In the margins, I will clarify that even if the respondent was not obligated to submit to the court the best evidence that it could have obtained, i.e., the complainant's mobile phone, or at least proper secondary evidence in the form of a more professional recording of the content of the main conversation [...] the respondent's refusal to submit the best evidence, which the respondent could have laid her hands on, entails a risk. Perhaps less weight will be given to the evidence submitted by her, in a way that may lead to her failure to meet the burden of persuasion placed on her shoulders."
And more:
"This is also the place to note that it is a litigant who wishes to submit the recording as evidence, who bears the burden of proving its prima facie admissibility, in accordance with the aforesaid conditions. This is when the opposing party may, but is not obligated to, bring its own evidence to prove the technical inadmissibility of the evidence [...].
Over time, case law developed a trend of a certain flexibility in examining the technical admissibility conditions of recording as evidence in a trial. This is mainly the case with regard to proving the fourth condition for the admissibility of a recording, which is concerned with ensuring that no changes were made to the recording itself. Thus, it was held that the purpose of the rule is to ensure that no words were added to the recording that were not actually said by the speakers in it, or that parts were omitted from it, in such a way that the part that remained in the recording did not accurately reflect what was said in it (the Aflalo case; the Snir case). However, it was held that "as long as there is no evidence of malicious manipulation of the recording in order to alter it in one way or another, the fact that parts of it cannot be deciphered or understood or parts of which were not recorded or deleted by mistake, does not invalidate as evidence what can be heard and understood" [...]
In accordance with the aforementioned trend, the courts accepted reels of the recording as evidence, even when they did not continuously document the conversation that was recorded, whether due to a malfunction [...], or due to the deliberate action of the person who made the recording [...]. It was further held, and this relates more to the application of the first two conditions of technical admissibility, that a low quality of a recording will not impair its admissibility as evidence [...].