Is there anything better than live recordings?

I think U2 is great example of a band that's better live than in the studio.

One of my fav bands for sure!

@larsman Oh I realize the OP wasn't talking about bootleg recordings BUT for a period of time in the 70s through the 80s there were vinyl bootleg pressings of live shows that, for all appearances, looked like legitimate label pressings. I had several that I acquired at record swap meets I used to go to with my dad in the 80s.  I do think live recordings can be very good and as I said, it's very dependent upon the band, their sound engineer, and the venue. But if someone makes the claim that live recordings are the best...it comes with several qualifications. As we all know, even studio recordings can be crappy sometimes! 

@jjbeason14 The last time I saw U2 live was the Joshua Tree tour. After that, the venues were too big and getting great tickets became a struggle. One of my favorite live albums Under a Blood Red Sky. When they played at Red Rocks for the War tour I couldn't get my dad to take me to see them and he wouldn't let me go by myself at age 11. Instead he took me to go see Chuck Berry at the Rainbow music hall. 

@bipod72 - good points - back in the 70's, there were a few record shops that I would scour for the latest bootlegs from Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, etc etc. Some sounded decent, but most were pretty dreadful audience recordings.

@larsman What does and doesn't surprise me is that there's a market for rare bootlegs now from a collector's standpoint but certainly not from an audiophile standpoint. You're right that many/most were dreadful audience recordings. I recall reading about some guy in California in the 70s that would go to shows by Zep, Tull, etc, and roll up in a wheelchair with a tape recorder hidden underneath. He apparently made some good recordings and then gave bootleg copies out for free.