In most digital v. vinyl discussions I've encountered, the burden of proof seems to be on the digital side. Seems to me, it should be the other way around. Vinyl is subject to damage from dust, heat, and wear that do not affect digital. Turntable belts stretch, needles wear. So a fair comparison should be under real-world conditions, between a moderately worn vinyl record and a digital recording of the same performance, where both are played through electronic components of comparable quality. And to be fair, really, the turntable and stylus should be compared after accruing some realistic amount of play time. Prove that the moderately used vinyl, played on a moderately used turntable, with no history of herculean maintenance efforts, has no more audible noise (pops, static, skips, etc.) and just as much dynamic range as the digital recording of the same performance. If not, then convince us that the vinyl has other superior qualities to compensate for the audible noise.
Even if we're comparing pristine vinyl recordings to digital, I've never seen convincing evidence that the vinyl SQ is superior. By "convincing" I mean, supported by either (a) objective measurements, or (b) expert testimony. Anything less is anecdotal. Not saying it's wrong, not saying it's right. It's your opinion. But the fact remains, digital is far more convenient, it is not subject to wear and tear, and the majority of listeners seem to prefer it (rightly or wrongly, for reasons that may or may not emphasize SQ). I have not listened to vinyl for many years, so I admit, maybe I'm missing something about the sound quality. But I know I don't miss the dust, the warping, the worn needles, the stretched belts, etc., or all the accompanying maintenance fuss.