The fact that the closing sentence of the first-cited article describes MP3 as "superior" to CD (in no specified respect) suggests to me that the author is talking out his arse.
I think that this has a lot to do with what kind of music people listen to. I suspect that most of the music that gets distributed over the Internet is pop stuff that is pretty much a creation of electronic processing anyway, rather than any sort of attempt to capture the sound of an actual musical performance. With such stuff, it may be that the poverty of the digital recording doesn't make much difference. Music to me is classical music, in which the idea of preferring MP3 to uncompressed digital recording would be idiocy.
Analog recording may be superior to digital in some respects: I remember initially disliking the way that digital recordings made violins and female voices sound when CDs started coming out. But I guess I got used to it. In any case, I have never been much attached to the medium of vinyl records, which I always found troublesome. For years after I had started to collect CDs, I kept my collection of LPs (about 500 of them, I think), but found that as my collection of CDs grew, I listened to the LPs less and less, and eventually almost never. After some years of being burdened with them, I was glad to find a dealer who was willing to give me 20 cents a disc for the whole lot. I got rid of all of them except three recordings unavailable on CD that I never got around to recording for myself on to CD, as I did do with some of the others.