Is there anything better than live recordings?

As others have said above.

IT DEPENDS

There are many many factors that determine which recordings are best.

Not least personal taste.

Silly question.

I've mixed hundreds of live shows and recorder many. Just ran the mix to a recorder and forgot about it. Many wound up on live albums so go figure. And they sounded damn good. 

Two completely different experiences, no live album has anywhere near the sound quality of a properly recorded album. No album is anything like a live performance. Go to a movie and then go to the same performance as a play, chalk and cheese.

IMHO, the emotion and spontaneity projected from a great live album is unachievable in a studio album. Studio albums can project perfection of the performance and virtuosity. There are so many great live recordings that have been covered earlier, there are many more beyond rock in jazz and blues as well.

My two favorite live albums are The Name of this Band is Talking heads (1982) and Bob Marley and the Wailers, Live at the Roxy (2003). Both, with no or little compression and energy through the roof. They are played very loud (90+ db at your listening position - haha).

Maybe we should compile a list of our top 5 favorite albums?

@nonoise 

👍+10K....really....😏

For me, many of the classic rock bands made better studio albums than their live performances--Led Zeppelin, Rolling Stones, Jimi Hendrix, Derek and the Dominos, Frank Zappa. This is particularly true with those artists who really used the studio as an instrument, employing panning, flanging, etc. On the other hand, the Allman Brothers Fillmore recordings creamed their studio albums both in performance and, arguably, sound quality. The Grateful Dead also stretched out in their best live performances, captured on their live albums.

@woofhaven1992  I happen to like Pink Floyd’s live performances of DSOTM and some of their other classics. David Gilmour could approach a song differently in live performance--e.g., his bluesy Strat playing on the 1974 live version of "Breathe" nicely replacing his lap steel part on the studio album. And with their quadrophonic sound system they could recreate or surpass their studio effects in live performance.

From my experience it’s rare that rock groups could put out a live performance that matched the quality of their studio efforts, even if just considering the musical, rather than audio, qualities. For one thing, many classic rock musicians were, shall we say, in a less-focused state of consciousness when they played live. Like Pink Floyd, the Who was a group that could do a great live performance that was quite different from the equivalent studio versions. I enjoy a live Who performance (from the 1969-1971 period) more than any other live performance, even if the audio has its problems like Live at Leeds. The Deluxe Edition of that album, with the full live Tommy recording, is probably the greatest live rock recording, for my tastes, but this is based on the performance, not the audio quality. The Isle of Wight performance--basically the same setlist--is wonderful to watch and hear on DVD, with its better sound quality.

Yeah, it depends. There is sometimes an energy between the band and the audience that just doesn't exist in the studio. But as others have noted not all recordings are created equal.

To me music makes more sense if it has a setting, and for that reason, I have a strong bias toward live recordings. I will even tolerate a lower quality of sound of the music as a trade-off for having it presented in a venue.

Some musicians are just more entertaining live than they are in the studio. For example, Sarah Bareilles's studio work strikes me as ho-hum, but I enjoy her live performances.

On the other hand, sometimes the studio cut is better. For example, Dark Side of the Moon is iconic as a studio album. Live, it's not a single work; it's a collection of songs.

Susan Tedeschi's performance of Angel From Montgomery on the studio album Just Won't Burn is knock-it-out-of-the-park excellent.  Probably the best performance of that song ever recorded. Certainly the best I have heard. She has also recorded it live a couple of times. She just doesn't do as good of a job in the live cuts.

So like so many things in audio, it depends, even though I am sympathetic to the OP's point.

Well, if these doesn't turn you on....

The The. Superb sound quality.

One of the best (if not the best) live records was “lLive at the Filmore” by the Allman Brothers.  Another favorite of mine is “Waiting for Columbus” by Little Feat, 

A live recording in a controlled environment such as a recording studio without any shenanigans is the ideal option.

Jeff Beck live recordings. Even though the engineers compressed these, the performances are amazing.

All told, I enjoy the studio-made recordings in my collection more than the live ones. Even when they were meticulously assembled, a lot of the studio-produced LPs in my collection emotionally and viscerally  punch through. I just love my old Doors LPs. I just love my Byrds LPs, whatever era they might from be in terms of who was in the band or what genre they were pursuing. No shortage of emotional electricity in the Ramones' obviously studio-produced Road to Ruin.

There still is a lot of art in mixing down recordings. Even studio recordings have a lot of live sound to mix down. Without a doubt there are some very good live recordings. Better than a live show? Two different animals. 

There are no absolutes in audio.

depends on how good the live performance sounds. 

I love soundboard recordings and recommend wolfgangs.com:

One of the most enjoyable parts of exploring new music is finding well done live recordings of familiar albums or songs. As some mentioned, the recording quality tends to be much more varied with live performances.

But the well recorded ones are very enjoyable, and in some cases, more so than the studio/album itself in my opinion. There are even live recordings that are better produced than the original album itself I've come across.

Would you agree that live soundboard recordings are generally good?

  I personally think that most live recordings are sub par. However occasionally I find a good one, and I very much enjoy them. I went through a phase back when Blu-ray first came out and had a large concert collection. I had a surround system   ( 5.2 ) that was comprised of retro 2 channel gear. Concerts like Queen, Allison Krause, ELO, Roxy Music,  ect we’re very enjoyable. But the ratio of poor to good  was about 5:1.  Happy Listening, Mike B. 

With the recording quality being equal a live recording is usually more enjoyable. Live recordings let the musicians shine with technical skills not always on a studio recording. 

Drives me nuts when certain artists have all lousy recording quality on even studio recordings.

Disagree 100%? That's a lot.

Always very happy to find a live recording where the dynamics is kept.

Disagree 100%. A lot of great music is created and built in the studio, and was never intended to be performed live but rather heard on recordings. 

All thing being equal in terms of quality of the recording.

Depends on the quality of the recording.  I'd rather listen to a great studio recording than a poor live recording.