Live or studio recording?
Nov 14, 2008 at 6:17 AM Post #16 of 29

Seamless Sounds

Previously known as HeadFi Fanatic
Joined
Oct 25, 2008
Posts
655
Likes
23
Location
Chicago
But if you were all the way in the back, people screaming and blocking, that would suck wouldn't it?
tongue.gif


Now if I were in a studio watching them put a song together, I would grab out my notepad secretly write down everything they're doing so I can use this information to write music lmao
popcorn.gif
In fact I can use this opportunity to compare cans when I listen to the music first-hand. Of course who's going to let me in?
ph34r.gif
 
Nov 14, 2008 at 9:51 PM Post #17 of 29

buddhashenglong

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Posts
961
Likes
51
Live recordings are more inconsistent, yet possess the potential to be phenomenal. A song you've heard hundreds if not thousands of times can be imbued with a power only dreamed of, and if captured properly will be immortalized.
 
Nov 14, 2008 at 10:22 PM Post #18 of 29

illy2k

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jan 2, 2007
Posts
436
Likes
11
In my head-fi travels I have only ever found a handful of good live recordings, however about 90% of studio recordings I love the quality.

studio FTW
atsmile.gif
 
Nov 23, 2008 at 7:59 AM Post #20 of 29

Nikita

Head-Fier
Joined
Feb 21, 2008
Posts
58
Likes
0
Live of course !!

Try to listen Echoes of Pink Floyd, studio version, and try to listen some live versions. The sound of the studio version is full of distorsion and isn't "clear", the sound of lives is bright, natural, and a bit more analytic.
 
Nov 24, 2008 at 4:12 PM Post #21 of 29

Nocturnal310

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Posts
3,588
Likes
33
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nikita /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Live of course !!

Try to listen Echoes of Pink Floyd, studio version, and try to listen some live versions. The sound of the studio version is full of distorsion and isn't "clear", the sound of lives is bright, natural, and a bit more analytic.



ya but Pink Floyd's distortion also is beautiful..it has a musical presence
tongue.gif
 
Nov 24, 2008 at 4:35 PM Post #22 of 29

El_Doug

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Posts
3,450
Likes
108
this is a tricky question

live is by FAR the superior means of listening to music when listening to unplugged music. everything from acoustic solos to jazz groups to the NY Philharmonic (provided you have good seats :p ) give you a sound in-person that Hi-Fi enthusiasts with bottomless pockets spend their entire pensions trying to mimic. the timber of a classical guitar's cedar soundboard, under the fingers of a master, simply cannot be replicated. and dont even get me started on the appreciation of a pipe organ's true dynamic and frequency ranges!

however, as fun as it may be to join the mosh-pit, or hear Jose Carreras sing in a large venue over mic, sound-reinforced music as well as completely amplified music just sounds ****ty on PA speakers, no matter how fancy they may be. though The Who were 100x better live, the fun in going to their stadium-sized concerts is to meet other fans, and see the band in person. the sound of the music is absolutely terrible :p at the same time, Use Your Illusion never ceases to amaze me with its perfect recording, exciting and geniusly-layered mixing, and highly effective mastering - that's one CD that I turn to whenever I upgrade my system, and I truly do discover something new hidden in the mix every time


i would take a recording of rock any day - but I'll never miss an opportunity to head the local jazz group unplugged at the bar
wink.gif
 
Nov 24, 2008 at 5:02 PM Post #23 of 29

progo

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Posts
1,592
Likes
14
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nikita /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Live of course !!

Try to listen Echoes of Pink Floyd, studio version, and try to listen some live versions. The sound of the studio version is full of distorsion and isn't "clear", the sound of lives is bright, natural, and a bit more analytic.



What kind of 2000 remaster copy of Meddle do you have?
confused.gif
My Meddles are all pretty good (MFSL CD, 1992 remaster CD, some LP press). Absolutely no distorsion of the kind you're describing.
 
Nov 26, 2008 at 11:18 AM Post #24 of 29

Feather225

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Posts
1,289
Likes
11
I like studio better coz I never heard a perfect Live recording yet...most of the time live recorder could not capture the right sound dynamic, which makes the music sound bad.
However, orchestra symphonies are exceptions, more open and realistic sound with live recordings.
 
Nov 28, 2008 at 12:35 AM Post #26 of 29

smashing

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Posts
285
Likes
25
Don't have much of a choice there, since classical music are almost always 'live'; the studio ones are usually soundtracks anyway.
smily_headphones1.gif


As for jazz, live and studio music are two entities. Live jazz are more fun to listen to, with lots of last minute improv and some on-stage screw ups (we'll human afterall), while studio music usually give a much cleaner and solid feel. I find that that was the case for "Weather Report" (w/ Jaco Pastorius) at least.
 
Nov 28, 2008 at 3:45 AM Post #27 of 29

PWilson

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Posts
343
Likes
14
I tend to prefer studio for the music I listen to (amplified), as I consider it the definitive version, the version that the artists have been able to put all their effort into, and polish to just how they think it should be.
That said, live sometimes captures more emotion, so it never hurts to hear the live versions. Sometimes they'll get lazy and play sloppy. Sometimes one member's sloppy play is overshadowed by the feel that the other band members are putting in, and the crowd is adding (crowd noise may not do anything for fidelity, but it can enhance the emotion). Music is so many things on so many levels that I don't think you can lock down one or the other as better every time.

Oh, and I've had Hetfield ruin too many songs live with his stupid "Oh yeah!"s.
 
Nov 28, 2008 at 4:24 AM Post #28 of 29

roadtonowhere08

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Mar 6, 2004
Posts
4,112
Likes
11
Overall I like studio much more, but some bands really shine live, like Pearl Jam and Tool. I especially like Ozzy (Ozzmosis and prior eras) and Sabbath better live. The sound suits their style of music better. That, and you never know what Ozzy will say sometimes. His banter always makes for funny surprises when downloading taped shows.

On the other hand, bands like Opeth, Moonsorrow, and Virgin Black (as much as I think they are FRIGGIN' GREAT live), are better in the studio where they have free range to add layers, textures, and sounds that do not translate as well live due to poorer acoustics and limited creative/monetary freedom.
 
Nov 28, 2008 at 8:14 AM Post #29 of 29

Uncle Erik

Uncle Exotic
Joined
Mar 18, 2006
Posts
22,596
Likes
503
Studio can sound great, but I prefer live. Good live performances are stunning on dipoles; it's more of a "they are here" than a "you are there." Studio recordings never quite seem able to do that.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top