Achtung Baby/ Zooropa remaster/ reissue - Part IV/Four

[Nick66]

Amazon.com has removed "Original Recording Remastered" from ALL editions as well.

Amazon.co.uk and Amazon.ca still say remaster on some, but not all, editions.

 

[Galeongirl]

 

[mirrorballman]

What a freakin' joke to release a CD 20 years after without remastering it! How on earth does the Single CD version make ANY sense then?

 

[topplehatU2]

Literally everything you know is wrong.

 

[Galeongirl]

What a freakin' joke to release a CD 20 years after without remastering it! How on earth does the Single CD version make ANY sense then?

Can we please this time NOT immediately jump to conclusions? If anything, the past has proven that right now, we can't be sure of anything as U2.com refuses to shed light on the situation. All we know is it might be remastered, but we don't know for sure. We also do not know for sure it's NOT remastered, as all that has happened is amazon removing the word from their sites. That doesn't mean the cds that were previously stated as remastered have suddenly been exchanged for old pressings.

Basically, I don't know what this means. But I'll know two weeks from now.

 

[Nick66]

Can we please this time NOT immediately jump to conclusions? If anything, the past has proven that right now, we can't be sure of anything as U2.com refuses to shed light on the situation. All we know is it might be remastered, but we don't know for sure. We also do not know for sure it's NOT remastered, as all that has happened is amazon removing the word from their sites. That doesn't mean the cds that were previously stated as remastered have suddenly been exchanged for old pressings.

Basically, I don't know what this means. But I'll know two weeks from now.

You're right...we don't know for sure. But it's not just Amazon.com changing the listing (I'd disregard that), but it's U2.com as well. It's one thing to leave off mentioning "remaster"...it's quite another thing to mention it, then deliberately go back and remove it, as they have apparently done.

I personally think it's b/c U2 doesn't actually run their own website, or the shop there, It's all run by Live Nation now, and something tells me that whoever did the U2.com shop listing was going on the same bad info Amazon, etc. were and were making the same (possibly wrong) assumptions.

But you're right...we'll know in two weeks. For now, I'm sending that crow back to the kitchen. I never liked the taste of it anyway. Though I'm sure they'll keep it warm for me just in case.

 

[mirrorballman]

Can we please this time NOT immediately jump to conclusions? If anything, the past has proven that right now, we can't be sure of anything as U2.com refuses to shed light on the situation. All we know is it might be remastered, but we don't know for sure. We also do not know for sure it's NOT remastered, as all that has happened is amazon removing the word from their sites. That doesn't mean the cds that were previously stated as remastered have suddenly been exchanged for old pressings.

Basically, I don't know what this means. But I'll know two weeks from now.

I think the topic is beyond whether if it's remastered or not, frankly I've lost complete interest because I'm baffled by the incompetence of such a big corporation. Who on earth is responsible for U2's PR Management? I'd love to have that job because it means I could fuck up every other day for God knows how long now and never ever get fired. Sounds like excellent job requirements to me.

Even if this thing is remastered, it has completely robbed me of the anticipation I had towards this release. Some fans are willing to pay up to 300€ of their money for something they love and the freakin' people selling it can't even give you a proper description of what you're actually buying with just over a week to go!

There are no words.

 

[Galeongirl]

Yeah it's a really bad case of marketing. it's just.. really bad. Why are they not being clear for a damn change?
U2.com just keeps failing and missing opportunities. Same with the INXS song. A simple statement on the website saying Hey guys, this ain't Bono, would've sufficed.

But we still have the Universal Italy pdf saying it's remastered. So it should've been at least at some point. I don't understand why they'd take it down now.

 

[mirrorballman]

But we still have the Universal Italy pdf saying it's remastered. So it should've been at least at some point. I don't understand why they'd take it down now.

If you look at the format, the Universal Italy looks like a 1:1 copy of U2.com's statement prior to taking down the word "remastered", I'm sure that was the source just before U2.com themselves posted it as well.

Incredible PR/marketing. Every time you think "there's no way they're gonna top that fuckup" but sadly, you're wrong every time.

 

[Galeongirl]

True, but it looks like the regular format that record shops get. I've seen plenty of those from my friend at the record shop(sadly he quit, or I could've asked him about it), and it does look legit. So if U2.com told their retailers that it's remastered first, and now everyone retracts that... what does it mean? I just don't get it.

 

[Nick66]

True, but it looks like the regular format that record shops get. I've seen plenty of those from my friend at the record shop(sadly he quit, or I could've asked him about it), and it does look legit. So if U2.com told their retailers that it's remastered first, and now everyone retracts that... what does it mean? I just don't get it.

What does it mean for all the people who pre-ordered based on the info that it was mastered? If it's really not remastered, shouldn't those people get an email? Because once they open it, no returns.

 

[mirrorballman]

All I can think of when I look at the box and wonder whether it is remastered or not is Schrödinger's cat.

 

[Galeongirl]

All I can think of when I look at the box and wonder whether it is remastered or not is Schrödinger's cat.

Better not open it then!

 

[Am I Zoo]

Thanks for the links, Khanada.

 

[chrissybaby]

A mis-sold product. Amateurs. Might get a refund and just download the FLACS, screw 'em.

 

[corianderstem]

If someone is not letting you refund/cancel a pre-order, that's bullshit, because you pre-ordered based on (possibly) a misleading or incorrect product description.

I would email or call whatever site's customer service and ask about it if it's an issue, because that's not acceptable for them not to allow the cancellation.

 

[TheWanderer]

I can't wait until everyone hears that it's remastered, and then complains about how it's brick walled like HTDAAB and NLOTH...

 

[gvox]

We wont be able to tell the difference, either. Remastering is just a placebo. Lossy vs lossless is just a gimmick to get ppl to use more bandwidth. We've all been hoodwinked.

 

[TheEdge25]

We wont be able to tell the difference, either. Remastering is just a placebo. Lossy vs lossless is just a gimmick to get ppl to use more bandwidth. We've all been hoodwinked.

Although, I agree. There has only been a few select "remastered" albums that I could tell were substantially different and improved from the original album.

 

[Nick66]

I can't wait until everyone hears that it's remastered, and then complains about how it's brick walled like HTDAAB and NLOTH...

That's possible...but in that case at the end of the day we'll always have the original and have to suffer w/the album we've loved for 20 years just as it is. At least they can't take that away.

 

[gvox]

Although, I agree. There has only been a few select "remastered" albums that I could tell were substantially different and improved from the original album.

I was being cheeky. Tbh there are only a few artists I care enough about to go out and buy a remaster of an album I already own from, and in most cases the remaster sounds better to me. Mind you, Ive got great equipment and can listen through variety of different gear, so I can see how people who only listen out of computer speakers or lower end gear might not be able to hear a difference.

Most people who don't have decent equipment and ears aren't buying remasters of albums they already own, so any points re ABX testing in this context are moot. Just like the vast majority of people downloading music from iTunes don't give a fuck if CD is better than FLAC is better than 320 kbps is better than VBR. They know that in general anything better than 256 kbps and up is better than 96/128 kbps and sufficient for their listening needs. Any test that includes this sample of the music buying population, and it is without question the vast majority of the market, is therefore irrelevant. Besides, the ABX testing that can be readily found is far more surrounding the lossless vs lossy argument, not the remaster vs non-remaster argument. Why? Because there's a lot more people who needed to be convinced that they didn't need to waste extra disk space and bandwidth getting 320/Flac to listen to their favorite tunes at the gym than there will ever be people who couldn't decide whether or not they needed to purchase a remaster of an album they already owned.

For people who do actually care about 320+, remastered, etc the far majority of them do have decent equipment and ears and are those who actively seek out higher quality recordings as a matter of regular music acquiring habit. They may be audiophiles, they may also be DJs, or people who regularly tweak their systems and gear to best possible effect. They are almost without exception absolutely going to notice the difference, and the percentage of these people who a. can hear the differences and b. would make a decision based on whether or not to repurchase an album based on improved quality is clearly going to be much higher. Like, almost all of them.

 

[Nick66]

Although, I agree. There has only been a few select "remastered" albums that I could tell were substantially different and improved from the original album.

Remasters usually do actually have improved sound. The problem is 90% of the population can't hear the difference the vast majority of the time (that goes for high bit rate compressed music vs. lossless as well). Countless ABX test have established it (just Google it). People convince themselves when they know they're listening to a remaster then can hear a difference, but when put to an actual blind test most people cant.

Don't get me wrong...if you have great equipment, exception ears, and are familiar with what your listening to, you can get a lot out of a remaster. Or if it's a remaster or a particularly bad original master. But in most cases, it's not really something most people can spot via casual listening.

 

[gvox]

eta: sorry wrong thread

 

[canedge]

A mis-sold product. Amateurs. Might get a refund and just download the FLACS, screw 'em.

I would be interested. Did they sell anything else in FLAC as well?

 

[gvox]

^ Haha you're funny!

 

[canedge]

Some bands officially sell FLACs. But U2 fans would just end up giving U2 FLAC(K) for selling the wrong digital format.

 

[gvox]

I see what you did thar.

 

[canedge]

Yeah, U2 fans would give them heck.

 

[the tourist]

Well I guess I won't be buying this on release day then. I'll wait until I get a confirmation that it's remastered. Otherwise, I've already got enough of this in its original master to not justify spending a load of money on a few miscellaneous tracks.

 

[last unicorn]

Wow, what a chaos

The whole thing is a joke. I'm still buying it because I want the extra material and the movie on DVD. I'm not buying it for the CD's, because I already have both albums and will probably give them away to someone who doesn't own them already. I don't care about the whole remastered crap. I can listen to my original AB album as well. I'm curious how U2.com will handle this issue. There seems to be some serious disinformation going on.