So last week I was reading the article with this title, in the Guardian Newspaper : http://media.guardian.co.uk/newmedia/story/0,,1699708,00.html So here's the relevant part(s) : "If you bought the Arctic Monkeys' new album on CD (and an awful lot of people already have) then you knew what you were getting: a silver disc of virtually uncompressed audio and a paper cover featuring a lad smoking a fag. Buy it by download, though, and you're into a minefield, not only in terms of digital rights management (DRM) and player compatibility, but also sound quality. On the iTunes Music Store, Whatever People Say I Am, That's What I'm Not goes for £7.99 and is encoded in AAC (Advanced Audio Codec) format encoded at 128kbps - that is, every second of music is represented by 128 kilobits of data. On the CD, every second takes up 175 kilobytes - 11 times more. Buy the album from Napster, for £7.95, and you'll get WMA (Windows Media Audio) files encoded at 192kbps. Better sound quality than Apple's, for 4p less. Meanwhile, over at Bleep.com, the download store run by Warp Records, you can download the UK's fastest selling debut album as DRM-free MP3s for £6.99, and at the noticeably higher bitrate of 320kbps - still four times less than the CD." So buy it on iTunes and you are getting something that is 11 times worse than CD quality.... The article goes on : "However, Rob Wells, new media director of Universal Music UK, thinks that aside from audiophile fans of jazz and classical, the digital market will remain driven by convenience. "In the short to medium term, I'd say that the majority of consumers aren't really that fussed," he says. "Quality is quite far down their list. " So - are you happy that you could be losing so much sound quality, as compared to CD? Is it about music or just having the latest, "fashionable" accessory...?