I have heard, over the last 50 years, orchestras (some with organ or voice) in a fair variety of halls, both small (maybe 300 seats) and large (2000+ seats), and my experience of live vs. recorded has, on average, been the same as yours. I would point out that where you sit can have a large effect on important factors like harsh upper partials and perceived bass content. In general, the farther away from the stage you are, the less bright (or aggressive) the sound is and, it goes without saying, closer=louder, no small thing if you value the big sound.
The thing about live acoustic sound is that it is inarguably real. No matter if it is loud or soft, bright or mellow, what you hear is unmediated by equipment.The ability to reproduce accurately as complex a signal as that provided by a large symphony orchestra has yet to be demonstrated.
I think the biggest differences among the things that matter between good reproduced and live music are overall timbral accuracy and distortion. Live acoustic sound reaches your hungry ear undistorted. I believe that I have never heard a 'stereo' that failed to produce some audible distortion. It doesn't have to be 'measurable,' as we all know, to be discernible.
As far as timbre (the musical signature that differentiates a violin from a guitar), the first thing that strikes me at the downbeat is the almost overwhelming beauty and power of massed violins and the reason it always hits me first and hardest is that, before that moment, I have heard only electronic copies of it for some time and had forgotten the quality of the real thing.
On the other hand, As a former clarinet player, I have heard now and then satisfyingly lovely clarinets coming out of my speakers. Flutes can be close.
Bassoons and French horns, not so good. My point is that timbre is a mixed bag.
The improvement of reproduction has always meant to some people the ideal of the 'absolute sound.' The simple fact is that for the vast majority of music listeners, in this age when making one's own music is rarer and rarer, a live performance experience of acoustic instruments is not ever going to happen.
I suspect that is true for the majority of us 'audiophiles.'
There seem to be ever more folks, here and and other audio sites, whose primary focus is on electrified music and amplified voices. It is difficult to see how a system that sounds good to me will satisfy the guy who listens to The Who. I know my system, which does a fair job with the Berlin Philharmonic, is no match for a kilowatt of Stratocaster. (I actually like The Who and other rockers but I listen mostly to classical music and so I forego the joy of full ear destruction.
The point? I guess I'm saying I am not surprised your post has not had a response. I wrote this one mostly just to let you know that I hear you. You're not alone.
The thing about live acoustic sound is that it is inarguably real. No matter if it is loud or soft, bright or mellow, what you hear is unmediated by equipment.The ability to reproduce accurately as complex a signal as that provided by a large symphony orchestra has yet to be demonstrated.
I think the biggest differences among the things that matter between good reproduced and live music are overall timbral accuracy and distortion. Live acoustic sound reaches your hungry ear undistorted. I believe that I have never heard a 'stereo' that failed to produce some audible distortion. It doesn't have to be 'measurable,' as we all know, to be discernible.
As far as timbre (the musical signature that differentiates a violin from a guitar), the first thing that strikes me at the downbeat is the almost overwhelming beauty and power of massed violins and the reason it always hits me first and hardest is that, before that moment, I have heard only electronic copies of it for some time and had forgotten the quality of the real thing.
On the other hand, As a former clarinet player, I have heard now and then satisfyingly lovely clarinets coming out of my speakers. Flutes can be close.
Bassoons and French horns, not so good. My point is that timbre is a mixed bag.
The improvement of reproduction has always meant to some people the ideal of the 'absolute sound.' The simple fact is that for the vast majority of music listeners, in this age when making one's own music is rarer and rarer, a live performance experience of acoustic instruments is not ever going to happen.
I suspect that is true for the majority of us 'audiophiles.'
There seem to be ever more folks, here and and other audio sites, whose primary focus is on electrified music and amplified voices. It is difficult to see how a system that sounds good to me will satisfy the guy who listens to The Who. I know my system, which does a fair job with the Berlin Philharmonic, is no match for a kilowatt of Stratocaster. (I actually like The Who and other rockers but I listen mostly to classical music and so I forego the joy of full ear destruction.
The point? I guess I'm saying I am not surprised your post has not had a response. I wrote this one mostly just to let you know that I hear you. You're not alone.