This is a well-written article and at least goes to some length to try and objectively quantify stereotypical (pun not intended) analogue sound. However, having carefully read it twice, I notice there is no mention of engineers such as Kenneth Wilkinson who managed to preserve that "analogue warmth" regardless of whether he was working with pure tubed equipment in the early 60s, transistor-equipped, Dolby "A" equipment in the 70s or even Decca's early bespoke purely digital 18 bit, 48 KHz equipment in the very late 70s to very early 80s...
For my own part I am a vinyl listener but not because I think it is better. It is because many professional engineers simply do not have a sufficient grasp of digital technology to recognise the pitfalls and how easy it is to destroy the sound during the original recording session and during mastering or remastering. These are typically the same sort of people who go onto forums (not this one luckily, so far as I can tell)and say that because it is all noughts and ones, nothing matters. The problem is that with digital, everything matters and it matters - audibly - to an obsessive degree. These same people will also tell you that 16 bit is good enough simply because it theoretically covers the dynamic range of an orchestral performance. You then try to explain to them that it makes violins and wind sound like nonsense because the harmonics are not accurately captured and are grossly distorted with so little low-level bits, to which they then reply that it doesn't matter because you can't hear them anyway. And then they will also say that 44.1 KHz is good enough because no-one can hear above 20 Khz and even if they could, there is no music "up there" that is audible. You then tell them that the 44.1 Khz limit completely fails to take into account the obviously audible effect of low pass filtering on the audible spectrum, no matter how sophisticated, nor the effects such a low sample rate has on transient attacks and "timing" (listen to a violinist put the bow on a string and start to move the bow at 96 KHz versus 44.1 KHz). So when you try to tell them you really need to go to 88.1 KHz or beyond to avoid all that, they then provide links to their favourite blind test-of-the-month to back it all up, failing to acknowledge the point that you've already done that type of testing yourself for 2 years (as have the engineers who actually do know what they are doing) and have completely and utterly failed to "make" 16/44.1 transparent, no matter what the process or sophistication of the products used. They are also the same people who when you try to look up their body of professional work, it either does not exist at all or it sounds like garbage. On the other hand, you then look up the body of work from those people who really do have a grasp on the pitfalls of digital (for example, blokes like Keith Johnson, Bernie Grundman, Bob Katz, Ryan Smith, etc, etc) and suddenly you find awards or praise left, right and centre and workloads so heavy that you have to wait a year to get a job done.
The bottom line is that I honestly cannot stand the term "analogue warmth" because I hear this so-called "warmth" daily in every single 24 bit digital file that I own, except the ones created by the type of "noughts and ones" people I mentioned in my second paragraph (yes, I can name precise names that come up over and over again but I am not going to for obvious reasons).
I will still only buy vinyl simply because I have invested too much money into it over the years and have quite a decent collection (for me) to then go around and spend far more on digital releases - even high res ones from people who really know what they are doing. It's got nothing to do with "analogue warmth". It is simply because there are both insufficient engineers living today who truly have the all-encompassing grasp on digital to make to truly transparent to the source and the fact that I made my format and investment decisions some years ago and wish to stick to it.
The bottom line is that I do not believe in analogue warmth, that analogue sounds better or that digital sounds bad. Everything is equal these days - it is the humans involved in the overall processes - taking into specific account their ability, experience and equipment choice - who make something good or bad.
That said, I agree with what is written in the article but I think it is important for to say that I call this "character" rather than warmth and it is purely due to the factors mentioned in the article and nothing more. Warmth to me somehow implies a very obvious colouration and to be honest, on good equipment, an old analogue recording from the early 60s is just as subjectively faithful to a performance as a fantastic modern recording.