just because you're going Digital to Digital does mean you'll always get the best sounding transfer.
i take it you meant to say "doesN'T mean..."?
since i have taped three concerts (a newbie) and do have friends who want copies, and do find people to trade with, i have made analogue-analogue copies of my MDs, and aren't really satisfied with the results. thank god the people i trade with don't care, but serious traders do.
sure it is true that just about everyone visiting this site is guilty of being a bit anal when insisting that everything must be perfect and done on the best gear (well not everyone obviously). anyone who is an audiophile is guilty of being a bit anal; i mean, most people will just settle for something reasonably priced that, in their own words, 'plays music'.
but think of it this way - taped concerts are inferior to most studio-recorded music, and its understandable why: the equipment used, and the conditions of the recording just can't compete with a studio (soundboard recordings, however, are a different matter altogether). so why dumb the quality down further? why not make the most out of it and aim for the most accurate reproduction of what was put down on your DAT or minidisc on the night? and why not do it on something with the convenience and universal acceptance of a CD?
back to what you were saying about analogue-analogue copying, i'm not exactly sure of how it can turn out better than digital copies. with the best equipment it might be as good, but better? how?
also it is the case that good analogue recordings can only be made with good soundcards. for example, when i record stuff to my computer through the standard cheap soundcard it came with, i get severe DC offset of about 4 decibels on the left channel.
so the various merits of analogue versus digital doesn't change the fact that i still have to buy a decent soundcard!