We ain't dead yet!
This is the monster She was talking about.
There's was a point in my life where listening to recorded music and buying stereo equipment was a substantial interest of mine. I would audition many components and developed a pretty discerning ear. One of the things I learned is that on a well set up system sometimes an LP sounds better and sometimes a cd sounds better. The process of recording is an art, and some people did this better than others, and some pieces of music do better digitally, some better analog.
But the author is right in his assertion that the move to MP3 was a turn from quality to quantity. The vast majority of my LP's would trounce an mp3 playback. However, when I listen to MP3's it's with the understanding that I am not trying to hear every note and the spaces between the players and the air in the recording venue. But when I spin up the turntable, I am reminded of live music.
There's a time and place for both digital and analog technologies, visual and aural.
The analogy between vinyl and film photography, as mentioned before, is at best inaccurate. Better would be comparing looking at actual prints and listening to high-end vinyl with looking at JPEGs on a computer monitor and listening to MP3s. Litho repros of images would compare to CDs. I'd buy his argument better if he were comparing shooting film and making wet-darkroom prints to recording on 3/4" master tape on a Reel-to-Reel system vs. digital photography and printing to synthesizers and digital audio recording.
What I think is really funny is that when audio junkies talk about how vinyl has "warmth" or "presence," what they're actually talking about is basically controlled distortion, meaning that vinyl is actually less accurate when it comes to reproducing sound. In addition, with its sampling rate of 44.1 khz, CD audio can reproduce sounds up to 22 khz, which is right around the top end of the range of human hearing. So whatever data gets lopped off doesn't really matter that much.