Home HiFi better than Live?


From all the magazines and discussions I have seen, it appears that almost everyone of them compares systems and equipment to Live music as the reference standard. That may be the ultimate comparison but it appears to me that I prefer a good home HiFi setup and well produced software to Live music any day. I have been to numerous concerts and never ever get the feeling that the performers are performing for me alone as I do in my own system. I feel alot more emotional involvement from the entertainers in concerts but I don't feel it is any better sound than my HiFi at home.
Admittedly I will say that I do not have the best sense of hearing every nuance in musical performances but I actually like the way my system make warmer, clearer, and softer sounds than live music. Am I the only person who feels this way?
BTW, my own system consists of Levinson reference components and Amati speakers, the analog part is Oracle, Morch and ZYX, so I may be spoiled a bit in this regard.
fwangfwang
I mostly agree, I have rarely heard live detail and balance as good as I can get at home. But there are some performers who must be heard in person. For me the Allman Brothers, Jimmy Buffett and Grateful Dead are groups I love(d) in concert, but rarely hear a recording of through to the end.

If one can get good seats, the symphonic experience cannot be reproduced within my budget.

Since I have acquired some pretty good equipment, I find the annoyance of dealing with Ticketmaster and venues who see customers as problems to be controlled has radically shifted my music appreciation to the "good chair" from live.
That's why the great Glenn Gould stopped playing in concert halls. When it comes to SOUND alone a good high end system might be superior in many cases. But as you mentioned it is not only the sound that counts when we attend a concert, is it? I sometimes close my eyes in a concert and imagine sitting in front of my system evaluating the sound I am getting that very moment. The smaller the ensemble on stage the more often I prefer my system's sound to the one produced live. I would never consider not to concerts, however. Live is live after all.....
I understand what you guys are saying, because the amplified sound systems at most rock and jazz shows are not very good. However, the reference standard is not just live music, but UNAMPLIFIED live music! For the most part that means classical...
Home Hi-Fi is a better experience than Live in many cases, but the reverse is true often as well. There's no question that a good quality system reproduces music at home in an incredibly good manner, and gives you a lot of flexibility on what you want to experience.

On a strictly sound quality basis, there are at least two instances where Live is definitely better. One - I saw John Williams, the guitarist, live at an intimate venue with fabulous acoustics. I was about 7 rows away and had direct view of his playing. Fabulous. Second - rock concerts with really good acoustics sound so much better than anything you can create at home (or would want to :-) Genesis, Tool, Creed - all examples of rock concerts I've seen where the sound was just incredible, as opposed to the blurry sound you get at many rock concerts.
I always thought this and sit back with a smile when everyone compares their systems to live music. As Seth points out, what is really meant is Unamplified live music. However, I have NEVER heard a band, even small ones, play unamplified music and several of my friends play in good local bands. They have this crappy pevey stuff that hurts my ears, reflections abound, there is a mass of tagled wires all over the place (capacitance must be through the roof), the vocals come across as scratchy, etc. Anyway, I much prefer the sound coming from my speakers than "live" music as well. I have to give my ears the benefit of the doubt, you know, since I value my equipment over bands'. I am sure there are exceptions, but I have yet to hear them. Arthur