Vote

For paid downloads, I would only tolerate lossless compression such as MLP, and absolutely no watermarking

As long as it's legal and quality is at least hi fi level...I'll consider it.

downloaded music will never be able to match what is abailable and worth paying for off the music store shelf.

It'll also have to be on something substantially better than 56K or even a RoadRunner type system, or a leisurely stroll to the local record store will still be faster.

Downloading does not appease the fetishistic qualities of handling a CD, DVD, or Vinyl Case/Cover. . . sound-wise, downloaded music could eclipse at least CD's. . . but, you still don't have anything to manhandle while listening (other than any remotes for your system)

Who can gripe about free AM radio sound? Paying for it is altogether different.

i am immensely unimpressed by this new musical "revolution" as it is currently existing

I really don't care about downloading music from the internet. If I'm curious about a song or new release I can usually find it at the local virgin records where I can listen to the CD. Granted this isn't without compromises but then ultimately it is only to get a preview of the CD before I purchase it. My brother on the other hand is looking to transfer all 200+ of his CD's onto his harddrive so he can play whatever he wants in whatever order without worrying about the actual CD or stereo equipment. Even he admits his computer "jukebox" doesn't come close to getting all of the detail and dynamics my class B system can, but it's good enough for him.

It's a question of bit-rate. A minimum of 256kbps is needed for anything approaching audiophile quality. Also, not all encoders are up to the task.

downloadable mp3s make fairly good CD-R discs if burned onto high quality media via a high quality CD burner (eg, la cie)

Any bit rate +128 for mp3 will have the basic quailities of some cheap cd recordinds.The 192 bit rate I average for downloads to convert to WAVS then burn to CD are as good a quaility as store bought CD's. And I didn't shell out 15 bucks either.B&W N802 w/ Goldmund CD/DA converter, plus Jeff Rowland amps and pre-amps don't hurt the sound either...LOL

I don't care about downloads currently. I'm sure some day I will

Your premise that MP3 is almost as good as AM radio is flawed, not to mention biased. There is already plenty of music on the internet ready for legal downloading and more is being added all the time. If you don't believe me, go to MP3.com and check out Kristin Banks or Scott Hall. These two unknowns on 128 bit mp3 make a lot of your recommended audiophile stuff sound like your AM radio. I have downloaded close to 3GB (that's gigabytes for all you analogue types) or close to 700 songs so far. With a decent computer (PIII 800 w/256M Ram, ATA100 HDDs etc.), sound card (Creative Labs Live), amp (Max from Headroom) and speakers or cans (Sennheiser 600s), it sounds every bit as good as $30,000 systems I've heard in stores. And I haven't spent but 10% of that on gear. It's very interesting to me to watch a salesman at an audiophile store running around madly switching amps, turntables, cd players, speakers, cables and who knows what else around just to get the "perfect" sound. All that is just a rich man's tone controls. Spence Anold spence@2020webdev.com

I spent most of my time listening to LP's. Maybe the fact that I have invested 3times the money in that playback might have something to do with it. But I have purchased two cd players(the original Proceed; and the CAL Icon II) so my investment is not miminual. My son(college student) down loads MP3 frequently. I would have to have much better sound at least CD quality to spent the money to download for real listening.