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
rpfef
110 posts
 
I live in the SF Bay Area.
There are several symphony orchestras in the area, ranging from the local community group all the way up to the world-class SF Symphony.
They all perform without amplification.
Performers from pianists to chamber groups all perform unaided by electronics many times every year.
Most colleges and universities in my area offer concerts of acoustic jazz, for instance, without amplification and to respectfully quiet audiences.
I do not know where "Elizabeth" lives but I have never, nor do I now, find it at all difficult to hear live unamplified music.
robsker
132 posts
 
Honestly, while I enjoy the event of live music... as has been stated by others, the acoustics of most "live" events are not good. Frankly, my stereo in my man-cave sounds better than most live music. More immediate, better tone, more clear, easier to hear nuance. Usually, amplified live music is pretty harsh sounding and often played through systems that are not that good in large venue with poor acoustics.

Now, some acoustic jazz... in a proper setting --- or a small chamber group in a proper setting... no stereo can match that. But, amplified rock, blues, and even many symphonic ensembles all play in a context where the live event is not as good acoustically as is a good recording in a good room on a good stereo.
marakanetz's avatar
marakanetz
5,473 posts
 
To the folks leaving in the high-density neighborhoods and large cities it's easier to find an unamplified classical performance or barely amplified jazz band in the bar.

Developing and building venues that are capable of handling unamplified orchestras is high-profile construction that is extreamly complex and requires funding potentials.

Some churches have descent acoustics. Minnesota Orchestra hall in Minneapolis so far the best venue I know for unamplified concerts where even opera performances are unamplified. Far better vs. Carnegie Hall NYC as an example.
jperry
2,450 posts
 
Last Sunday at church. We have a choir there accompanied by piano and sometimes a bell choir.

Always a good musical experiance and good for you too.
slipknot1
1,423 posts
 
9/22, Rachmaninoff Piano Concerto No. 2. Symphony in C/Rossen Milinov/Di Wu soloist, Along with Tchaikovsky Symphony No. 6.

Two excellent performances in a nice acoustic with a world class orchestra and music director.

Prior to that: 8/26, Dead Can Dance at Verizon Hall in the Kimmel Center, Philadelphia
More to discover