2. speakers
  3. 1302904717

System versus live

To sound live, I have tried, in building my system, to get so many things correct. Dynamic range, Prat, Tone, Coherence, Body, Weight, Visceral momentum, Spatial perspective, etc. I remember being on a ferry ride, listening to a small ensemble, amazed at the beauty and artistry of the musicianship, along with the proper "air" of how the notes started and stopped, and being so engulfed in the performance. I have been on and near performers on stage, with the same amazement. My system touches on all of these things, but it is not "live". Before the system, room and listening position, one must consider the recording itself. Microphones, mic preamps, console faders, acoustics used for the recording, and a whole lot more. Then we have the monitors used for the final product(headphones or speakers) and the engineer(s) who put it together. Then, it is transferred and transferred again. Labels such as Mapleshade and Sheffield Labs(I just happen to have many)go to great lengths to minimize the "electronics", as well as some other aspects, of their recordings, to sound live and pure. Being a member of Audiogon, as well as some other forums, and, being a devoted audiophile, music listener, consultant and above all else, a human being, I ask this question. How "live" do you think your system really is ?
mrdecibel
c1ferrari
464 posts
 

Shadorne,

I like your choices for music :-) I noticed your system...ATC -- another very nice choice!

Best regards,

Sam
ngjockey
1,042 posts
 
Against amplified concerts, system easily. Against a piano or violin in a small room, system nowhere close. Then again, have one Marcia Ball CD that comes pretty close. No interest in chamber ensembles anyhow. The music I listen to gets amplified.

Funny that Shadorne mentions Tower of Power, because the last concert of theirs, closed my eyes and scrutinized a few times. Great to see though.
sogood51
2,157 posts
 
Probably a good test would be someone like Patricia Barber. Her recordings are very well recorded, and she performs at the Green Mill Lounge in Chicago often.

Huge concert hall stuff just does not down size.

Dave
buconero117
2,311 posts
 
Live, with the exception of classical,jazz and cabaret, is the worse way to listen to music, but it is a great social event. The amount of amplified sound you typically get makes it not worth listening to.
mrdecibel OP
3,065 posts
 
Hi all and thanks for the responses. I thought it would be a fun topic and I understand it might have been mentioned here before. There is no question that concerts that use amplification are somewhat easy to duplicate, or even exceed in quality, with a system. The live performances I am talking about are those without the use of any amplification. Everyone should experience some like this. When I lived in NY, jazz clubs in the city were small and set up like this. Street vendors in Central Park were always present, playing there hearts out. My wife playing piano(early in our marriage) was a great source of enjoyment. I was a singer in my early years and it gave me much experience listening to voices and accompanying instruments, all with out amplification. These are the types of "live" that I am speaking of, and this is what drives me to create duplication, which I cannot. Amplified arenas and stadiums are so bad, as mentioned by many of you, who would want this in there living room. But if I were Samantha of Bewitched and can twinkle my nose to have one of my favorite artists and the band in my living room, why not. I will take an "Unplugged" performance any day.It is scary to me and some of my audio buddies how realistic my system can sound, and I am not just talking decibels, but, at the end of the day, "it is far from being live". I think we can all agree that the "audiophile" recordings we own and listen to, that use less microphones, dubbing techniques, etc. sound more real, or live. Most recordings fail to bring us closer. Thanks again for joining this thread and happy listening. MrD
More to discover