Hi Arthur,
I find your post interesting but I do not completely agree. If you take for example Rachmaninov’s recordings, the sound is of poor quality but it doesn’t take away the greatness of his playing which could be recognized and enjoyed on any stereo. I think that when the content has substance, the media through which it is expressed is only secondary in its importance.

Hi Edna,
Several points.

1. It's true that Rachmaninoff's recordings sound good even if they are of poor quality. I would first say that they were actually quite good recordings even if still of low quality, and some were, as you well know, piano-rolls recordings which are not bad. More importantly, look how much you enjoy hearing his recording, how do you think it felt to be in the studio when he recorded them, or to hear him in concerts, even if you closed your eyes? I think it was nicer in concerts than the recordings we have. Do we still get something, of course we do. Is it still amazing, of course it is, but think how much nicer it was to actually be there. That's a major difference in the richness of the experience.

2. What you lose in this translation depends on the specifics of the source. Let's take interpreters as translation. I remember Roy speaking on Etgar Keret in post:
"...one issue bothered me and I wanted to pass on an understanding I had from the movie. If you think of composers, there are those who  almost any interpreter sounds good playing, and there are those who you need an extremely good one to make sense of. For the first kind, Verdi comes to mind, and for the second perhaps Mozart. Writers are also divided like that, and as a writer Keret is of the second kind. It is very easy for his stories to lose their sense, and it takes the slightest lack of precision for it to happen. When you write you have full control on everything, but in movies that is rarely the case and the moment you give up control things can  lose their precision and direction."

It is strange but certain qualities pass better through filters than others. Certain people pass better through translations than others, and certain musical instruments can be recorded better than others. Some instruments cannot be usefully played in a concert hall as they are too weak in sound, some can't be recorded well, certain qualities pass in certain occasions and certain don't.

3. It's true that the best seats in the concert halls are expensive, and you could say that the rich always could hear better. But first, acoustically, that is not always correct and in many halls it is the cheapest tickets with the best acoustics, but in any case the difference is minor. Think though of going to a 3D movie without the 3D glasses. You are losing something much more essential, and are only getting some blurry picture. Something will pass, but much won't and whether enough passes or not depends on the movie and its specific qualities.
I think this is more the current example.

4. Using the same excuse people don't mind listening to mp3's of different qualities. I can tell you that when burning cd copies and listening to it, it was hard to tell which was which but, in classical cd's, it was very easy to know by which one I enjoyed more. I did this test with several people and you simply enjoy much more the original cd. Somehow, unconsciously, it packs more of a punch. In rock cd's it didn't make any difference. It also depends on your stereo system.
It's not that I don't listen to classical mp3's, I do, but with certain artist where the sound is especially important it misses a lot. Perhaps it's better than a bad interpreter but it can be so much more. It's mostly a cheaper and much much simpler way to get to know a performer or a piece. Again, depending on your stereo. Most people I know listen by now on their computers and then it probably doesn't make a difference.

5. I also think there is a different between the senses. I always felt that quality of sound is much more important than quality of an image. If the image was blurred I still felt you got most of it, and it was perhaps even better. With sound the quality seems to me more crucial to the richness of the experience. But now with 3D this seems to change. Which points to a direction the future is taking us...

Thanks for all the interesting ideas. I think that one important factor is whether or not the technology appears to be interfering with what's happening. If it is obviously bad, then the listener or viewer often has a remarkable ability to correct for this, and allow the original art to pass somewhat unscathed. But if the technology is bad but appears legitimate, then one simply passes (incorrect) judgment without realizing it. For instance, I wouldn't expect Pola Negri to look like she does in a movie if I saw her on the street, and it's easy to forget all the strange jerks and inconsistencies which come with a bad print of an old movie and simply be amazed by the experience. On the other hand, I have seen a lot of home movies in which the people being filmed looked simply terrible. And if I hadn't known them in person, it never would have occurred to me that this wasn't true, because we are used to believing that a video camera pointed steadily at someone in reasonable lighting tells the truth. The fact that there is a real art to making people look good (and bad) on camera never really enters into our judgment of things, even if we know on some level that this has an effect. Nor do we really think about the fact that what we see on screen isn't reality. It simply replaces it.
So, technology which advertises its interference may not harm things, but technology we are inclined to believe is very dangerous.

Maybe this is related to the fact that a rumor is much more damaging if it is believable.