Live Music Sound Quality Vs Recorded

[Paulssurround]

I don't go to a lot of live music concerts, tending to listen more to my Linn system.

I have certainly seen my share of live music in my life, but not so much lately. The more recent live music I have heard did not sound as good as my home system, other than the drums live. I find more detail, and transparency in a good recording, especially in stringed instruments and voices.

I am curious, what the difference is in sound quality between the two. Aside from the emotional impact of being at a live event, would you say that live sounds better or would you say a well recorded studio recording played through a good Linn system, or other high end system sounds better?

A friend of mine who plays guitar, says he hears more detail in the vibration of the guitar strings on the Linn than when he plays his own guitar live.

What do you think?

[linnrd]

Hearing more detail through a recording then live means that there was something in the recording/playback chain that wasn't transparent. OR...he might not have been listening as critically when playing live because he was...well...playing.

Regarding your third paragraph, it depends on the venue and the knob at the knobs. I've heard concerts at several venues that are terrible sounding, and I've heard concerts at those same venues that are amazing. The question is a bit of a ringer since you have the "aside from emotional impact from being at a live event" since appreciation of music is all about emotional impact (at the foundation of it all) there is little additive value to that in audio playback. Video, on the other hand, is another beast since one has a view of the performer (and the audience). For e.g. listening to Jeff Back live at Ronnie Scott's is not as good as watching (especially when he chuckles as Wilkenfeld walks the bass) it simply because the visuals add to the content.

I think an audio visual recording that captures the essence of the show will probably sound better because of the controlled environment in your home system. However, no matter how good a recording there is of a Frampton concert, it will never compare to being 2 feet away from him leaning on the stage (with the Minister of Finance actually boppin' along) and having him look down at us and grin ear to ear as they belted out "Shotgun" as an opener to a splendid evening. All recordings of him will only serve as a reminder to that even.

[mamunsharty]

For digital recording/digital playback, sound quality depends on the range of sound which is sampled, the rate at which it is sampled, and the various conversions that occur in any sound reproduction system. With lossy codecs such as MP3 and Ogg Vorbis, sound quality is a quantifiable factor that determines how much sound data the encoder is allowed to discard in order to reduce file size. MP3-encoded sound is generally CBR, so its quality is defined by its bitrate, in kilobits per second (kbit/s). Quality of Ogg Vorbis-encoded files, which are most commonly VBR, is a decimal value ranging from –1 to 10, with –1 being suitable only for low-quality voice. The frequency range of sound (in hertz) which the equipment is capable of sampling affects sound quality. Humans can hear frequencies ranging from about 20 Hz to approximately 20 kHz, so sampling that doesn't extend this far will have a detrimental effect on the resultant quality. The sound wave being recorded is an analogue wave, that is, it is continuous and has some real value at every instant. The digital quantization of the analogue sound wave means that much of the continuous sound wave is not recorded. The rate at which the sound is sampled refers to the amount of information the detection equipment records for each second of the sound. The higher the sampling frequency is, the more accurate the resultant samples will be.The conversion of sample range and sample rate between different pieces of equipment in a sound recording and reproduction system usually lower the quality of the sound.

[paultje]

Perhaps it is a question of environment? A live event has to put up with a range of problems. The acoustics will never be perfect and the quality of the monitors and amps will be called into question. In a studio the engineers have time and place on their side.

If I play my guitar along with a recording I can hear every nuance (mistake) that I make and every buzzing string! If playing in a gig, I may not hear everything (self protection?) because I am concentrating on the music.

Recordings of 'live gigs' are bound to be more rewarding if you also have video to add to the sound, as has been pointed out, the Jeff Beck being a good example. Any 'imperfections' in the sound will be masked by the experience of watching live, and not merely listening critically from your armchair, with a glass of something nice!

[Klingsor]

(2012-04-28 08:21)mamunsharty Wrote:  1. MP3-encoded sound is generally CBR, so its quality is defined by its bitrate, in kilobits per second (kbit/s).

2. The sound wave being recorded is an analogue wave, that is, it is continuous and has some real value at every instant. The digital quantization of the analogue sound wave means that much of the continuous sound wave is not recorded.

Just a few corrections:
1. The LAME mp3-encoder has a VBR mode (others offer this too, but LAME is the best encoder available). Its use is recommended by the developers, so MP3 is not generally CBR. Almost any MP3 player is able to play back VBR encoded files.

2. "Much of the continuous wave is not recorded". This notion is a common misunderstanding of the sampling theorem.

If an analogue continuous signal with limited bandwith fb is sampled with at least 2fb, it can be perfectly reconstructed. The only error introduced is due to the quantization of amplitude to 16 or 24 bits. The more bits, the smaller the error gets.

[bez]

I find recordings (of amplified music, rather than classical or jazz) are generally much better for a number of reasons: domestic hi-fi speakers are smoother and sweeter than PA systems, and the balance and soundstage is usually better.
A good beefy home system can generate ‘live’ sound pressure levels, but as above, the one important thing usually missing is the visual, unless you’re watching a decent video recording, when again it’s often preferable to a live event because you’re much closer to the performers.
The overall quality of programmes such as ‘Later’, some recent Pink Floyd concerts etc etc are excellent.
Our DVD box set of the Old Grey Whistle Test is great fun, although sadly the quality is slightly below the very best.

[grimreaper46]

It the old thing about sight affecting the way things taste. The sight bit of a concert has a great effect. Also the audience reaction. If you have ever been to a football match with a crowd of a few hundred, no matter how good the game it will never match a game with a crowd of 50,000. Likewise the atmosphere under floodlights is much better than normal daylight.

Any recorded music that is better than a live concert means the live concert must not have been up to much. I am assuming the recording is of a live event otherwise how can a comparison be made.

Just listen to a single pianist live or a guitarist. No recording could ever equal that sound.

The trouble is too many recordings are "tinkered" with. Bits added later, equalisation applied etc.

On the other side a friend of mine did not like "Live" recordings she felt certain things intruded. But one must always remember that a live recording will have been modified.

Again, sitting at home in the comfort of your own living room means you can have an intimate experience with the music. Maybe at times you prefer that. But I don't think a live performance can be beaten.

[SaltyDog]

Real instruments (not electric, and not meaning any slights) being played out doors is always more enjoyable regardless of the talent level of the musician. The venue can make or break a performance. The electric stuff is so variable in what it sounds like and is somewhat artificial (again no offence). Just for me growing up in an orchestra setting, the consistency of tone, timbre and the feeling the sound through my skin is important.

Places designed for musical performances vs. sports have my favor.

Many times I prefer to listen at home. The live performances are really special except when they aren't. Home system is not so hit or miss.

[I.D.C.]

If the PA is set up right and you have a good sound engineer you can’t beat live music it’s organic , it’s how the musician really sounds, simple really.

[linnrd]

Hmm...just as I thought...it is impossible to remove the emotional impact of the live event...at least it has been so for all the respondents thus far.