In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
chung wrote:

Perhaps you should read Nichols' account more carefully. He was *NOT*
comparing the sound of the CD vs live. He was comparing the live sound
of the band vs what the two recorders' outputs sounded like.

Does anyone have a link to the original account? Again, I'm not trying
to make a big deal out of this seemingly trivial story; I'm only saying
that it is ironic in several ways, if, as I suspect, the band didn't
play all together in the studio.

I provided a link the the original when I posted the account here, and again
a day or two
ago. Btw, your suspicion is *directly* contradicted by what Nichols wrote.
*I* suspect you
are confusing final product -- a record that contains overdubs etc -- with
*sessions* , for
which there is no reason to believe there *could not* have been musicians
playing together.
Not to mention that for a 'session' whose *purpose* was to compare two pieces
of recording
gear,

That's the part that I missed.

rather than to rehearse or record for the album, it is ludicrous to
'suspect' that Roger
Nichols and Donald Fagan couldn't have set up a live-feed-vs.-recording.

Here is the link *again* (third time I've posted now). Might I ask that you
desist from
'speculating' further until you've read Nichols' account?

Look, Steven, there's no need to be cranky. I missed the 2nd time you
evidently posted the link, and I guess that I misread the first time. I
admitted that Nichols obviously preferred digital in my last post. I
haven't been reading as carefully as I normally would for the past week
or so due to work pressures.