I come across statements here and elsewhere by guys who say 1) their systems come very close to duplicating the experience of hearing live music and 2) that they can listen for hours and hours due to the "effortless" presentation.
I don't understand how these two claims add up. In tandem, they are profoundly inconsistent with my experiences of listening to live music.
If I think about concerts I consider the best I've witnessed (Oregon, Solas, Richard Thompson, SRV, Dave Holland Quintet, '77 G. Dead, David Murray, Paul Winter Consort), I would not have wanted any of those performances to have extended much beyond their actual duration.
It's like eating-- no matter how wonderfully prepared the food, I can only eat so much-- a point of satiation is reached and I find this to be true (for me) when it comes to music listening as well. Ditto for sex, looking at visual art, reading poetry or playing guitar. All of these activities require energy and while they may feel "effortless" in the moment, I eventually reach a point where I must withdraw from aesthetic simulation.
Furthermore, the live music I've heard is not always "smoothly" undemanding. I love Winifred Horan's classically influenced Celtic fiddling but the tone she gets is not uniformly sweet; the melodies do not always resemble lullabies. The violin can sound quite strident at times. Oregon can be very melodious but also,(at least in their younger days) quite chaotic and atonal. These are examples on the mellower side of my listening spectrum and I can't listen to them for more than a couple hours, either live or at home.
Bottom line: I don't find listening to live music "effortless" so I don't understand how a system that renders this activity "effortless" can also be said to be accurate.
"Went to live performance of Beach House over the weekend. I came away with the feeling I'm spoiled by my home system. And this is the exact sentiment I've had with all live performances I've experienced in last four or five years".
I had to leave the last live Jazz performance I attended early because the music was so loud and fatiguing! I complained to the sound man and he said he was only following the instructions the group had given him at the sound check. This was an all acoustic group called The Cookers with multiple horns and the sound was more abrasively painful than anything I'd ever experienced at any Rock show.
The best live show was YES. Could I make it live in my listening room? Not sure. The worst live event was Elton John. BEYOND loud! Midrange slapping off the walls. Even outside of the building it was too loud. Not worth my hearing. Very disappointed. Don't want to recreate that in my listening room, ever.
I've been to many music festivals or concerts with many performers that have lasted up to 12 hours (California Jam in the early 70's for example). Loved every minute of them. Most rock concerts I have attended the last 10 years or so (Who, Aerosmith, and others) have been so loud you couldn't make the music out and it was hard to listen to them for an hour. Blues and Jazz concerts, much better sounding, could listen to them for hours (Foreplay, Acoustic Alchemy, Robert Cray, Pat Methany, Boney James, Keb Mo, and others).
I relate this to my listening habits. If the recording is well done, I can listen to my system for many hours. If the recording is poorly done meaning way too much bass, distorted, too many recording gimmicks applied, I can't listen to them for very long.
This is why when I go to audio shows, sometimes I can sit and listen for a while if the system sounds good, or go in and leave without sitting down if the system sounds like crap.
Almost all live shows I have heard were not something I could do all day. However, I can listen to my system all day and actually do. So, my system must not convey a real 'live' experience. That does not seem to bother me.
Today I cancelled my TV cable and replaced it with nothing because watching TV gives me stress of not listening to my system. If I watch anything, it is my hockey and baseball games on the internet with the sound off and the stereo tunes cranked.
Most live concerts of the popular variety--not classical-- are way too loud for me. I wear ear protection (cheap Etymotics are way better than the give-away foam plugs). And that can sound fatiguing.
I remember hearing Etta James at Carnegie Hall a while ago-- Susan Tedeschi opened, and though we had excellent seats, the sound was a blur-- she overplayed the room. Etta's band gets on and it's bliss.
I listen to a lot of so-called spiritual or soul jazz, mainly from the '70s. Much of it is decently recorded even if the pressings were made at the nadir of vinyl quality. I can get a very compelling performance at home but it will not scale to the level of King Crimson in my room- I did that comparison listening to Live in Toronto 2016 the morning after I heard them live in a 2,000 seat hall. Even with multiple woofers, I could not get the power of the bass, nor the sheer amplitude of the show at home. But, like the OP, I don't necessarily listen at crazy high db. Typically a little over 80db on peaks, "C" weighted. And it sounded very much like what I heard live.
Is it the same as "live"? Nah. But it can be compelling, sound like real instruments particularly when the arrangements are spare. (I have thousands of classical records that I rarely listen to anymore, but keep anyway).
I remember one of the first systems I heard that could reproduce a full sized double bass-- it was a pair of those huge Duntechs from the '80s owned by a compadre who was a listening buddy. We shared many great listening sessions. At the time, I was still listening to my old Quads, which required me to ignore a few shortcomings to get the midrange. To me, that's where it has to be right-- if it isn't transparent, grainless and dimensional, the rest is irrelevant. But, that also takes us into the quality of the recordings- and my preference is for simpler, less "produced" stuff.
I think if you listen to any system long enough, you will hear the "man behind the curtain." It is at best an illusion.
And, though I don't think my system is fatiguing, I don't have the stamina I once did for all day listening sessions. Those used to be common when I was much younger.
I think making music is actually even more engaging, though I don't really have the chops I did when I was a kid. In NY, we would occasionally have visitors who were professionals, and they'd do their thing, informally. That was great fun and in some ways, much more engaging than hi-fi.
Interesting question. Sorry I did not have time to make this shorter.
Such a cool freakin' thread. That's pretty much all I wanted to say, but I guess I have few tiny thoughts to add:
"Effortlessness." That damn word. I use it to mean the system is not pushing the sound to me, it's just letting it through. I don't use that term to describe my listening experience, as in "listening for 72 straight hours was such an effortlessness experience." So, the music itself could reflect lots of effort, but it's effortlessly communicated by your system. Yeah, I'll take that. But, honestly, maybe I'm using the term incorrectly.
To OP's point: I don't want my live music to be effortless. I wanna admire the effort. Not like watching Neil Young play an electric guitar; that's more than effort -- it's combat. More like the focus, study, practice, and delivery that goes into a professional musical event, like Reckoning's Bird Song.
But the line of the thread is "It's something that is unamplified, has the highest quality acoustic instruments and most talented & trained singers - AKA the scenario where the matter of fidelity arises." IOW, 75% of us are thinking of live music as the stuff we hear live -- via a PA system. And, ya know, think about that.
I think it really depends on the type of music being listened to. It is a very difficult to reproduce a full symphony orchestra with fully frequency extension & full dynamic volume. Conversely, A truly good system can sound much better than many of the amplified rock concerts I’ve heard in the past 10+ years that are amplified & use the line array speaker design to supposedly offer the same balance & sound level throughout the venue. Most of them sound very hard, bright, dynamic but fatiguing. There are many good speakers out there that have very tone & body but few can actually present the dynamics of live music w/ full frequency range & realistic volume levels. For myself, good horn speakers with good tube amplification can do it.
Different styles of music and recordings, some of which we don’t want to listen to for 24 hours. Put on AC/DC Live and you’ll enjoy the album and be satisfied when it’s finished. My system gave me all the energy and volume I could have wanted at the time but it won’t have been what it truly sounded like there. However you play some delicate vocal with a couple of accompanying instruments and you might find it sounds very lifelike and isn’t fatiguing. I guess systems can do both depending on the music genre and recording. For my main type of music tastes I can listen to my system for hours on end without feeling fatigued or having a headache, but I couldn’t put AC/DC on repeat at the kind of volumes that music requires to come alive. So for me I think a system can do both, it just depends what you’re listening to at the time. Having said all this, I don’t believe any system will truly be like you’re there, I just think it sounds as close to that to people who have the experience.
Someone said above that recordings are capturing live event (or presumably trying to recreate live events).
Unless you listen to classical music and the rare Jazz or Pop/Rock album, most recordings are designed to NOT be a recording of a live event. In fact, since they are multi-tracked and multi-layered, there are capturing a performance that never existed in the physical world. They represent something the artist or producer decided they wanted you to hear. .
Making this more complicated is in the studio, the producer has a set of speakers that he uses to create a final mix, and those speakers will be different than what you listen to.. So you're not even recreating what the producer intended, you're hearing something that is different.
So the bottom line is you buy a system that pleases your ears and brain, nothing more.
Unless one is extremely rich, one of the key differences between live and reproduced is the presence of an audience - that changes the entire ambience and the acoustics of the venue.
Second, there is the element of anticipation which has a significant psychoacoustic effect. Even listening to a rlive ecording for the first time is not the equivalent because one knows that the even is not happening synchronously for the performers and the listeners.
Third, there is a visual auditory interaction which totally alters auditory perception.
Having actually HAD a live concert band rehearsing and performing many times in my living room (20-30 pieces, depending on the year), it's not something I could accurately reproduce (or would want to) with audio electronics. Too dang loud to listen to at full volume for more than a short period. Some people don't know what loud is.
To venture into a different direction. Please continue to support live music. Regardless of sound quality. In many cases the only way these folks can survive.
Live music reference point sort of a straw man. But what else are you going to use as a comparison? The radio? Another person's system? Dealer's? Forum opinions?
Always nice to see your enthusiasm talking about room acoustics. I never sit down on my home computer to be able to spend a lot of time blogging about it since I only use it for work as a self discipline. However I do blog here and there from my cellphone and will simply say that I have spent more than twice the money on room soundproofing and acoustic treatments than I have on equipment. But I am well behind your knowledge of room mechanical acoustics. My house of stereo is already so busy as the pics show that I don't know where I would start experimenting with any of that. Any suggestions?
@stuartk, they are all listening to the real sound, just from a different perspective. Once recorded you can only listen to one perspective, that of the recording engineer.
EQ is certainly one way of dealing with problems. For a high end system only digital EQ will work well. This is readily available with most room control preamplifiers. The Trinnov Amethyst has a 1/3 octave EQ from 20 Hz to 24 kHz.
I'm afraid a DAC is not going to give you more weight and density. That requires power and low bass. You can not hear bass below 20 Hz but you sure can feel it. It is that visceral sensation that makes live performances so exciting. Large rooms breath and resonate at very low frequencies, they have an acoustic signature and much of this is below 20 Hz. This information also gets into good live recordings.
Powerful, large subwoofers with digital bass management is the best way to accomplish this. MiniDSP makes a great little digital subwoofer crossover which is not too expensive. You get a commercial amp like a QSC and build two 15" subwoofer kits from Parts Express. You will get the job done for very little money and have a subwoofer system better than most commercial units.
IMHO there are many factors to listening fatigue: SPL, material, room acoustics, mood... Some days I'm good with one album side and other days I'll look up after 3 albums and wonder where the time went. I'm not proposing any solutions here but only offering things to consider that you might be able to control and/or change.
Bottom line for me is quality over quantity in a listening session.
Lots of good comments here, and mostly on point. One thing I have found in the recent past is that the live performances I have attended both indoor and outdoor have varying qualities of professional sound management.
For example, at a recent outdoor show of rock music, Cheap Trick sounded like a wall of noise with no discernible words in the voices, smeared overly loud guitars, and a bass that was, to be kind, mushy. It was horrible and I would never listen to it again. 20 minutes later on the same stage, Joan Jett sounded almost exactly like her recorded music. Every note was clear, the voices and harmonies were dead on, and the various instruments sounded like they should both individually and mixed properly as a band. 20 minutes later, one of my favorite bands, Heart, suffered the exact same mess as Cheap Trick. The vocals, their strong point, were horribly distorted when you could hear them, the music was pure trash with distortion and overly-loud mixes of the various players, and the entire effort was a hot mess.
How does this happen in one venue with acts following each other with short intervals to change the amps, etc.? At a live show INSIDE, I did not hear a WORD that Stevie Nicks sang in 1.5 hours. I heard a wall of smear--it was so bad that I thought about leaving.
Now, these are first-tier performers with long track records of live performances, and they charge an arm and a leg to see the show. (I paid $5.00 to see the Beatles, so $1500 to see the Eagles, who I have seen many times for $10.00 or less, is ridiculous.) SO, not every live performance is presented properly, whereas recorded music is tweaked (sometimes beyond belief!) so that it sounds accurate on your system given a good system.
The "live" hope for audiophiles tends to be towards more jazz and classical music, and given a good recording (Decca, Mayorga, etc.) a good system will put you in the room with the musicians. I have sold and set up many systems that, in fact, do that. It isn't inexpensive or easy, but it can be done.
As for listening time, well, you sit at a concert for an hour or so, mostly, so I would say that is a reasonable listening time. As for all day, well, if that is what you want, be sure to have a very good system that does not give you listening fatigue. In my experience, Magneplaner speakers connected to very good HW will do that for you.
I think a lot of the difference is just sheer sound volume. Unamplified guitar is >70db, as a reference point; symphony >100db. I think this holds across all genres of music - most people just get fried after a few hours of those sorts of volumes. Hard for me to imagine hanging tough through more than three hours of any genre, live, at performance volume. “Fried” is a highly technical psycho-acoustic term
For curiosity’s sake I’ve checked spl’s at my listening position - much more than 70db is in the “nice and loud” category for me - certainly 75 - 80db fun for 30 min, but just not my taste to have music that loud for long periods of time. At what turns out to be around 70db - 75db, feels like I can really hear deep into the music, if I want, and am enveloped by it - but I wouldn’t want it that loud for hours at a time
If music is on for hours at a time? I bet I’m down at <60db or something - will measure. Interesting question!
Yes it does sound great, thanks. A totally immersive experience is best I can describe it, like being on stage.
But interestingly enough, once I got to this upper level of hi-fi, little changes here and there, in acoustic setting or equipment, are very discernable, much more so than when I had a system in a regular room. That's the reward of all that work. Big payoff. Less guess work.
@richopp1+ on the Magnepans. It seems that the larger the venue the worse the sound. IMHE outdoor venues are the best with a few exceptions like Symphony Hall in Boston. I recently heard Cassandra Wilson there and it was as good as it gets. With indoor stadiums if you can not get yourself in the first 10 rows center stage you might as well forget it. I will buy VIP tickets if available. Saw King Crimson that way a year ago, totally killer. Tanglewood is a wonderful outdoor venue. I saw Carmina Burana there a few years ago and it is amazing how it can broadcast an unamplified orchestra across such a wide area.
I have music in the background 90% of the time I am awake. When I am listening seriously I will listen to a whole album or work however long it is. I do not stop because I am tired or fatigued. I stop at the end. If time allows I might listen to another piece. Listener fatigue is a sign that there is a problem with the system. Some might say the recording but IMHE it is almost always the system and the usual fault is poor control of high frequency resonance. That high frequency glare is very tiring. Many people will think at first that a well set up room/system sounds dull until they listen a bit more and realize that the cymbal is right over there with all it's frequencies present and accounted for, coming directly from the cymbal as if contained within the instrument.
Again I can not stress enough the benefit of a calibrated measurement system and DSP. I know exactly what the frequency response of each speaker is at the listening position and can juggle amplitude and group delay to achieve any result I want. This in no way is a replacement for physical acoustic measures. You have to use both to get the best results and they can be staggering. Hearing little LS3 5As with subwoofers sound like big Wilson's is very cool.
I'm glad to see folks mentioning volume because that's the big one for me I can just imagine how loud a single sax would sound in my small apartment. Then add in a full jazz quartet it's deafening and neighbors start calling the cops. Not to mention that level of volume in a small space would eventually get very fatiguing.
But listening to jazz on my small system in the 65-80db range is totally sublime. It may not approximate live but it sounds great, and I can, and do, routinely listen 8 hours and longer on weekends.
I have a lead ear. My home system can rattle the windows. I like SiriusXM in my car because channel 26 Classic Vinyl has the variety of music I like. To create the same playlist at home would take me forever. Or playing the same stuff randomly would have more silence than music due to all the changing of CDs or vinyl.
Interesting thread with many thoughtful contributions.
Returning to the OP, he posed two numbered points he found to be mutually incompatible: that (1) audiophiles aspire to "duplicat[e] the experience of hearing live music" on their systems and (2) that "they can listen for hours and hours due to the 'effortless' presentation." He finds these two objectives involve such different expectations as to actually be in conflict with one another. But it seems to me there's not really a contradiction here at all. Some or all of the reasons already stated by others have merit in explaining why (e.g. the loudness of many live concerts, poor acoustics in certain live venues, the artificiality of most studio recording circumstances coupled with the imposition of the recording engineers' intentions, etc. etc.). But I think a more direct response to the OP's question is still possible.
As for (1), surely an audio system is supposed to reproduce instrumental timbre, transient attack, decay and so on with as much fidelity to the instrument recorded as possible. So therefore, solo instruments (acoustic piano or guitar, etc.) should sound, in your listening room on your stereo, as close to the way they would sound if they were actually present as possible, with caveats for scale. For instance, a Bösendorfer concert grand piano wouldn't fit in most listening rooms, and even if it could, the acoustics of a large concert hall, for which that instrument was designed, will not exist. But a "baby grand" is a different animal, as is a Martin dreadnought or a solo violin or cello. A good audio system, mated with a good acoustic space, should be able to reproduce such instruments in so convincing a fashion that if your eyes were closed, you couldn't tell "if it's real or Memorex," as the old ad line had it.
But this is not incompatible with (2). A good audio system should not be "fatiguing," and should enable long listening sessions without either boredom or annoyance setting in. Listening fatigue can be caused by various factors, extreme loudness being one—which is why, I suppose, the OP finds the live concert experience something he'd not want to endure for more that a fairly short while. But, of course, listening fatigue can also be due to harsh mids and high frequencies at very reasonable levels, or boomy bass, or just due to a general dullness of the sound that renders the music as little more than noise after a while.
I play cello and guitar, my wife and daughter play piano and violin; we have all those instruments in our home, and hear them "live" in our actual space every day. But on my audio system, I can hear those instruments, in exemplary examples (Steinway, Stradivarius, or whatever) played by real masters. So, yeah: my stereo actually renders a Beethoven piano sonata or a Bach cello suite more "convincingly" than we can do on the actual instruments.
Same goes for small chamber ensembles, in my opinion. A Haydn symphony performed by the Orpheus Chamber Orchestra is amazing in my listening room: instrumental timbre, musical detail, soundstage, stable location of individual instruments are all actually more precise than I've ever heard them in a live performance. Moreover, there's the thrill of being able to recreate something that requires the participation of a dozen or more hugely talented musicians at my whim in my own home. This is where the pleasures of audiophilia seem to me most satisfying.
But the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra? No, that's asking too much of my humble venue! Ditto for King Crimson. As for a jazz ensemble, well, if the original was genuinely acoustic (and, of course, many jazz concerts, even with small ensembles, are amplified)—if the original was acoustic, that, too, like the chamber orchestra, can be reproduced in my listening room with both great fidelity and without listening fatigue.
So: can audiophiles aspire to BOTH fatigue-free long listening sessions AND realistic reproduction of the original source? Yes, of course! This is, in fact, the Gold Standard we all strive for, more or less.
I actually think many well engineered recordings sound better than live music. Not all venues sound the same and there are a lot of distractions. Red Rocks is the exception. But here again what kind of amplifiers are performers using? Their equipment also can affect the way they sound.
Tube amplifiers also sound different than solid state. Guitar's sound warmer.
I still wonder how some recordings sound much louder than others. I usually have to turn down the volume 25% to get the same DB? Because I can listen at lower volumes does this provide less distortion?
I often find myself searching for recordings that make my system sound better. I think I might be attracted to recordings that make my system sound best rather than the songs themselves. I think this is why many of us continue to search for a better sound. Again, there are a lot of recordings that sound better than live music. Diana Krall is an artist I think of if I want to hear a nice recording. Vincent Ingala is another. Recordings like this just jump out at you.
I should think that all this audio gear is to try to reproduce a recording, not a performance. You can't get closer to any 'performance' than what the producer/engineers provide for you on the source. The closest you can get is to hear it the way that they wanted you to hear it.
"Unless you listen to classical music and the rare Jazz or Pop/Rock album, most recordings are designed to NOT be a recording of a live event. In fact, since they are multi-tracked and multi-layered, there are capturing a performance that never existed in the physical world. They represent something the artist or producer decided they wanted you to hear."
Good point!
"So the bottom line is you buy a system that pleases your ears and brain, nothing more".
To me, this is reality. I suppose if I had unlimited money, I could chase "fidelity". That's not gonna happen, so focus on pleasing my ears, in my room.
"Is it the same as "live"? Nah. But it can be compelling, sound like real instruments particularly when the arrangements are spare".
Yeah. I was listening to "Let It Bleed" yesterday and everything sounded more real on tracks like "Love In Vain", due to the more spare instrumentation, than on the purely electric cuts.
"Live music reference point sort of a straw man. But what else are you going to use as a comparison? The radio? Another person's system? Dealer's? Forum opinions?"
I gave up attending live music long ago for various reasons so all I have are my ears. I don't buy anything I can't demo in my room and return if necessary.
I appreciate your comments and, I think perhaps you misunderstood me. . . or perhaps I did not express myself clearly. What seems paradoxical to me is claiming 1) one's system displays high fidelity (accuracy in reproducing the source) while 2) offering as "proof' the fact that one can listen to the system all day.
I may be mistaken but it seems to me that the above is not possible. Either all the music one is listening to on such a system is extremely well recorded or the system itself is "smoothing out" the sound of the recording.
However, it may well be that there is no paradox here with very costly systems and that I simply haven't heard a good enough system.
"I often find myself searching for recordings that make my system sound better. I think I might be attracted to recordings that make my system sound best rather than the songs themselves".
This was true for me years ago and it felt like "the tail wagging the dog". Now, that's not the case and my system is much more revealing than it was, then. I accept that there are some CDs I simply can't enjoy due to recording/mastering choices but I no longer feel like my listening choices are determined by what sounds best on my system.
"I should think that all this audio gear is to try to reproduce a recording, not a performance. You can't get closer to any 'performance' than what the producer/engineers provide for you on the source. The closest you can get is to hear it the way that they wanted you to hear it."
I’ve just started reading “How Music Works” by David Byrne - fascinating. First chapter spends a lot of time discussing how music is shaped by its surroundings and culture - e.g., why Mozart started with chamber music, how arena acoustics shape modern pop. Highly recommended
( @mijostynyou might find really interesting based on your observations above)
Thank goodness I'm not the biggest fan of live music.
In all seriousness I never have cared for live music other then being apart of the energy of the audience/crowd, or witnessing the theatrics and mood the musicians bring about. I've always found live music to fall short of the sonic experience the studio version has ultimately perfected.
Live music never was my jam... but that's not to say I didn't go to hundreds of concerts throughout my years. I love(d) going to shows and love seeing certain musicians play, but I would liken that to watching West Side story in person as a play, or the most recent Spielberg production. Which you prefer is ultimately up to you, but I'm happy I've only seen Spielberg's rendition, for I couldn't imagine it to be any better then that. Same as I couldn't imagine my favorite studio recording sounding better live, nor do I think that would be what the artist had intended.
Live music is more about the performance, the people, the place and time then it is the sound (to me). When I want to really "hear" the music I just listen to it on my home system, in stereo as I imagine the artist did while mastering and mixing it.
Sure. But to play devil's advocate, even if a performance solely utilizes acoustic instruments with no amplification, each venue sounds different, acoustically. Furthermore, the sound in any venue will vary according to where each audience member is sitting and regardless of location, each member will perceive sound uniquely. Which person is hearing the "true sound"?
That’s the point I was getting at. There are so many variables in trying to achieve live sound. Who’s variation are we trying to duplicate?
Me,I’m happy with the sound I get from my systems. I am chasing what ties me to the music. You may listen,and say it sounds good,but it doesn’t touch you. That’s fine. That’s the whole thing. There are SO many different ideas of LIVE.
@ja_kub_sz, there are so many instances were the live performance far exceeds the studio version in musicianship. Little Feat's Waiting For Columbus, Tower of power live, NIN live performances, many live Bowie performances. Not to mention Jazz and all classical performances. Basically, only in popular and rock music do you have manufactured studio performances. Listen to the extended version of the Who's Live at Leeds. You can't get that out of a studio. The recordings of live performances are in many instances better sounding than the actual performance because they are taken off the sound board avoiding acoustic problems with the venue some of which may be adding into the mix at low levels to give you the feeling of the venue without messing up the sound.
@rocraythey are all hearing the true sound. It is just at certain location it may not be so hot. If you want the best sound you have to be in certain locations. At a large indoor concert the first 10 rows dead center will work fine. At an open venue you can sit almost anywhere and get decent sound.
The point of all this is, a great system is in many instances going to sound better than the live performance given a good recording.
In music school, we were taught to measure our attention spans and work within them. To pace ourselves and use use the reward system in between spans and to start new sessions after sufficient time to enjoy the reward. In listening, one often partakes of the rewards throughout, which extends the sessions. At a concert, you purchase, which provides a break. At home, we simply light up, open, poor, brew, press, roll, pack or what-have-you. In other words, you might be comparing vastly different experiences against your own. In most cases, audience attention spans are dealt with proactively. 3:20 songs, 2:00 movies, 28 pages (translate to the first 28 minutes of a film that the needs to be hooked by), 3 hour concerts, etc. I think what you are missing is knowing that others are often synthesizing a longer attention span and it’s normal to have a normal attention span, which you seem to have..
Funny, I've seen NIN over a dozen times (once even on side stage)... I would never in a million years say their live sound is better then their produced work. Tool comes remotely close, but still IMO give me the album and my system and that's audio bliss, not the acoustics of the venue, the droning crowd, the rattling speakers.
LOTR play, Or Peter Jackson Movie version? I know which I'd choose. Give me Return of the King on UHD 4k DVD. I'll skip the live action stuff.
Have your pick, but seriously my father was a roadie, and lamented modern rock music because it was overproduced and never sounded as good live as it did on the the LP (claimed acoustically it couldn't). He took me to see Bowie and NIN play together (even took me back stage) and both of them live, albeit extremely entertaining didn't sound very good compared to all there songs I've known and come to love. Closer and the The Hearts Filthy Lesson are sure cool live, but live renditions of those tracks are a different visceral animal, but a violent clumsy one compare to the sophisticated alpha predator those tracks are on their respective albums.
Live music is a "type" of sound, the produced work is what the artist intended. Classical music might very well be the purists delight when it comes to listening nirvana for it's unfiltered and true to form reproduction, but that's Classical music. Classical music isn't as dependant (nor does it want to be) on studio production wizardry like other music does. Think of the concept of a sample, something so easily used in music, or sound loops, it would be completely against the grain for those said music making methods to be utilized in regards to classical music composition. Some things are just common place within music that don't transfer over well within the live realm, and that's why I don't prefer the sound most times.
I do love live music, the spectacle, energy and ambiance, but what is the purpose of The Fragile or The Downward Spiral if NIN live is what's best? Why don't all modern artist just release only "live albums"? I'd argue because they honestly have an intended sound which they feel is best conveyed through the music that they actually produce within the studio and then attempt to recreate later on for entertainment purposes for the audience.
One begets the other... Album begets the tour... It's that way for a reason as most modern music is now highly technical art.
@ja_kub_sz, I was 3rd row center for With Teeth at the Boston Garden. It was one of those rare instances where there were reserved seats on the floor. I had Etymotic ear plugs in and there is no home HiFi alive that can replicate that. However, Resner has produced several concert BluRays that are top notch and the sound these can produce on a great system will greatly exceed what the people at the back of the stadium were hearing which is a secession of echoes.
With Jazz and classical things are totally different. Now you are dealing with small clubs and well tuned concert halls and the live performance routinely exceed what you hear on record.
@jjss49, You can not perfectly replicate a live performance on recording nor would you want to. The idea is giving you the impression that you are at a live performance and a home system can do that but, it is not easy and you have to spend at least 100K to get there not to mention the room. IMHO the two most significant impediments to doing this are room acoustics and bass performance.
If they are listening all day, they aren’t listening at live music volumes. Which means their systems don’t sound like live music at that volume. Listening at loud volumes - concert-level volumes - is intensely satisfying but for a limited period of time.
"The idea is giving you the impression that you are at a live performance and a home system can do that but, it is not easy and you have to spend at least 100K to get there not to mention the room."
No way will I ever have 50K, let alone 100K, to spend on audio!
Regarding live vs studio recordings, I own every live Grateful Dead box set, and that's over 100 shows right there; I own zero Grateful Dead studio albums. Some bands are all about live performances, and not really about working in a studio unless they have to. And then you've got the Beatles, who went the opposite direction...
The Dead both delight me and drive me nuts. They were capable of playing at such a high level but were so wildly inconsistent, even within the span of a single show. I really enjoy some of their studio albums-- A. Beauty, Workingman's. W. of the Flood, Blues for Allah but I've only found a handful of live shows I can enjoy during the time period I favor (70 -77). Skull and Roses, Europe 72 and Steppin' Out succeed in my opinion because they are cherry-picked anthologies. Europe 72 was my first exposure to them, live and those particular versions, enhanced by the overdubbed, in-tune vocals, still constitute my favorite Dead listening. In fact. it's one of my very favorite albums, period. I guess I have a love/hate relationship with their music. So. In response , I'd assert their live playing both supported and undermined the claim that they performed better on stage than in the studio. But then. I'm admittedly not a deadhead. Do you like CRB ?
@tangramca, this is quite true. Extended listening over 95 dB can certainly damage your ears. What I do is boost the very low bass in a certain way which gives you the sensation of a live performance at lower volumes.
@larsman, how many versions of Ripple can you listen to?
@stuartk, I totally agree with your Dead assessment.
I wish I could figure out a way to do it for less but I can not and given the inflationary pressure that is on us it is only going to get more expensive. It takes powerful amplifiers, line source speakers and a lot of subwoofers.
Reproducing killing decibels live rock music ask for that for sure...
But not listening to choral music or piano...
Array of subs i dont need for sure...Audiophile experience in s small room dont need array of subs...
This illustrate the difference between some music need and some other music need...
This illustrate also my opinion about the correlation between level of consciousness experience related to pattern of sounds and sound level ...
I say that without "elitist" judgment, for example a Dyonysiac collective rock experience ceremony is not a buddhist temple almost silent gong listening.... None is superior or inferior to the other, but these 2 illustrate complete different level of conscious experiences...
Sound is powerful and music too to convey all the levels of possible ecstasy ...
The question is which type of ecstasy appeal to you the most? Piano and choral music for me...
I wish I could figure out a way to do it for less but I can not and given the inflationary pressure that is on us it is only going to get more expensive. It takes powerful amplifiers, line source speakers and a lot of subwoofers.
Reality...still just a concept for many, it seems.
Rainbow chases don't interest me much anymore. I'd rather chase my own 'oblique interests' rather than additional zeros behind the decimal point, which I can't hear anymore anyway.
Make yourself happy, listen to the music and not for the faults you think you're noticing....life is short enough.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
