Home HiFi better than Live?


From all the magazines and discussions I have seen, it appears that almost everyone of them compares systems and equipment to Live music as the reference standard. That may be the ultimate comparison but it appears to me that I prefer a good home HiFi setup and well produced software to Live music any day. I have been to numerous concerts and never ever get the feeling that the performers are performing for me alone as I do in my own system. I feel alot more emotional involvement from the entertainers in concerts but I don't feel it is any better sound than my HiFi at home.
Admittedly I will say that I do not have the best sense of hearing every nuance in musical performances but I actually like the way my system make warmer, clearer, and softer sounds than live music. Am I the only person who feels this way?
BTW, my own system consists of Levinson reference components and Amati speakers, the analog part is Oracle, Morch and ZYX, so I may be spoiled a bit in this regard.
fwangfwang
I read through all the above posts, and to me Seaandtaylor99 (just above) said it all for me-- "two totally different experiences"-- and both are enjoyable. Seeing and hearing Buddy Guy live though-- crappy acoustics and all-- was a great, but once in a lifetime, experience for me! Cheers. Craig
My goal is to get out and listen to live music at least once a week: mostly acoustic "folk" music, bluegrass, country, blues in a small venue. I prefer the local bar or coffehouse where I can sit where I want to sit for the best sound, if I get there early enough. The sound varies depending on where you stand in the room. I do not prefer venues where there are rows of seats, assigned or not - I can not move around to find the best sound.
In live music situations where I can move around and sit or stand where I want to sit or stand, I always enjoy the sound better than the sound of my stereo. (I also like to drink a beer when I listen to live music, which is why I prefer the bar scene.)
Back when I lived in Dallas, I would go to the Honky Tonks, ("Cowboys", Country 2000, Red River, the Top Rail) and would pay ten dollars to hear a "big name country star": Leroy Parnell, Steve Wariner, Gary Stewart, Exile, Rick Trevino.... There was the stage, and in front of the stage was the dance floor where people would stand to watch and listen, and people would dance behind the listeners. I could move about the dance floor, and I found the place where the vocals were the clearest and that is where I would stand. If I stood somewhere else, the vocals would be muddled. In a bar or club or honky tonk type venue, the quality of the sound depends on where you stand. I never went to the famous "Billy Bob's" honky tonk in Ft. Worth, because of the assigned seating up by the stage, and I could not stand where I could hear quality sound. I went to hear Gary Stewart once at Billy Bobs, and the sound and experience was so mediocre, I never went back there again.
So to answer the origional post, I prefer live music over my stereo, especially if I can move around the venue and not have an "assigned" seat.
Mfkeleher, I agree and relate with you! I have always wanted to be sitting next to the guy who yelled “Whipping Post”. The last few concerts I went to (Beethoven’s 9th and a Traffic reunion) my fellow concert goers coughed, talked and yelled during performances. How can a person enjoy the show when the person next to you is sucking there dinner from between his teeth? Or how about the large person trying to get to the center of the row and sticks their HUGE, well perfumed rear end in your face.

Yes, there is nothing that can match a live performance in the right venue but for me I’d rather sit is my recliner with a cup of coffee and Ludwig blasting.
Yea, despite all of my verbiage (arguably) to the contrary, Seandtaylor99 and Garfish hit it on the head -- they're inherently different beasts, each enjoyable in its own right, and the extent to which one approximates the other is often wonderful, sometimes meaningful, but really somehow secondary. Music in any form is worthy of enjoyment. Isn't that the bottom line? Anyone's preferences based on recourse, circumstance and personal preference is hardly a basis for all of the puffery, bombast, and patronizing that some of the posters (myself included, mea culpa) seem to be shading towards. If it sounds good and you're having fun, then you're doing it right. Kick back, enjoy.
I'm glad I managed to bring some agreement. I've thought for a long time that, unless the recording engineers are genuinely trying to recreate a live performance (as they usually are with jazz, classical, and some rock/pop albums) that the recorded medium is very different, and is best treated as such. Some of my favourite studio albums (Crowded house woodface being an example) are well mixed because the engineer followed the rule of separation : instruments in the same frequency band must be separated in the stereo mix, instruments in the same part of the stereo mix must be separated by frequency. Following this rule leads to a wonderfully airy sound where one can have many different things "going on" without them interfering. Of course it's about as far removed from a live performance as you can get, but it works for me. Many studio albums that try to sound live by making the stereo mix resemble a stage setting end up sounding muddled because the drums are all crushed together in the center, overlapping the vocals, and having bass panned to one side just sounds odd. Engineering is a real art .. as much as the performance itself.