Imagine for a moment that digital did not exist as a technology…
We could have spent this entire thread arguing about whether air or electrons are superior. One side would be arguing that air "is the daddy" and is superior. Any conversion of sound - which we hear only through the medium of air - into another format like electrons (Voltage) is inferior to "the real thing."
In other words, any electronic representation of sound is fake, and is inferior to the real thing. Embrace the air, fellow humans, because it is the only way we can hear sound. Every other medium must be translated into movement of air before we can hear anything.
Anyone with experience in electronics will understand why analog electronics are inferior. There is noise, there are unwanted radio waves that are picked up and mixed in with the audio. A reference, usually a ground voltage, is always needed to interpret any electronic waveform, and yet analog electronics suffer from ground loops and many other destructions of that reference, putting hum and other noise into our audio. I could go on for days about how electronics are inferior to acoustics, even conceding the various improvements like balanced audio, and still would be convinced that acoustic "air" is the daddy.
Everything else (everything that is not acoustic movement of air) is a pale, inferior copy, and is not real.
Now imagine that we include digital in the discussion…
Forget for a moment that digital is quantized and sampled. Forget what you see on the screen when you edit a digital recording. None of that matters because you can't hear it. All that you can hear is the result of those digital numbers first being converted into electronic signals, and then those resulting electronic signals being converted into acoustic vibrations of air. My point here is that the quantization no longer exists in a proper conversion with an appropriate reconstruction filter. The reconstruction filter that is required after a Digital-to-Analog converter is analog, and it fills in the gaps of the digital steps. There is no longer any instantaneous jump from one sample value to the next, and there is no longer any evidence that the time domain has been sampled, except for the lack of frequency content above a certain point, but that is equivalent to an analog low-pass filter.
Here I say that digital and analog are equally inferior to acoustic. Each has problems and advantages, but as time goes on, analog electronics have fewer and fewer advantages. Ideally, only a very small part of the non-acoustic representation would be analog, with the vast majority being handling in the digital domain. That would allow us to dispense with nearly all of the shortcomings of analog.
In the real world, where acoustics are superior to both electrons and digital numbers, there is no definitive superiority between analog electronics and digital electronics. Both are vastly inferior to the real sounds made and heard in the air. However, as many in this thread have pointed out, we humans are not all happy being limited to the sounds that can be produced acoustically. Since we desire to hear sounds that can only be produced electronically, then we must put up with the shortcomings of both analog and digital electronics.
If you want to understand more about digital, then I recommend reading Audio Engineering Society papers from Stanley P. Lipshitz and John Vanderkooy. Until you can understand their research on quantization and sampling, then the crude criticisms of digital waveforms that you see on your computer screens will continue to be grossly misguided.