It's warmer, but it's further from the original recording than most people realize.
I read a pretty good article about the problems with vinyl, and what some people consider "good quality" is just a completely different way of producing which they prefer. The gist of it is that to save space and fit the music onto vinyl records, you have to reduce the amount of low frequency sounds which take up a lot of physical space (low frequency makes thicker grooves). Places that stamp records usually put a low cut filter at around 40Hz to control this.
On the flip side, high frequency notes can cause distortion if they force the needle to move too quickly. So there's usually a high cut filter at around 16kHz. They recommend that producers/sound engineers de-ess their vocal tracks and cymbals so they don't run into issues.
After all that processing to account for the physical limitations of carving physical grooves into a medium, you end up with a recording that has lost a lot of high end and some of the "oomph" from the low end. This results in a warmer sound because you're not hearing a lot of sibilance from the cymbals and such. Some people like it, but it's still nowhere near what was originally recorded... and it's FAR less accurate than any digital medium because of it.
So, when it comes to discussing vinyl with people they usually fall into two categories:
1.) People who say "vinyl SOUNDS better". This is perfect, because what "sounds better" is entirely personal preference. If the warmth of how vinyl is recorded sounds good to you, that's great. BTW, you should be able to get that same warmth with an equalizer on your digital music.
2.) People who say "vinyl has better sound quality". Sound quality as judged by how close the playback sounds vs. the source means it's physically impossible for vinyl to replicate the instruments as recorded. So no, it really can't have better sound quality. It may sound better to you, but what you're listening to isn't what was recorded.
