Re: Digital to Analog downloading Question ?

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 15:56:55 -0700, Jenn wrote
(in article <fu3brn02un6@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>):

> In article <fu11gu016c3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>  "Norman M. Schwartz" <nmsz@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 
>> "Jenn" <jennconductsREMOVETHIS@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>> news:ftom3q06me@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
>>> 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.
> 
> But the mic feed already isn't live, in the the context that I mean it. 

> You're hearing it through a speaker, of course.  I believe that you are 
> correct in your statement, but neither the mic feed nor the recording is

> "live".

Correct. The "live" music has been through at least TWO transducers before
it 
hits your ears.