Digital LP’s

Everyone seems to miss this point. It matters a lot.

I cannot speak for others, but I am not missing that point.  I just don't find it to be generally true that hi rez is inherently better sound.  What I have found to be true is that some hi rez releases have had more "care" and that is an improvement in sound. It's probably not so much the resolution as the idea to provide something that would sound good on a better system, which finds its way into the mastering.

However, I will also say that I feel that sometimes DSD has a bit of a different character.  That could also just be mastering.

+1 jji666. Part of the bad reputation of CD arises because a lot of the ADCs and DAC's in the early days of CD weren't capable of true 16 bit resolution. Since then there have been significant improvements in converter and filter design that have led to improved sound from CD.

A lot of so-called High Rez recordings don't have the frequency response or dynamic range to need 24/96 resolution in the first place. Some do and I enjoy them for that.  But to speak to your reference to "care", they are often more purist recordings where the quality of the engineering is probably a bigger determinant of their sound quality than whether they are 16/44 or 24/96.

For the life of me I don’t know why someone would want to listen to a digital file that has been converted to an analog wave form , embedded in a slab of petroleum, and then extracted with a glorified sewing needle slashing its way through the grooves of that slab.  Makes more sense to listen to digital files with digital playback equipment 

^Because it's higher rez and sounds better than cd.

I buy plenty of audiophile analog that goes through no digital processing at all. Just see all the stuff they have at Acoustic Sounds, for starters. Lots of pure analog there.