Is there anything better than live recordings?

Other than attending the concerts themselves?

I say NO.




What's better than a live recording is a live recording that YOU engineered.  Having spent some time doing location recording, you've learned what works and have brought it home.  When you play it back at home and it feels like it did live, THEN you've got the ultimate in audiophile experience, one that very, very few in these forums has ever known.

Mortgage your house.  Sell your children.  Spend untold amounts of money on your system and it will still not compare to the joy of engineering the recording of a live performance, bringing it home and having it sound that good at home.

@gosta Thanks for suggesting Live at Hull--I didn't even know about this recording!  I've been streaming it and enjoying it.  Without comparing them directly, from my memory the guitar and drums sound better than Leeds;  I think the vocals are mixed too low, but given the state of PAs back then (and how loud the Who played), this might be an accurate portrayal of what the audience heard, and I think it's a more complete concert.  I'm doubtful that either recording captures the low end that well; even though Entwhistle emphasized the treble at this time, I would think his bass would have had more low frequencies than these recordings reflect, a low end better captured on Tommy, for which he was similarly playing a Precision Bass, probably through a 4 x 12 cabinet.

only Studio is real!


live albums r ok, rather see live. 

gary,Moore, we want,Moore 

and thin lizzy, UFO, scorps are only a handful of,live albums I will waste my time with

A famous musician once compared studio recording to live performing as building a ship in a bottle vs being in a rowboat on the open sea. 

I'll listen to nearly any quality of live recording if the performance is compelling enough. The studio setting allows for a broader pallet of tools to be used in the creative process. Live performance is art in real time.