mp3?

I recently read an article in Mix or EM or one of those music/engineering magazines that discussed the mastering process and how some professional mastering engineers will not master specifically for mp3 but will master for really high fidelity "specialty" websites that allow high quality digital downloads of music. This lead me to an interesting thought while I walked back from practicing at the Conservatory this evening.

Why are engineers so concerned about audio fidelity? Put another way - I understand the love of high quality audio, when I listen (really LISTEN) to music actively, I love having the ability to hear every little nuance of performance with an accurate frequency response and proper imaging. But when I'm just passively listening - ie driving, working, reading, writing, etc - a simple streamed mp3 works just fine for me. Furthermore, there are some songs that kick so much ass that I don't care if I hear them in mono from a overhead speaker on the Purchase Shuttle (examples include Superstition, Take Five, anything by the Temptations).

People argue about how artists/labels should distribute music and in what quality/format. What if the consumer had all the options (within reason)? What if when they bought an album or a song on iTunes or Amazon they could download an mp3 and a full bandwidth wav? What if they could download one and not the other? What if we stopped arguing about fidelity and just made music that was so good it transcended bad quality? (yeah, right.)

Anyway, why should we argue about these things. The beauty of the Internet and digital distribution is that iTunes doesn't have to keep a full stock of inventory with all different qualities, they just need to host single files. Unlike brick and mortar stores, the file is still in inventory after someone buys it.

Yeah? It's an idea anyway.