Is digital better than live
- Thread starter Kingrex
- Start date
MtnHam
Member
I frequently attend the San Francisco Opera and Symphony and often feel the same. However, last week I was at the SF Memorial Opera House for a sold out performance of Rosanne Cash and Ry Cooder, and for the first time found the sound superior to my home system. Perhaps it was because it was the 1st amplified performance I have experienced there.
CPP
Active member
IN my experiences, no. You just can't capture the artist or groups emotion at home, my opinion of course. And 99% of the time we have great center seats. Maybe one can throw a lot of money at it to achieve some stellar sound, but how much money is of course limited by a persons budget an imagination and of course a lot depends on the room and the space of the listening area. The closest I've come was at my neighbors home and Mikes upstairs room, both rooms treated and contained quality equipment and recordings. .
You can't compare live to home audio. Live music does not have air and transparency. There is no equalization and correction. Most live music is coming through an amplifier and pro speakers. I have been to many concerts where the vocals are drowned out by the instruments.
Mrppv
Member
For the shows that I occasionally attend -- rock and indie pop -- the sound is usually disappointing compared to my system. Over-amplification and bad acoustics are the usual reasons.
It's the live energy of the performers that makes the experience what it is. Different, but not better.
Un-amplified shows would be another thing altogether, I think.
It's the live energy of the performers that makes the experience what it is. Different, but not better.
Un-amplified shows would be another thing altogether, I think.
Kingrex
Active member
- Thread Author
- #7
I think some people here have hit the nail on the head. Where are you sitting, what are the Acoustics of the room, and how well was the performance produced. Most rocks shows I've been to are not that great either. Some are spot-on and wonderful, but any big show is usually an experience rather than immersion in the music. At this particular performance I was back in BB into the left as I noted. It's not an Optimum seat. It's not too hard to have your home stereo outperforme a non-premium location. Or I sensed that per my experience. If I was sitting close to center and 10 rows back, I'm sure my perception would be much different.
Come to think of it, all the major concerts I've been to such as Bowie, Fleetwood Mac, The Who, the police, The Clash ETC, none were acoustically satisfying by any means.
I did see Pink Martini at Benaroya Hall which is where I saw this Symphony, but I was in a very premium seat and it was a great show. I also saw Diana Krall and was about eight rows back right in the center and found it to be a great experience.
Come to think of it, all the major concerts I've been to such as Bowie, Fleetwood Mac, The Who, the police, The Clash ETC, none were acoustically satisfying by any means.
I did see Pink Martini at Benaroya Hall which is where I saw this Symphony, but I was in a very premium seat and it was a great show. I also saw Diana Krall and was about eight rows back right in the center and found it to be a great experience.
Hi kingrex
If you change the question to "could high end audio performance be better than live", i will answer of course.
But around this question, there are so many misunderstoods. Some audiophiles will always say no to your question and never find out why they have this obsession for home audio.
They are two kinds of live experience: with and without amplification. With amplification is out of question. The only thing live performance can give us the illusion of being better is in dynamic. But this happens because we don´t use the same sound pressure level in our home. The sensation of dynamic will increase if you turn up the volume without compromises.
Without amplification, the only thing live performance is better is the timbre of the instrument. And that is not a minor issue. Is perhaps the major question about home audio reprodution. In all other aspects our system take us closer to each instrument, and at the best place to ear all of them. Thanks to studio mixing, we can ear everything, even in the most complex parts. In a live performance of an orchestra , try to ear and follow the piano in a tutti moment. In a live performance, without amplification, when the singer turns to left and i´m in the right, or vice-versa, it´s a problem.
In my house he´s always at the center, singing for me.
Should i say, this is my opinion of course
If you change the question to "could high end audio performance be better than live", i will answer of course.
But around this question, there are so many misunderstoods. Some audiophiles will always say no to your question and never find out why they have this obsession for home audio.
They are two kinds of live experience: with and without amplification. With amplification is out of question. The only thing live performance can give us the illusion of being better is in dynamic. But this happens because we don´t use the same sound pressure level in our home. The sensation of dynamic will increase if you turn up the volume without compromises.
Without amplification, the only thing live performance is better is the timbre of the instrument. And that is not a minor issue. Is perhaps the major question about home audio reprodution. In all other aspects our system take us closer to each instrument, and at the best place to ear all of them. Thanks to studio mixing, we can ear everything, even in the most complex parts. In a live performance of an orchestra , try to ear and follow the piano in a tutti moment. In a live performance, without amplification, when the singer turns to left and i´m in the right, or vice-versa, it´s a problem.
In my house he´s always at the center, singing for me.
Should i say, this is my opinion of course
Amplified live, forget it. The experience and energy may be better, but rarely the sound.
Unamplified is the issue. A week ago me and two friends attended a performance of solo violin, solo cello, and duet of the two. We sat about ten feet away, it was in a large living room. It was an unbeatable experience. Oh that timbre! Also a great seat at the Symphony, or in front of a small ensemble, is just simply better than at home. At mediocre seats I may prefer home reproduction.
And it is true, in a recording the relative prominence of instruments is often ideal, live this is not always the case. Exactly this is what a prominent conductor who also was big into recordings, Herbert von Karajan, may have alluded to. When asked, isn't live always better than recordings, his answer reportedly was, "For whom?".
Unamplified is the issue. A week ago me and two friends attended a performance of solo violin, solo cello, and duet of the two. We sat about ten feet away, it was in a large living room. It was an unbeatable experience. Oh that timbre! Also a great seat at the Symphony, or in front of a small ensemble, is just simply better than at home. At mediocre seats I may prefer home reproduction.
And it is true, in a recording the relative prominence of instruments is often ideal, live this is not always the case. Exactly this is what a prominent conductor who also was big into recordings, Herbert von Karajan, may have alluded to. When asked, isn't live always better than recordings, his answer reportedly was, "For whom?".
AJ Soundfield
Well-known member
If your reference for sound is a stereo system, like many audiophiles, then yes. If your reference for sound is live unamplified music, then no, other than mere preference.
Age old question https://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi/
Long answered http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=9136
http://www.onhifi.com/features/20010615.htm
So whereas it is possible to be seated where the sound in a concert hall is not preferred by some to what they hear at home on stereo (like you experienced)....it's equally impossible for any stereo extant to recreate physically/perceptually the soundfield of a concert hall.
It really comes down to preferences of course. YMMV.
cheers,
AJ
Age old question https://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi/
Long answered http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=9136
http://www.onhifi.com/features/20010615.htm
So whereas it is possible to be seated where the sound in a concert hall is not preferred by some to what they hear at home on stereo (like you experienced)....it's equally impossible for any stereo extant to recreate physically/perceptually the soundfield of a concert hall.
It really comes down to preferences of course. YMMV.
cheers,
AJ
In the first link, J. Gordon Holt says that we should promote products that dare to sound as 'alive' and 'aggressive' as real music.
I love this. I think too many audiophiles and designers are preoccupied with systems that sound "beautiful", polished, pleasant and "clean". Paradoxically, the "clean" sound, which tries to avoid any impression of distortion, can be a distortion itself, i.e. a deviation from the original musical signal.
I dont agree with this. A 25square meter (average size) living room will never ever sound anything like a concert hall or rock venue. It is not realistic to try that.
That is true, but has little to do with the point raised. Too many systems have a polite and inoffensive sound. It doesn't have to be that way, regardless if a system truly can sound like live.