Feel free to prove me wrong in two years, but I feel this will /never/ (and I mean never in the information age sense, i.e. a few years) gain the traction of or

Feel free to prove me wrong in two years, but I feel this will /never/ (and I mean never in the information age sense, i.e. a few years) gain the traction of or simply replace mp3s. mp3s have been at a point where an everyday listener is simply not able to distinguish between a 192kbps mp3 on a player with subpar audio hardware and the master recording. iPods, audio players and generic computer speakers make the distinction even less significant. I'd even argue that the industry is actually hoping to move in the opposite direction and bring music to phones and other channels of lesser bandwidth and will try to bring down quality (and size) to a level at which simply won't annoy and keep people buying. The multi-track technology is purely a gimmick. Most artists do not want you messing with the levels of their tracks or make creative adjustments to their music. That's their job after all. Not to mention artists had a fit when iTunes started selling songs individually and took away their ability to distribute an album as an atomic piece of music. Also, I don't know how RIAA will look at bars being able to buy a song and use it for karaoke (the use the article mentions) without additional licensing. Calling this an 'mp3 replacement' is as sensationalist as you get.