[gjsmo]

At the risk of sounding like the newbie I am (you didn't hear that),
why do live recordings always sound "better" than studio recordings,
even with mix level errors, people coughing or yelling, and absence of
the numerous overdubbings/effects such as one hears in songs like
"Bohemian Rhapsody"? Additionally, can I re-create this sound - maybe
playing back a studio recording in an auditorium, and recording that?

[PStamler]

They sound better because most musicians play better when they're
getting energy back from a real live audience. No way to simulate
that.

Peace,
Paul

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 10/7/2010 9:59 PM, gjsmo wrote:
At the risk of sounding like the newbie I am (you didn't hear that),
why do live recordings always sound "better" than studio recordings,
even with mix level errors, people coughing or yelling, and absence of
the numerous overdubbings/effects such as one hears in songs like
"Bohemian Rhapsody"? Additionally, can I re-create this sound - maybe
playing back a studio recording in an auditorium, and recording that?

You're making a value judgment that not everyone shares. I love live recordings.
My brother detests them. There are two primary differences between live and
studio recordings, in my view. The first is enthusiasm. Many artists perform
much better in front of an admiring audience than they do in front of a studio
microphone in a sterile room. Red light fever can be a killer. A second major
contributor is acoustics. Some live venues work better for recordings than some
poorly acoustically treated rooms. This second effect became even more apparent
to me when I was working with some omni wireless lapel mics. In a small room,
they sound terrible. In a large room, such as a live venue, they sound great.
The reason was that the small room acoustics were terrible.

There are many more reasons why there are major differences. In a live venue,
bands crank their amps and beat the hell out of the drums. Sometimes in a
studio, they are more subdued. It can be a major undertaking to try to capture
the live momentum in a studio recording.

Some musicians totally suck a playing live and cannot exist without AutoTune
(think Taylor Swift.) Most live recordings have moderate to excessive
overdubbing. At that point, the live recording really becomes a composite of the
best of the live performance enhanced by the best of the studio technology.

Don't worry about being new. I've been here for 15 years, and I still don't know
much. One of the pros will probably jump all over my answer, which is fine. It's
just my humble opinion.

[gjsmo]

On Oct 8, 4:24*pm, mcp6453 wrote:
On 10/7/2010 9:59 PM, gjsmo wrote:

At the risk of sounding like the newbie I am (you didn't hear that),
why do live recordings always sound "better" than studio recordings,
even with mix level errors, people coughing or yelling, and absence of
the numerous overdubbings/effects such as one hears in songs like
"Bohemian Rhapsody"? Additionally, can I re-create this sound - maybe
playing back a studio recording in an auditorium, and recording that?

You're making a value judgment that not everyone shares. I love live recordings.
My brother detests them. There are two primary differences between live and
studio recordings, in my view. The first is enthusiasm. Many artists perform
much better in front of an admiring audience than they do in front of a studio
microphone in a sterile room. Red light fever can be a killer. A second major
contributor is acoustics. Some live venues work better for recordings than some
poorly acoustically treated rooms. This second effect became even more apparent
to me when I was working with some omni wireless lapel mics. In a small room,
they sound terrible. In a large room, such as a live venue, they sound great.
The reason was that the small room acoustics were terrible.

There are many more reasons why there are major differences. In a live venue,
bands crank their amps and beat the hell out of the drums. Sometimes in a
studio, they are more subdued. It can be a major undertaking to try to capture
the live momentum in a studio recording.

Ok... then if I told the audience to be quiet, ... nawww, that won't
work.

Some musicians totally suck a playing live and cannot exist without AutoTune
(think Taylor Swift.) Most live recordings have moderate to excessive
overdubbing. At that point, the live recording really becomes a composite of the
best of the live performance enhanced by the best of the studio technology.

Huh? You mean that what I hear isn't what was at the concert? THEY
LIE!

Don't worry about being new. I've been here for 15 years, and I still don't know
much. One of the pros will probably jump all over my answer, which is fine. It's
just my humble opinion.

[William Sommerwerck]

"gjsmo" wrote in message
...

At the risk of sounding like the newbie I am (you didn't hear that),
why do live recordings always sound "better" than studio recordings,
even with mix level errors, people coughing or yelling, and absence of
the numerous overdubbings/effects such as one hears in songs like
"Bohemian Rhapsody"? Additionally, can I re-create this sound - maybe
playing back a studio recording in an auditorium, and recording that?

What kind of music? "Better" in what way?

With respect to classical music, live recordings often sound better because
the recording engineer is less able to **** with the sound.

[gjsmo]

On Oct 8, 4:38*pm, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:
"gjsmo" wrote in message

...

At the risk of sounding like the newbie I am (you didn't hear that),
why do live recordings always sound "better" than studio recordings,
even with mix level errors, people coughing or yelling, and absence of
the numerous overdubbings/effects such as one hears in songs like
"Bohemian Rhapsody"? Additionally, can I re-create this sound - maybe
playing back a studio recording in an auditorium, and recording that?

What kind of music? "Better" in what way?

With respect to classical music, live recordings often sound better because
the recording engineer is less able to **** with the sound.

Classic/Hard Rock mostly. I haven't noticed it so much with classical.

[Les Cargill]

gjsmo wrote:
At the risk of sounding like the newbie I am (you didn't hear that),
why do live recordings always sound "better" than studio recordings,
even with mix level errors, people coughing or yelling, and absence of
the numerous overdubbings/effects such as one hears in songs like
"Bohemian Rhapsody"? Additionally, can I re-create this sound - maybe
playing back a studio recording in an auditorium, and recording that?


It depends on what kind of music. Just IMO, but the Zappa Plays
Zappa DVD sounds pretty much better than Frank's own studio
efforts except for the Synclavier albums ( and those frequently
suffer from FM synthesis ).

Back in the day, live albums were frequently nothing more
than contractual obligation filler. Still, I have a guy
I've recorded live, and we'll see how he likes the studio
experience.

--
Les Cargill

[Roy W. Rising[_2_]]

gjsmo wrote:
At the risk of sounding like the newbie I am (you didn't hear that),
why do live recordings always sound "better" than studio recordings,
even with mix level errors, people coughing or yelling, and absence of
the numerous overdubbings/effects such as one hears in songs like
"Bohemian Rhapsody"? Additionally, can I re-create this sound - maybe
playing back a studio recording in an auditorium, and recording that?

When it is Take #1-and-only, a performer can deliver something not
available when there's a chance of Take #17. Group performances multiply
the results. One can not "re-create" the magic of "live". Do the "studio
recording" "live" and go from there.

--
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[geoff]

gjsmo wrote:
At the risk of sounding like the newbie I am (you didn't hear that),
why do live recordings always sound "better" than studio recordings,
even with mix level errors, people coughing or yelling, and absence of
the numerous overdubbings/effects such as one hears in songs like
"Bohemian Rhapsody"? Additionally, can I re-create this sound - maybe
playing back a studio recording in an auditorium, and recording that?

I've heard very many live recordings that sound far worse than studio ones.

geoff

[Nil]

On 08 Oct 2010, "geoff" wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

I've heard very many live recordings that sound far worse than
studio ones.

I love good live albums - some of my favorite records are live ones,
but there are many mediocre and bad ones. It's difficult to capture the
live experience, and many or most modern live albums are heavily
sweetened in the studio.

Sometimes the performance is so energetic and immediate that the sound
quality itself becomes secondary importance and can be overlooked or go
unnoticed (by me, at least.)

[hank alrich]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

"gjsmo" wrote in message
...

At the risk of sounding like the newbie I am (you didn't hear that),
why do live recordings always sound "better" than studio recordings,
even with mix level errors, people coughing or yelling, and absence of
the numerous overdubbings/effects such as one hears in songs like
"Bohemian Rhapsody"? Additionally, can I re-create this sound - maybe
playing back a studio recording in an auditorium, and recording that?

What kind of music? "Better" in what way?

With respect to classical music, live recordings often sound better because
the recording engineer is less able to **** with the sound.

You wouldn't call measure by measure and note by note editing ****ing
with the sound?

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman

[hank alrich]

PStamler wrote:

They sound better because most musicians play better when they're
getting energy back from a real live audience. No way to simulate
that.

Peace,
Paul

There is also the factor that when sound from various sources gets mixed
in air before hitting storage things happen which are not easily
emulated in processing. I like to have enryone playing live, all
together now, and even with close mic'ing, a stereo pair that get s a
nice image of the whole picture. This requires consideration of
placement of players and mics, but to me, it's worth the trouble.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman

[Les Cargill]

gjsmo wrote:
At the risk of sounding like the newbie I am (you didn't hear that),
why do live recordings always sound "better" than studio recordings,
even with mix level errors, people coughing or yelling, and absence of
the numerous overdubbings/effects such as one hears in songs like
"Bohemian Rhapsody"? Additionally, can I re-create this sound - maybe
playing back a studio recording in an auditorium, and recording that?


The audience brings the show. The band just acts as a fuse.

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill]

hank alrich wrote:
William wrote:

wrote in message
...

At the risk of sounding like the newbie I am (you didn't hear that),
why do live recordings always sound "better" than studio recordings,
even with mix level errors, people coughing or yelling, and absence of
the numerous overdubbings/effects such as one hears in songs like
"Bohemian Rhapsody"? Additionally, can I re-create this sound - maybe
playing back a studio recording in an auditorium, and recording that?

What kind of music? "Better" in what way?

With respect to classical music, live recordings often sound better because
the recording engineer is less able to **** with the sound.

You wouldn't call measure by measure and note by note editing ****ing
with the sound?


So what's the best reverb for playing back the sound of a tree falling
in the forest?

--
Les Cargill

[William Sommerwerck]

With respect to classical music, live recordings often sound better
because the recording engineer is less able to **** with the sound.

You wouldn't call measure by measure and note by note editing
****ing with the sound?

Correcting bad notes doesn't change the "sound" of the recording -- it
changes the performance.

The OP did not clarify what he meant by "sounding better". To me, that means
the /sound/ -- not the performance. The OP should have said "more exciting"
or "greater involvement", or something like that.

[William Sommerwerck]

So what's the best reverb for playing back the sound
of a tree falling in the forest?

Doesn't that depend on whether the engineer was present?

[William Sommerwerck]

So what's the best reverb for playing back the sound
of a tree falling in the forest?

Which reminds me of "Bicycle Thieves". Virtually the entire soundtrack is
looped -- in an essentially dead studio. It drives me crazy.

[Ty Ford]

On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 21:59:42 -0400, gjsmo wrote
(in article
):

At the risk of sounding like the newbie I am (you didn't hear that),
why do live recordings always sound "better" than studio recordings,
even with mix level errors, people coughing or yelling, and absence of
the numerous overdubbings/effects such as one hears in songs like
"Bohemian Rhapsody"? Additionally, can I re-create this sound - maybe
playing back a studio recording in an auditorium, and recording that?

Better as in how?

It's not unusual for live performances to sound "better" from a performing
perspective when they capture the vibe and energy transfer between the act
and the audience.

If that's all you're talking about then that's a small part of better. I
remember concerts by the Moody Blues and Beach Boys where the vocals were
obviously not in tune. Definitely not better. Other problems may make live
worse.

When I was in AOR radio and we were playing albums at midnight., I spoke to a
listener who said he already owned the album, but liked the way the station
processing punched up the sound. (Thank you Bob Orban)

Regards,

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[gjsmo]

On Oct 9, 7:16*am, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:
With respect to classical music, live recordings often sound better
because the recording engineer is less able to **** with the sound.
You wouldn't call measure by measure and note by note editing
****ing with the sound?

Correcting bad notes doesn't change the "sound" of the recording -- it
changes the performance.

The OP did not clarify what he meant by "sounding better". To me, that means
the /sound/ -- not the performance. The OP should have said "more exciting"
or "greater involvement", or something like that.

Good point. I'll say that I THINK it's the sound, but I can't be sure.
A good example of what I'm talking about is You Shook Me All Night
Long:
Live: http://dream.maker303.free.fr/music/shook.mp3
Studio: http://davewhitman.com/Music/My%20Mu...0-%20AC-DC.mp3

There are better ones, but this seems to be the best example of what
I'm thinking of off the top of my head. In general, the good live
albums have a certain on-going quality that isn't there in studio
albums. Maybe it's the audience cheering, maybe it's the amps being
cranked farther, but they have a certain intangible quality which
escapes me. I suppose it's possible that this only happens in live
performances, but I'm just wondering why.

[hank alrich]

Les Cargill wrote:

gjsmo wrote:
At the risk of sounding like the newbie I am (you didn't hear that),
why do live recordings always sound "better" than studio recordings,
even with mix level errors, people coughing or yelling, and absence of
the numerous overdubbings/effects such as one hears in songs like
"Bohemian Rhapsody"? Additionally, can I re-create this sound - maybe
playing back a studio recording in an auditorium, and recording that?


The audience brings the show. The band just acts as a fuse.

--
Les Cargill

That can be a huge part of it. Audients can be inspiring.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://armadillomusicproductions.com/who'slistening.html
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman

[Frank Stearns]

gjsmo writes:

-snips -

There are better ones, but this seems to be the best example of what
I'm thinking of off the top of my head. In general, the good live
albums have a certain on-going quality that isn't there in studio
albums. Maybe it's the audience cheering, maybe it's the amps being
cranked farther, but they have a certain intangible quality which
escapes me. I suppose it's possible that this only happens in live
performances, but I'm just wondering why.

Live performance energy can mean a lot for the "vibe". But purely for the sonic
signature aspect, sometimes it's just the additional bleed between mics in a
"bigger" acoustical setting that adds sonic "dimension."

99% of my work is on location; I use this all the time -- not that I don't mic for
isolation and control when doing non-classical work, but when bleed does happen I
don't wring my hands; I figure out how to use it beneficially. This usually means
fiddling with channel delays, adding reverb differently than had the tracks been
completely isolated and dry, and so on.

I do have one client who complains he can't use autotune effectively if there's
bleed.

Response #1: Awwwwwww, darn...

Response #2: "No worries, man, it's called 'chorusing'..."

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
So what's the best reverb for playing back the sound
of a tree falling in the forest?

Which reminds me of "Bicycle Thieves". Virtually the entire soundtrack is
looped -- in an essentially dead studio. It drives me crazy.

If you mean "The Bicycle Thief," that is done deliberately to make it
like a 1950s Italian film. It was standard practice back then to film MOS
and dub, since it would regularly be dubbed into multiple languages anyway.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

So what's the best reverb for playing back the sound
of a tree falling in the forest?

Which reminds me of "Bicycle Thieves". Virtually the entire
soundtrack is looped -- in an essentially dead studio. It drives
me crazy.

If you mean "The Bicycle Thief," that is done deliberately to
make it like a 1950s Italian film. It was standard practice
back then to film MOS...

"Mit out sound", for those who are unfamiliar.


...and dub, since it would regularly be dubbed into multiple
languages, anyway.

Actually, the correct title is "Bicycle Thieves". I don't like it, because
it misses the irony of the "original" English title.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_Thieves

There is also a parody I've never seen, "The Icicle Thief".

[Scott Dorsey]

gjsmo wrote:

Huh? You mean that what I hear isn't what was at the concert? THEY
LIE!

Lying is what recording is all about.

I remember working a concert in a horrible stadium once, and a friend came
from the audience and got into the recording truck and listened to the
rough monitor mix. He said, "Wow, it sounds a lot better in here than it
does in there." Done right, everything about the live album should sound
better than the concert, beginning with the control of the hall acoustics.

You can overdub vocals that were screwed up, and you can edit several
performances together to get the bass solo from one day and the drum solo
from another day.

But you _still_ get the energy and the immediacy of the live performance
even so. I think it's the best way to record when you have a band that
can really play together and is actually tight.

When a band _isn't_ tight, though, there's really no way to fix it because
the amount of leakage just makes cut and paste work impossible.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

hank alrich wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote:

"gjsmo" wrote in message
...

At the risk of sounding like the newbie I am (you didn't hear that),
why do live recordings always sound "better" than studio recordings,
even with mix level errors, people coughing or yelling, and absence of
the numerous overdubbings/effects such as one hears in songs like
"Bohemian Rhapsody"? Additionally, can I re-create this sound - maybe
playing back a studio recording in an auditorium, and recording that?

What kind of music? "Better" in what way?

With respect to classical music, live recordings often sound better because
the recording engineer is less able to **** with the sound.

You wouldn't call measure by measure and note by note editing ****ing
with the sound?

It is _really_ hard to do that with live classical recordings the way it is
commonly done with studio classical stuff. I can often patch together pieces
from two different performances but invariably the noise floors are different
due to the different audiences. With a lot of orchestras the tone is not quite
the same from day to day either, so it can be hard to keep it from sticking
out.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On 2010-10-10 (ScottDorsey) said:
snip

You can overdub vocals that were screwed up, and you can edit
several performances together to get the bass solo from one day and
the drum solo from another day.
But you _still_ get the energy and the immediacy of the live
performance even so. I think it's the best way to record when you
have a band that can really play together and is actually tight.
When a band _isn't_ tight, though, there's really no way to fix it
because the amount of leakage just makes cut and paste work
impossible.

OF course, which is why I prefer it as well. Those who suck
at live performance usually are aware enough of this they
don't hire a live recording done, so I"m not listening to
this can we autotune and cut and paste crap.
IF you can't deliver a performance live then you suck, go
push a broom and let those who can actually play entertain
the folks.





Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

gjsmo wrote:

At the risk of sounding like the newbie I am (you didn't hear that),
why do live recordings always sound "better" than studio recordings,
even with mix level errors, people coughing or yelling, and absence of
the numerous overdubbings/effects such as one hears in songs like
"Bohemian Rhapsody"? Additionally, can I re-create this sound - maybe
playing back a studio recording in an auditorium, and recording that?

A recording where all instruments plays simultanously has the sound of all
instruments influencing the sound of all instruments and that makes all
instruments sound a lot more interesting.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
k...
gjsmo wrote:

At the risk of sounding like the newbie I am (you didn't hear that),
why do live recordings always sound "better" than studio recordings,
even with mix level errors, people coughing or yelling, and absence of
the numerous overdubbings/effects such as one hears in songs like
"Bohemian Rhapsody"? Additionally, can I re-create this sound - maybe
playing back a studio recording in an auditorium, and recording that?

work mosdtly in lIVE production and I loath when someone wants me to play
thier "live" recording, mostly done as a direct to two track bootleg, not
professional multitracked and mixed down
IMO the results are almost always unlistenable
the exception being samll theater acoustic artists
george

[Scott Dorsey]

George's Pro Sound Co. wrote:

work mosdtly in lIVE production and I loath when someone wants me to play
thier "live" recording, mostly done as a direct to two track bootleg, not
professional multitracked and mixed down
IMO the results are almost always unlistenable

Yeah, but that's not because they are recordings of live events, that is
because they are bizarre mixes that bear no actual resemblance to the live
event.

It's not so bad with huge stadium acts where everything is in the PA because
the audience is unable to hear the backline directly; there the FOH feed
usually reflects the sound in the house reasonably well.

Also, of course.... you may have noticed that most live sound is really
awful. You record awful sound, you get an awful recording. And so much
of it is awful.

the exception being samll theater acoustic artists

Even with a guitar and vocal act, the board tape is apt to be vocal-heavy
since the guitar makes so much direct sound in the hall. But it's certainly
harder to mess up when you only have two channels.

Also the acoustic acts may care about their PA quality more. Or maybe not.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

Also, of course.... you may have noticed that most live sound is really
awful. You record awful sound, you get an awful recording. And so much
of it is awful.

I think this is where I was pointing to.
George

[Scott Dorsey]

George's Pro Sound Co. wrote:

Also, of course.... you may have noticed that most live sound is really
awful. You record awful sound, you get an awful recording. And so much
of it is awful.

I think this is where I was pointing to.

Well, it's a shame that the recording sounds so awful. But it's even worse
that people paid money for tickets to listen to something awful.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[jonothon]

in my opinion, the reason they sound "better" is the live energy. I
love listening to live recordings, although they almost invariably
inferior in terms of sonic quality. And studio recording are
generally better sonically, but lack the energy, excitement, and un-
self-consciousness of a live performance in front of an audience. i
doubt re-recording a studio session in an auditorium will help you
achieve what you're looking for.

On Oct 24, 5:13*am, "Peter Larsen" wrote:
gjsmo wrote:
At the risk of sounding like the newbie I am (you didn't hear that),
why do live recordings always sound "better" than studio recordings,
even with mix level errors, people coughing or yelling, and absence of
the numerous overdubbings/effects such as one hears in songs like
"Bohemian Rhapsody"? Additionally, can I re-create this sound - maybe
playing back a studio recording in an auditorium, and recording that?

[[email protected]]

On 2010-10-24 said:
Also, of course.... you may have noticed that most live sound is
really awful. You record awful sound, you get an awful recording.
And so much of it is awful.
I think this is where I was pointing to.
OF course, but even if the live sound is great the
requirements for a good recording and what's needed for the
butts in the seats are totally different. The same mic
placement for capturing an element might not even be right.





Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[Arny Krueger]

"jonothon" wrote in message


in my opinion, the reason they sound "better" is the live
energy. I love listening to live recordings, although
they almost invariably inferior in terms of sonic
quality. And studio recording are generally better
sonically, but lack the energy, excitement, and un-
self-consciousness of a live performance in front of an
audience. i doubt re-recording a studio session in an
auditorium will help you achieve what you're looking for.

Agreed. The live versus studio comparison is where your personal values
show. Do you favor sound quality over musical quality, and what are the
musical qualities that you favor the most? I can't state a global preference
because any pair of recordings can go either way.

I like the energy and teamwork of live, but sometimes the carefully thought
out, carefully planned, carefully played and carefully edited studio work
can be very pleasing. Studio work where all the musicans actually play
together can be very good. A live concert where the band and venue are
well-prepared can also be very good.

Sometimes everything seems to be technically wrong, but the musicans come
together and do something that is beautiful and even exceptional.

If we could all predict and control when great music was going to happen,
many of us wouldn't have time to post on Usenet! ;-)

[alex]

Il 08/10/2010 3.59, gjsmo ha scritto:
At the risk of sounding like the newbie I am (you didn't hear that),
why do live recordings always sound "better" than studio recordings,
even with mix level errors, people coughing or yelling, and absence of
the numerous overdubbings/effects such as one hears in songs like
"Bohemian Rhapsody"? Additionally, can I re-create this sound - maybe
playing back a studio recording in an auditorium, and recording that?

IMHO they sound "better" because the correct ambience which help things
to sound more natural even with mix errors.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

alex wrote:

Il 08/10/2010 3.59, gjsmo ha scritto:

At the risk of sounding like the newbie I am (you didn't hear that),
why do live recordings always sound "better" than studio recordings,
even with mix level errors, people coughing or yelling, and absence
of the numerous overdubbings/effects such as one hears in songs like
"Bohemian Rhapsody"? Additionally, can I re-create this sound - maybe
playing back a studio recording in an auditorium, and recording that?

IMHO they sound "better" because the correct ambience which help
things to sound more natural even with mix errors.

Also there is live in studio and live In Concert, the difference being the
interaction with the audience.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
k...
alex wrote:

Il 08/10/2010 3.59, gjsmo ha scritto:

At the risk of sounding like the newbie I am (you didn't hear that),
why do live recordings always sound "better" than studio recordings,
even with mix level errors, people coughing or yelling, and absence
of the numerous overdubbings/effects such as one hears in songs like
"Bohemian Rhapsody"? Additionally, can I re-create this sound - maybe
playing back a studio recording in an auditorium, and recording that?

IMHO they sound "better" because the correct ambience which help
things to sound more natural even with mix errors.

Also there is live in studio and live In Concert, the difference being the
interaction with the audience.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen


I am not aware of any mass marketed "live" albums of popular music that was
not a assemblage of multi tracks from dozens of concerts mixed, remixed and
edited until the final result bore no resemblence to any one actual live
concert
bootlegs are another story.
George

[Scott Dorsey]

George's Pro Sound Co. wrote:

I am not aware of any mass marketed "live" albums of popular music that was
not a assemblage of multi tracks from dozens of concerts mixed, remixed and
edited until the final result bore no resemblence to any one actual live
concert
bootlegs are another story.

Well, some of them were 2-track mixes that were then spliced together into
something simulating but not representing a concert.

How was the Steppenwolf Live album done? That has some of the most glaringly
obvious edits, but the performances are stunning.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."