This question has been brewing in my mind for some time now and comes to mind every time I hear someone rave about going to a live concert as opposed to listening to a reproduction using Hi-Fi equipment in a dedicated listening room.
I do enjoy live performances and do get it - that nothing replicates the experience of a live performance. But take away the ambiance, the vibe and all the x-factors of a live performance and just on the basis of sound quality, wouldn't a live performance be only as good as the audio equipment used in the entire chain to capture, amplify and reproduce the music? Thus, unless you are listening to an acoustic and non-amplified performance in a small venue, you are in effect just listening to on the spot reproduced music as well?!? And basically at the mercy of the venue's or performer's audio equipment quality.
So on the basis of sound quality alone, wouldn't it be better to listen to a live performance recording in the comfort of a dedicated listening room as opposed to going to a live performance wherein the audio equipment used or your seating location are not so good?
I do enjoy live performances and do get it - that nothing replicates the experience of a live performance. But take away the ambiance, the vibe and all the x-factors of a live performance and just on the basis of sound quality, wouldn't a live performance be only as good as the audio equipment used in the entire chain to capture, amplify and reproduce the music? Thus, unless you are listening to an acoustic and non-amplified performance in a small venue, you are in effect just listening to on the spot reproduced music as well?!? And basically at the mercy of the venue's or performer's audio equipment quality.
So on the basis of sound quality alone, wouldn't it be better to listen to a live performance recording in the comfort of a dedicated listening room as opposed to going to a live performance wherein the audio equipment used or your seating location are not so good?
