[Seamless Sounds]

But if you were all the way in the back, people screaming and blocking, that would suck wouldn't it?

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

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?

 

[buddhashenglong]

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.

 

[illy2k]

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

 

[myinitialsaredac]

Live tends to have too much bground noise when not done well, and that seems to be most of the time.

Dave

 

[Nikita]

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.

 

[Nocturnal310]

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

 

[El_Doug]

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 ) 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 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

 

[progo]

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?

My Meddles are all pretty good (MFSL CD, 1992 remaster CD, some LP press). Absolutely no distorsion of the kind you're describing.

 

[Feather225]

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.

 

[Shoewreck]

Good live recording beats studio, but generally studio recordings are of much higher quality. And nothing really stops from recording live in studio.

 

[smashing]

Don't have much of a choice there, since classical music are almost always 'live'; the studio ones are usually soundtracks anyway.

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.

 

[PWilson]

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.

 

[roadtonowhere08]

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.

 

[Uncle Erik]

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.