Is "Live" Sound the Gold Standard for Audio? Why? Why Not?

[Jimbob54]

I honestly don't know what to make of this video. What I will say is, I preferred the opening act to the main event.

 

[JoachimStrobel]

I don't see this as necessarily being true.

If you can produce the correct soundfield at someone's ears they could hear a much larger space. It might not visually fit in the room, but close your eyes and you could hear a huge space in a small room.

I need to rephrase that: Any reproduction will only sound as good as the original did. Now imagine a 20 piece big band playing an 30m2 room. Sure, you could put each instrument in a box and mic it, and then reproduce boxed instrument sound with added room reverb - that might work but I would not want that.

 

[gonefishin]

I love live music, I bet you do too. Even though I would like my home system to replicate that experience, my system seems to be missing something. So here go some questions for you:

Part 1: Is that "Live" sound a key reference against which an ambitious system should be judged?
Part 2: How is an actual "Live" performance different, in a technical sense, from what most home systems can reproduce?
Part 3: Is "Live" sound even worth chasing? What happens when the dog catches the car?

Exactly what I am after is sound the captures that "live" element, that "live" tone, spl, effortlessness and that "live" silence. Most of the concerts that I go to are in smaller venues that have excellent sounding rooms, such as TheSpace in Evanston, Il. I've seen quite a few concerts there and at other venues which include Christian McBride, Stanley Clarke, Victor Wooten, Tab Benoit, Kermit Ruffins...seen Larry carlton, Diana Krall, Clayton-Hamilton jazz orchestra Maynard Ferguson, etc, etc. Each of them had awesome sound and many/most were supplemented with amplification, with the exception of Maynard Ferguson.

(That sound is exactly what my goal is. What I've found is that it's advantageous to have drivers that are low distortion and capable of playing high spl. These two things together aid in not only the dynamics of the musical passages, but gives you an effortless tone during the micro and macro passages)overall tone.

With this goal of capturing "live" music and of "live" tonal qualities for the instrument, it doesn't matter if it's a soft whisper of a vocal, pluck of the bass, blast of the cornet, acoustic or 6l6 amplified guitar...these are qualities that I'm after. (Christian McBride - gettin' to it or Jeff Hamilton - Studio4) I'll throw some Larry Carlton (4 hands, One heart) or Russell Malone and I'm after all those intimate live qualities. But within that same context, putting on Joe Bonamassa - A New Day Yesterday Live is an example of a nice big rock recording that sounds appropriate if cranked up. But many speaker systems start to break down and can't play high 90's or greater than 100db cleanly, making these high spl levels completely off-putting and many times intolerable.

No matter if it's live music or a studio recording some of our labels are doing a fantastic job at bringing us a "live" type recording. Once I started down the path of trying to get live type instrument tone, dynamics, effortlessness, I really stopped feeling like I wanted to upgrade so much. I will say that not everyone wants to be in the same room as a trumpet, trombone, drum set, piano or even a single singer, I do. I like a good live recording, and a system that portrays instruments in a live manner. I also don't mind listening to an amplified bass and commenting that it sounds like the guy uses a GK bass head, or that a guitarist has a nice el34 sounding head. While true, you can't always pick that out...sometimes you can. Clean, clear, low distortion, dynamics within the confines of overall tone will also get you distinct imaging and set a soundstage. Although it may not get you that surreal staging that I had with some of my earlier systems. But, I'm not after that any more. I suppose we should all get to know our preferences and chase what it is that we like. For me, it's that live type sound and qualities of real instruments.

cheers,
Dan

 

[Jimbob54]

Exactly what I am after is sound the captures that "live" element, that "live" tone, spl, effortlessness and that "live" silence. Most of the concerts that I go to are in smaller venues that have excellent sounding rooms, such as TheSpace in Evanston, Il. I've seen quite a few concerts there and at other venues which include Christian McBride, Stanley Clarke, Victor Wooten, Tab Benoit, Kermit Ruffins...seen Larry carlton, Diana Krall, Clayton-Hamilton jazz orchestra Maynard Ferguson, etc, etc. Each of them had awesome sound and many/most were supplemented with amplification, with the exception of Maynard Ferguson.

(That sound is exactly what my goal is. What I've found is that it's advantageous to have drivers that are low distortion and capable of playing high spl. These two things together aid in not only the dynamics of the musical passages, but gives you an effortless tone during the micro and macro passages)overall tone.

With this goal of capturing "live" music and of "live" tonal qualities for the instrument, it doesn't matter if it's a soft whisper of a vocal, pluck of the bass, blast of the cornet, acoustic or 6l6 amplified guitar...these are qualities that I'm after. (Christian McBride - gettin' to it or Jeff Hamilton - Studio4) I'll throw some Larry Carlton (4 hands, One heart) or Russell Malone and I'm after all those intimate live qualities. But within that same context, putting on Joe Bonamassa - A New Day Yesterday Live is an example of a nice big rock recording that sounds appropriate if cranked up. But many speaker systems start to break down and can't play high 90's or greater than 100db cleanly, making these high spl levels completely off-putting and many times intolerable.

No matter if it's live music or a studio recording some of our labels are doing a fantastic job at bringing us a "live" type recording. Once I started down the path of trying to get live type instrument tone, dynamics, effortlessness, I really stopped feeling like I wanted to upgrade so much. I will say that not everyone wants to be in the same room as a trumpet, trombone, drum set, piano or even a single singer, I do. I like a good live recording, and a system that portrays instruments in a live manner. I also don't mind listening to an amplified bass and commenting that it sounds like the guy uses a GK bass head, or that a guitarist has a nice el34 sounding head. While true, you can't always pick that out...sometimes you can. Clean, clear, low distortion, dynamics within the confines of overall tone will also get you distinct imaging and set a soundstage. Although it may not get you that surreal staging that I had with some of my earlier systems. But, I'm not after that any more. I suppose we should all get to know our preferences and chase what it is that we like. For me, it's that live type sound and qualities of real instruments.

cheers,
Dan

I'm no expert, but I think what you are chasing is the same as most here. A system thats as close to source as possible- being clean, clear and low distortion. Isnt that just high fidelity- regardless of whether the source is a live recording or a full studio made record?

 

[gonefishin]

I'm no expert, but I think what you are chasing is the same as most here. A system thats as close to source as possible- being clean, clear and low distortion. Isnt that just high fidelity- regardless of whether the source is a live recording or a full studio made record?

My response was directly to the original question. A number of posts in this thread talked about not wanting the live dynamics and the sound of a live concert, I do. Going to the original question, I say that live music sound is my goal. Many mention that they are fine with reproducing acoustic or classical music, but when it comes to amplified music some said that they are not interested in reproducing that through their system. My liking is that I'm after the live sound no matter if acoustic or amplified. Several people mentioned that they would not want to replicate a live concert sound, it being sharp/dynamic sounding. I don't think this is a primary goal of many systems, but it is a main goal of mine. I certainly understand that not everyone wants to be in a room with a brass section(etc), but some do.

 

[RayDunzl]

Is "Live" Sound the Gold Standard for Audio? Why? Why Not?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1292838600846049282

 

[Pluto]

Funny you should mention Joe Jackson as his 1984 mastered direct-to-digital live recording Body and Soul is one of the finest recorded examples of a live rock band playing

Possibly, just possibly, the finest recording ever made in the contemporary music genre.

But only in the original 1984 edition. The later re-master made a real dog's breakfast out of this object of beauty.

 

[Jimbob54]

Possibly, just possibly, the finest recording ever made in the contemporary music genre.

But only in the original 1984 edition. The later re-master made a real dog's breakfast out of this object of beauty.

Well , Ive just added this on Qobuz on the strength of this. Interestingly (FWIW) it says EMI release 31/12/1983. On Tidal, what appears to the the same record says 03/01/1984

Anyone have a clue how you find the actual provenance of the versions on any of the streaming services- I'm less than confident any are what they purport to be unless relatively recent releases. Never see any catalog numbers etc

 

[Kouioui]

Anyone have a clue how you find the actual provenance of the versions on any of the streaming services- I'm less than confident any are what they purport to be unless relatively recent releases. Never see any catalog numbers etc

Pretty sure the lossless services use the '97 remaster as I have the CD I bought in '84 without the added compression to compare to.

 

[Pluto]

Anyone have a clue how you find the actual provenance of the versions

In the general sense, not a clue but if you work out a way of sending me the first track I can certainly tell whether it's the original or re-master. I also seem to remember that Track 3 (I think) on the re-master has some rather audible unpleasant clicks.

 

[Jimbob54]

In the general sense, not a clue but if you work out a way of sending me the first track I can certainly tell whether it's the original or re-master. I also seem to remember that Track 3 (I think) on the re-master has some rather audible unpleasant clicks.

You are not talking to someone competent to do such trickery. Regardless, it's the copy I have access to

 

[Jimbob54]

Pretty sure the lossless services use the '97 remaster as I have the CD I bought in '84 without the added compression to compare to.

Then I shall have to enjoy it for what it is, not what it could or should be .

 

[Jimbob54]

Then I shall have to enjoy it for what it is, not what it could or should be .

@Pluto @Kouioui

So I think this may be a record my dad played when I was way younger. I know he played the white and blue album of JJ (Stepping out?) but this sounds familiar

But- I dont think its one of the best live records. Its too forward. Everything is too high in the mix. So when the horns blast together, it gets robbed of impact.

Great playing, well captured just not sure the mix is right for me.

Again, showing my ignorance.

 

[Pluto]

Everything is too high in the mix

Forgive me, but how can everything be too loud in the mix? Everything louder than everything else? You may be mistaken as to which album you recall. The blue album containing Steppin‘ Out (Night and Day) had an entirely different sound, not particularly noteworthy.

Body & Soul is certainly not one of those records touted to audiopiles as ‘totally-live-in-one-take-direct-to-whatever’. It may be, to some extent, but so were many records in 1984. It certainly was recorded to mutitrack and extensively post-produced, albeit with a gentle touch and the microphones are a lot further from the instruments than is typical for the genre.

FWIW I think the mix, the production, the playing, is true artifice; a masterful example of recording as an art form in itself.

 

[Kouioui]

@Jimbob54 A shame you can't hear the '84 master without the dynamics squashed. It was recorded using a 32-track 3M digital recorder (like Donald Fagen's Nightfly) and everyone played all at one time, very limited overdubs, similar to the direct-to-disc Sheffield records. Basically, a live show without the audience. I consider it audiophile quality since you rarely hear such good sounding natural acoustics of a hall in popular music, usually it's digital EFX units that try to simulate the real thing and fall short.

There are many great sounding music venues in the UK and I've played a few myself back when I was touring in the early 80s. It's very inspiring for a musician to perform where you're not fighting the room to make your instrument sound good or stuffed into a studio with isolation baffles everywhere. I applaud Mr Jackson for doing something out of the ordinary and radically different than his 'Stepping Out' album.

 

[escksu]

Just wanted to add my 2 cents. Record sound can be better than live. Why? Placement of the mic. Try putting your ears right next to an instrument playing and then listening to it 10m away. Its very different.

 

[Jimbob54]

Forgive me, but how can everything be too loud in the mix? Everything louder than everything else? You may be mistaken as to which album you recall. The blue album containing Steppin‘ Out (Night and Day) had an entirely different sound, not particularly noteworthy.

Body & Soul is certainly not one of those records touted to audiopiles as ‘totally-live-in-one-take-direct-to-whatever’. It may be, to some extent, but so were many records in 1984. It certainly was recorded to mutitrack and extensively post-produced, albeit with a gentle touch and the microphones are a lot further from the instruments than is typical for the genre.

FWIW I think the mix, the production, the playing, is true artifice; a masterful example of recording as an art form in itself.

In my defence I had a few to drink last night. Might have gone past optimal imbibing point for listening . I was on headphones too. I'll try again later but what I think I was trying to convey was a lack of depth, every instrument shouting to be heard. Anyway, I shall try again as it had good energy. Possibly not my standard fayre - suspect it will grow on me.

My default "best live album" is Van Morrison- "Its too late to stop now". More space in that recording, if that makes sense, deeper and wider.

 

[Pluto]

My default "best live album…"

“Body & Soul” is not a ‘live album’ in the capture of a live performance sense; it is very much a studio production. It has as much ‘acoustic space’ as one could wish for, on music of this genre; this album is renowned for it.

Are you certain you were listening to “Body & Soul” as opposed to “Night & Day”? Steppin’ Out (mentioned by you) is on the latter.

 

[Jimbob54]

“Body & Soul” is not a ‘live album’ in the capture of a live performance sense; it is very much a studio production. It has as much ‘acoustic space’ as one could wish for, on music of this genre; this album is renowned for it.

Are you certain you were listening to “Body & Soul” as opposed to “Night & Day”? Steppin’ Out (mentioned by you) is on the latter.

Definitely body and soul (red and black cover). Hadn't realised it wasnt a concert recording, but instead a live recording. Explains why it doesn't sound like a concert, and I don't just mean no audience noise.

Will revisit

 

[Pluto]

but instead a live recording

Don't get too overwhelmed by this concept. It was made with a different approach compared with most records of its generation but it remains, nonetheless, a highly produced multitrack recording.

It will be interesting when you listen with a ‘different ear’. Speakers, not ’phones, highly recommended.