2. amps-preamps
  3. 1348705796

When was the last time you listened to live music?

I'm an avid audiophile from the late 50's when stereo wasn't even invented yet (gee, am I that old already?).

The first tube amp and speaker combo started me on the quest to have live music be reproduced in my parent's home. We used to go to Radio City Music Hall, Carnegie Hall, etc. which gave me a good feel as to what live music sounds like and to use that as a basis of comparison for the reproduced music at home.

As I grew older (and much older), I attended live classical concerts less and less. I had relied on my home equipment to listen to music on vinyl and audio tape. Along with the less frequent visits to live concerts, I started to form opinions of the equipment I bought and sold and listened to at friend's house.

I started to compare their equipment to mine, or the audio store's. I somehow quit comparing them to live music as a reference.

So, my question is shouldn't we compare all equipment in the audio chain to live music rather than to other equipment?

When was the last time any of us listened to live music?

And I don't mean concerts where the instruments are all electronic, rather than acoustic. In that case it doesn't make any difference since the music you hear is already amplified and through speakers. Would having the same audio equipment in the home as the musicians have at the concert be the ultimate match of "live" music to home reproduced music. I guess I'll have to buy a few Fender amps and Public Address speakers.
notbananas
soix
9,530 posts
 
If a recording wasn't recorded to sound like live music (i.e. overdamped/processed studio recording) would you still want your system to make it sound that way? And what would all that coloration do to truly well-recorded live performances? I'd rather my system as completely as possible uncover what's really recorded and let the chips fall where they may.

I think attending live performances feeds the soul and also provides useful benchmarks and references we can take home with us and incorporate into our wacky journey. But if you want an even deeper understanding of how music should sound I suggest learning a musical instrument and actually playing either for yourself or in a band/orchestra if at all possible. That feeds the soul even more deeply (imho), and you'll gain an even greater appreciation for and understanding of the nuances and subtleties that underlie the true sound of individual instruments as well as a performer's intent/style and it's contribution to the performance. It's a deeper perspecitive and understanding you can't get from attending live performances, not even from front row seats. I know this isn't always possible, but I'm just sayin'...
Post removed 
rockadanny
1,225 posts
 
+1 Elizabeth.
Got all excited about a bluegrass performance at local, historic, small theater (seats maybe 200?). Sitting in a back row I easily conversed with two of the performers on stage at normal volume. Once the show started they fired up the microphones for instruments and vocals. Bad sound! How stupid! I spoke to the manager at intermission, pleading to have her turn off the amplification as it was not necessary. She said the older folks don't hear as well so they preferred it on. Ugh!
notbananas OP
17 posts
 
I agree with most all of your analysis'. Then we can safely ask:

"What is live music and what do we use as a standard of comparison for our home system?"

It seems that there is no basis of comparison. It's what you think it should sound like, not what it actually does.

So I guess whatever we think the sound should sound like is correct.
edorr
714 posts
 
I'm actualy suprised how good an amplified small acoustic ensemble can sound through a half decent PA system with a live microphone feed in a small venue. This is just proof of how much information (and dynamics) get lost in all the recording, mastering and other stages of the production process for recorded sound.
More to discover