Everyone gets wrapped up in comparing the formats themselves, when the real difference should be the focus on the mastering technique of each format.
If someone cuts a vinyl record from a CD source, then there is really no point in purchasing that album as an LP. But, bands and labels that care about making a decent sounding record often (and should) have separate masters made for CD/MP3 and vinyl. There is much more care taken in mastering for vinyl because the parameters to some extent dictate the dynamic range. Mastering for vinyl has more variables that require more skill, which often creates better sounding albums.
Also, beware of "newly remastered" CD's, as they can be a huge rip off. The majority of these pre mp3 era albums had good to great dynamics, but now have the life sucked out of them (overly compressed and/or brickwalled) just like lots of contemporary releases.
If you want to read more about this, Google "The Loudness War", or look for A/B examples of poorly mastered CD's versus well done vinyl.
I can't even believe the discussion of "color" fonts has gone on this long; it is a completely ridiculous idea. Designers already use color in their work, as it is just another device for displaying hierarchy.
By adding color to a primary design tool, you are turning it into a secondary tool with less flexibility in its use. Type and color live on a horizontal plane, they can both be used to convey hierarchy. Bold to Book, ALL CAPS to lowercase, Roman to Italic, bright red to black all convey levels of hierarchy. By creating fonts that have predetermined color schemes, you essentially lose all ability for subtlety within whatever hierarchy you are trying to establish. A "color" font is the equivalent of making a font that is ALL CAPS BOLD ITALIC STRIKETHROUGH as default; yes there may be times where that usage is exactly the correct design choice, but for a zillion other cases it isn't fitting.
The user/designer picks what font to use and what color to use if color is needed.