1: Gizmodo really should get out of hi-fi writing (as should CNN- they just had a series of wretched op-eds about hifi stuff). This just isn't their area of expertise.
2: They do have a point- 24-bit files are most of the time going to be a gimmick for the studios to make more money, as 95% of the systems the files will be played on won't be able to reproduce the difference.
3: Their article is written to the more average person, and we are looking at this from a different perspective. There's no need to get too angry, as we aren't their target audience.
3.5: So, basically, what I mean is that the article wasn't written with the serious audiophile in mind.
Indeed they don't target audiophiles but a significantly larger group: "normal" users, consumers.
I don't see why Gizmodo shouldn't write about hi-fi. Some (many?) things in high end audio are just ridiculous and who is more likely to point them out: someone on the inside or someone on the border or even outside?
Ridicule is a tool and when they say "audiophile has always been another word for sucker" they're making use of it. If you are not, you shouldn't be offended by it and if you are, you shouldn't be either. Instead of judging it as an insult think of it as food for thought.
There's much BS in high end audio and it is indeed the audiophiles that literally buy into it. Telling consumers that a track sounds better due to 24 bits and therefore can be justified to be more expensive is the same BS when the real change is different mastering.
Edited by xnor - 10/5/13 at 10:52am