Home HiFi better than Live?

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.

It totally depends on what you're listening to. A couple of my absolutely favorite bands are my favorite bands precisely because their shows are some of the most fun you can have with your clothes on. That said, they can't seem to lay down a decent track to save thier lives -- so listening to it at home is not just bad, it's a complete waste of time.

Most amplified music, when played live, is amplified through crappy stuff, with crappy acoustics and sounds exactly like you'd expect it to sound under the circumstances. Get ahold of the studio tracks, or even well recorded live tracks where they take the time to do a better job because they know it's being recorded, and play it through the old hi-fi it will likely sound a lot better than your average stage show. If this is what you listen to and why you listen, yea, home will sound better -- of course it will. (Which doesn't necessarily have the slightest thing to do with which is more fun or engaging, which is another story and could go either way depending on a whole host of things including, among other things, whether you actually have your clothes on, which is easier to accomodate at home and, like I said, a whole different story...).

The real trick, as noted repeatedly, is the unamplified stuff. From a good seat in a good house, an orchestra sounds like an orchestra in countless ways speakers never will. That said, a good seat, a good house, plus a good orchestra is not always the easiest combination to come by, so it's easy to imagine how, on a whole, folks could get consistently better results and sound at home (but don't give up on the live stuff yet, if done right it's where it's at).

The real test, as far as I am concerned, is to have a couple of professional musicians over, preferably folks from whom you actually have some of their recordings, get them to bring their instruments (trumpet, sax, guitar, violin, great if you've got a piano, whatever), ply them with wine (always appreciated) and see if you're even tempted to turn on the stereo. (Hint: you won't be. Trust me.)