[vegasdave]

If you sell the PMCs, try ATCs. You might dig those like I do. However, they are soft dome tweeters, so maybe not enough treble for you?

[DaveNote]

If you sell the PMCs, try ATCs. You might dig those like I do. However, they are soft dome tweeters, so maybe not enough treble for you?

I've heard very good things about ATCs. Selling the PMCs is doubtful unless I were willing to sell them for what looks like the going rate - less than half of what I paid for them. But if I were to change speakers, even with taking a bath, I'm more likely to demo the passive Model T before I would ATCs, if there is an ATC dealer here.

I've thought about the Model T this way.

As good as the PMC is, its house sound, in fact, makes it less consonant with every thing Bryston is about - neutralitty, accuracy, gettng out of a recording exactly what was put into it - than Bryston is with Axiom. Axiom, also just happens to have the same incredible commitment as Bryston (See Sasha's thread on his amazing experience with Bryston in the past couple of days, as well as mine with Axiom).

Looks to me like a match made in neutral heaven. The M80s have blown me away. Imagine what an Axiom-based speaker designed under the hand of James Tanner (acting the role of Steve Jobs in the process saying yeah or nay to every element) will sound like!

Before my Axiom experience (conversion?) it never occurred to me to consider the Model T. But with it, and James looking hard at a passive version, I'm anxious to see him decide to make it a product and put it into dealers' demo rooms.

Dave

[vegasdave]

I've heard very good things about ATCs. Selling the PMCs is doubtful unless I were willing to sell them for what looks like the going rate - less than half of what I paid for them. But if I were to change speakers, even with taking a bath, I'm more likely to demo the passive Model T before I would ATCs, if there is an ATC dealer here.

I've thought about the Model T this way.

As good as the PMC is, its house sound, in fact, makes it less consonant with every thing Bryston is about - neutralitty, accuracy, gettng out of a recording exactly what was put into it - than Bryston is with Axiom. Axiom, also just happens to have the same incredible commitment as Bryston (See Sasha's thread on his amazing experience with Bryston in the past couple of days, as well as mine with Axiom).

Looks to me like a match made in neutral heaven. The M80s have blown me away. Imagine what an Axiom-based speaker designed under the hand of James Tanner (acting the role of Steve Jobs in the process saying yeah or nay to every element) will sound like!

Before my Axiom experience (conversion?) it never occurred to me to consider the Model T. But with it, and James looking hard at a passive version, I'm anxious to see him decide to make it a product and put it into dealers' demo rooms.

Dave

Cool. Are you saying the PMCs don't have good resale value? No problem about the ATCs. I have every reason to believe the Model T's are gonna be something special.

[DaveNote]

Cool. Are you saying the PMCs don't have good resale value? No problem about the ATCs. I have every reason to believe the Model T's are gonna be something special.

I did a quick search online and based on it looks like I'd get less than half my original cost for the MB2i.

Dave

[vegasdave]

I did a quick search online and based on it looks like I'd get less than half my original cost for the MB2i.

Dave

Geez...that's too bad. I'm sorry to hear that.

[DaveNote]

Geez...that's too bad. I'm sorry to hear that.

Thanks for the condolences. But they may be premature. I have yet to decide whether or not to given them up.

Dave

[vegasdave]

You're welcome. Ok. Well, whatever you decide, good luck. 

[DaveNote]

Did a little closer listening today. Here's an update.

Main system, MB2is, with all Bryston 7BSST2s and BP26
Second system M80s with HK 3490

The MB2is have more bass, no doubt about it. The extension is greater. However, it is not as good as the M80s, IMO, for these reasons.

First, it is not linear. By that I mean that the MB2is' bass is more prominent among the various frequencies. The Axiom frequencies are more balanced, no one range predominates over another. So by comparison, the MB2is seem bassy. Many would prefer them for that reason, but I think that makes them less accurate.

Second, and equally important, the MB2is bass is somewhat smeared and less well defined than the M80. For example, listening to a good acoustic bass recording (Ron Carter, The Striker), the M80 produces that bit of thump or percussive plucking sound that should be present, which is largely masked by the MB2i.

The DSP that is coming is suppose to extend the M80 bass which should make the M80 even more of a competitor.

The MB2is midrange, especially in vocals, is very sweet and appealing in the MB2is. The M80s' midrange is less appealing, but I believe may be more accurate.

The high end of the MB2is is good, but not as bright or nearly as revealing as that of the M80. On the plus side, for listeners like me that means great cymbal smashes.

The rasp I've been hearing I think is neither a problem with the M80s, or as I feared, ear fatigue (having now rested my ears), but rather a kind of sound that I may not have noticed before, but which has, through long and very close listening, been brought to my attention by the revealing M80s. Now I hear rasping everywhere when I listen for it. In other words, it may have been there all the time in but I just may not have noticed it until the M80s "revealed" it to me.

Playing at the same volumes, the rasp can be heard on both the MB2i and the M80. However, it is more distinct on the M80.

Finally, I again connected the M80s to my Bryston amps and preamp. Blacker, quieter soundstage. With these electronics, the M80s have a more relaxed sound, without losing resolution and detail. My guess? Lower distortion from the electronics.

Dave

[vegasdave]

Wow, that's quite amazing. PMC just got embarrassed by the low cost M80. Shame on you, PMC. hehe.

[SoundGame]

Hi Dave,

I've been away on vacation and then extremely busy upon my return, so not much time for AC.  I've been reading through this and find your experience to be interesting to say the least.

Your comparisons and descriptions seem to cove things as detail portayal, frequency balance, low level and high lllevel dynamics but you don't touch on soundstage,  imaging, separation, nor harmonic, tonal, timbral accuracyand distortion atreference levels.  When you get a chance could you provide your impression of the differences on these areas?  Glad you've been enjoying this sojourn.

[DaveNote]

Hi Dave,

I've been away on vacation and then extremely busy upon my return, so not much time for AC.  I've been reading through this and find your experience to be interesting to say the least.

Your comparisons and descriptions seem to cove things as detail portayal, frequency balance, low level and high lllevel dynamics but you don't touch on soundstage,  imaging, separation, nor harmonic, tonal, timbral accuracyand distortion atreference levels.  When you get a chance could you provide your impression of the differences on these areas?  Glad you've been enjoying this sojourn.

SoundGame: Because I am not a professional reviewer, a musician, or have any experience with or knowledge abut professional audio or speaker design and development. I am nor familiar with all the terms you have noted. But if you keep these critical caveats in mind, and with me looking up some of the terms, I will, as an amateur, and with apologies to those, like yourself, more knowledgeable than I, give it a try.

Soundstage: I think I have mentioned that I have been compelled to position to the M80s only five feet apart. This, naturally has narrowed the soundstage, which I don't find to be much of a problem. On the other hand, the M80s give the pleasant allusion that music is slightly extended beyond the edges of the soundstage, something I don't find with the MB2is.

Imaging, with Stereophile defines as "The measure of a system's ability to float stable and specific phantom images, reproducing the original sizes and locations of the instruments across the soundstage." I think I've written earlier, perhaps in my own terms, that the M80s are quite a bit better in pin-point definition of instruments across soundstage. Strangely, the M80s leave far less of the impression than the MB2is that music is coming out of a box.

Separation: If this refers to the directionality of the various sounds on the sondstage, I would say it is good on both speakers. The separation left and right is good, and to the degree that one gets the sense of instruments and voices being softer or louder as if they were nearer of farther from the listener, I would have to give the M80s the prize, by a margin, in this category. The closing bell on Pink Floyd's High Hopes fades and recedes better than on the MB2is, even though the soundstage is narrower.

Stereophile's glossary says timbre is "The recognizable characteristic sound "signature" of a musical instrument, by which it is possible to tell an oboe, for example, from a flute when both are sounding the same note." Again, I find the M80s superior in this regard. I have always found, depending on the player, that it can be difficult for me to detect the difference among soprano, alto and tenor saxophones when playing about the same notes. This is somewhat easier for me listening to the M80s than the MB2is.

The tonal quality, meaning the accuracy of the tone when comparing the reproduced to a live instrument, is hard for me to judge with any confidence since I very seldom listen to live instruments. But based on my shaky memory, I think the M80s do this quite a bit better than the MB2is. For example, with acoustic bass and tenor bass. I believe the M80s also have more accuracate tonal reproduction of piano decay as well as piano resonance.

I'm flummoxed when it comes to harmonic accuracy because I couldn't find an explanation that would define it in terms I understood. If you can help me out on this one, SoundGame, maybe I can attempt an answer.

Distortion at reference level is another term with which i'm not familiar. I did find this definition; "Reference level is the volume at 75db (decibels) in your room using full band pink noise. When you set up your system and you run pink noise through your speakers one at a time setting each level using an SPL meter to 75db you will (after all channels are done) and your volume control is set to 0db you will achieve "reference" when playing back movies or music. Movies will tend to reach peaks of 115db with your system set up properly."

This may not be what you had in mind, but if it means using pink noise, my answer is that I have not used pink noise on either speaker. In terms of decibel levels, I have only iPad apps with which to measure them in my room. I have listened for relatively short periods of time in the 80 db range, with peaking to the low 90s, without distortion that I could detect on either speaker.

I hope these comments are of help.

Dave

[SoundGame]

SoundGame: Because I am not a professional reviewer, a musician, or have any experience with or knowledge abut professional audio or speaker design and development. I am nor familiar with all the terms you have noted. But if you keep these critical caveats in mind, and with me looking up some of the terms, I will, as an amateur, and with apologies to those, like yourself, more knowledgeable than I, give it a try.

Soundstage: I think I have mentioned that I have been compelled to position to the M80s only five feet apart. This, naturally has narrowed the soundstage, which I don't find to be much of a problem. On the other hand, the M80s give the pleasant allusion that music is slightly extended beyond the edges of the soundstage, something I don't find with the MB2is.

Imaging, with Stereophile defines as "The measure of a system's ability to float stable and specific phantom images, reproducing the original sizes and locations of the instruments across the soundstage." I think I've written earlier, perhaps in my own terms, that the M80s are quite a bit better in pin-point definition of instruments across soundstage. Strangely, the M80s leave far less of the impression than the MB2is that music is coming out of a box.

Separation: If this refers to the directionality of the various sounds on the sondstage, I would say it is good on both speakers. The separation left and right is good, and to the degree that one gets the sense of instruments and voices being softer or louder as if they were nearer of farther from the listener, I would have to give the M80s the prize, by a margin, in this category. The closing bell on Pink Floyd's High Hopes fades and recedes better than on the MB2is, even though the soundstage is narrower.

Stereophile's glossary says timbre is "The recognizable characteristic sound "signature" of a musical instrument, by which it is possible to tell an oboe, for example, from a flute when both are sounding the same note." Again, I find the M80s superior in this regard. I have always found, depending on the player, that it can be difficult for me to detect the difference among soprano, alto and tenor saxophones when playing about the same notes. This is somewhat easier for me listening to the M80s than the MB2is.

The tonal quality, meaning the accuracy of the tone when comparing the reproduced to a live instrument, is hard for me to judge with any confidence since I very seldom listen to live instruments. But based on my shaky memory, I think the M80s do this quite a bit better than the MB2is. For example, with acoustic bass and tenor bass. I believe the M80s also have more accuracate tonal reproduction of piano decay as well as piano resonance.

I'm flummoxed when it comes to harmonic accuracy because I couldn't find an explanation that would define it in terms I understood. If you can help me out on this one, SoundGame, maybe I can attempt an answer.

Distortion at reference level is another term with which i'm not familiar. I did find this definition; "Reference level is the volume at 75db (decibels) in your room using full band pink noise. When you set up your system and you run pink noise through your speakers one at a time setting each level using an SPL meter to 75db you will (after all channels are done) and your volume control is set to 0db you will achieve "reference" when playing back movies or music. Movies will tend to reach peaks of 115db with your system set up properly."

This may not be what you had in mind, but if it means using pink noise, my answer is that I have not used pink noise on either speaker. In terms of decibel levels, I have only iPad apps with which to measure them in my room. I have listened for relatively short periods of time in the 80 db range, with peaking to the low 90s, without distortion that I could detect on either speaker.

I hope these comments are of help.

Dave

Hi Dave,

Without getting hung up on terms (the terms are meant to facilitate the discussion and help impart the experience that you're having to others), you've done a fine job in explaining what you're hearing as the differences between the two speakers.  Harmonic, tonal and timbral qualities are very much related and overlapping and difficult to exclusively  - I'm no professed expert but you've done a great job with it. 

Tone would decribe the correct overall pitch (or dominent first harmonic) timbral / harmonic accuracy would involve not only the domient first harmonic but also second and perhaps third that make instruments actually sound different.  Like you described - different sax ie. barritone, tenor, alto and soprano could play the same note but with a revealing speaker sound different based on the timbral/harmonic accuracy. 

On the point of distortion, you've got it basically right.  It's about listening for the level of distortion at a reference volume (75 to 85 dB on average continuous).  The speaker with the lower distortion will generally be the preferred.  There is always distortion in speakers, so you want to get to the speaker that has the least, though in your case it sound like at the reference level neither speaker is an overt offender. 

Finally, on soundstage.  Soundstage is essentially the three-dimensional image of the acoustic environment that you perceive.  It involves the width, depth and height limits/boundaries of the acoustic image, which is generally more clear when you're eyes are closed.  The soundstage is the realm in which the audiophile/listener excapes to.  Placement of all instruments, including reverberation effects of the recording venue all lie within the soundstage.  So when you're listening and close your eyes, the deepest, highest and broadest sounds you hear - at their lmits/boundaries define the soundstage.  Some speakers can throw a soundstage that goes far deeper than your back wall and far wider than their left and right placement as well as higher than themselves.  Compare the speakers with similar placement and determine the difference. 

Soundstage is different but linked to imaging and the other aspects of image placement, image definition (pin-point accuracy) etc.  All of which come together to give a lifelike portrayal of the performers in front of you.

Cheers.   

[vegasdave]

Very good analysis there.

[DaveNote]

Hi Dave,

Without getting hung up on terms (the terms are meant to facilitate the discussion and help impart the experience that you're having to others), you've done a fine job in explaining what you're hearing as the differences between the two speakers.  Harmonic, tonal and timbral qualities are very much related and overlapping and difficult to exclusively  - I'm no professed expert but you've done a great job with it. 

Tone would decribe the correct overall pitch (or dominent first harmonic) timbral / harmonic accuracy would involve not only the domient first harmonic but also second and perhaps third that make instruments actually sound different.  Like you described - different sax ie. barritone, tenor, alto and soprano could play the same note but with a revealing speaker sound different based on the timbral/harmonic accuracy. 

On the point of distortion, you've got it basically right.  It's about listening for the level of distortion at a reference volume (75 to 85 dB on average continuous).  The speaker with the lower distortion will generally be the preferred.  There is always distortion in speakers, so you want to get to the speaker that has the least, though in your case it sound like at the reference level neither speaker is an overt offender. 

Finally, on soundstage.  Soundstage is essentially the three-dimensional image of the acoustic environment that you perceive.  It involves the width, depth and height limits/boundaries of the acoustic image, which is generally more clear when you're eyes are closed.  The soundstage is the realm in which the audiophile/listener excapes to.  Placement of all instruments, including reverberation effects of the recording venue all lie within the soundstage.  So when you're listening and close your eyes, the deepest, highest and broadest sounds you hear - at their lmits/boundaries define the soundstage.  Some speakers can throw a soundstage that goes far deeper than your back wall and far wider than their left and right placement as well as higher than themselves.  Compare the speakers with similar placement and determine the difference. 

Soundstage is different but linked to imaging and the other aspects of image placement, image definition (pin-point accuracy) etc.  All of which come together to give a lifelike portrayal of the performers in front of you.

Cheers.

SoundGame: Thanks for your very detailed explanation of terms. Even though you've addressed the harmonics thing, I have to confess it goes way over my head. My fault. Not yours.

In terms of depth on the soundstage, the M80s, again, do a better job than the MB2is. I've never been able to detect a difference in height of instruments whatever the system I've used, and this is true of the two speakers I'm using. Moreover, I get the effect of depth with my eyes open, not closed. And this, too, has been my experience with not only the speakers I'm using but all others systems I've had.

Since my last posting, I have made the BIG plunge. Something I would have said was impossible before I got the M80s.

I have positioned the M80s on the outside of the MB2is, so that the M80s are now just over 7 feet apart. I tried toeing them in, but they sound better facing straight ahead. As woud be expected, the soundstage is even better. The M80s are now being powered by the Bryston 7BSST2 amps, which gives the soundstage a darker background, and overall the sound has improved.

But the truly BIG thing is even more unexpected. I have disconnected the MB2is from my Bryston amps!!! To my ears, when I count up all the ways the M80s are better than the MB2is, I've found myself not listening to the PMCs

I feel as if I've committed heresy, treason, or betrayed an old love. Unbelievable and bewildering. Haven't a clue what I'm going to do next with these great and expensive speakers.

Dave

[Diamond Dog]

Soundstage is different but linked to imaging and the other aspects of image placement, image definition (pin-point accuracy) etc.  All of which come together to give a lifelike portrayal of the performers in front of you.
 

Except that live music doesn't sound like that. That terminology is useful is describing how well a given speaker or system reproduces the construct that is a recording, but "lifelike"? Live music doesn't allow itself to be so neatly defined and categorized. Nor does it confine itself to a "soundstage". That's why no matter how good a pair of speakers are or a system is, they/it may shine in terms of reproducing a recording and all the illusion and construction that goes into it, but they are a pale imitaton of the real deal. Tonal accuracy is one thing but a lot of what audiophiles claim makes for a great speaker has little do with the actual experience of being present at a musical performance. It's different.

D.D.

[DaveNote]

Except that live music doesn't sound like that. That terminology is useful is describing how well a given speaker or system reproduces the construct that is a recording, but "lifelike"? Live music doesn't allow itself to be so neatly defined and categorized. Nor does it confine itself to a "soundstage". That's why no matter how good a pair of speakers are or a system is, they/it may shine in terms of reproducing a recording and all the illusion and construction that goes into it, but they are a pale imitaton of the real deal. Tonal accuracy is one thing but a lot of what audiophiles claim makes for a great speaker has little do with the actual experience of being present at a musical performance. It's different.

D.D.

D.D. I'm the last person to compare live musical performances with what any audio system does. As I've said above, I just don't hear enough live music to make any credible comparison. In may case, then, when I comment on audio systems, it is always about how they reproduce what has been recorded.

I'd be interested in SoundGame's comment.

Dave

[SoundGame]

I won't ever be one to say that with current technology - both recording and playback, that we can reproduce the live "unplugged" event.  It just can't be done YET.

However, we can reproduce what the recording engineer heard in the control room - at least come very close AND with sufficient power, recreate what a live "amplified" event sounds like - almost spot on.  Heck in such case you are only hearing their amps and speakers in a large venue with often horrible acoustics.   I would say that such amplified event can be surpassed with high quality recordings, playback and a quality listening room.

On live, unplugged, a recoding can also surpass in terms of detail retrieval when you're talking about listening to an artist from a distance.  Case in point, onrecordings I have, I can hear the breath of the singer, the puckering and smack of their lips and even the spit in their mouths.  In a live, unplugged, event, at 20 ft, this can't be heard.  Close miked recordings can provide the detail if not a recreation of reality.

[DaveNote]

I won't ever be one to say that with current technology - both recording and playback, that we can reproduce the live "unplugged" event.  It just can't be done YET.

However, we can reproduce what the recording engineer heard in the control room - at least come very close AND with sufficient power, recreate what a live "amplified" event sounds like - almost spot on.  Heck in such case you are only hearing their amps and speakers in a large venue with often horrible acoustics.   I would say that such amplified event can be surpassed with high quality recordings, playback and a quality listening room.

On live, unplugged, a recoding can also surpass in terms of detail retrieval when you're talking about listening to an artist from a distance.  Case in point, onrecordings I have, I can hear the breath of the singer, the puckering and smack of their lips and even the spit in their mouths.  In a live, unplugged, event, at 20 ft, this can't be heard.  Close miked recordings can provide the detail if not a recreation of reality.

Very interesting, D.D. It reinforces this sensible response to those that say, "my system is just like live:" What do you mean by live? Live in the back of an auditorium? Live very close to the performers? Live at an an all electronic driven badly amped outdoor concert?

And with respect, D.D., I believe we can potentially reproduce on our systems what the sound engineer heard in the control room only if what he heard is what ends up on the end product, what goes onto the CD. If what the sound engineer heard is subsequently processed further, then what he heard is not what we will hear. For me, this is much like the books we read. We don't see the original manuscript. We see draft XXX, which has been edited, copy-edited, etc. The book we read is a true representation of what the author, his editors, and his publisher decide in the final analysis to print. So I think the best we can hope for is to get out of the CD a faithful representation of what those who produced it decided to put on it.

Dave

[Diamond Dog]

However, we can reproduce what the recording engineer heard in the control room - at least come very close AND with sufficient power, recreate what a live "amplified" event sounds like - almost spot on.  Heck in such case you are only hearing their amps and speakers in a large venue with often horrible acoustics.   I would say that such amplified event can be surpassed with high quality recordings, playback and a quality listening room.

On live, unplugged, a recoding can also surpass in terms of detail retrieval when you're talking about listening to an artist from a distance.  Case in point, onrecordings I have, I can hear the breath of the singer, the puckering and smack of their lips and even the spit in their mouths.  In a live, unplugged, event, at 20 ft, this can't be heard.  Close miked recordings can provide the detail if not a recreation of reality.

G: OK - first off, unless we were sitting next to that engineer, we don't know exactly what he was hearing. That's an assumption. What he was hearing then gets mixed down etc and then goes through mastering where all kinds of pixie dust gets sprinkled around because it's the last chance to dance.

The rest of your post just smacks of audiophile disease where you prefer to have all the rough edges smoothed off a performance and hear artificially spotlit details like the spit and lip smacking and super-clean sonics and such which, by your own admission, you wouldn't hear if you were actually at the performance. I'm not here to say which is better, the live performance or the dolled-up quasi-reproduction - that's utterly subjective. I myself enjoy both. But, whether we're discussing a guy sitting in your living room singing and accompanying himself on a flat-top or if you're at a full-on concert, the two aural experiences ( live vs. plunked down in front of a system ) are different. And the reproduction will never be as "lifelike" as that which is actually alive. Hairy legs and all.

I'm not being snarky here, just curious...do you get exposed to a lot of live music in whatever form? Nothing wrong with not hearing live music or for that matter not even enjoying live music, I'm just looking for context.

D.D.

[SoundGame]

G: OK - first off, unless we were sitting next to that engineer, we don't know exactly what he was hearing. That's an assumption. What he was hearing then gets mixed down etc and then goes through mastering where all kinds of pixie dust gets sprinkled around because it's the last chance to dance.

The rest of your post just smacks of audiophile disease where you prefer to have all the rough edges smoothed off a performance and hear artificially spotlit details like the spit and lip smacking and super-clean sonics and such which, by your own admission, you wouldn't hear if you were actually at the performance. I'm not here to say which is better, the live performance or the dolled-up quasi-reproduction - that's utterly subjective. I myself enjoy both. But, whether we're discussing a guy sitting in your living room singing and accompanying himself on a flat-top or if you're at a full-on concert, the two aural experiences ( live vs. plunked down in front of a system ) are different. And the reproduction will never be as "lifelike" as that which is actually alive. Hairy legs and all.

I'm not being snarky here, just curious...do you get exposed to a lot of live music in whatever form? Nothing wrong with not hearing live music or for that matter not even enjoying live music, I'm just looking for context.

D.D.

Hey there DD:

Curious is fine...and I'm not profaning to be an expert on this - this is just personal opinion but to answer your question, yes, I get out to hear live music whenever I can - not a whole lot but three or four times / yr at least which is enough over time to build an impression.

I've been to full out large venue concerts - 17th row centres at Pink Floyd and 5th row floors at Pheonix - listening at up to 110 - 120dB plus smaller amplified arrangements and then a number of unplugged, up close and personal.  Then there is camp fires with family, friends and lets not forget my harmonica and bongo drums at home. 

In my not above, I say, that we can't get a recording / playback system to sound like a true "unplugged" live event - we are agreed there; however, there are aspects of the recording/playback that we can appreciate - such as close miked recording or even sythesized recordings like Radio Head OK Computer and the like.  I'm not saying these would fool you into thinking it's real but it is a quasi though spot-lit facsimilie of the real thing.  And definitely can be appreciated from an audiophile perspective. 

It's with amplified mid to large venue live music that the quality, I believe, on a quality system with sufficient power, can be very closely reproduced, if not beat.  I'm not talking about the emotional connection with the music due to the live performance - you can't beat a pumping audience, the visuals of the performers, the smell, the heat the flashing camera, lights etc. Such live events are a total emotional experience and therefore, not a fair comparision and not a truly objective comparison.  But the sound, well, if the band is using Marshall amps and Marshall speakers - go out and buy the identical system that they have, put it in your controlled environment, and then use the latest in recording techniques - mastering quality recording - and you're going to get extremely close to the base performance (sans venue and emotion).  The difference is the quality of the recording vs. the speed of the actual live mics / pick-ups - and that would be it.