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

@clearthinker ,

The MOFI debacle I think is the best counter to your argument about digitizing of an analog signal. That they could do this for over a decade, while creating some of the best rated vinyl for sound puts a hole into the argument that useful information is forever lost. Can you explain your concern with chopping time? What do you think is lost when this happens knowing we can only hear a limited range of frequencies?

Movies and video chop images in the time domain.

The answer to your point is the forever related issues of clock error and dither.  When CDs started in 1984, these errors were gross and most agree many CDs were unlistenable.  Retrospective engineering of clocks and DACs has improved performance considerably but my fundamental theorem will always remain.  The issue isn't related to the fact we can only hear a limited range of frequencies.  Whatever the medium, they all record and reproduce a limited range of frequencies.  The issue affects what some have acronymed 'pace, rhythm and timing - PRAT. 

Shameless 

@clearthinker , I don't think there is anything to support you current view. I am not sure issues in playback when CDs came out was due to jitter, the brickwall filters, or just poor quality playback equipment. I have not delved into it extensively and I am more interested in the here and now. When I can look at a jitter test on a Schitt Modi+ for $129 and even on Toslink the jitter components are -130db, and better on other inputs, jitter is not something to concern ourselves. I have read even old studio equipment had good clocks for the ADC even if the DACs did not for the stuff we bought.  Dither can be added analog or digital. It extends the dynamic range. It works. What is your concern about it?

CD reproduces to 20KHz.  It have been many decades since my ears heard 20KHz. What do you think we are losing by not having higher frequencies. 24/96 would solve that issue.  Someone posted above that with vinyl as you move to the inner grooves, there is not much above 10KHz and it is all distorted.

I am still back with @asctim. All the points he lists are real. I am more inclined to believe that things that are real and identifiable, including mastering, are why we often like vinyl, as opposed to interpretations of digital audio that are either incorrect or have no evidence to support. Is that the simple explanation? I think so.

@thespeakerdude     My issue is certainly not with HF performance.  Like yours, my ears now go nowhere near 20kHz now anyway.  My first post referenced those comments that digital sound is 'lifeless' compared with vinyl.  I also find this with a lot of CDs but certainly not all.  The absolute worst one I heard was actually by Chesky (a symphony, can't remember which, I haven't looked at it for 25 years) that I found unlistenable, notwithstanding it was supposed to be better.

So what is the cause of this perceived lifelessness?  Certainly uprated digital generally sounds much better, no argument.  I have a few SACDs.  Pretty well all are better than the best CDs; and some of are excellent and sound to me better than the vinyl equivalents.  In my view this doesn't deny my proposition; breaking the performance down into smaller pieces reduces the translation error - this is proved by elementary calculus.