I doubt it, since CD-quality audio is already objectively better (for human hearing) than analog audio on LPs. The only thing LPs are better at, sound quality wise, is extension into the ultrasonic range of 20-30+ kHz (which we can't hear anyway) but the SNR and distortion metrics are much worse in the ultrasonic band than the audible range.

I'm not sure if this is a named principle, but it seems intuitively obvious to me that on any particular encoding medium (magnetic tape, vinyl groove, etc.), you can encode "more" data in an analog way than digital, since with digital encoding you need to be able to make distinct symbols onto the medium, and represent any signal fluctuation with a series of such symbols; whereas with analog encoding a tiny fluctuation in what's recorded to the medium can correspond to a tiny fluctuation in the signal. Of course the tradeoff is that digital data is much more immune to distortion from imperfections in the medium.

If the same track width and pit sizes on CDs were used to encode audio in an analog way like LaserDisc does video (the continuous distance between pits being modulated by the signal), no doubt it could encode well into the ultrasonic range and surround audio channels via modulating them into different frequency bands. But it would have its own characteristic "surface noise" and "pops and clicks" just like vinyl.