This is not a discussion of whether Digital is better than Analog or vice-versa

Ask almost any recording engineer who worked in a significant professional capacity (serious studio, good equipment), in the years from all analog in the 80's to all digital in the 2000's (and typically earlier), what sounds most like what is coming from the microphone, and they will tell you, without hesitation, digital. It won't be some will say digital, it will be almost all. Don't take my word for it, do the research.  Ask them about tape and they will tell you that every machine had it's "sound".  They were very good, but they still had a "sound".  Vinyl? Not even close.

So why, given the people that most know what the actual recording sounds like say that digital is the most realistic, without question, do so many audiophile "insist" that vinyl is the more "realistic" or "true to the performance".  Those that best know the answer to this question, having listened to that performance live, and then listened to the loops, or recordings, say, without a doubt, digital is the most accurate representation.

This is not a discussion of what is best for listening or what you prefer. I find that I often prefer more popular music on vinyl, but almost always will take classical on digital.

Is this attachment to insisting that vinyl or tape or analog in general is the most "accurate", or "natural" or "true to the performance" holding audiophiles back mentally from enjoying a broader spectrum of recorded music?