Live vs HiFi

[AudioNut]

Originally Posted by howiebrou

For me live concerts with amplified music are not really about note perfect reproduction but about the event, the venue, the atmosphere and your fellow fans. E. g the Eagles at Wembley Stadium you would never recreate the atmosphere there even with the best home theatre system in the world. Without smell there can never be that live feeling.

With classical music the difference is even greater. Being in the Musikveirein in Vienna is an occasion which can not be reproduced. It gets worse with Opera. The number of times I have sat in Opera houses like La scala, Covent Garden, the Lincoln Centre, and even the Verona amphitheatre whilst listening and thought to myself, that my system was crap compared to this is a lot!! Whilst opera is my favourite form of music, I don't listen to it much with my system because it does not move me like the live thing

Howie was "right on" with his comments (As was Pider in an earlier post in this thread).

When you go to a symphony hall, (or opera house) you are going to a place that was precisely designed and built to make the very best of a symphonic performance. A place where the performance of a full orchestra is its reason for being.

A good hall will present the music of a good orchestra with absolute perfection.

You go into the, always beautiful, venue. You take your seat, somewhere in the middle of row 8 or row 10 of the orchestra section. The lights dim, the place becomes quiet, Your total focus, and that of of a thousand or more other souls, is on the stage in front of you. After a little tuning and finally taking their seats, the members of the orchestra sit in rapt attention, awaiting the entry of the concert-master and then the conductor. Some applause, then down to business. The place is dark, the stage is lit, the orchestra is right there in front of you, spread across the stage from left to right.

The music starts - sheer perfection - Nothing you have ever heard at home on your jillion dollar music system can ever prepare you for what you are about to hear.

Classical music sounds "good" at home, but it is a completely different experience, hearing it live in a good hall. It can, and will, chill you to the bone.

I've been trying for years to duplicate what I hear, live in a classical symphonic performance, but haven't ever even come close, nor have I ever heard it accurately reproduced on anyone else's audio system.

Nope, live classical music wins every time!

[BlueChiaro]

I think it's a matter of music focus versus experience focus. Serge's comments imply that he focuses on the specific quality of the musical presentation...preferring "perfect" sound which is more likely studio generated. Others are more experiential...finding the surroundings to be additive to the event, not subtractive.

Personally, I am often disappointed that the music doesn't sound "right" in live performances...assuming that "right" is what I heard on the recording. However, at the same time, the improvisation that can take place at a live event is often the highlight of the night. So, while I often prefer the music from the recording, the live experience tends to be the more memorable moment, for me.

Sent from my DROIDX using A.Aficionado

[tsv_1]

Like any other set of experiences in life, be it golfing, theater, sex, dining, etc, there is a range of perceived "quality". Some instances bordering on the sublime, others - notsomuch.

WRT live musical events, depending on the atmosphere and the attending audience, there is often an ineffable energy that infuses the experience. I remember going to see Supreme Beings of Leisure at the HOB in West Hollywood several years back and wow(!) - what an incredible, incredible show. It was too loud, too crowded, and too short. And before you go "there", no, it wasn't a booze enhanced night for me. Maybe two beers over the course of the entire evening. Anyway, I was so impressed I bought some of their music. It's good, but not great, and no amount of relaxation/convenience in my home setting could recreate the amazing time at HOB. Thus an example where the live performance completely outstripped a recorded playback.

On the flip side, I like Josh Groban (not like the wife or my mother who would gladly commit adultery with that young man). He came up here to Portland a few years back. We went to see him... the ladies all-a-flutter. Half way through the show it was a resounding "meh" for me. He can be pretty pitchy outside of the studio. The sound was good, the musicians were excellent, but the event as a whole left me less than thrilled. I still much prefer his recordings.

Point to all this... as someone posted earlier: I fall somewhere in between. Some live events become amazing life-long memories, others notsomuch.

Now, in another forum, we had a thread where we examined the nature of live sound versus recorded (not so much how we liked or disliked live music, but rather the quality of the sound itself). How is it that you can almost always immediately tell you're hearing live music versus recorded? Say you're in town on a friday night, walk by a place and hear music coming from inside... 99 times out of 100, you can tell whether it's live or recorded even without any visual cues. Anyway - perhaps this is fodder for another thread.

Cheers

[JohnK]

Originally Posted by BlueChiaro

I think it's a matter of music focus versus experience focus. Serge's comments imply that he focuses on the specific quality of the musical presentation...preferring "perfect" sound which is more likely studio generated. Others are more experiential...finding the surroundings to be additive to the event, not subtractive.

Personally, I am often disappointed that the music doesn't sound "right" in live performances...assuming that "right" is what I heard on the recording. However, at the same time, the improvisation that can take place at a live event is often the highlight of the night. So, while I often prefer the music from the recording, the live experience tends to be the more memorable moment, for me.

Sent from my DROIDX using A.Aficionado

I am on the side of live performances, due in part to what BlueChiaro mentions here (and as usual he beat me to it by about 1/2 hour). Let me
give two examples of the unexpected out of many:

Manhattan Transfer, Keswick Theater. Thunderstorm - lightning - lost power.
They paused, of course, then continued singing unamplified. The audience got very, very quiet...they did another number, I think the piano joined in...the voices were sublime, the moment memorable. We were close enough that we
could hear - this is a decent size venue, so I don't know how it worked for people in the back. Then we all left - rules about evacuation and all that.

Bruce Hornsby, solo...Bobby Mcferrin was in the audience and came up and accompanied Bruce, vocally, on a couple of songs. Now I don't think it was coincidental, but it was something that happened only then and there - I don't think they've recorded together. It was of the moment.

I've had many other experiences like that in venues as large as a theater, and as small as someone's living room. There is an energy, a vibe, a feeling at live event that you don't get at home - and there's always the chance for the unexpected to happen...

[Still-One]

I prefer the live performance too. Maybe it comes down to the same reason I prefer to see films at the movies rather than watch them on video at home, or that I would rather attend a football, hockey or basketball game than watch the same contest on TV. In general the sound will be clearer and the picture and viewing angles much better sitting in your own home. Yet I would still rather suffer a bit of poor mixing, the occasional flub, poor sight lines, and a loss in sound clarity, all to experience the music or event with anywhere from 100 to 100,000 other people. The energy does not always come just from the artist(s).

As others have noted, no home system comes close to reproducing a full orchestra, a rock band or a large chorus so that we think we are at the event. At the same time there are many fine systems that are able to capture and reproduce Joe Blow and his guitar or Suzy Q and her violin so that we might be fooled into thinking they are playing in our room.

For me maybe the difference comes down to something as simple as this. While listening to my own system I can easily get lost in the music. Very content, very happy, but observing from the outside. When I attend a live performance to some extent I feel as if I am almost a participating in the event.

Jim

[JohnK]

Oh and maybe I can beat Ivan, posting a picture/ad somewhat related to this thread....

[Rmac]

I've seen these folks in concert in a small, very small setting:



Just wonderful, intimate, lovely, well, you get the picture.

One of the best sounds in a coliseum was in Richmond, VA, forget the year the show was going to be part of a live album, Ozzy Osbourne, incredible!

I saw Judas Priest 7-4-81, the Point Of Entry tour, Halford at one point mentioned "you Americans celebrate this day for some reason…". Forget how many times I saw 'em.

Some artists just don't do well live. I fear a favorite is like this, Stan Ridgway. I've heard his live stuff on cd, not good.

Live is good, but there are pitfalls, at a Cars concert, there were sound issues, a number of songs were played twice.

The Knicks taught me I can no longer stand through a concert! 1980 something.

Blue Oyster Cult with Godzilla!!!!

ELP, War, Ted Nugent, yet I drew the line at Rollin' Stones $150+ ticket cost, in the 80's too.

Oh well, live performances are more than just the band.

[Rilands]

Serge,
My ears usually feel much better after listening to my own system vs. a show. At shows I often walk away wondering if I still have all my hearing still in tact. Probably the best show I ever heard that sounded amazing was Tracy Chapman.
When I go to a show, I'm hoping to get a great "show" out of the band. I got that from a guy I saw last week named Peter Brandon. The guy was a great crowd pleaser. I like a show where the band/group is there to win you over and go all ba..s out. The sound is secondary there for me.

Oh, and I do like to get a t-shirt and see performers in person. We make a night of it, dinner and the show.

[GaryProtein]

There are times I love live music and times that I hate it.

What I don’t like about live music: I have always disliked rock concerts. After each one I attended, I swore I would never do it again. I got my first component system when I was 12 and my first Mc system when I was 19 thanks to my childhood and teenage lawn mowing and snow blowing businesses and always preferred its sound to the overly loud, distorted sound of live rock. As I got older, I clearly started to intensely dislike the crowds. Since my twenties, I became increasingly intolerant of the audience standing, waving, yelling, making noise, humming, wearing stinky perfume, allowing their cell phones to ring, you name it. I pay $150 a ticket to see and hear what is on stage, not to see and hear an audience participate in the concert. To this day, when we go to Lincoln Center, Avery Fisher Hall, the Metropolitan Opera, Broadway shows or my childrens’ school concerts, I AM THE CHIEF SHUSHER. The guy you hear loudly and obnoxiously telling you to shut the hell up and to stop unwrapping your candy is ME.

What I like about live music: That is how music should be heard. It in most cases, especially in the minds of classical composers (you know, the dead ones before the twentieth century) envisioned their music to be heard. But the old world pomp and ceremony of going to the opera and other performances is gone. The inconsiderate slobs who attend, ruin it for the rest of us who want to see a pristine performance in all its splendor.

If I had to choose between live and recorded music, I have to say I would chose recorded music without giving it a second thought. That is why I own the equipment I have. If I close my eyes, I am at Symphony Hall, or seeing the Rolling Stones, or Spyro Gyra, sans the distractions. In my experience, only recitals for a small group of people (50-75 people at most) is the only way to have quiet, well behaved audience paying attention to what is on stage.

I don’t even want to listen to music with anyone else around. There is a difference between background music and really listening. It seems no one can sit still and not feel the need to talk anymore. Conversation or noise of any kind is NOT permissible while listening to music. If you want to talk, go somewhere quiet and do that. I don’t even want to hear someone in the room cough. Hell, I don’t even like it when I cough. I do my best listening when no one else is home or when everyone else is asleep. The sound is clean, clear, and I can play it loud, soft or how ever I want.

For me, there is no contest. Recorded music wins.

[tigerhonaker]

Serge, ...

I think I mostly prefer HiFi at home! Is it me or do others sometimes feel this way too?

I personally prefer being right here at Home in my HT and Seeing & Watching than going out to a {Live-Performance}.

And many yrs. ago I did attend some and to be honest and I only speak for myself,
(I could barely hear when I got out of the building)
After doing a few more I made the decision I wanted to hear when I got older so that wrapped it up to me.
I'm more speaking here of Live Rock type concerts.

I think I made the right decision because I can still hear and very well.

As I said I only speak for what I prefer and certainly on this site would never attempt to sway others.

One last comment on this.
For myself I have a very large investment in my New HT and I much prefer being right here at Home and not dealing with the Public.
I want to See & Hear the performers, not listen to the over zealous crowd surrounding me.
I'm pretty sure I have gotten older as the comments show.

Terry