skyjedi2005 said:
You get a good set of bose headphones on top of that and your set. Fuck mp3 and ipod.

You had me until you said this. I don't know a single audiophile, and I know plenty of them, that would call Bose "good". Bose are considered over hyped and expensive, nothing more. Most "audiophiles" prefer much better speakers.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?threadid=343759&highlight=bose

Moth3r has to be kidding that he thinks 128kbps MP3 is comparable to CD which can be several thousand kbps if not megabites per second.

Try again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3

By contrast, uncompressed audio as stored on a compact disc has a bit rate of 1,411.2 kbit/s (16 bits/sample × 44100 samples/second × 2 channels / 1000 bits/kilobit).

That's the upper limit for CD audio. DVD audio can be higher, but not CD.

MP3 is all well and good if you have a low quality dub off a casette tape to digital, but if you are a studio starting with a master that sounds better than what most people can reproduce at home why would you use mp3?

Who the hell ever suggested a studio use mp3? Studios start with their master and keep it there. Even the master has higher quality than a CD. The master goes to the CD and an mp3.

Its true that the mathmatical quantifiers are way over my head when it comes to digital music and video. After all is not digital just 1's and 0's and math. Computers are called so because of their computations per second. All i know is what my eyes see and what my ears hear.

A guy did a study years ago (the website no longer exists) where he ran a CD and a 128k (might have been 192k) mp3 through an analyzer. Both came out with the exact same signal. So anyone that says they hear a difference is full of it.

And just so you know, many of the songs on iTunes are actually AAC format, unless they say they're unencrypted mp3.