Yep. In fact the argument that the article makes, when applied generally across all vinyl records (I can't speak for the specific one they're talking about), is

Yep. In fact the argument that the article makes, when applied generally across all vinyl records (I can't speak for the specific one they're talking about), is a common myth that the HydrogenAudio wiki debunks: https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Myths_(Vinyl)#Myth:_Vinyl_requires_a_better-sounding_master_because_it_is_physically_incapable_of_reproducing_the_hypercompressed_sound_mastered_to_CD https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Myths_(Vinyl)#My... Article: "It’s the data on the record that’s superior, and it’s a conscious choice made by today’s artists and producers." HydrogenAudio: > A related myth is that when vinyl has a higher dynamic range than CD, it means the audio was sourced from a different, more dynamic master, and that the difference in dynamics will be audible. > It is true that recordings on vinyl sometimes have a spikier waveform and a measurably higher dynamic range than their counterparts on CD, at least when the dynamic range is reported by crude "DR meter" tools that compare peak and RMS levels. The higher "DR value" could indeed be a result of entirely different master recordings being provided to the mastering engineers for each format, or different choices made by the engineers, as happens every time old music is remastered for a new release. > But even when the same source master is used, the audio is normally further processed when mastering for the target format (be it CD or vinyl), and this often results in vinyl having a spikier waveform and higher DR measurement.