Of course, that's as far as you know. Thank god the specification knows more than you.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Had 'Worked On' Offering a High-Definition Music Format
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Of course, that's as far as you know. Thank god the specification knows more than you.
Bear in mind that 'lossless' is not the same thing as 'high definition'. A 'high definition' audio file might have a bit depth of 24 bits and sample rate of 96KHz, for example. It could be carefully compressed and still be 'high definition'.
A low definition sound file might only be 8 bits in depth and sampled at 22kHz. You could have that stored in a lossless format - i.e. no compression of the data file. But it would still sound 'lo-fi' (i.e. rubbish).
A low definition sound file might only be 8 bits in depth and sampled at 22kHz. You could have that stored in a lossless format - i.e. no compression of the data file. But it would still sound 'lo-fi' (i.e. rubbish).
Sure it does. Whereas digital is bits, peaks and valleys, Analog is a waveform. Waveforms are mathetimatical and can be expressed as... *drumroll*, specifications.
And then be sure to go out and buy a vehicle from the '50s or '60s with the heavy metal bodies, spark plugs, points, rotor, and carburetor, all of which require frequent adjustment and replacement.
Tube receiver? You've got to be kidding!
There are rarely, if ever, any ultrasonic frequencies for vinyl to preserve. In audio recordings, such frequencies, when present, are normally low-energy noise imparted by electrical equipment and storage media used during recording, mixing, and mastering. Although some musical instruments can produce low-energy overtones in the ultrasonic range, they could only be on the vinyl if every piece of equipment and storage medium in the recording, mixing, and mastering stages was able to preserve them—which is unlikely even in modern recordings, since the average microphone or mixing console is designed only with audible frequencies in mind. Even if the overtones were preserved all the way to the mastering stage, mono and stereo lacquer cutting equipment typically includes a lowpass filter to avoid overheating the cutting head with ultrasonic frequencies.
Finally, on top of all of these issues, there is simply no scientific evidence that frequencies beyond the 22 kHz limit of CD audio are audible to any known group of people, or that such frequencies affect anyone's perception of the audible range. There is no evidence that reconstruction and anti-aliasing issues are audible.
Last edited:
Just to be clear...my argument is less that Vinyl > Lossless (that's more me being sentimental), more that Analogue Recording for true sound capture is inherently and conceptually > Digital
You wouldn't catch me buying a Vinyl today if it's possible for me to obtain a FLAC version. For the record, I'd happily put up with "Lossless" (as we currently understand it - preferably via FLAC) for the purposes of iTunes downloads.
You wouldn't catch me buying a Vinyl today if it's possible for me to obtain a FLAC version. For the record, I'd happily put up with "Lossless" (as we currently understand it - preferably via FLAC) for the purposes of iTunes downloads.
oooo... lossless vs mp3, I love this argument.
It's not so much if you can hear it, it's really maintaining the integrity of the audio file. As close to analog as you can get is in fact BETTER whether you can hear it or not. The tradeoff is filesize. At this point in time, I question why we're still using mp3 since filesize has been and continues to be less of an issue.
the question to ask is if you have enough space for all lossless. Now with the cloud, it's really just your main computer that you'd need the space on. For some perspective, my library is approximately 15K songs and it takes up 500GB. Half of an $80 1TB drive. If I had all mp3, I'd be taking up 150GB of an $80 1TB drive.
The question isn't why switch to lossless, it's why not?
The adder for me is that the audio output on the iPod/iPhone/iPad is decent, so if you are able to connect your device to a nice system, the difference can most certainly be heard. If you don't believe so, why take the chance?
It's not so much if you can hear it, it's really maintaining the integrity of the audio file. As close to analog as you can get is in fact BETTER whether you can hear it or not. The tradeoff is filesize. At this point in time, I question why we're still using mp3 since filesize has been and continues to be less of an issue.
the question to ask is if you have enough space for all lossless. Now with the cloud, it's really just your main computer that you'd need the space on. For some perspective, my library is approximately 15K songs and it takes up 500GB. Half of an $80 1TB drive. If I had all mp3, I'd be taking up 150GB of an $80 1TB drive.
The question isn't why switch to lossless, it's why not?
The adder for me is that the audio output on the iPod/iPhone/iPad is decent, so if you are able to connect your device to a nice system, the difference can most certainly be heard. If you don't believe so, why take the chance?
So show me the evidence that Analogue waveform (note, NOT Vinyl) is better than digital "waveform"...
I'm still waiting...Because that kind of evidence doesn't exist.
The main reason I don't use the iTunes Store. Lossy compression is for wimps.
I'd like to see "eardrum" quality (get it, like retina?) audio with a channel for each instrument on DVDs or something. It would take up so much space that it wouldn't be pirated, and if someone pirated it, they'd get some stupid MP3 that the ripper made from it.
----------
Definition of analog.
I'd like to see "eardrum" quality (get it, like retina?) audio with a channel for each instrument on DVDs or something. It would take up so much space that it wouldn't be pirated, and if someone pirated it, they'd get some stupid MP3 that the ripper made from it.
----------
Definition of analog.
As the post below yours says...The very definition of analogue means it is better than Digital bits & bytes (which are after all...a digital approximation (however good) of analogue waveforms)
Analog is initially better than digital but can degrade more easily. In general, you'd get better quality from a good digital file just because of imperfections in the analog equipment, but analog is perfect quality in theory.
However, it's easiest to trust analog recordings because you know it won't have lossy compression
This article says a lot about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_analog_and_digital_recording
Of course, that's as far as you know. Thank god the specification knows more than you.
Yeah, fair enough
I hadn't researched the format enough to be aware that ALAC is apparently capable of handling 8 audio streams. I ought to have phrased my response more accurately by saying "to my knowledge, there are not any widely known commercially available sources of multichannel ALAC files", which is pretty much what I read the poster who you quoted as meaning by his comment. Still, thanks for the correction (even if you could have been less facetious in your choice of wording!).
Although I agree with you and am also an audiophile, the problem is that the consumers are not getting the "full quality" of the recording...period. Ripping a cd to any lossy file is, by definition, not full quality from the source (vinyl or cd for example). On a side note, even if we were to go to some kind of new super-audio format (which failed miserably decades ago) with extremely high bit/sample rates and all that other wonderful techno-mumbo-jumbo, very very few people own the equipment to even appreciate the super-dee-duperness of the new format.
If and when I can purchase full quality, lossless, NON-APPLE-PROPRIETARY files, I will stop buying cds. Until then, I am happy plunking down $9.99 or $10.99 for a new-release cd and being able to rip it any way I choose now or in the future. It also offers me all the tangible benefits that I cannot get from a downloaded file.
If by theoretical analogue you mean being at the live performance. Yes I'm sure Live Performance > Digital.
Which really means,
I CAN'T HEAR YOU NAH NAH NAH I WILL REPEAT AND REPEAT UNTIL WHAT I SAY IS TRUE NAH NAH NAH
Last edited:
44,1 was a degradation of the original 48 kHz format, wich was considered to contain all the frequency information. With 44.1 you miss a bit of high-end that contains mostly spatial information (If you listen to speakers that go to above 23 kHz; like over 1k each studio monitor you'll know what I mean while being blown away by the fantastic stereo imaging)
96 kHz is more difficult to get in term of difference but there is one (it's just more resolution. there's never to much information).
That's the exact domain where mp3 screws it (perception of space in the stereo field, high end depending of quality)
It's also serves a specific prupose in production: you can change the pitch and length of an audio file without losing to much information (It won't sound "harsh"). Like slowing down a 96k sample by two you still keep as much information as in a 48k sample.
For the "bit resolution", in production 24 bits gives you headroom (your record won't peak at the first difference in dynamic). And internal processing is even better in 32 bit (you can't hear it, but after a few effects have been applied the result will sound better.).
Then for your listening pleasure as opposed to 48kHz vs 96kHz 24 bit does sound significantly better than 16 bit. Again more information is never to much to approach the analogue "reality".
So it's freaking sad that not only lossless are too rare (plus it's only a minor difference in size); but high quality lossless (24 bit at least) are even rarer.
Even high-quality compression with loss format would of at least a little interest (like the dolby format for dvd, but 24/ 96 kHz). It's the norm in video anyway (you always get compressed video, but at least there was a step up in resolution)
So no thanks I won't buy an mp3.
Counting on the few indie distribution for lossless, and still on home converted cd (which is a pain).
err...
----------
If by theoretical analogue you mean being at the live performance. Yes I'm sure Live Performance > Digital.
Actually, a live performance has all sorts of issues that are solved by a studio. Just the fact that the accoustics of a bar/stadium/arena/venue are not perfect distorts the analog waveform from the true original music.
Myths (Vinyl)
Vinyl - Myths
Vinyl always sounds better than CD
As described below, despite decades of arguments, there is no technical proof of the sonic superiority of the vinyl medium compared to CD. One vinyl record may sound better than its equivalent CD for extremely specific reasons. That does not mean the medium as a whole is superior.
Many people do prefer listening to music to vinyl rather than on CD or digital formats. Many of those reasons have nothing to do with actual sound quality, and have more to do with the tactile characteristics of vinyl - its "feel" - like larger artwork and its required playback ritual. Others prefer listening to CDs for a different set of reasons. There is nothing wrong with preferring vinyl to CDs, as long as the preference is honestly stated on emotional terms, or is precisely quantified and tied to subjective experience, and not obscured with (fallacious) technical appeals.
Vinyl requires a better-sounding master because it is physically incapable of reproducing the hypercompressed sound mastered to CD
Different masters can substantially improve or reduce sound quality. Some have less background noise. Some alter the dynamic range. There are other mastering techniques that can also affect the sound.
There are documented instances of different masters being used on vinyl releases compared to CD releases. One notable example is The White Stripes' Icky Thump. However, there are also many documented instances of the same masters being used on vinyl releases compared to CD releases. In fact, if you purchase an album produced in the last two decades on vinyl, it is logical to assume that the master will be no better than on CD unless evidence is found to the contrary. Alternative masters for vinyl cost money, and mastering is a significant cost of producing a record. It is very likely that some producers - believing in the myth that vinyl is an inherently superior medium, as mentioned in other myths described here - will simply use the CD master for the vinyl release, believing that it will automatically yield a superior sound.
The technical details behind this myth are as follows. The cutting heads used for creating the vinyl lacquer (or metal mother) are speaker-like electromechanical devices driven by an extremely powerful amplifier (several hundred watts). At extremely large/fast cutting head excursions, the cutting head coils may physically burn up, much like how a speaker's voice coils may be destroyed by an excessive current. Also, the diamond cutting head stylus may prematurely wear or break. This places important constraints on the maximum levels that can be recorded to a record.
A very high power output is required to cut grooves with a high acceleration. Acceleration at the same signal amplitude is higher for higher-frequency signals. Heavily clipped and limited CDs in the modern mastering style have more high-frequency content than earlier masters. In general, increasing the perceived volume of a record - whether by increasing the recording level or by limiting/clipping/compression - raises the cutting head average power.
Additionally, during playback, the turntable's stylus has limits on what grooves it can successfully track. Cartridges can only track grooves of a finite modulation width (measured in microns) that decreases in frequency. For instance, a cartridge may only be able to track a 300 µm-wide groove at 300 Hz, and yet only 50 µm at 20 kHz. This also places limits on the acceleration and velocity limits the record master can take.
The most obvious way to work around these issues is simply to reduce the recording level of the vinyl master. Multiband limiters exist for recording purposes that dynamically reduce the treble content of the master, to limit the cutting head power usage.
The vinyl surface is heated to several hundred degrees on playback, and repeat play of the same track should wait at least several hours until the vinyl has cooled
Professional estimates for the stylus surface temperature during playback are 300-500 °F. Obviously, the temperature of the record is at or close to room temperature except at the stylus contact point - otherwise the record would completely melt. Back-to-back playback will introduce slightly more distortion than a fresh play. This is believed to be a temporary effect and goes away after approx. 10 minutes.
Repeated playback (no matter what the timeframe) carries the risk of permanent damage. Obviously, records are observed to wear out with repeated play. No published evidence exists of back-to-back playback causing any more permanent damage than if repeated plays are separated by any longer period of time.
Proper vinyl playback is click-free
Pops and clicks are often not audible during a song on a well-maintained record and should not distract from the listening experience.
No evidence exists of a record that is shown to be played back with absolutely no pops or clicks whatsoever. They are introduced at virtually every stage of production, from cutting the lacquer to the pressing to the playback itself. Some pops and ticks are pressed into the record itself.
Some pops and ticks result from static discharges during playback. However, this may be mitigated by the use of topical treatments on the record.
Because of the lack of evidence for a tick-free record and the engineering factors making such a record extremely rare, it is quite likely that no record exists that is truly free from all pops and ticks.
Vinyl is better than CD because it reproduces higher frequencies than CD and avoids anti-aliasing filter issues at the frequencies CDs can reproduce
The recording/tracking ability of vinyl is easily at least 50 kHz and perhaps as high as 100 kHz. The most notably proof of this is the CD4 quadraphonic system which relied on a 45 kHz bandwidth to be accurately reproduced. That said, the high-frequency response accuracy of vinyl varies tremendously. Frequency deviations of 5-10 dB or greater are not uncommon in the 20 kHz range for many records.
Playback of ultrasound frequencies is still not guaranteed. Many MM cartridges have resonant peaks defined by the preamp loading, or stylus tip resonances defined by the cantilever, that attenuate high-frequency content.
When groove wear does occur, it occurs much faster at high frequencies than at low frequencies. For modern styli this is not as much of a concern, though.
There are rarely, if ever, any ultrasonic frequencies for vinyl to preserve. In audio recordings, such frequencies, when present, are normally low-energy noise imparted by electrical equipment and storage media used during recording, mixing, and mastering. Although some musical instruments can produce low-energy overtones in the ultrasonic range, they could only be on the vinyl if every piece of equipment and storage medium in the recording, mixing, and mastering stages was able to preserve themwhich is unlikely even in modern recordings, since the average microphone or mixing console is designed only with audible frequencies in mind. Even if the overtones were preserved all the way to the mastering stage, mono and stereo lacquer cutting equipment typically includes a lowpass filter to avoid overheating the cutting head with ultrasonic frequencies.
Finally, on top of all of these issues, there is simply no scientific evidence that frequencies beyond the 22 kHz limit of CD audio are audible to any known group of people, or that such frequencies affect anyone's perception of the audible range. There is no evidence that reconstruction and anti-aliasing issues are audible.
Vinyl is better than digital because the analog signal on the vinyl tracks the analog signal exactly, while digital is quantized into steps
PCM encoding (used on CDs and DVD-A) records audio data in a quantized format. Analog formats do not have a measurable time or signal resolution.
PCM is sometimes characterized as producing a jagged, "stair-step" waveform. This is only partially correct; analog-to-digital conversion (ADC) does indeed use a sample-and-hold circuit to measure an approximate, average amplitude across the duration of the sample, and digital-to-analog conversion (DAC) does the same kind of thing, generating a rectangular-ish waveform, but this output is always then subjected to additional filtering to smooth it out. Effectively, the ADC output sample values are interpreted as a series of points intersected by the waveform; the DAC output is a smooth curve, not a stair-step at all. Additionally, modern ADC and DAC chips are engineered to reduce below the threshold of audibility, if not completely eliminate, any other sources of noise in this conversion process, resulting in an extremely high correlation between the input and output signals.
PCM can encode time delays to any arbitrarily small length. Time delays of 1us or less - a tiny fraction of the sample rate - are easily achievable. The theoretical minimum delay is 1ns or less. (Proof here.)
With a correct implementation using dither, signal quantization (ie 16-bit or 24-bit) only adds wideband noise to the signal, not quantization distortion. If this dither noise is well below the already-present noise floor, it is inaudible.
Analog encoding still has many measurable and audible faults, potentially including harmonic distortion, noise and intermodulation distortion. These distortions have invariably measured higher than for digital formats, including CD.
The term "analog", by definition, means that the signal is not and cannot be a perfect reproduction of the original - it is merely an "analogue" of the existing signal, corrupted in the process of encoding.
In short, by any numerical basis, vinyl is not as accurate as competing digital formats.
Vinyl has greater resolution than CD because its dynamic range is higher than for CD at the most audible frequencies
The dynamic range of vinyl, when evaluated as the ratio of a peak sinusoidal amplitude to the peak noise density at that sine wave frequency, is somewhere around 80 dB. Under theoretically ideal conditions, this could perhaps improve to 120 dB. The dynamic range of CDs, when evaluated on a frequency-dependent basis and performed with proper dithering and oversampling, is somewhere around 150 dB. Under no legitimate circumstances will the dynamic range of vinyl ever exceed the dynamic range of CD, under any frequency, given the wide performance gap and the physical limitations of vinyl playback. More discussion at Hydrogenaudio.
Adding a penny to the headshell improves tracking/sound
The trackability of a cartridge is related to the mechanical parameters of the tonearm and stylus assembly. Adding weight to the headshell (and adjusting the counterweight to compensate) increases the effective mass of the tonearm and reduces its resonant frequency. If the resonant frequency is excessively high - 15-20 Hz as measured by a test record - the weight may improve trackability by moving the resonance out of the audible range. Otherwise, it will generally only reduce trackability.
Vinyl - Myths
Vinyl always sounds better than CD
As described below, despite decades of arguments, there is no technical proof of the sonic superiority of the vinyl medium compared to CD. One vinyl record may sound better than its equivalent CD for extremely specific reasons. That does not mean the medium as a whole is superior.
Many people do prefer listening to music to vinyl rather than on CD or digital formats. Many of those reasons have nothing to do with actual sound quality, and have more to do with the tactile characteristics of vinyl - its "feel" - like larger artwork and its required playback ritual. Others prefer listening to CDs for a different set of reasons. There is nothing wrong with preferring vinyl to CDs, as long as the preference is honestly stated on emotional terms, or is precisely quantified and tied to subjective experience, and not obscured with (fallacious) technical appeals.
Vinyl requires a better-sounding master because it is physically incapable of reproducing the hypercompressed sound mastered to CD
Different masters can substantially improve or reduce sound quality. Some have less background noise. Some alter the dynamic range. There are other mastering techniques that can also affect the sound.
There are documented instances of different masters being used on vinyl releases compared to CD releases. One notable example is The White Stripes' Icky Thump. However, there are also many documented instances of the same masters being used on vinyl releases compared to CD releases. In fact, if you purchase an album produced in the last two decades on vinyl, it is logical to assume that the master will be no better than on CD unless evidence is found to the contrary. Alternative masters for vinyl cost money, and mastering is a significant cost of producing a record. It is very likely that some producers - believing in the myth that vinyl is an inherently superior medium, as mentioned in other myths described here - will simply use the CD master for the vinyl release, believing that it will automatically yield a superior sound.
The technical details behind this myth are as follows. The cutting heads used for creating the vinyl lacquer (or metal mother) are speaker-like electromechanical devices driven by an extremely powerful amplifier (several hundred watts). At extremely large/fast cutting head excursions, the cutting head coils may physically burn up, much like how a speaker's voice coils may be destroyed by an excessive current. Also, the diamond cutting head stylus may prematurely wear or break. This places important constraints on the maximum levels that can be recorded to a record.
A very high power output is required to cut grooves with a high acceleration. Acceleration at the same signal amplitude is higher for higher-frequency signals. Heavily clipped and limited CDs in the modern mastering style have more high-frequency content than earlier masters. In general, increasing the perceived volume of a record - whether by increasing the recording level or by limiting/clipping/compression - raises the cutting head average power.
Additionally, during playback, the turntable's stylus has limits on what grooves it can successfully track. Cartridges can only track grooves of a finite modulation width (measured in microns) that decreases in frequency. For instance, a cartridge may only be able to track a 300 µm-wide groove at 300 Hz, and yet only 50 µm at 20 kHz. This also places limits on the acceleration and velocity limits the record master can take.
The most obvious way to work around these issues is simply to reduce the recording level of the vinyl master. Multiband limiters exist for recording purposes that dynamically reduce the treble content of the master, to limit the cutting head power usage.
The vinyl surface is heated to several hundred degrees on playback, and repeat play of the same track should wait at least several hours until the vinyl has cooled
Professional estimates for the stylus surface temperature during playback are 300-500 °F. Obviously, the temperature of the record is at or close to room temperature except at the stylus contact point - otherwise the record would completely melt. Back-to-back playback will introduce slightly more distortion than a fresh play. This is believed to be a temporary effect and goes away after approx. 10 minutes.
Repeated playback (no matter what the timeframe) carries the risk of permanent damage. Obviously, records are observed to wear out with repeated play. No published evidence exists of back-to-back playback causing any more permanent damage than if repeated plays are separated by any longer period of time.
Proper vinyl playback is click-free
Pops and clicks are often not audible during a song on a well-maintained record and should not distract from the listening experience.
No evidence exists of a record that is shown to be played back with absolutely no pops or clicks whatsoever. They are introduced at virtually every stage of production, from cutting the lacquer to the pressing to the playback itself. Some pops and ticks are pressed into the record itself.
Some pops and ticks result from static discharges during playback. However, this may be mitigated by the use of topical treatments on the record.
Because of the lack of evidence for a tick-free record and the engineering factors making such a record extremely rare, it is quite likely that no record exists that is truly free from all pops and ticks.
Vinyl is better than CD because it reproduces higher frequencies than CD and avoids anti-aliasing filter issues at the frequencies CDs can reproduce
The recording/tracking ability of vinyl is easily at least 50 kHz and perhaps as high as 100 kHz. The most notably proof of this is the CD4 quadraphonic system which relied on a 45 kHz bandwidth to be accurately reproduced. That said, the high-frequency response accuracy of vinyl varies tremendously. Frequency deviations of 5-10 dB or greater are not uncommon in the 20 kHz range for many records.
Playback of ultrasound frequencies is still not guaranteed. Many MM cartridges have resonant peaks defined by the preamp loading, or stylus tip resonances defined by the cantilever, that attenuate high-frequency content.
When groove wear does occur, it occurs much faster at high frequencies than at low frequencies. For modern styli this is not as much of a concern, though.
There are rarely, if ever, any ultrasonic frequencies for vinyl to preserve. In audio recordings, such frequencies, when present, are normally low-energy noise imparted by electrical equipment and storage media used during recording, mixing, and mastering. Although some musical instruments can produce low-energy overtones in the ultrasonic range, they could only be on the vinyl if every piece of equipment and storage medium in the recording, mixing, and mastering stages was able to preserve themwhich is unlikely even in modern recordings, since the average microphone or mixing console is designed only with audible frequencies in mind. Even if the overtones were preserved all the way to the mastering stage, mono and stereo lacquer cutting equipment typically includes a lowpass filter to avoid overheating the cutting head with ultrasonic frequencies.
Finally, on top of all of these issues, there is simply no scientific evidence that frequencies beyond the 22 kHz limit of CD audio are audible to any known group of people, or that such frequencies affect anyone's perception of the audible range. There is no evidence that reconstruction and anti-aliasing issues are audible.
Vinyl is better than digital because the analog signal on the vinyl tracks the analog signal exactly, while digital is quantized into steps
PCM encoding (used on CDs and DVD-A) records audio data in a quantized format. Analog formats do not have a measurable time or signal resolution.
PCM is sometimes characterized as producing a jagged, "stair-step" waveform. This is only partially correct; analog-to-digital conversion (ADC) does indeed use a sample-and-hold circuit to measure an approximate, average amplitude across the duration of the sample, and digital-to-analog conversion (DAC) does the same kind of thing, generating a rectangular-ish waveform, but this output is always then subjected to additional filtering to smooth it out. Effectively, the ADC output sample values are interpreted as a series of points intersected by the waveform; the DAC output is a smooth curve, not a stair-step at all. Additionally, modern ADC and DAC chips are engineered to reduce below the threshold of audibility, if not completely eliminate, any other sources of noise in this conversion process, resulting in an extremely high correlation between the input and output signals.
PCM can encode time delays to any arbitrarily small length. Time delays of 1us or less - a tiny fraction of the sample rate - are easily achievable. The theoretical minimum delay is 1ns or less. (Proof here.)
With a correct implementation using dither, signal quantization (ie 16-bit or 24-bit) only adds wideband noise to the signal, not quantization distortion. If this dither noise is well below the already-present noise floor, it is inaudible.
Analog encoding still has many measurable and audible faults, potentially including harmonic distortion, noise and intermodulation distortion. These distortions have invariably measured higher than for digital formats, including CD.
The term "analog", by definition, means that the signal is not and cannot be a perfect reproduction of the original - it is merely an "analogue" of the existing signal, corrupted in the process of encoding.
In short, by any numerical basis, vinyl is not as accurate as competing digital formats.
Vinyl has greater resolution than CD because its dynamic range is higher than for CD at the most audible frequencies
The dynamic range of vinyl, when evaluated as the ratio of a peak sinusoidal amplitude to the peak noise density at that sine wave frequency, is somewhere around 80 dB. Under theoretically ideal conditions, this could perhaps improve to 120 dB. The dynamic range of CDs, when evaluated on a frequency-dependent basis and performed with proper dithering and oversampling, is somewhere around 150 dB. Under no legitimate circumstances will the dynamic range of vinyl ever exceed the dynamic range of CD, under any frequency, given the wide performance gap and the physical limitations of vinyl playback. More discussion at Hydrogenaudio.
Adding a penny to the headshell improves tracking/sound
The trackability of a cartridge is related to the mechanical parameters of the tonearm and stylus assembly. Adding weight to the headshell (and adjusting the counterweight to compensate) increases the effective mass of the tonearm and reduces its resonant frequency. If the resonant frequency is excessively high - 15-20 Hz as measured by a test record - the weight may improve trackability by moving the resonance out of the audible range. Otherwise, it will generally only reduce trackability.
Yeah, but there is no such thing as a true analogue medium except being there yourself. Also, go google Nyquist-Shannon. The human ear is only capable of hearing a limited amount of sound frequencies. Use the highest frequency as your sampling rate and you will be able to 100% exactly reproduce the initial waveforms.
Sorry but that doesn't make sense.
Apple offers the service, you can buy any headphones you want. Do you also expect video rental shops to carry their own brand of HDTVs?
The Apple in-ear headphones don't completely suck and, while not the best, are enough to differentiate various bitrates. There's also a pretty wide choice of high-end headphones at the Apple store anyway. They will still be compatible even if there's no Apple logo on it, you know.