Home HiFi better than Live?

My perspective is principally classical. I'll take a live performance any day; home hi-fi is nice in its own way but is a completely different animal. There is no way any home stereo system is going to match the sheer power and volume of sound of a symphony orchestra going full tilt, let alone even the sound of a single Guarneri del Gesu in a living room (either from a sheer loudness perspective or in getting the overtones and harmonics that you hear live right). It's partially the shortcomings and limitations of the recording process and partially the fact that no speaker can move as much air, among other things. In addition, as another poster noted, there is a spontaneity to a live performance that, with a great artist, can lead to far many more "magical" moments than you get from a recording, particularly a studio recording, which often can sound too cautious in comparison (one of the reasons I like recordings of live concerts).

I'm really so sorry you haven't found a way to enjoy LIVE MUSIC. I find you're comments somewhat dishearting and depressing. I don't have the time or patience to educate you on how you missed the fundamental point. Perhaps some other AUDIOGONER can explain it to you. And, I'm not sure you are capable of understanding. No offense- some just don't have the ability or desire to think on a higher level. Ever hear the phrase "dumbing down"? I am curious to know if you also prefer porn to making love or machines? They have machines that can do anything these days. Technology is great! You get the analogy? BTW- I don't think you should ever tell anyone you don't prefer LIVE MUSIC. Makes you look bad, especially to a musician or members of the opposite sex.

My sixteen year old son holds that view based, I think, on rock concerts and the outdoor concerts he has heard at the Montreal Jazz Festival over the years. His main beef is with the fact that at live events you can't clearly hear the words of vocals. I think that with most performances being over amplified by going through pa systems of dubious quality and being equalized, he may have a point. For my part, I believe that it is very difficult to top a live event. Firstly, it involves more than just hearing the performance in front of you. You can see the performance, feel the audience, smell what is going on (particularly at rock concerts...). Nothing compares to the live event. When I was younger, the acid test for a band was whether it sounded like it's recordings when seen live. I can tell you the Stones going back to 1965 couldn't pass that test. As rock albums became more and more a product conjured up in the studio, the link between the live event and recordings became more tenuous. So I gave up on linking the two to any great degree. When it comes to acoustic performances, in a good hall, I have yet to hear a system that can really duplicate the event. Even live music by buskers or by musicians playing in malls and the like has an immediacy lost in recording. The one thing that I find missing in recordings is the leading edge of sounds, the initial attack of the instrument. The other much broader area where recordings fall short is in reproducing the acoustic space in which music is performed. This frontier can only be reached, I believe, with multi channel systems. Unfortunately, their association with HT and the well-entrenched two channel bias of high-enders is making the likelihood of these systems succeeding less likely. That any individual prefers the recorded sound to the live event is a question of taste and expectations. I love live recordings, warts and all, to me they sound more like someone documenting a real event than a bunch of people cutting and pasting. The Maxwell Street recordings of Robert Nighthawk come to mind. The sound in and of itself may border on the atrocious to the ears of folks used to slick productions, but the music is the blues. The only way of experiencing it is through these recordings. Bottom line: the whole question, put in terms of mutual exclusion is a bit bogus; the live event and recorded music should each be enjoyed for what they are. That we tend to compare the two is the "Absolute Sound" syndrome. The only valid comparison of this sort, to my mind, is to compare an acoustic instrument or group of acoustic instruments that could actually fit in your listening room. That is my main criteria for judging a sound system. We simply are not that well equipped at this time for comparisons of the live version of large scale works to their recorded versions to be valid. Music is to be enjoyed, so that when too many questions spoil the fun, one should step back. To know a living thing is to kill it.

My initial response to this was that if you think your home rig sounds better than a live concert, then you need to go to better concerts. I'd take Carnegie Hall over my living room any day.

But since we all listen to a lot more recorded music than live music, and since recording allows all sorts of effects that you cannot get live (like a sense of intimacy at an arena show!), it's possible that many folks have just gotten used to the feeling of having these "musicians" 10 feet away from them, and having the various instruments discretely arranged across the soundstage (an effect you often do not get in a live venue). So I could see where some people might actually prefer Memorex.

But on third thought, you need to go to better concerts.

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.