Home HiFi better than Live?

My initial response to this was that if you think your home rig sounds better than a live concert, then you need to go to better concerts. I'd take Carnegie Hall over my living room any day.

But since we all listen to a lot more recorded music than live music, and since recording allows all sorts of effects that you cannot get live (like a sense of intimacy at an arena show!), it's possible that many folks have just gotten used to the feeling of having these "musicians" 10 feet away from them, and having the various instruments discretely arranged across the soundstage (an effect you often do not get in a live venue). So I could see where some people might actually prefer Memorex.

But on third thought, you need to go to better concerts.

I agree you have to go to a good live concert to make a fair comparison. A crappy concert is the same as a crappy audio system.

They have very nice concerts at the arts center at George Mason University. The accoustics of their beautiful looking hall are terrible. I only go if I decide it is worth the expense to get seats close to the stage, because otherwise is not worth the trip to get bad sound.

I'm with Lolo!

Many of the musicians I've discovered I even heard them live first or until I heard them live I was not interested too much in their records or CDs.

Moreover I see no point listening to classical music through the speakers... Resolving? Worm? What system can realy reproduce a real grand-piano or Cello? Some of the reference recording by Chesky records do make me too bored with lower-than mediocre performances. On live concert you choose and you get what you choose.

To the amplified live performances I guess that the key point is the concert hall or concert place. Yes, very often the sound is horrible, but seing musician getting a live performance for you is exiting and pleasing despite the quality of a sound. I realy try to get the right spot for the particular concert hall so I can listen see and enjoy. And I don't give a $hit how Robert Fripp sounds live and always enjoy watching and listening him playing!.

Sugarbrie, You are near Baltimore? I live in Washington D.C. and could not agree more with you more. I go to the Kennedy center frequently and last Friday we listened to Tchaikovsky 5th. It was great. There is no comparison. Where are you playing with Dave Brubeck on the 30th. I would like to see that. Thanks! Bob

This is one those questions where the answer is "it depends". My experience has been that all of the classical concerts are much better sounding and more engaging live. I think this is a direct result of the venue being better acoustically, but more importantly, the lack of amplification. Almost every rock concert I have been to has had horrible sound; too loud, too much bass, and unintelligable lyrics. I think this is partly from the poor acoustics of the venue, but probably more so from the reproduction chain (low-fi) and the sound mixer who has got to be deaf from doing this on a daily basis! Regardless of the bad sound rock concerts can still be very engaging because of the experience (go figure). Now having said that, one of the most disappointing concerts I've been to was Peter Gabriel about ten years ago. I had listened to his "Plays Live" LP and CD countless times (one of my favorites) and loved it. Good sound, great performance. The concert was nothing like the recording, the sound was horrible (it was in an arena, uggh), the mix was bad, and I was in the nose bleed section so I couldn't see Peter or his band very well. The worst part was I heard people saying how good the concert was afterward, I bet they like Bose too! And I won't get into the cost of tickets for this form of "entertainment". Anyway, the point is acoustic venues will almost always be better than recorded. Keeping the chain as simple as possible is the key to great sound.