Which is better, live performance or on your system?

A Haydn or Beethoven quartet was not meant for large scale public performance. If there was a 19th row in the hall I can easily imagine many of the a'goners haveing a better musical experience in their sweet spot. Bill, try the Quatour Mosaique performances of Haydn or Beethoven on original instruments, they are superb performances. The recording would sound better that most halls 10th row. But I've had a live string quartet between my Dunlavy's and there is no doubt about my system's faults.

For me, even though I own a system that cost me about $33,000 to date, and as good as it sounds to me, a live performance is a live performance, and a CD on a $200,000 stereo is, and will always sound like a CD on a good stereo. Granted, it will sound better on some Mark Levenson gear than it will on a $1000 Sony system, but will lack the emotion that I feel from a live show. To me, they are two separate entities. I derive great enjoyment from both

Unfortunately for me its the stereo. I have a high class B system so it sounds very good. The emotional response I get from live performances these days tends to be negative.
1. Why doent those old ladys shut up and listen to the Bach?
2. Boy this hall has crappy accoustics. I can't even hear the winds.
3. I wish I could be listening to a better orchestra.

I live in Ft Collins Co so top rate musicians are only rarely available. Denver is better but the accoustics of these halls is marginal (Ft Collins Lincoln Center must be competitive with the world's worst accoustical environment)

So my stereo is my refuge. If I lived in Chicago or NYC I'm sure that would not be my answer.....