[Roller]

It's good that you've been reading such articles, as they do point out very well how above 16/44.1 yields better results, and also why I find that 24/96 to be superior and closest to ideal. I understand very well what you mean about marketing nonsense flying around, which is why I couldn't care less for 192KHz and above, as it is irrelevant for what truly matters.
 
And yes, of course that a properly mastered 16/44.1 can be superior to a not so well mastered 24/96, but the fact is that virtually all records that have been properly mastered on both 16/44.1 and 24/48, 24/88.2 and 24/96, the higher formats beat the standard Redbook in just about any point. Unfortunately, high quality high resolution content is a small percentage of the whole audio format environment, but it's definitely what should grow up to replace common formats like Redbook standard. The moment high res gets widespread adoption, the costs will be reduced, and eventually there will be no point on using standard definition content, except going below standard definition into lossy for streaming purposes and similar.

 

[Syan25]

I'd never even heard of HDtracks until now

 

[Satellite_6]

Mp3's don't sound like crap, they sound quite excellent (assuming you are using LAME) and there is no difference in resolution between 24/96 (or whatever) and 16/44.1. 
 
You guys are talking like 24/96 = Blu-Ray and 16/44.1 = DVD but the analogy is not accurate. 
 
EDIT: For the record I know there is a significant difference between lossless and lossy because I have ABX'd it a handful of times. Lossy still sounds really good though, at high bit rates. The analogy above could apply to lossless vs. lossy or a good recording vs. a bad recording, but not 24/96 vs. 16/44.1. The math just says no. A bit depth of 16 and a sample rate of 44.1 is ample for any music and any human.

 

[Syan25]

I would not say that MP3s sound like crap either - but I do think FLAC files are superior in quality - and it is quite audible. From the point of view of playback 16/44 and 24/96 - the difference is negligible. For recording, mixing and editing - the highest float possible is advised. 

 

[zdkaiser]

I have seen Western Digital 1TB hard drives at Target for $40 USD new. Storage space is no longer an issue today. So, give me 24/96 HD files! It is a no brainer. Even if there isn't a huge night and day difference in 16/44.1 & 24/96, I appreciate the HD versions better, solely for the piece of mind, "this is the highest audio quality I can have." There really is no downside to having 24/96 files with $40 TBs.