The primary benefit of vinyl, access to different mastering?

A bit of a preamble ramble here:
I was having an informal debate with a sound engineer who is very much different from many audiophiles in that he's completely contrary to all things related to cables, isolation, formats, etc. In previous encounters I'd withheld the remark "no wonder so many CDs sound like crap". At one point he said the only benefit of vinyl was access to different mastering as well as access to cheap software. This I completely disregarded and thought no more of. On another occasion he said he couldn't hear the difference between 16/44 and 24/192 digital, having made those recordings himself. I took up this challege by comparing my small collection of DVD-A titles. DVD-A rather than SACD so as to use the same DAC. I would find an example of a clear difference in fidelity such as with the Flaming Lips' Yoshimi as well as no difference that I could hear on Neil Young's Greendale. He said it was different mastering. I thought that ridiculous given the extra effort involved in a different mastering and my presumption of the music industry's presumption that consumers don't care that much about sound quality. I looked at the credits and he was correct. I recognize that my survey of five titles is much too small to be conclusive but he did score a point against me.

As a member of the invaluble Steve Hoffman forum, where the search for the best sounding issue of a title is a primary pursuit, I know the importance of mastering. Each of us seek that best version regardless of format but I've not expected that doubt would be cast upon my confident grip of the hierarchy of formats and various bitrates. That mastering trumps format was a given; that format may not matter is a shock. I don't believe I'll be able to ascertain the inherent superiority of a format with my ears/gear/software selection. Maybe someone higher up the fidelity ladder can?

I'm just wondering if anyone else here has a confident grip and what it is based upon.