"You can relive moments that, in a jazz club or concert hall, are fleeting. And in the reliving, is it a "snare" to want the sound to be as close to the concert hall as technology and one's budget can manage?"

This raises the question of whether a live performance, for all its vivacity, may even be considered high-fidelity. Although I do enjoy live music, I have to confess the sound at live venues is frequently substandard, whether we're talking about jazz clubs, rock arenas, or symphony halls. If you have the best seats in the house, maybe that's true (although I have serious doubts that it is in many cases). DGG's binary stereo recording technique did work, and did let you hear Stravinsky performed exquisitely by the Berliner Philharmoniker. Yet a flute doesn't carry as well as a trumpet, and so recording engineers resorted to putting microphones all over the place and sweetening the mix at the board. You may claim this is an "artificial" sound, but you could also claim that this is a legitimate expression of musical concepts.

OK, I'm digressing. But the transients that Kaplan effuses over may not be heard even when you're in the first row at a live performance. I'm certainly glad to be able to hear nuances in music (I resurrected my JBL L112 speakers a few months ago and have been immensely enjoying their impressive harmonic range), but I hope no one really considers "live" to be the ultimate benchmark for good sound.

Live music doesn't sound as good as a highly massaged studio mix. Fool yourself about this if you want.

That said, there is no substitute for being in the presence of a live performance of music. It's not about the sound quality. It is all about the human experience of being there.

I love to experience a good blues band playing live. I have no interest whatsoever in hearing even the best quality recording of the same music.