Home HiFi better than Live?

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.

Sean,
I agree with you that the live amplified concert totally depends on the man behind the board and certainly the concert organization.

To organize Pete Gabriel concert where everyone wants to hear him live is impossible in small concert hall and you gotta have an arena where even mega-watts of amplification would not be enough or would only be OK for ones that relatively sit close enough to hear(but there is a probablility that you wouldn't see him now that sucks!)

To organize Krimson or Dave Sylvian concert NY Town hall is the small best great place where probably a kilowatt per channel is good enough. Man, I heard every note of Fripp, Belew and Gunn the way I can hear through my headphones!

I was spitting onto the floor after Roxy Music concert at MSG theatre which is pretty large and I had a horrible seat behind the column and at the very end of balcony and I could barely distinguish notes Manzanera playing. As to Bryan Ferry I only heard a reflected echo. After that I said to myself I go for the small clubs, cafe or concert hall performances no larger than 3000 people. The rest is too commercial for me IMO.