Karl Miller raises an intriguing point:

>Several postings on the mailing list of the Association of Recorded
>Sound Archives have addressed the relative merits of the SACD...one
>series of postings raised the question as to whether or not the "Living
>Stereo" recordings were a faithful representation of the sound of an
>orchestra in concert.  Of course there are plenty of discussions having
>to do with the "art" of recording, but do some of you find that some
>labels/engineers capture a more realistic sound than others or is that
>important?

To me, live is live and recorded is recorded, and the standards for both
differ.  I don't mind a bit of massaging, so long as the music is served
and the tweaking doesn't overwhelm one's attention.  In fact - heresies
of heresies - I often prefer recorded sound to what I hear in halls.
First of all, the halls I hear music in aren't necessarily all that
great - too dead or too live.

One of my favorite recordings involved no real hall and no real instruments
- Carlos's original "Switched-On Bach." For the first time, I could hear
all the subsidiary lines of a Brandenburg concerto in perfect balance
and clarity.

Steve Schwartz