2. music
  3. 179852-166946

Why does rock concert sound suck?

I have been to two rock concert in the past year : Brit Floyd in Bridgeport CT and Eric Clapton at Madison Square Garden, NYC (last Monday)

For Brit Floyd I was about 40 feet form the stage and treble end was an ear-splitting distorted sound - the soprano solo on Dark Side of the Moon sounded like a chain saw running at 5x speed.

For Eric Clapton I was sitting at floor level about 20 rows behind the mixing desk - i.e., the opposite end from the stage. In this case the high top end was not so distorted, but the voices were still very harsh - seemingly a massive response peak at ~1500hz. Imagine AM radio with the treble turned up 20db.

I knew a lot of the words form the songs ahead of time of course, and just about recognized them, but otherwise the lyrics were unintelligible. The only exceptions were when he sang a quieter song - e.g., “Tears in Heaven” . Clapton moved back from the mic rather than place his mouth right next to it. Then the sound was quite listenable .

Of course managing the acoustics in such a big venue is no doubt a challenge — but does it have to be this bad?

oliver_reid

Showing 4 responses by curtdr

curtdr
348 posts
 

@dpop 

The speakers that the Mixing Engineer used might not be nearly as good as yours, if you've selected yours carefully, first of all... especially for a home.  The studio monitors are designed, first of all, for the studio.  Unless you get the exact same monitors and amps used for each recording, and have your room set up like a studio, and have your volume at the same volume, and you have the same ears as the engineer... well, you get my point.

 

curtdr
348 posts
 

I've been to some excellent sounding concerts... and a lot that suck when it comes to sound.

The great sounding ones though teach you how rock should sound ... through your speakers!  

Likewise, a live orchestral performance is the real thing... it amazes me when "audiophiles" are oh so effete that they forget about what music performed live actually sounds like.  

Some of the most boring concerts I've been to were "perfect"... TOO perfect, and thus lacked that edge, that excitement, that daring, that dynamism.  Steve Winwood, Elvis Costello, Journey ("back in the day"), and one "The Wall" show I saw done by Roger Waters; perfect sound, technically slick performance, sounded "just like the album" w no grit and gusto and so, What's the point? 

curtdr
348 posts
 

Another thing that might be interesting to this thread is that I was browsing around on YouTube and there was an episode (I don't recall, it may have been the "Audiophiliac" guy) in which a gathering of "audiophiles" was in a home, I believe in New York, and an interviewer went around and asked individuals "What is 'snake oil' in audio?"  The range of responses was ... revealing.

But the response that stood out to me was one guy who said, essentially:  "It's ALL snake oil.  None of it sounds like real music, and it can never hope to.  I don't care what your system is, it does not reproduce the experience of a performance at Carnegie Hall, nor any other hall where music is actually performed.  Once I finally realized this, I stopped spending money on stereo gear, and now I spend my money on live performances so I can actually experience the real thing."

Something to think about.  

curtdr
348 posts
 

@hartf36

I saw the Stones on that same ’81 tour in Dallas and I was very let down by the poor performance... it was not a strong show.

Later in ’88 or 89 I saw them on the Steel Wheels tour in Cleveland, and that was a great show, and the sound was good too... in Cleveland Stadium!  I saw The Who and Neil Young at that venue I think '89 and the sound in that stadium for both of those bands was good, at least where I was sitting.

I think maybe ’81 the Stones were too coked up to care, and they came off as a bunch of posers.

I passed on their most recent tour, though, because ticket prices made me sick...

More to discover