Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:48:14 -0700, Norman M. Schwartz wrote
(in article <fu11gu016c3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>):

> "Jenn" <jennconductsREMOVETHIS@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
> news:ftom3q06me@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> In article <ftmlur015pk@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, bob <nabob33@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Apr 10, 8:45 pm, Sonnova <sonn...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 20:36:24 -0700, bob wrote
>>> 
>>>>> No, it doesn't. Live music sounds different to me, every time I hear
>>>>> it.
>>>> 
>>>> I knew someone was going to make JUST that pedantic comment. Of
course 
>>>> it
>>>> sounds "different" every time, but it still sounds like the
instrument 
>>>> or
>>>> the
>>>> set of instruments that it is. But does a sax not sound like a sax - 
>>>> every
>>>> time you hear one? A violin like a violin? A piano like a piano? Can 
>>>> you
>>>> not
>>>> ALWAYS discern live music from canned? I think anybody can. Music and
>>>> reproduction wouldn't mean very much if you couldn't make those
>>>> determinations. The fact that the venue changes some aspects of the 
>>>> sound
>>>> doesn't mean that a saxophone becomes something else. It's always a
>>>> saxophone
>>>> and its always recognizable as a sax and will be every time. Now, I'm

>>>> not
>>>> discounting the possibility that a sax (or any other instrument)
sounds
>>>> different to you than it might to me, but still, the sound that a 
>>>> saxophone
>>>> makes whether different for each of us or the same is stored in our 
>>>> aural
>>>> memory and when we hear one, we think "saxophone". Therefore the
sound 
>>>> of a
>>>> live baritone sax, for instance, is an absolute because it always 
>>>> sounds
>>>> like
>>>> a sax to each of us, even though, if I could hear it as you hear it, 
>>>> not
>>>> having YOUR aural memory, I might think it sounds strange (and vice 
>>>> versa).
>>>> The point is that it sounds like a baritone sax to you and you are
able 
>>>> to
>>>> identify that sound and tell whether its live or reproduced.
>>> 
>>> Granted, the binary distinction live vs. recorded is (at least
>>> usually) clear. But that isn't strong enough to make your point. You
>>> want to be able to determine whether one recorded sound is closer to
>>> live than another recorded sound. I don't think you can do that
>>> without specifying *which* live sound you have in mind--a full Avery
>>> Fisher, or an empty Alice Tully.
>> 
>> I disagree.  Live acoustic music ALWAYS displays distinctive qualities
>> that separate it from any recorded sound.  Live acoustic music produced
>> in Alice Tully, whether full or empty, will always sound like live
>> music, and recorded sound has never displayed the those distinctive
>> qualities.  For example, it's easy to tell the difference between an
>> oboe and an English Horn in any live situation I've ever experienced,
>> even when you don't know the score and can't see which instrument is
>> being played.  It's often possible to even tell the make and model of
>> the instrument.  In the case of recordings, it's sometimes impossible
to
>> tell the difference.
> 
> If you listened to the microphone feed resulting from live music and 
> compared that to a good recording derived from that feed, I bet that you

> would NOT be able to distinguish live from recorded music. 
> 

The microphone feed is not the live event in any sense except time. The 
microphone feed will sound exactly like the recording made from that feed
(or 
rather vice versa) all you need to tell that is a DAT machine or HDD-based

recording system that allows read after write. Been there, done that and
the 
two are, for all intents and purposes, identical.