chinablues wrote: > pfarrell;302298 Wrote: >> iPhone wrote:[color=blue] >> >> Right, its about the music. >> >> [/url] > > Agreed....but, last month we were in England & listened to a great band > live in a pub in Bristol (Fatman Sings or Swings? in the Old Duke?). > Nine piece band. Live and great sound. But what was I listening to? > The instruments and the voices or the pick ups, amplifiers and > speakers? (not even counting the quality of the interconnects!!) How > good was the signal path to my ear? Realise that this has been > discussed endlessly before...but whenever I listen to 'live' music, I > always wonder what really is 'live'. Maybe Opera; but not really a > band in a pub.
Uh, so "live" music is only "live" if all instruments are acoustic, i.e. no amplification? I don't think so... In your example, you *were* listening to the instruments and the voices, played "live" and amplified. The end result, i.e. that which you could hear in the pub, was the "live" sound. Often, especially with non-classical music, the sound an artist achieves is a direct result of using amplification, i.e. they can do things with their instrument/voice that would not be possible acoustically. Take most electric guitarists - their sound/style is a lot to do with their instruments and equipment. For example: Knopfler - Fender Strat, Peter Green - Gibson Les Paul, Stevie Ray Vaughan - Fender Strat, etc. Just enjoy the performance - live music is far, far better than recorded music. Talking of which, I'm going to see Robin Trower tomorrow! R. _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
