Has anyone been able to define well or measure differences between vinyl and digital?

@cleeds

We know that CD has a greater potential dynamic range than LP but in practice, the opposite is often the case.  Just look at the DR database.

"Dynamic range" has multiple definitions even in professional sense. For starters, for a given recording one can derive large number of dynamic ranges based on even a single parameter of averaging over time.

Then, if we go deeper, to psychoacoustics of music perception, we may start discerning different large sets of dynamic ranges for large number of frequency ranges, for "standard ear".

Going deeper yet, we ought to take into account individual hearing systems differences. A typical teenager, for instance, may discern a wider dynamic range at 15KHz compared to a typical retiree.

The standardized procedures are indeed useful, as they give general idea about the dynamic range of a given recording, allowing to compare different recordings in this regard, yet those are gross simplifications.

Depending on the method of dynamic range measurement, most suitable in a certain sense for a given music piece and listener, ether CD or LP may be "proven" to have a greater potential dynamic range.

A blind analog/digital test recently came to light which caused a great deal of consternation among the analog contingent of our hobby and brought doubt.to some of their claims of what they can hear.

It was recently discovered that MoFi Labs had a digital step in the mastering - pressing chain of their Lps going back at least to 2011 and maybe even further back.

MoFi found that record labels were often not willing to loan master tapes out to them, so they put together a portable Studer tape deck that they could take to the record label vaults to make copies of the master tapes that they then used to make their MoFi Lps, including the very expensive one-steps.

MoFi started with the analog master tapes but they were recording them to DSD, plain old DSD in some cases but 4x DSD in most cases. Audiophiles bought these Lps for over a decade and loved them. There was the rare voice here and there that didn’t like them, but no more than with any album no matter how pure its lineage. Michael Fremer had a number of them on his 100 best sounding Lps list.

Thousands and thousands of analog listeners could not tell that the MoFi Lps had been produced from a digital source even after many listens over a period of years on their own systems.

So, MoFi definitely should have been upfront about the source for its Lps, but they weren’t, and no one could tell. I’m not saying that there aren’t differences between analog and digital, but there may be factors other than sound quality involved for those who find digital fundamentally flawed, In My Humble Opinion, YMMV..

It would appear the question is only valid if one could be comparing identical recordings,  one in vinyl format and one in digital.  On systems of equal quality. Assuming this is possible.   Otherwise, we must all agree a great recording in digital beats a poorly recorded/mastered piece of vinyl  and visa versa.  It all sems to be a lot of navel gazing.  IMHO.  

Video below points to a number of measurements differences

Good description of differences between Vinyl and Digital

@tomcy6 agree, the upshot being perhaps the difference is the analog source chain produces the magic that analog enthusiasts talk about. But is it a distortion, or a higher fidelity engine?