Vote

Already the questions of which is the best bit-rate, which would be the best codec to encode with, and so on are flying around. We constantly see new devices being brought to the market and a definite upsurge in the quality of the music experience, no matter what the source might be. As long as there is new technology, there will be improvements to our audiophile experiences.

Only if the downloaded files start to meet and surpass the quality of the current available files on CD, SACD and DVD-A (and vinyl, for that matter). Until, then, I don't want anything to do with them.

Yes—if it is high-resolution, it beats everything else we had.

The more that people get exposed to what's out there, the more interested they become in the process. I remember this happening to me some 50 years ago when high (er) quality FM radio and "stereo" happened and I sure was hooked.

No way. HDTracks has just announced the price increase for their PCM 24/96 downloads (to $17.98!,) so it's not only worse quality than SACD, but now it's also not cheaper at all, and, oh yeah, if you are not satisfied with a purchased digital album, you can't sell it on eBay like SACD or DVD-A, you may only delete the thing from your hard drive.

It's just bloody convenient!

There are no new clear standards for HD playback, whether from downloads and streaming to hardware for playback. Welcome to the new tower of Babel.

Negative. The Net has watered down writing and journalism to pabulum. Why should it do MORE for reproduced music??? There will be no music without video. We all know what video did... Please make all checks to: Brad - Atlanta

Yes because is so practical, and is the same technology used in the studios.

It's all about convenience, and not paying attention. The new elevator Muzak for the home.

Downloads and "streaming" ought not be included in audiophile vernacular.

We won't have to buy new hardware every time a new format comes along—just update the software. It also allows for larger libraries.