Better than Live??
- Thread starter DaveyF
- Start date
I just would like to throw this out and it will not be for everyone: Concerts in Your Home. No cost to join as hosts. www.concertsinyourhome.com
Great people to work with and musicians are really looking for good home venues to perform. They make their money from you collecting donations from your concert guests. I would be happy to share anything I can. This is our webpage: http://www.concertsinyourhome.com/hostEdit/host.php?huid=dsmall
At the very worst, you can decide for yourselves about Live vs. recorded. Buy your performer's CD, have them come and play.
I vote Live is better and not the same as recorded!
Great people to work with and musicians are really looking for good home venues to perform. They make their money from you collecting donations from your concert guests. I would be happy to share anything I can. This is our webpage: http://www.concertsinyourhome.com/hostEdit/host.php?huid=dsmall
At the very worst, you can decide for yourselves about Live vs. recorded. Buy your performer's CD, have them come and play.
I vote Live is better and not the same as recorded!
For me, a good audio system does seem to capture the essence of a live concert. When I hear a great orchestral recording on good, big speakers I am still startled sometimes by its 'symphonic-ness', and I don't feel short changed as though the sound is vastly different from what I would be hearing in the real concert hall.
But, I also enjoy TV, films and books which are widely acknowledged as requiring 'suspension of disbelief' in order to enjoy them. My TV is only 32" and my books are just the regular size. Am I just quite good at suspending disbelief?
I've also been a bit of a musician since childhood, so does that mean I am listening to different things compared to the average audiophile?
http://parasam.me/2012/08/18/why-do-musicians-have-lousy-music-systems/
I certainly listen to different music compared to the average audiophile.
But, I also enjoy TV, films and books which are widely acknowledged as requiring 'suspension of disbelief' in order to enjoy them. My TV is only 32" and my books are just the regular size. Am I just quite good at suspending disbelief?
I've also been a bit of a musician since childhood, so does that mean I am listening to different things compared to the average audiophile?
http://parasam.me/2012/08/18/why-do-musicians-have-lousy-music-systems/
I certainly listen to different music compared to the average audiophile.
A friend of mine organizes one of these once a year in his basement. The highlight was a Pat Dinizio (of Smithereens fame) gig. Fantastic.
I put your words above in bold because therein lies the difference between live and recorded. You can have the essence of a live event from a recording, but you can't have all of the information that was there to be heard live. Even though what you hear from your recordings is good enough that you don't feel shortchanged, that's a different feeling than thinking you have heard everything that a live event would provide.
I'm starting to feel like a minority here as more and more people are declaring their stereo systems can outperform live music. Who knew the goal of the TAS has not only been achieved, but now stereo systems have surpassed the sound of live instruments?
In many cases a recording will convey more detailed musical information than the live event. I have Crosby & Nash "Another stoney evening on DVD-A", and also seen them live a few times. Being present at the live event does not come close to capturing the subtleties of the vocal harmonies and even the nuance of the guitar playing captured on disc. Having said that the live event captures cues that are obviously not present in my basement. Just a different experience. It is a bit like a sports event. I personally much rather watch a game on my big screen at home. You miss all the ambiance, but you see the actual game in more detail....
A so called "live" concert coming through speakers in an auditorium isn't "live" to me. I really don't care if I can see a rocker on a stage performing. I would rather listen to their studio album. It just sounds better, plus I don't have to contend with the crowds or the amenities (or lack thereof) at the concert.
Many people's home systems are far better than the sound from an auditorium system in a public venue.
Last edited:
I hear what you are saying, but I think we are really talking about two different things here and thus are talking past each other. Part of the group likes the sound perspective they achieve at home better than what they hear live. Better detail of this or that instrument, subtle vocal cues, etc, etc. I get those types of preferences along with the "I hate crowds, coughing, sneezing, farting, poor acoustics in the venue," and on and on. What I'm specifically referring to is the scale and dynamics of instruments heard live vice being recorded and played back at home. And I don't care if you have a stereo system with 400 subwoofers and 15,000 watts of power that scares small children and large animals, it's still not the same as heard live.
It is undoubtedly true that no sound system in my basement could have recreated the sheer visceral impact of Cold Play live in the Philips Arena. A solo singer with guitar my system can definitely emulate very realistically. Even a grand piano (2L nordic surround sound) sound dynamically as good as a real piano in my room.
Not even close of course. Thankfully I might add. I have been threathened with divorce over acoustic bass reproduction. Realistic drumkit will push the wife over the edge. I also have the impression that most recorded drums are turned down in the mix relative to their loudness in live performances.
I have more than a few jazz recordings that contain incredibly realistic sounding drum kits and fantastic sounding drum solos. The drums always sound in balance with the other musicians (or the great majority of the time) playing during the non-solo parts. I don't think it is just a 'loudness' issue. I think it's more an energy intensity/density issue.
On most of my recordings the drums sound lower in "volume" (or density/dynamic) than the rest of the band relative to what I would hear in a live setting. I have 4x 15" powered woofers and a system flat to 10Hz, so this is not the issue. Also, on some recordings (rarely) the drums sound balanced, so my system is capable of reproducing it. I think it is the mix in most cases.
Nice! I've had the pleasure on more than one occasion of having Philip to myself, so to speak, and he just loves to pull music in all formats from his collection and, short of the ultra hi-rez files in Sony's vault, he may have the best collection of quality recordings of anyone on the planet. Well, ok, Philip and Bruce.
I came really close to purchasing a Bardo a couple of years ago and still have my sights on it.
However, while the group was listening, the presenter asked what the group thought of the sound....and to my absolute amazement, one of the listener's opined that this sound was better than "live"
Apparently, this guy does listen to "live" music BUT stated that in the typical venues that one hears "live" music...that this system sounded better to him. I am NOT of this opinion, BUT it is an interesting opinion nonetheless. Have we come far enough with our best system's to state what he said?
As one who now is closing in on about 500 concerts - and, as an aside, the Stones are coming back to the Bay Area and Mick Taylor will be playing with them ... YES!!! - I do not find it even close, i.e., recorded music, even on the best systems with the best recordings, still lacks. Amongst many explanations for this: (1) simple science: to date recorded and then reproduced music cannot equal, let alone surpass live; (2) capital A audiophile: the extent to which one listens to one's gear rather than the music; and, (3) highly dependent upon the individual: the suspension of disbelief; I wish I had that ability but, alas, I don't.
-- If we look at a real trumpet, does it look like a midrange driver on the front face of a speaker's enclosure? ...A piano?
What's best; the real thing, or the electronical thing? ...Some like real life, others like more illusions. ...It's an art to live harmoniously in both. ...A balancing art.
* I think that most of us we live in a world of illusions.
...It's ok though, it frees us from the often sad reality.
It's the exact same with forums of the Internet.
>>> Two completely different systems, entities. ...Inside life, and outside live.
What's best; the real thing, or the electronical thing? ...Some like real life, others like more illusions. ...It's an art to live harmoniously in both. ...A balancing art.
* I think that most of us we live in a world of illusions.
...It's ok though, it frees us from the often sad reality.
It's the exact same with forums of the Internet.
>>> Two completely different systems, entities. ...Inside life, and outside live.
Last edited:
Ron, I was VERY pleasantly surprised by the Bardo. It was better this time than when I had heard it before and it was superior sounding to the digital playback system. The digital system ( which was also great) consisted of a Macbook Pro feeding into a 'prototype' Luxman Dac...which I think is their upcoming revision of the DA200. BTW, this DAC was a great piece, clearly showing the differences between the standard 44.1 over sample and the up samples.
One thing that IMO is clear, at least to my ears, is that the sound of individual instruments heard live is a LONG way from what we can currently reproduce with our systems. Another thing that seems very hard to reproduce is the overall 'gestalt' of the live experience. This has to be dictated by the size of our listening rooms among other things. When I attended a full orchestra/band playing in a large auditorium the other day, this became extremely evident to me. No system ( at least that i have ever heard) is capable of portraying the "swell" of sound that the real hall brings to the experience.
Last edited:
Ron, I was VERY pleasantly surprised by the Bardo. It was better this time than when I had heard it before and it was superior sounding to the digital playback system. The digital system ( which was also great) consisted of a Macbook Pro feeding into a 'prototype' Luxman Dac...which I think is their upcoming revision of the DA200. BTW, this DAC was a great piece, clearly showing the differences between the standard 44.1 over sample and the up samples.
One thing that IMO is clear, at least to my ears, is that the sound of individual instruments heard live is a LONG way from what we can currently reproduce with our systems. Another thing that seems very hard to reproduce is the overall 'gestalt' of the live experience. This has to be dictated by the size of our listening rooms among other things. When I attended a full orchestra/band playing in a large auditorium the other day, this became extremely evident to me. No system ( at least that i have ever heard) is capable of portraying the "swell" of sound that the real hall brings to the experience.
---- Amen!
Again as i said the venue is crucial...but i am not totally an A and B guy....with parallel processing going on,
what sound "better" or "best" is such a subjective thing. Thank you for sharing opinions and video.. this forum is always a learning experience for me.
what sound "better" or "best" is such a subjective thing. Thank you for sharing opinions and video.. this forum is always a learning experience for me.
Similar threads
