the eyes have it

i read this article this morning and couldn't help but agree with the author. as consumers we are willing to shell out big dollars to get the highest quality visual image we can. a mega mega-pixel digital camera, a wide screen hi-def tv that's bigger than your dining room table, blu-ray dvd's, etc, etc, but yet we reduce our music to it's lowest terms. we squeeze the original high-quality music from our cd's into manageable bites of music data for our portable mp3 players and pretend not to notice the lack of quality. i can say this because i'm a huge violator of this principle myself. a recent inventory of my digital music collection revealed several tracks that were well below my minimum standard of 128 kbps, which is a questionable threshold itself. granted, this whole idea means less to some people than others but it must be noted, there is a difference in sound quality when you start compressing music.
why do our eyes deserve the finest quality and our ears get kicked to the curb? it's just an interesting observation.