Let's go back to the article:
"During the process, he [Ludwig] especially tried to preserve as much as possible of the deep low end of the band's sound, which he believed was critical to its music.
But when he heard the final LP that was released, he was stunned. "All the low, extreme low bass that I knew was there, was chopped right off."
Please explain how this loss of low bass made the sound more like the live event.
I did get back to the article, and in fact, you conveniently left out this piece of crucial information right before:
When Clearmountain mixed vinyl albums for Columbia Records, he says the label required the test pressing of each LP to play on an old, cheap turntable without skipping, or it would have to be mixed again. Too much bass in one speaker could make the needle skip out of the groove, as would too much sibilance — a harsh "s" — in a singer's voice.
That changes everything now, doesn't it?
Now, if you're at all familiar with an analogue chain, you can envision an analogue EQ to compensate in cases where it's needed.
How is that (what the label asked for LP) different in principle (of doing bad things to the sound) from the following in CD-land:
1. Mixing and Mastering with Yamaha NS-10 Monitors to cater for the average bloke with his bad speakers and bad system. Do you actually know precisely what process mixing/mastering people do here to make it 'sound good'? Tell us.
2. Compressing the hell out of the formerly musical signal to make it as loud as possible, and louder than other people's CDs, even to the point it clips.
Now, based on your very odd way of 'investigation', explain precisely yourself how points 1. and 2. in CD-land make it a closer to the live experience.
As to how loss of low bass isn't preventing people from preferring LPs to CDs in certain cases (recording dependent, system dependent, etc..), the answer is in the question:
there is more to great musical reproduction than just frequency reproduction.
Instead of trying to wage a format war, it is much better to ask people for each system what they are listening for in each, take the best of each, remove the limitations of each and then get to something even better.
Maybe you also missed this relevant part in the article:
"I think if people can't hear it, they probably didn't know what they were listening for," Anderson says. "Someone has to say to you: Listen for this, listen for this, listen for this. And when you start to home in on those details, it starts to become very clear."
Mind you, a Redbook can sound very, very good, but if you think that because you have a CD player in your system it is by default better than a vinyl in another system, there are some crucial things about both musical reproduction and the business that you are still missing.