But the main reason records usually sound better is simply dynamic range.
I'm a huge fan of 80s club music (Paradise Garage type stuff). I've spent a lot of time and money over the years ripping those original records, because unfortunately the digital releases of a lot of those songs were brickwall limited, which ruins the dynamics and punchiness of the drums and other elements of the music. I'm sure the same applies to other genres.
On the other hand, 80s club music is presumably mixed with vinyl distortion (and other features such as rumble/crackle - not to mention analog tape hiss from the original recording) in mind.
A well-mastered digital recording should (and does!) sound great, but I think the problem is that many CDs aren't well mastered and many are overly compressed, often in service of the dreadful "loudness wars."
In 2022 most dance music is produced digitally to begin with, and presumably mastering engineers and DJs have figured out how to make it sound good when it's played in a club.
I wish replay gain was standarized to a level where every player could just add few DBs in analog way for those songs that use more of the dynamic range, instead of mastering engineers having to choose between "loud" and "correct"
Anecdotally, I went on a trip with some friends recently and everyone took their phones while one person took a manual camera. Everyone uploaded to a shared album at the end, and the pictures which paint the picture of the weekend to me are the ones shot by the amateur which are often a bit out of focus compared to the hyper accurate self-stabilizing self-focusing technology.
Perhaps it’s the romantic in all of us.
That implies the opposite of what you enjoy. The original experience had no grain, had no hiss. It was pure and clear.
I mean a recording with a larger dynamic range is an objectively better recording. You can always crank up the volume if you want the loudest part to actually be loud.
That’s the paradoxical situation. You have an inferior medium with a better mastering.