Vinyls by definition is very lossy format (low dynamic range (although there was obscure "HD" vinyl format once)).
The science is here: https://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
Edit: You're being downvoted which I think is unfair. It's completely logical that higher sample rates and higher bit depths "should" sound better, and certainly the music industry wants you to believe that. Unfortunately it's simply not true above a certain threshold.
"Lossless" here is defined as "stays the same once it has entered the digital domain", and not "identical to the real-life source", and so CDs are in fact lossless.
That's certainly not the usual sense of "lossless" as applied to recordings, since it would make mp3s lossless as well. We generally say that mp3s are lossy because the mp3 encoding process loses information that was present in its input, not because the encoded mp3 degrades when played (it doesn't!) or when copied (it doesn't!).
CDs, as the original source of music, cannot have this sense of "lossy" or "lossless" usefully applied to them. (You could claim that the performance is the original source, in which case it's still not possible to apply the lossy-vs-lossless concept, as no lossless recording of a physical performance is possible.)
That only applies if you have a perfect master.
If you want to listen to a song mastered for CD, unless it’s 24/192, it’ll likely clip at several points.
Which is about 90% of songs today.
And if you want to remix the song, or use an equalizer, or other effects, you’ll also want 24/192.
And nowadays the ultrasonic effects he describes don’t even affect mobile phones anymore, and storage is plenty – making the disadvantages he describes moot.
