Regards to the frequency range:
That's the highly theoretical range - Certainly not the actual range. The information in a vinyl is stored in the grooves. It gets "translated" so to speak, in an analogue fashion. Now, in the process of converting them to waveforms, you get distortion everywhere, but most notably in the high frequency range (manifests itself as hiss which obscures a lot of the range. You know, the typical hiss you hear on old recordings etc), which is inherit to the design, the needle and the playback gear (and the playback gear can make a lot of difference! A bad phono cartridge/needle/whatever can mean incorrect playback frequency range. The 30khz stuff, that's distortion, harmonic distortion (also,.
Besides, the top range isn't really that important! Why? Because there's no useful information there!!! You don't really need that much information past 15-16 khz. What's left is the top harmonics of the cymbals. There's nothing useful there. Hell, most of us past 20 don't really hear anything past 17 khz. I can only go to 17 khz. And it suits me fine because there's no useful information past that.
Also, as I said, the top frequencies wear off vinyls, because of the needle (more or less frequencies wear off depending on the needle or if the "action" is set too low). The result is a softer top end. It's inherit to the design.
Second, Vinyls have by comparison, shitty signal to noise ratio, about 30 dB shorter than a 44.1 khz 16 bit audio file (CD standard). Which is a lot.
The fullness he's talking about is not the false frequency range beyond 30 khz. It is also harmonic distortion, or euphonic distortion if you will. That kind of distortion can sound pleasing when applied to music (tube amps, like in guitar amps!!! That's harmonic distortion) but it is distortion, harmonically related to the source. Tube preamps for vinyl setups are popular as well, and they too introduce harmonic distortion (that's what you're after really). They color the sound. That's the fullness. The harmonic distortion.
Look, CD is, scientifically speaking, the better format. Lower noise floor, you don't have to boost the lower frequencies with your playback device like you do with a vinyl (you boost it around 20 dB. Why? WHen producing a vinyl you remove some of the lower frequencies so that you can store more information on the LP and you boost the higher frequencies - Upon playback you boost the low frequencies and for some reasons they are rolled off at the top pon playback).
HOWEVER. When playing a CD you won't get the harmonic distortion you get when playing an LP. That's why some consider CD's to sound dull - They miss the distortion. And Harmonic distortion can sound appealing - That's why a lot of people prefer Tube amp over solid state amps.
About mp3's. Just like vinyls introduces distortion upon playback, so does the data compression to an mp3. An mp3's top end's noise floor is higher than an uncompressed file = obscured top end. Now, when talking 320 kbit mp3's, there's still data loss in theory, for sure (not as much with Apple's own format, whatever the name was. I read an interesting article on audio data file compression). In practise?
That's a different story altogether. My school has a 2.5 million dollar studio. The primary control room is pretty much perfectly acoustically treated, and the main speakers are ace, they cost around 10 k dollars a pair. I discussed this with one of my teachers (former student, 5 or so years older than I). Very knowledgable guy and great at producing. He can't tell the difference between FLAc and 320 mp3. He said that he AB-tested it in the primary control room, and you can't really find much better place to listen to music.
Now, a lot of the guys wanking on and on about 320 mp3 vs FLAC, they tak about how uncompressed is always better etc (which it is - The queston is if you can tell the difference). A lot of those guys don't listen on proper equipment or in an acoustically treated room (and acoustics make a shitload of difference. My livingroom boosts the top end like, 4-6 dB due to the early reflections. Big difference if you're sitting on the couch or by the speakers), so the data compression won't matter in practise anyway. Squat (edit: Notice I'm talking about 320. Not 128 kbit).
So, to response to this: So, am I correct when I say that people with better (than average) hearing may have a bigger chance of estimating the sound quality of an LP? In other words: their perception of the LP is better so they know the difference better?
The answer is no. First off, the main problem with vinyls is the distortion introduced upon the creation if the vinyl and even more distortion upon playing it. There's the inherit high noise floor and then there's the mechanical noise, pop, clicks (pitch problems, related to the playback speed can occur, even if you're playing it at the supposed correct speed!) etc etc. Second, the false extended range is also just distortion (and that's not even the usable harmonic distortion. The "usable distortion", if you can call it that, is lower down the frequency scale. The rest of the distortion is hiss). Thirdly, the information beyond 16 khz or so isn't very useable anyway.
And let's not forget that records in the 60's-70's and so, most of the gear used wasn't capable of dealing with sound beyond 20 khz, or even that far.
The upside with vinyl is that the harmonic distortion can be perceived as pleasing. However, the CD is, scientifically speaking, vastly superior (but you can perceive the harmonic distortion as pleasing, and "full").