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
Now there you bring up a whole different debate Fwangfwang....DWL: Drinking While Listening! Alchohol, without any doubts whatsoever, impairs all your senses, including your hearing. That single malt is stopping you from enjoying your expensive high-end system to the fullest possible degree! Really!! You PAID all that money for that remarkable system so you really should be reaping all the benefits...every bit of lifelike realism that it has to offer. So just box up your collection of single malts, and if you have a wine collection you may as well just throw that in too cause those fine red wines are REAL BAD on your hearing...any good port by the way?! Port is the worst..you may as well just stand in a cold shower and tear up all that cash you spent on those fine components if you're DWL! So just carefully bubble wrap all those bottles and float them in a nice bed of styro peanuts in a big-ass box (use a crate if you have more than 20) and ship all that nasty hearing-impairing liquor to me via Fedex...I know just what to do with it, and you'll thank me once you hear the difference listening sober can make!!! Hang onto those Cubans though, I don't smo....er, well, they don't do anything to impair your hearing so they're OK! But get those bottles of fine wines and liquors out of your house and let me take care of them for you! I know you'd do the same if you saw a fellow Audiophile abusing his hearing that way! Any of you other folks doing the DWL thing, I'd be happy to help in any way I can. The worst offenders are those really expensive red wines, 20+ year-old ports and fine single-malts...just write me off the list and I'll send you my address and you can ship them off to me for 'recycling'! No need for thanks...happy to do my part!
I enjoy both experiences. I listen more to my home system and car system, but I've reached higher levels of enjoyment in the live concerts. Miles Davis (1974 and 1986), Micheal Brecker (1990), Santana (1973, 1999 and 2000), Tower of Power (1972), Funkadelic, War, Sly and The Family Stone, Allman Brothers, REO Speedwagon, Luther Vandross, Spyro Gyra, Gil Scott-Heron, Lyle Lovett, Rolling Stones, Buddy Guy, The Eagles, Rare Earth, Anita Baker, Regina Belle and countless others have always taken me a little higher than recorded music..not matter how well reproduced. Still...I enjoy both...live is a little more intense usually.
It is funny how many people say "watching" rather than "listening" to a live concert in their descriptions of how much better the sound is live.... Arthur
I agree with a lot of what Pbb mentioned. Many bands simply aren't capable of playing live with the intensity that is presented in their studio efforts. As such, this is not only a let-down in terms of sonics, it is a let down in terms of overall energy and presentation. None the less, one can still enjoy a show but it's not the same as having a band that really knows how to work the crowd AND sounds great on stage. When you can get both aspects going, you not only have "musicians" but "skilled performers" to thank for what will probably be a very memorable event. Granted, a venue with horrible sonics / and / or a bad sound engineer can make or break the event, but if the people on the stage really know what they are doing, they can somehow make the best of what is basically a bad situation.

Since i've worked as a sound engineer running the mixing boards at live events, i am very critical of what i hear at most amplified concerts. I typically try to work my way up to the front of the stage and listen to each individual instrument and then wander through the crowd. If the sound varies DRASTICALLY between what the musicians sound like up on stage and what is coming through the amplified PA system, i know that the sound man has probably failed to transfer what the band is trying to accomplish sonically. With some of the bands i've heard though, i'm kinda glad the engineer "touched things up a bit" : )

As far as intelligibility at amplified events goes, there are several reasons for "mumble mouth" vocals and a lack of clarity. Many performers have horrible microphone technique and most PA systems flat out suck. What kind of dispersion and transient response are you going to get when using 12", 15" or 18" commercial duty woofers and running them up to 2 or 3 KHz ??? Since most sound reinforcement companies and crews lack listening skills, they look at specs on paper and think that the speakers being sold to them as "Pro Sound" should be as good as it gets. As we've all heard, this is obviously NOT the case.

With that in mind, one can't really blame "horrible" sound on the band in many cases. Much of it falls on the shoulders of the engineers designing "Pro" PA gear and the less than educated people running the sound at the show. Having talked to a few folks that do design such gear, much of what ends up on the market and what they have designed / wanted to promote is a very different thing than what makes it to market. Sean
>

PS... live and recorded are VERY different things in most cases. When you can get a REALLY well recorded live performance, the two can be pretty close if you've got a good system.
The whole point of my trying to get good sound from my first hifi system was to try to get Tracy Nelson's records to sound like she did in person. Getting close now, but it's taken 30 years. Of course, when I listen to her at home, she never gets up and walks off the stage because the sound system is bad. And then, there's her rendition of Seven Bridges Road, where she does the low and high harmony - you can't get that in a live performance.

Nor can you go out and listen to a young Tracy Nelson or Barbara Keith, or Eva Cassidy, Buddy Holly, etc., etc. For some people, I am sure, listening to a recording of certain performers beats listening to anyone else live.

If sound is the thing, nothing beats a real live unamplified performance in a small room with an audience there to listen, or an orchestra in a decent venue. Nothing's worse than trying to hear live performers through bad pa amplifiers and speakers and an audience there just to be there.