl, this limit is higher (because it’s analog) but that doesn’t add anything to the audible sound quality.

Dynamic range for CD is 96 dB at 16-bit and 144 dB at 24-bit, with vinyl stopping at around 70 dB. In terms of dynamic range, CD is actually the best.

Then you can say that the continuous flow of information on the vinyl sounds better than the samples that need to be retrieved (see story rod 44.1kHz). Even if that was the case, it would only work if you did the recording, mixing, and mastering process entirely analog (once you go digital, you provide a sample rate) but in practice everything is digital somewhere these days. The only advantage is that vinyl can be compressed from a higher sampling rate, but please note: above 20 kHz adds nothing to human listening.

By the way: Both formats require handling on the operating side as differences between equipment can occur.

This was the theory, but in practice, there are more factors, such as: Was the recording, mixing, or mastering process done for a general audience or for music lovers? The song itself may have been released on CD differently than on vinyl as the latter sometimes gets better treatment.

Then the vinyl could introduce fun effects to the experience, or simply the record setting experience could add to the experience.