There are bands, which their live sound is far better than their very good studio one (eg: Iron Maiden, I won't never forget that all-hands-clapping intro of Fear of the Dark, the madness of Rime of the Ancient Mariner, etc).

Generally, I prefer to listen to studio versions than live ones, because they're flawless (hmm, don't recall that St.Anger sound of L.Ulrich's drumkit ), even if I don't really like the band.
But, I never NEVER change a live concert with a CD-player play... There's nothing to compare. In a live, you see if the band worths, or not.

And I have to agree with lennonlikesmetal, 'cause that Motorhead's live is damn kickass!!
Rock in Rio - Iron Maiden, also, is good.

I don't know, but that Live in Krakow from Gorgoroth is a VERY overated live. Can't understand why. Because some homosexuals/pedophils/posers like to show their "thingies", while hunging on a cross? Because they took some goatheads from near butchery and placed 'em in front of the scene? That's pathetic...I eat goat(head) every Easter, and I'm not Satanist. Should I make a live feast?

My favorite live album is Unleashed in the east by Judas Priest, and it is the only album with their 70's song I can listen to. The production on the early albums are terrible and just fucking boring to listen to, but that live album is just godly. Everything sounds perfect in terms of vocals, instruments and performance

^Fact.

Anyway, for death metal, I prefer studio. Because 95% of the time their vocals suck ass(Excluding Death, Cannibal Corpse).

As for black metal, I find it loses it's atmosphere live, but it seems to get that more "Epic" sense.

I'd have to say studio recording's for the good quality, But some band's like Mayhem are better live to really catch the intensity.

A truly great live album dumps on studio recordings from a great height. I think a lot of people who strongly dislike live albums must have been listening to either really bad ones or really cruddy 'artists'.

The production on the studio albums are fine, though Unleashed in the East has a mosnter procution. I can see why some don't like it, but terrible? To the extent that the albums sound boring as a whole?

In general, studio. Choosing between listening to a cd and actually going to the concert? I'll go to the fucking concert

Deathcrush will always reign supreme over any other Mayhem recording. This is a fact and you can't deny it.

I'm not fond of live albums, as I usually listen to albums from the beginning to the end. That, and studio material is almost always easier easier to acquire.

It isn't a fact and I do deny it.

Both really. It all depends on the recording quality. As many have said before me, the crowd gives an extra dynamic. The Iron Maiden Rock in Rio DVD gives me goosebumps.

I usually prefer live recordings over studio ones (although it can easily depend on the quality). Especially when getting into a band and I have to choose whether to buy a best of album or a live one, I'll pick the latter. Because live albums are usually best of albums, but played "one notch higher". For example, I got into Dio through "Holy Diver Live".

And sometimes live albums, when done right, just shit all over the studio albums. For example instead of listening to Thin Lizzy's 70's albums I'll usually pick "Live and Dangerous"; to get my fix of Rush I'll listen to "Different Stages - Live" or when I have the unexplainable urge to listen to Deep Purple, I'll reach for my "Made In Japan".

Live stuff just comes out better.

i love them both equally ,, i love the studio cause you hear what the band wanted you to hear for a particular album but live can also be a masterpiece such as sabbath's live at last ( heavy as fuck ) or impetigo's (live total zombie gore holocaust ) a band puts out a certain number of albums (unless your agathocles,, but if your a collector such as myself the only way to get different versions of shit you love is to search for live stuff

Whichever sounds "heavier." Lots of death metal and melodic death metal sounds heavier live because the mix on albums is wimpy. Plus I'm not crazy about the computerized correction on studio albums that makes it sound inhumanly perfect.
That said, studio albums tend to be clearer.

In general I much prefer studio albums, but a few live albums have caught my attention.

I for example love Mayhem's live album, they're all good in their own right.

I listen to studio albums almost exclusively. Usually, they sound better to me. The music sounds how the band wanted it to and the instruments/vocals are generally at their best. I just never get into live albums, there isn't really a reason for it. The previously mentioned one has a little to do with it but overall I just feel that concerts should be attended and albums listened to all other times. Nothing against those who enjoy live albums, it's just not me. If given the choice between live and studio; I'll go studio pretty much every time. Exceptions would mean the live REALLY kicks arse, or the studio sucked nuts.

I will however buy a live album if it comes with a dvd. I like to watch bands and see how they perform. Again, just something I do. Maybe I'm a little strange.

I usually prefer Studio to Live, unless Live tracks are clear enough (when the music isn't 'overpowered' by the audience like in early Voivod live). If the music can be heard rather clearly, I don't mind.

Always studio, however sometimes there are individual songs that sound far better live than on studio. The best example that comes to mind is Death-Symbolic (from the Death and Raw live album). That track is inhumanly fast live, Chuck's vocals are strong, and it is played with perfection. Everytime I hear to the studio version of Symbolic, it feels slow, because of the way they played it live.