On that score @Mahgister links to a much better article than the original one that started the thread. I suppose @Audio2Design didn’t actually read it before he dismissed it. I’m talking about the one in Scientific American. It’s clear, concise, uncontroversial, and contains a key point right at the end: digital uses math to reproduce the signal, while analog doesn’t.
I read it completely. Difference between me and you is understood it. Likely understand the math as well as the author, probably way more experience with it, and far far more understanding of the practical aspects of it. It was a crap article like so many other crap articles by supposed intellectuals not realizing what they don’t know.
If you understood the math and practical implications you would realize that your beloved "analog" is not remotely the "real" thing and is a far poorer representation of reality than digital. You simply love the high crosstalk (centers image especially in acoustically poor setups), you like the surface noise (gives a sense of space), you like the softened transients (easy old the ears) and perhaps you like all the inaccuracies in your setup that warm the sound or brighten it for older ears. You probably like the higher distortion too which again can create an artificial but false sense of space. Given the typically poor acoustics most "audiophiles" live with I can see the attraction.
But ... Some of us choose not to delude ourselves that vinyl or tape is superior for accurate recreation. You may like it. I often do. But I am quite aware of why and it is not remotely because it is realistic or true to the source. It is not.