Digital vs Analogue vs Live

[Priapulus]

I've been doing a lot of listening lately. I've got a reasonably good system (see sig) and it sounds really good. But when a go to a live musical event, its obvious something is missing. Part of it is the recorded compression, lack of dynamics.

But I think what I'm not hearing in recorded music, is a certain "liveness". I wonder if live music's sound field, the room's reverberance, with all the multi-path and phase shifting of the music bouncing around the hall is what is missing from recordings. Most of our living rooms are small and dead.

If that is the problem, then 5.1 recordings should improve it.

Sincerely
/blair

[JKCashin]

Don't discount the quality of the recordings themselves! Listen to Muddy Waters album "Folk Singer" on your stereo system and tell me what you think.

[garbulky]

I think the first problem with modern recordings is that most of them are close miked in a closed in booth. Here the reflections tend to be minimized. Sometimes they'll add some fake reverb (which sounds very obvious imo).
It's only when you hear some jazz or types of classical recordings do things progress out to a more natural sound.

[AudioHTIT]

Well to start with, unless they're 'live' recordings they're not going to, or meant to sound live. I think you're right, that a properly miced 5.1 recording has the best chance of capturing the ambience and sound field of a live recording in a particular hall. Which also means you'd have to have listened in that venue for it to sound the same, but at least the goal was to capture and reproduce the live event.

[JKCashin]

Snicker... miced.

That sent silly images through my head.

[JKCashin]

PS: I say tyre, boot, bonnet and windscreen, even though I live in Canada... so feel free to mock me.