Why I like my home system better than live music

People complain about rock concerts being to loud and they have a point. But remember a full orchestra can also go over 100 dB. I have been to a concert hall and depending on the piece played it can reach SPL where it almost starts to hurt. When you have over a 100 musicians in a orchestra hall going full out with a large copper section it can get really loud. Many musicians are a "little" deaf because of this. Especially the one sitting just in front of the copper section.

It seems like there are a few people who like their stereos more than music itself.

While I appreciate a great sounding concert (from a sound quality perspective), I've never gone to one for the sound quality. Call me crazy, but I think going to a concert is all about the artists doing what they do best.

If you think your stereo sounds better than the real thing, have a good acoustic guitar player play in your room in the sweet spot, then put on your best recorded acoustic guitar track and compare. No contest. Same can be said for just about any instrument, except instruments that need to be moved further away due to volume - drums and cymbals, etc.

I've heard several systems that easily cost more than the national average home price. No, I don't own one and don't really have a desire to (on offense meant to anyone who does). None sounded nearly as good as a real sax being played. There's a presence to live instruments that gets lost in every recording.

I'm sure many will disagree. I have no problem with that.

Kbark, I play the classical guitar so I know how acoustic guitar should sound like. With the right speakers and good recording, I can get fooled into thinking there is someone in front of me playing the guitar live. It's when you get into complex music like an orchestral piece that the illusion of live music falls apart in almost all systems I've heard.

If you like going to crappy sounding halls to listen to music, more power to you. You gots more choices but for me a bad hall could ruin a performance because whatever the artist intended get screwed up by the bad acoustics.

We the audience will never know how the artist intended that music. Most of the time the artist doesn't have any say in the mixing or production process of an album.

The "storm" sound effects with "riders on the storm" was not an idea by the Doors. The original Let it be Album by the Beatles was also heavily modified by Phil Spector.

I think this happens all the time. The artist delivers the raw material and the label will turn it into an album of which they hope they will sell millions.

Good thread and thought provoking on many levels. I enjoy both but can certainly see when it's not possible to hear an artist anymore (ie. deceased, etc) that it's not only better but the ONLY way to listen to them is at home and it may as well be a really good hifi! Besides, listening to some recordings is such a time machine that it can't be compared to going and hearing live music. I dig em both and
really put them side by side as equals in the thirst for the beautiful art of music. (but man oh man, hearing Sarah Vaughn belt it out in an outdoor covered venue is one I will NEVER forget!)