Live performance v HiFi

This was inspired by various other threads about what people want from their system, something that is often mentioned is the system sounding like a live performance.

I've been thinking about this and with one exception (Brit Floyd) if my system sounded like most of the gigs I've been to I'd bin it and buy a Bose Wave thingy.

With the obvious exception of sheer volume most live gigs sound bloody awful, one that springs to mind for me was Alice Cooper at Bournmouth a few years ago, the sound was so bad that I genuinely struggled to tell what song was being performed it was simply sheer noise.

People also rhapsodise about soundstage and being able to hear where individual instruments are, again at a live gig your eyes tell you where the performers are not your ears, although there are usually two speaker arrays (plus delay towers) the audience are unlikely to get any stereo imaging depending on where they're sitting/standing.

So is the "live performance" analogy really a good one

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaz

This was inspired by various other threads about what people want from their system, something that is often mentioned is the system sounding like a live performance.

I've been thinking about this and with one exception (Brit Floyd) if my system sounded like most of the gigs I've been to I'd bin it and buy a Bose Wave thingy.

With the obvious exception of sheer volume most live gigs sound bloody awful, one that springs to mind for me was Alice Cooper at Bournmouth a few years ago, the sound was so bad that I genuinely struggled to tell what song was being performed it was simply sheer noise.

People also rhapsodise about soundstage and being able to hear where individual instruments are, again at a live gig your eyes tell you where the performers are not your ears, although there are usually two speaker arrays (plus delay towers) the audience are unlikely to get any stereo imaging depending on where they're sitting/standing.

So is the "live performance" analogy really a good one

---

No, I personally don't think it is. If you listen critically to a live performance you would find guitars and vocals sounding like the speakers are being overdriven, and the "soundstage" could be pretty much anything, and will change every time you get a beer or go to the bog. At one gig I went to (Happy Mondays at G-Mex Manchester) our location was such that the sound bouncing off the rear wall was louder than the sound source, the result was rather weird.

The live "experience" is exciting, and can connect you with the performers, but no way would I want that in my living room (apart from a bit more bass "slam", I'd have a bit more of that).

A bit like F1 cars - very exciting to drive (I imagine) on a race track, but using an F1 car to nip to the shops in or do the school run, not for me thanks.

Yes, very sound points.

I've only been to a few non classical gigs, including Alice Cooper at Hammersmith decades ago.
Yes, the sound quality was rubbish tbh - it was all about the atmosphere, being there, the visual aspects and on stage 'performance' and the staging/light show.

It's different for classical and other non-amplified music - a lot of jazz, folky stuff etc - where a decent seat in a decent venue can sound fantastic and very much an experience to be sought after on a hifi system.

But even there your point about imaging has a lot of validity- it's rare to have the pinpoint location that can be heard on a hifi.

I saw a video on YT last week by PS Audio, I think it was. The chap said that stereo as a means to convey real life is very flawed. I agree with that and what I think people want when they say they want something as close to that real thing is colouration. When I listen to some coloured speakers or speakers that react with the room in a particular way they almost seem to be reconstructing the way that a live event reacts with its environment.

When I think of the term live performance I always imagined it to mean the instruments in an acoustic state wherever possible, be it a cello, drum kit or double bass. That's the sound I'd like to reproduce, not the big rig set up of a concert.

I think how a live performance is record and what it is will make a major impact on the resulting recording. Just taking a feed off a mixing desk and some ambient mics to get audience participation is unlikely to get a very good result, unless the recording engineer is carefully when it is all set up and present when the recordings are made. I can think of several well recorded albums like Deep Purple - Made in Japan, Hawkwind - Space Ritual, both unusual as rock music is often poorly recorded live. Another stand out album which is not necessarily live but was effectively recorded that way without an audience is The Cowboy Junkies - The Trinity Sessions, recorded in a church with one omnidirectional mic, a mic for the vocalist and the musicians all sat on the main mic in a circle, they just played the tracks live onto tape, the quality of the recording is outstanding.

With respect to classical music once again I think it is a bit of a mixed bag, I have a couple of Mozart LP's where the recording is live and the sense of the orchestra on the stage is fantastic, presumably careful attention was made to microphone positioning to get a realistic soundstage and sense of space. But I have quite a few classical LP's that to be honest sound rather flat and they are mainly recorded in studios which is the opposite of what you would expect.

I think where live recording comes into its own is Jazz. Standouts for me are the Eva Cassidy - Nightbird recordings, Hugh Masekala - Hope both exceptional recordings and superb music. there are numerous other jazz albums recorded live, IMO it suits the genre better giving it more immediacy.

Some very valid points made.

I've never been to a classical or acoustic style concert but can appreciate the points made about those

more for me like the person is in the room as opposed to a live performance. often to do with placement etc. although ive heard a few great live gigs, they dont sound great generally on an aural level.

The most you can ever hope to achieve is authenticity/accuracy to the recording. If the recording is capable of capturing a ‘live’ recording then there is a chance that it can be played back but, if not, then the Hi-Fi can’t magically create that which isn’t there in the first place.

The sound system went down at a Clive Gregson gig I attended a while back. The venue (Greystones, Sheffield) is an intimate space, so Clive climbed down from the stage and into the middle of the room and performed acoustically for the rest of the show. Even though this venue has a very good sound system (and resident engineer) the acoustic part of the show was pretty special.

The Greystones is not far from where I live.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YNWaN

The Greystones is not far from where I live.

---

It's a good venue that seems to attract many good performers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaz

This was inspired by various other threads about what people want from their system, something that is often mentioned is the system sounding like a live performance.

I've been thinking about this and with one exception (Brit Floyd) if my system sounded like most of the gigs I've been to I'd bin it and buy a Bose Wave thingy.

With the obvious exception of sheer volume most live gigs sound bloody awful, one that springs to mind for me was Alice Cooper at Bournmouth a few years ago, the sound was so bad that I genuinely struggled to tell what song was being performed it was simply sheer noise.

People also rhapsodise about soundstage and being able to hear where individual instruments are, again at a live gig your eyes tell you where the performers are not your ears, although there are usually two speaker arrays (plus delay towers) the audience are unlikely to get any stereo imaging depending on where they're sitting/standing.

So is the "live performance" analogy really a good one

---

Except for pub gigs I must have been lucky because most of them I've been to the sound was pretty good. I think the main difference is volume and dynamics. At a Clapton gig back in '86 my mate turned to me as they kicked off the first tune and shouted 'I don't think I can take it if it is going to be this loud.' It was ludicrous, my ears were ringing for 3 days afterwards. It was so loud it was actually disorientating but it was a clean sound.

If you could get that concert on CD what equipment would I need to get even close to replicating that level of clean volume? Of course the dynamics and sound pressure level could be done but you would need a big room and very big speakers and very powerful amps - kilowatts. And no neighbours nearby. Some people do run such systems domestically.

But I think when people say they want a 'live' sound they don't mean loudness and dynamics. I think they mean that they want a bit of 'bite' to the sound. I'm talking rock or pop music here, classical or any totally acoustic music is another ballgame. I think we would all agree that the sound of a live rock band will have that bite.


But what about when the band go in the studio an record and album? Do they aim to replicate their live sound? Mostly, no. And ironically when they do the sound quality of the album tends to get criticised for being poor - 'Definitely Maybe' by Oasis being a classic example. Their first attempt was a typical polished studio effort which they rejected because they sounded like 'fucking Dire Straits'.

So they started again and attempted to get more of their live sound onto the record. Result: roundly slagged off by audiophiles for being a shit recording. These same audiophiles who are chasing a 'live sound'.


So they want a live sound but they don't want the recording to deliver that. They want the recording perfectly clean with bell-like clarity. Then they use underpowered amplifiers that will be clipping half the time with a load of harmonic distortion and speakers that have no low bass (so they sound fast) and a big hump in the midrange so they have 'presence'.


Any less than perfect recording will then sound unlistenable but really clean recordings like Dire Straits, Blue Nile etc will sound 'live' and still be listenable Cue many years of complaining about poor recording quality, bad production, cloth eared engineers and so on. And having the equipment dictate your music choices.


Fact is most recordings are not of live performances and are not recorded or produced to sound like live performances. They are recorded and produced to sound good when you play them back on your hi-fi. That's what the supposedly cloth-eared engineers are aiming for. And 99.99% of the time they achieve it. So why have a system that tries to turn them into something they are not supposed to be?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YNWaN

The most you can ever hope to achieve is authenticity/accuracy to the recording. If the recording is capable of capturing a ‘live’ recording then there is a chance that it can be played back but, if not, then the Hi-Fi can’t magically create that which isn’t there in the first place.

---

Yes indeed. One of my favourites in this regard is Dead Can Dance’s “Toward The Within”, where you can really hear the hall venue ambience too. Love a good live album.

I really enjoy listening to live recordings on my system. You get a sense of the venue and its acoustics and the audience reaction to the performance. I think it does very much depend on the genre of music though, jazz, folk, classical and acoustic stuff working particularly well.

Live recordings i particularly enjoy are; Katie Melua live in Berlin, Nils Lofgren acoustic live, Alice in chains live at the majestic theatre and Diana Krall live in Paris.

Lots of good stuff on you tube too one of my favourites is a US radio station called KEXP who have a couple of studios that they film live performances in, they get a real eclectic mix of acts in, they also shoot some Euro acts in Iceland.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Discopants

I really enjoy listening to live recordings on my system. You get a sense of the venue and its acoustics and the audience reaction to the performance. I think it does very much depend on the genre of music though, jazz, folk, classical and acoustic stuff working particularly well.

Live recordings i particularly enjoy are; Katie Melua live in Berlin, Nils Lofgren acoustic live, Alice in chains live at the majestic theatre and Diana Krall live in Paris.

Lots of good stuff on you tube too one of my favourites is a US radio station called KEXP who have a couple of studios that they film live performances in, they get a real eclectic mix of acts in, they also shoot some Euro acts in Iceland.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

---

I think you’d like The Cure - Live In Paris. :)

I've attended over a thousand gigs during the last 40 years and for me this is by far the best musical experience possible.
I'd have a band playing in my lounge every night of the week if I could :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yomanze

I think you’d like The Cure - Live In Paris. :)

---

I used to love their stuff when i was a moody teenager in the 80s so probably would get a nostalgia kick out of it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bourneendboy

I've attended over a thousand gigs during the last 40 years and for me this is by far the best musical experience possible.
I'd have a band playing in my lounge every night of the week if I could :lol:

---

Ive done a load of festivals in the past but not many straight up gigs other than the odd local band down the pub. I’m planning to get out and listen to a lot more live music now though. Trouble is persuading my mates to come along as my tastes are a bit weird to most of them these days. I have managed to persuade them all to go to Union chapel in November for an annual meet up in London event we usually have to see the Delines though.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Discopants

Ive done a load of festivals in the past but not many straight up gigs other than the odd local band down the pub. I’m planning to get out and listen to a lot more live music now though. Trouble is persuading my mates to come along as my tastes are a bit weird to most of them these days. I have managed to persuade them all to go to Union chapel in November for an annual meet up in London event we usually have to see the Delines though.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

---

Union Chapel - amazing venue!

If you rely on mates going with you, you will end up missing out - go on your own. I've had to do this many times as none of my mates like my music or don't like the live experience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bourneendboy

Union Chapel - amazing venue!

If you rely on mates going with you, you will end up missing out - go on your own. I've had to do this many times as none of my mates like my music or don't like the live experience.

---

I think you are right, but its usually better to share the good things in life.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bourneendboy

Union Chapel - amazing venue!

If you rely on mates going with you, you will end up missing out - go on your own. I've had to do this many times as none of my mates like my music or don't like the live experience.

---

Being an extreme metal fan as a kid, but no metaller friends, I hear ya! Loved going to gigs and festivals solo. Same with restaurants, funny how many people don’t feel comfortable on their own...

I have found that "Live" studio albums (sometimes with a small invited audience) can be very good and give a "being there" experience. No, they are not like the real thing, but as a few have said the real thing can be awful and painful in equal measures.

I used to use an old Cambridge surround sound processor for watching DVDs (rear surround is not for me), but to take advantage of the Dolby processing and the Centre channel. Some music DVDs are really good IMO The Corrs Live (or not whatever your take on Live is) and Two Against Nature - Steel Dan (Live in a studio). They really come alive and the balance of musicians/voices is really good. I have played these from the stereo audio outs of a DVD player and they sound rubbish.

Best live sound I have heard was at the Shepherds Bush Empire back in 2000.

Just have to say i have seen Alice Cooper many times over the years and always thought the sound was great and I can compare it to all the so called big names

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macca

Except for pub gigs I must have been lucky because most of them I've been to the sound was pretty good. I think the main difference is volume and dynamics. At a Clapton gig back in '86 my mate turned to me as they kicked off the first tune and shouted 'I don't think I can take it if it is going to be this loud.' It was ludicrous, my ears were ringing for 3 days afterwards. It was so loud it was actually disorientating but it was a clean sound.

If you could get that concert on CD what equipment would I need to get even close to replicating that level of clean volume? Of course the dynamics and sound pressure level could be done but you would need a big room and very big speakers and very powerful amps - kilowatts. And no neighbours nearby. Some people do run such systems domestically.

But I think when people say they want a 'live' sound they don't mean loudness and dynamics. I think they mean that they want a bit of 'bite' to the sound. I'm talking rock or pop music here, classical or any totally acoustic music is another ballgame. I think we would all agree that the sound of a live rock band will have that bite.


But what about when the band go in the studio an record and album? Do they aim to replicate their live sound? Mostly, no. And ironically when they do the sound quality of the album tends to get criticised for being poor - 'Definitely Maybe' by Oasis being a classic example. Their first attempt was a typical polished studio effort which they rejected because they sounded like 'fucking Dire Straits'.

So they started again and attempted to get more of their live sound onto the record. Result: roundly slagged off by audiophiles for being a shit recording. These same audiophiles who are chasing a 'live sound'.


So they want a live sound but they don't want the recording to deliver that. They want the recording perfectly clean with bell-like clarity. Then they use underpowered amplifiers that will be clipping half the time with a load of harmonic distortion and speakers that have no low bass (so they sound fast) and a big hump in the midrange so they have 'presence'.


Any less than perfect recording will then sound unlistenable but really clean recordings like Dire Straits, Blue Nile etc will sound 'live' and still be listenable Cue many years of complaining about poor recording quality, bad production, cloth eared engineers and so on. And having the equipment dictate your music choices.


Fact is most recordings are not of live performances and are not recorded or produced to sound like live performances. They are recorded and produced to sound good when you play them back on your hi-fi. That's what the supposedly cloth-eared engineers are aiming for. And 99.99% of the time they achieve it. So why have a system that tries to turn them into something they are not supposed to be?

---

Good post [emoji3]

Sent from my BLN-L21 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lawrence001

Good post

---

I'm glad someone gets it. Seems like all I read on forums is people talking about 'poor recordings' when the reality is there are hardly any poor recordings. There's a variation in quality but that's not the same thing.

a good live recording can be decent and a poorer one pretty grim. The recent Carole King one in london, for an open air one is fairly good for instance, but it will never sound like an all studio production; and wont be any worse for it, just different..
One of the best live gigs was the Jeff Goldblum one, but it was recorded in the studio with a live audience, hence the reason I guess.

Sinatra Live at the Sands is the best live recording ever. Only one where I have felt like I am 'there' although that was after a few drinks. And even that is stitched together from various different nights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macca

Sinatra Live at the Sands is the best live recording ever. Only one where I have felt like I am 'there' although that was after a few drinks. And even that is stitched together from various different nights.

---

ah, yes its terrific too as is the rat pack one

Joe Bonemassa Live at Carnagie Hall is another really good live recording.

Cello player, backing singers and Joe centre stage sound like they are playing in a live environment.
A great listen.

Coincidentally I just got this from my daily Paul's post email from PS audio...

Wandering the halls of an audio show it’s always stunning to me how different the same music sounds.

How can we say there exists a reference?

If we’re so bold as to suggest there*is*a reference, like that of the sound of live unamplified music in acoustic space, how do we justify the major differences in audio system reproduction?

Could it be that as a group we’re so far away from the true reference that our meager attempts are laughable at best? Or is it that we all hear differently? That what sounds right to me doesn’t sound right to you?

If this were true then a hundred people enjoying a concert would all hear something different. We’d have trouble agreeing that it sounded real, yet that doesn’t happen.

Or does it?

Could it be that because we’re actually*at*the concert no one would be silly enough to openly question whether it was actually live or not—yet none hear the same thing?

I don’t suppose there’s a way to easily answer this question but I suspect if we compared listening notes there would be as much divergence of sound quality per listener at a live concert as we do in a reproduction setting.

I would wager that the only real reference is what’s inside your head.



Sent from my BLN-L21 using Tapatalk

yeah thats another good un Gaz..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lawrence001

Coincidentally I just got this from my daily Paul's post email from PS audio...

Wandering the halls of an audio show it’s always stunning to me how different the same music sounds.

---

That's true, sometimes swapping my many cd players in and out I'm amazed at how differently the same recording is presented. Of course quality and presentation are two different things that often get confused, especially with digital sources.


Personally it is the quality of the music and the performance that I am interested in. The quality of the recording does not bother me. It is what it is. I'd rather have the original release than a re-master that someone has tried to jazz up to sound 'better.' I want that snapshot in time. On a good system any professional recording will be perfectly listenable.