Digital LP’s

@yoyoyaya is correct that CDs technically have a higher dynamic range than vinyl—however mastering on CD tends to be extremely compressed, whereas good vinyl mastering engineers make their records dynamic, often more so than their CD counterparts. IMO it is all about the mastering. You can have a record mastered from digital that sounds terrible or stunning depending on how it was mastered. Same for AAA. 

@yoyoyaya "Vinyl actually has less dynamic range than a 16 bit CD." - Yes, mathematically perhaps, but that seldom makes it past the mastering board." I prefer LP over a typical CD or flac file...

Also, +1 "But for pop and rock music dynamic range is pretty irrelevant as most recordings are compressed into a very narrow dynamic range window."

I like my CD player very much (Ayre), but my analogue source is more revealing.  Ex. I own Josh, by Josh Sklair on both LP(analogue) and CD (20-bit), simultaneously recorded.  When home, I prefer listening to the LP because of the slightly better tone and dynamics.

I also own dozens of the old Windham Hill LPs and CDs.  The early ones were AAA. Turning, Turning Back by Alex deGrassi (1978, Stan Richter, 1/2 speed? mastered), and it has the attributes we seek in great recordings.  Not convinced? Listen to December by George Winston (1982, uncompressed close-miked piano) on both LP and CD, there is a palatable loss when moving from the LP to the digital release.

Moreover, any LP/CD comparison will be profoundly influenced by the transducer in each path (LP = cartridge / CD = A/D converter): The better the transducer, the better the sound.

Finally - @ossicle2brain   "My question remains, why put these new digitally recorded pieces on a slab of vinyl?". 

That's easy to answer - to play in my car (I do not own a vintage Rolls Royce with a record player in the back seat ;-).  Yes, I can stream, but road noise, brings the fidelity down to the common sound-Q denominator. 

Getting back to the OPs statement/question.

I recall when Abraxas was released by MoFi on a 'One-Step' pressing.  I believe the original cost was $100.  Shortly after it sold out, USED copies were selling for $350.  A friend was offered $600 for his copy.  By contrast, most LPs loose value after they are opened and played.

As we know, MoFi was later harshly criticized in the hi-fi community for using a D in the chain (there was even a lawsuit brought against MoFi ).  Up to that point, many analogue fans proclaimed it one of, if not THE, BEST LP that they have ever heard.

Funny how our biases can be so retrospective. 

I think that MoFi taught us all a hard lesson: When properly employed, a D step to reduce noise can actually enhance a recording.  

I enjoy my AAA LPs (thousands), but I am keeping an open D perspective.

I think syr1990 has it right.  It all depends on the mastering.

I think one of the main reasons that some audiophiles prefer a vinyl version of a digital recording is that their cartridge has a non-flat frequency response that they like the sound of. Phono cartridges have been used for decades to tune the sound of a system. Some are bumped up in the mid bass, others have a hot high end response. That was always part of the fun of vinyl. CD players on the other hand have ruler flat frequency responses.

My experience is different than @rvpiano . I have many titles on CD and vinyl and I don't find that the vinyl version sounds inherently worse. In fact they often sound remarkably similar. When I got a Hana SL cartridge my vinyl rig began sounding much like the CD. If a CD lacks spaciousness and detail compared too the vinyl version I would suggest that the reason is that the cartridge has a tilted up response in the high frequencies which is responsible for the difference in sound.

I am unaware of any examples of a digitally recorded album being less compressed for the vinyl version than the CD version. If anyone has examples of this I would be interested in knowing what they are.