Live vs recorded music

sidvee

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
3,330
Points
113
Location
Hyderabad
Dear Members,
Please see attached a link to editorial in the Feb. issue of Stereophile. It is a thought provoking article on live vs recorded music where in John Atkinson concludes that " Ultimately it is best to accept that live music and recorded music are two different phenomena".
Cheers
Sid
ps: no flames please - I am just a lowly messenger
Stereophile:
 
Last edited:
Nice article. At least these days, irrespective of the technology no one is being fooled into thinking that a recording can sound exactly like the live sound, like Edison did with his "tone tests."
 
Thank god..I always felt silly and rather small as i though i was not being a true Audiophile :yahoo:
 
I hear you Arj. I felt the same and thought that my system or my ears were letting me down.
Cheers
Sid
 
I think our own Mr. Murali had written about this article in some other thread
 
In literature, they speak of the willing suspension of disbelief. When reading the Master and Commander series of novels by Patrick O'Brian, I am never actually on the deck of a ship, or in the streets of a Mediterranean town, but it is necessary, for my enjoyment, that I feel that I am, and I willingly give in to the illusion.

My aim with hifi, even at my modest levels of expenditure, has always been to be able to imagine that I am in a concert hall, or that the guy playing the acoustic guitar is actually sitting somewhere between my speakers. It is a fragile illusion, often not achieved, and easily broken.

There are ways in which dreams and flights of imagination are greatly superior to the real thing. They seldom, for instance, include the downside. Dreaming of a beautiful woman seldom includes the work and difficulties involved in going out and meeting her and bringing your dream to actuality, let alone later tiffs about who does the washing up (it begins when you sink in his arms, and ends with your arms in his sink).

I infinitely prefer live music. Living close to the epicentre of the music I love, Chennai and carnatic music, (and also having a great appreciation of quietness at home!) I probably go to live concerts at least as often as I turn on the hifi. However, it is considerably more hassle: first I have to travel some way, then I am subject to the audience around me, who are seldom quite and well-behaved. Last, but far from least in this hifi forum, I have to listen to voices and acoustic instruments via a PA system which is usually both imperfect and badly adjusted. A CD of the same artists, played at home, would be much easier on the ears.

We will never actually recreate the concert experience in our living rooms, even if we add the visual aspects with home theatre --- but we will always try, and that is part of the fun.

Dried apricots are an entirely different experience to fresh, but are, none-the-less, delicious.
 
We will never actually recreate the concert experience in our living rooms, even if we add the visual aspects with home theatre --- but we will always try, and that is part of the fun.

Well said Thad - as long as one is aware of this limitation thats already half the battle won
 
Recording of live sessions/studio concerts (case in point: Led Zeppelin BBC recordings), has been more than satisfactory to me, to be honest. Not because of the comments of the band/artists in between nor the audience cheering, but the raw feel of the instruments & the vocals. But then I haven't heard too many good live recordings like Led Zepp ones, so I might be a little off.
 
Its easier to imagine, in this case, for example, Robert Plant doing his thing, screaming his guts out on the mic. Page going berserk with the solos & riffs. Jones being able to show-off his bass skills (which on studio recordings is hardly to be experienced...the intensity & loudness of bass) and of course Bonham's beating the skin off those drums !
 
Last edited:
@alcy - as long as you are satisfied by the recording you are all set - rather than spending a huge sum of time and money - to make it sound exactly like the live event - which is going to leave you disappointed. Regardless, since there are no hard and fast rules in this hobby if one feels that spending all that money gets them closer to that live event - then spend away. After all the most important part of this chain is the listener.
Cheers
Sid
 
@alcy - as long as you are satisfied by the recording you are all set - rather than spending a huge sum of time and money - to make it sound exactly like the live event - which is going to leave you disappointed. Regardless, since there are no hard and fast rules in this hobby if one feels that spending all that money gets them closer to that live event - then spend away. After all the most important part of this chain is the listener.
Cheers
Sid

Sure, Sid.

All I wanted to share there was...in a way...that for those who are not satisfied by the studio recordings by their favorite artists, can always opt for recordings of their live sessions to get more feel (no spending there, except the cost of the CDs) ! No hifi involved . Of course that's the cheap way, and if one can twist his psychological screws a bit, it can work wonders :cool: :p
 
@alcy - as long as you are satisfied by the recording you are all set - rather than spending a huge sum of time and money - to make it sound exactly like the live event - which is going to leave you disappointed. Regardless, since there are no hard and fast rules in this hobby if one feels that spending all that money gets them closer to that live event - then spend away. After all the most important part of this chain is the listener.Cheers
Sid
:clapping:
 
most of the time i find that live recordings are the worst of both worlds. They suffer from the inconsistencies and the venue/system/performance related imperfections of a live performance, without the natural dynamic range or the sheer bite of the transients that JA talks about, and the sheer pleasure of actually being there. And very few live recordings are engineered as well as the really good studio recordings, so they lose out in that regard as well.

One exception I can think of is the G3 CD (Joe Satriani, Steve Vai, Eric Johndson).....beautiful live recording, and the performances are excellent as well.
 
most of the time i find that live recordings are the worst of both worlds. They suffer from the inconsistencies and the venue/system/performance related imperfections of a live performance, without the natural dynamic range or the sheer bite of the transients that JA talks about, and the sheer pleasure of actually being there. And very few live recordings are engineered as well as the really good studio recordings, so they lose out in that regard as well.

One exception I can think of is the G3 CD (Joe Satriani, Steve Vai, Eric Johndson).....beautiful live recording, and the performances are excellent as well.

Yes, I agree, I've never found a live recording of a rock band that has had adequate sound quality.

On a side note, in the days of yore when Phish was still doing live shows, the Phish fan community would actually record a live show for you free of cost if you sent them a blank audio tape and a return envelope via post. Phish was also one of the rare bands that encouraged their fans to record their live shows free of cost. They would provide recording machines in their shows for this purpose.
 
Sure, Sid.

All I wanted to share there was...in a way...that for those who are not satisfied by the studio recordings by their favorite artists, can always opt for recordings of their live sessions ...
That, as I understood it, is not the point. The point is that, regardless of whether the recording was mad in a studio or in front of an audience, listening to it will not equate to being in the audience.
 
However, the point of listening to music is not always to be critical, but to enjoy the music.

I think Cranky, you hit the nail on the head. Reminds me of a comment that one reader made in response to JA's article in the current issue of S'phile:
"Music is the highest art form. Reproducing it is the second-highest".
Cheers
Sid
 
Well, this whole thing of getting your home audio system to sound such that the speakers and amplifiers are replaced by a live band/orchestra is all an illusion. As long as we understand that, we are fine. It is like the two railway tracks. They are parallel. If they meet, well, we might be going off the track :).

I guess all the struggle that we undergo is just to get our system to be parallel with the other track - Live music.

I also think we somewhat veered off the track with discussing the quality of, say, live rock bands. That is all about ambience. I am not sure that the members bouncing around in a rock concert are out there looking for the last sliver of detail. Its all about the experience, decibel level and bass perhaps.

What I understood about getting your system to sound Live was the phenomenon of being able to call upon singers/performers directly to your room with your audio system (or rather through your audio system). For that - after you put in hard earned money in the system - you ought to be able to imagine and smooth out imperfections. Or fool yourself that it is nothing but perfection!
 
During the concert I attended this evening, I was remembering this thread, and suddenly thought how astonishing it is that some paper or fabric cones can be made to sound like one instrument, let alone many.
 
For excellent sound that won't break the bank, the 5 Star Award Winning Wharfedale Diamond 12.1 Bookshelf Speakers is the one to consider!
Back
Top