What Sounds Best - Live Music Or Your Stereo?

jaygee

jaygee

Active Member
In regard to rock/pop that is. Conventional wisdom seems to be that live music, as the real thing, is the ultimate way to hear music. Well I would agree with that on the handful of occasions when sound quality and acoustics have been truly superb but for the most part, I find that sound quality at most rock shows to be well below what I would consider good so I'm not overly disappointed these days if I miss out on seeing any of my favourite acts because I know that playing their music on my stereo will almost always sound a lot better than their concert sound will anyway. What do you think?:scratch2:
 
Register to hide this ad
If it's amplified, it depends on the sound at the live concert. I've heard some awful PA systems - the worst was probably at a small-ish beach do where vocals were hardly audible and it was just a mash of rumble and tinny midrange.

However, when some effort has been put into the sound, it easily blows away my stereo. The Status Quo had a very good PA where everything was evenly balenced and whilst they were loud (it's the Quo...), dynamics were spot on. Not a hint of sibilance and the bass was well controlled...think it was an array of Turbosound horn subs under the stage.


Ignoring sound for a bit though, I'd much rather see a band live with poor sound (as long as it isn't painful) than listen to them on my stereo with better quality.
 
I'd have to say that overall my stereo sounds better than live music - it's pretty transparent now that I have moved to monitor style speakers. I'd rather attend a live show than listen to my stereo any day but that's more for the visual treat than the audio.

The exception to the above is when live music is presented at the National Arts Centre (NAC) in my hometown. The acoustics there are superb and the artists don't need ear-splitting levels to be heard at the back of the hall. Seeing k.d. lang there a couple of years ago was an experience that I'll not soon forget. I'm looking forward to seeing Burton Cummings and Randy Bachman together at the NAC this fall.
 
Last edited:
I am divided, went to see Robert Plant, the sound was so bad you could not make out the words even between songs. Still it was a legend live. Others said the sound was awesome, so it was diffinitly our location. With my stereo you could stand on your head inside a waste basket, stuck in a corner and still make out the words, but then Plant is recorded. Divided.
 
A strange question to ask, as it depends on what you listen to. If it is acoustic instruments played either in a concert hall or small club, than the answer is always live music, hands down. A really good stereo can come close to recreating the sound of acoustic instruments, but never quite get there.

If you listen to a lot of amplified or electronic music that is mostly the creation of producers and engineers in a studio, then it may be a closer call.
 
I agree with mrt2. Live amplified music is not the same as unamplified. My stereo has never truly captured the sound of a trumpet or french horn, but it comes pretty close to piano. In general I prefer it to live amplified music.
 
Last live concert I went to was Doc Watson, at the Mondavi Center, UC Davis. Really nice concert hall, excellent acoustics - but the numb-nuts sound engineer had the volume cranked up way too loud. Doc had to stop and ask them twice to turn it down, but it continued to be too loud. Ruined the concert for me, left with a headache.

So, ol' Doc definitely sounds best at home, on LP or CD, where I get to play sound engineer :music:
 
A close call. Recorded music has made superb advancements over the years. I would still vote for live though. Jazz and classical sound better live. However I have been to more than a few concerts, especially in the rock venue, where the sound and acoustics were horrible. But then again I went to a Sade concert some years ago that blew me away in regards to sound quality and overcame the acoustical limits of a large auditorium. As with all live music, with exception to acoustics, seating plays a huge part.
 
The problem with rock and pop in this context is that there is no live. The actual question devolves into "which is better, your stereo playing a studio mixer jockey's creation or a PA system playing a house mixer jockey's creation?" I don't think one can really answer that question.

JMHO.

mike
 
Last edited:
As a hobbiest jazz musician myself, I can tell you that being at a live event is a completely different experience from music played back in the home.

The experience I get standing next to the rhythm section and other horn players and singers is not the same thing as what happens when I turn up my rig. This experience is all about interacting with the other musicians, adding licks or honoring their playing. This is the essence of a good band, IMHO.

If I am playing in a classical sax quartet, we have been trained to play targeting an imaginary point above and just forward of the quartet's position on the stage. This imaginary point is the place where the 4 sax tones mix into one tone. There's no way a recording is going to track this no matter how many channels are used or the placement of the mics; although Prof. Keith Johnson of Reference Recordings seems to have come mighty close.

As for instrument tone accuracy in playback, one of the greatest compliment a musician can give another musician is that their tone is good. As a sax player, this implies that the player has spent many hours focusing on how their horn, reeds, mouthpiece and their playing muscles have been honed and formed. When you read interviews with the greats of any instrument, you'll see them saying what a tone this or that influence has.

One reason, I believe, why many top-end musicians have small stereos for personal playback (there are exceptions like Keith Jarret) is that they are trained and experienced well enough for them to get the cues they need to fill in the missing tonality. Can you tell the difference between a B-Flat #9 and a B-Flat flat-9 chord? Good musicians can identify them with a set of iPod headphones because of their training and experience.

What has this got to do with the difference with a stereo playing back a sonic image of a performance?

Well, I can hear a bit about a player's tone on a recording - enough to identify them by their playing at times - but it doesn't come together until I get to see and hear them live. For instance, one of the best jazz sax players living right now is Phil Woods. His soaring solos are wonders to behold and his tone is impecable - on a record. When I hear him live, I can hear his horn just 'glow'. It does...it just shimmers and the sound seems to come from around it rather than out of the bell. No recording of his playing conveys that aspect nor do I get to see the interactions with his long-time drummer, Bill Goodwin. You have to be there.

Note that I didn't say anything about the PA's effects. None of the above will _ever_ get conveyed with a PA. This is why jazz venues use as little as possible.

Just my perspective......

Cheers,

David
 
Last edited:
For the non-musician music consumers among us, I'll take the stereo almost every time. I have been fortunate enough to have many musician friends and roommates. I got to hear a bunch live. I also worked for Chess/Janus/GRT and got to see studio work up close and personal. Other than live studio work, the rest of live has too many distractions like the drunk a-hole next to you in the audience yelling over the music. I like the purity of the recording in that the musicians and engineers think this is the best or most interesting version of the piece, and under headphones, I can hear it all - without interruptions :)
 
dshoaf said:
Just my perspective...
Click to expand...

Some good insight. I had not been much of a Jazz fan until I heard it live in a proper club. I prefer it to any other genre live. I am mainly into rock and metal and the acoustics/setup of the venue has always been a compromise and taken away from the music in my experience. My ONE exception is when I saw Buckethead live. Never heard such high volume that clean in a venue. :thmbsp:

Cliffs:
-Prefer most genres from my own system
-The "only" way to enjoy jazz is live
 
With a good band the live performence is usually better than a recorded one. Performence quality trumps sound quality.

And the best sounding live shows I attended sounded much better than any hi-fi. I used to be a bouncer for Jam Productions and worked lots of shows and attended many others for free, often parking my ass in a prime location. To hear the Ramones live in 1977 from a front row seat at the Aragon Ballroom; NO hi-fi can sound like that.
 
Last edited:
chicks said:
Last live concert I went to was Doc Watson, at the Mondavi Center, UC Davis. Really nice concert hall, excellent acoustics -
Click to expand...
It's a great sounding concert hall.

I've been to many great sounding concerts and many crappy sounding concerts. But my stereo always sounds great. :thmbsp:
 
It really depends on the venue. Most of the shows I have seen at the 9:30 club in Washington DC have sounded great (Air, P-Funk and Gang Of Four) and were the ultimate live experience. I did see Pere Ubu when they were doing their Rocket From The Tombs revival at the Black Cat which was a bit distorted, but a good concert all the same. The Frank Black concert I saw at Starr Hill in Charlottesville, though was ruined by horrible sound and horrible acoustics more so on his opening acts than Black himself. Very over driven and it really put a hurt on the ol' ear drums.
 
electronjohn said:
When you see Steely Dan in a good venue, you get both performance quality and sound quality. Amazing PA.
Click to expand...

That is because Becker and Fagen are extremely obsessive about sound. Just read the bottom of the album Katy Lied. Those two are die hard perfectionists. I am curious what sort of equipment those guys have at home.
 
I guess it depends on the venue.From my experience on the local venue it sounds horrible.Mostly washed up acts and would mainly go just for the experience.I would not expect it to sound as good as home.I don't even remember being up front in a acoustically good venue.
 
In a big way, Rock concerts are more an experience than an ideal presentation of music. They have to be appreciated for what they are. I've listened to Darkness on the Edge of Town hundreds of times, but none of them were as memorable of being sixth row center when Springsteen supported that album with a tour. My ears rang for a couple of days after that, but I wouldn't trade the experience.

Leo Kottke albums get lots of time on my turntable or CD player, terrific sound. Seeing him in concert is an entirely different experience. He is usually in fairly small venues, rarely more than 1500. He makes every one of the 200, 500 or 1500 feel like they're on the front porch listening to him play the guitar and spin yarns. That atmosphere doesn't transfer to an album. That's why I'll spend 6 or 7 times the cost of an album to hear him, and I do it every chance I get. Along the same line, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of deadheads never bought an album, but just traded live tapes.

Regards,

D-Ray
 
jn229 said:
I am divided, went to see Robert Plant, the sound was so bad you could not make out the words even between songs. Still it was a legend live. Others said the sound was awesome, so it was diffinitly our location.
Click to expand...

I saw Robert Plant about 20 years ago at Wings Stadium in Kalamazoo, MI. Now granted, Wings Stadium isn't what I'd consider a particularly good arena insofar as music goes, but that show sounded _terrible_. We were toward the back of the floor area as I recall. Legend or not, we left after seeing perhaps 40 minutes. I saw a number of shows there through the years when I lived in Michigan, and some sounded reasonably good. That one certainly did not -- or at least at that location in the arena that was the case. Like you pointed out, perhaps that was an anomaly isolated to our position, dunno.

As for my preferences, I'd prefer to see a show live. There's something beyond even the sound regarding live shows, I imagine it is the experience itself. Realistically, it isn't as if I'm going to be deciding between seeing a show live or listening to a CD of the artist(s) instead. I like to think that even an average show from a sound perspective is going to be better than sitting at home and listening to a CD. Seeing a live performance, to me, isn't singularly about the sound quality. It certainly is a big factor, but not the only one.

Eh, my 2 cents.

John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom