I can't imagine an audophile being satisfied with 192. Or 256. Or CD-quality, for that matter. On the other hand, 128 (which still dominates, even though Apple uses 128 .AAC files, which compress a bit better than .MP3) just isn't going to cut the mustard for a lot of people.
This isn't idle speculation: iTunes Plus offers 256 kbps .AAC, which shows the largest store is already addressing the problem.
Now here is some idle speculation: The loads on the servers would be extraordinary, and processing power would be sucked down like spaghetti, but I'd like to see iTunes or other digital retailers offer on-the-fly encoding. So you'd pick your song, your album, and just before you buy, it says, "How do you want it?" and lets you pick anything from 128 right up to Lossless. For all the music we're sending to the stores is in lossless. That doesn't mean "lossless" is perfect--if someone gives us a 128 .MP3, we make it into a lossless file and send that, but that simply means it's a perfect-fidelity reproduction of an already compressed piece of music.
Still, as people select better and better methods of sending in music, right up to actual masters, and as server, storage and processor capacity grow and become cheaper, we might see it! That way the audiophile with a lot of broadband and a willingness to wait half an hour to dowload a big file could get the quality they crave.
--Peter
[email protected]