mikal
Blue Crack Addict
Nick66 said:
Studies show that 8 out of 10 people trust mikal over U2.
Achtung Baby/ Zooropa remaster/ reissue - Part V/Five
- Thread starter Steved1998
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Status
Studies show that 8 out of 10 people trust mikal over U2.
leamspaceman
The Fly
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2004
- Messages
- 166
Leave it...move on...forget it.
Go run a hot bath, light some candles, turn out the lights...and play the 'baby' version of 'Love Is Blindness' on repeat. Feel the need to be 'right' leave your mind...and come back to the thread full of humility, unconditional positive regard and compromise.
Basically...carry out a full 're-master' on yourself
"Restart...and...Reboot yourself."
u2boy_nl
The Fly
Very cool display!My shelves are all full too. Oops.
I'll be buying a new shelf then monday I guess.
Can I request a pic when you got it finished?
You have...... multiple.... shelves..?
Yeah, i'll take another pic when i finally get my box.
ryancoke71
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2009
- Messages
- 14,641
That's what i thought too!
I immediately cleared a shelf thursday evening...
Now that empty shelf is going to annoy me all weekend...
That looks great! I second Gg's request for a pic when the Ab box set is in there!
Galeongirl
Galeonbroad
You have...... multiple.... shelves..?
Yeah, i'll take another pic when i finally get my box.
Well regular mural shelves with all my cds on it.
All my U2 stuff takes up well over one of the shelves, the other is filled with other music and stacked dvd's since I've no space to put those either. I really need to organise my stuff. 
U2 why do you keep making the boxes bigger? I need a bigger house to put them in!
u2boy_nl
The Fly
Well i'd like to hear some more arguments before i take sides in this very important matter.
Please enlighten me....
I don't think Nick fully comprehends what a "remaster" is.
When a band records an album, they begin by recording instruments on separate tracks - drums on one track, bass on another, guitar on another, vocal on another. This is then mixed to a two-track stereo master which can then be used for pressing LPs, CDs, etc. Usually this master goes through one more stage where an engineer adds compression and EQ. This is called mastering.
Remastering means grabbing that original two-channel mixdown and re-applying compression and EQ. This is exactly what's been made to AB and Zooropa. You just don't hear much difference because it didn't need that level of hiss cleaning etc needed for the early 80s remasters. The Edge NEVER said it wasn't remastered in that Q awards interview. He just said it didn't need much work.
It is remastered by all means.
When a band records an album, they begin by recording instruments on separate tracks - drums on one track, bass on another, guitar on another, vocal on another. This is then mixed to a two-track stereo master which can then be used for pressing LPs, CDs, etc. Usually this master goes through one more stage where an engineer adds compression and EQ. This is called mastering.
Remastering means grabbing that original two-channel mixdown and re-applying compression and EQ. This is exactly what's been made to AB and Zooropa. You just don't hear much difference because it didn't need that level of hiss cleaning etc needed for the early 80s remasters. The Edge NEVER said it wasn't remastered in that Q awards interview. He just said it didn't need much work.
It is remastered by all means.
OpenG180 said:
I believe Nick is under the impression (as I am as well) that the source of this new master was actually the original master tapes, not the two-channel mixdown. Though now that I think about it... are we really positive that this is the case?
alanah
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
You guys are confusing me..the AB is fully remastered, right?!! 
Nick66
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Um, no. It's you who are mistaken. We've been over this. Many times. I know what a remaster is, much better than you do apparently.
U2 called ALL the other reissues "remasters".
The are not calling this a "remaster".
In the liner notes and every other bit of information on the other reissues they specifically all them "remastered". Bonus point if you can find that word in the liner notes of this release. Clearly the band sees a distinction. I could explain to you the difference between remastering something from the source tapes, and creating a new master from the existing one, if you'd like. I am well aware that a new master was made for this release, as I said it would be many, many times before.
U2 doesn't consider it remastered, not matter what you may think. That is the end of the discussion.
You guys are confusing me..the AB is fully remastered, right?!!
No doubt about that. It's not even in question.
alanah
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Gracias!
theedgeu2
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Just drop the fucking remaster debate!!!! It's seriously getting old. 
u2boy_nl
The Fly
Hm, that sounds interesting, can you explain?
Mate. You don't even know how wrong you are... I've seen you confusing many technicals aspects of mastering, remastering, etc that for anyone who knows a little about it... It would be like trying to explain advanced math to someone who can't even do basic math. Trust me.
trojanchick99
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
Just when I thought it was safe to come into this thread again.
I'd also like to know what the download code gives access to? Maybe it's an 'Achtung Baby' foetus...or an 'Achtung Baby' sperm!
Man, those Germans treat that uber set harshly in the 'unboxing' clip. They almost tear the drawer section when they pull it out...and leave the vinyl out of it's slipcover before discarding it to the side. They don't actually unbox the whole thing either. And is there a U2 tribute band in the background?
You guys arguing about the 'mastering' issue...leave it alone. Chill, enjoy the release...life is way too short. Just agree to disagree and give each other a hug...as soon as possible
And if it was a dowload of an unreleased audio concert (a la PJ)?I hope so, but probably will be something else like some screensaver or else
Just drop the fucking remaster debate!!!! It's seriously getting old.
That's the point, mate. It's not even a "debate". From day 1 it's Mick saying BS about a subject he clearly demonstrated he doesn't know even a bit.
mikal
Blue Crack Addict
Nick66
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
"Fully remastered." No.
You don't understand the process.
Do you understand the distinction between what they did for the other reissues, and what they did for this one?
If you can't explain that, then you don't.
omg, can we please let this "is it remastered or not" debate go, PLEASE?? it was bad enough when it took over the thread before its release, but now that it's out...come on.
let. it. go.
and for the record no, this isn't directed at anyone specifically, but rather anyone and everyone engaging in this debate.
let. it. go.
and for the record no, this isn't directed at anyone specifically, but rather anyone and everyone engaging in this debate.
ryancoke71
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2009
- Messages
- 14,641
Funny you should say that. I've read before you saying that "a remaster is when a new master is made bla bla bla". That was what happened.
Just because they didn't need to do a lot like the early 80's remasters it doesn't mean it is not remastered. The concept of remastering, for the world, isn't something that we measure using as a standard the remasters done for the other U2 albums. If we remaster Rubber Soul or Electric Ladyland and we do little (like it was done for AB) it would be still a remaster. Doesn't matter if it's "nowhere near what they did for all the other reissues" of U2 albums.
OpenG180 said:
Let. It. Go.
o.k. S.i.r.
Nick66
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
I've already said a new master was created, that's not in dispute. I'm not even arguing about the technical definition of remaster. But U2 isn't calling it "remastered". That should be what governs here.
I'll repost what I did before for those who are still confused by the issue:
You could say that any time you've made an alteration to the original recording and created a new master it's a "remaster." And that's certainly happened here. It's definitely not the same record we already have. It will certainly be louder, and, according to Edge, the've "polished" it, which likely means some tweaking on some of the other levels. This is more akin to what was done for the compilation releases, and what some of us suspected and said they'd do all along. It really was never likely they'd reissue the album without doing something to it along these lines, to make the levels more in line w/contemporary releases. But as others have accurately said, any such adjustments would be limited to the dynamic range of the existing master recording (though, without getting technical, professional equipment can tweak this to a certain extent).
Incidentally, those who say this is something similar to what you could do at home are essentially correct. If you take a existing digital audio Achtung Baby song file on your computer, adjust the levels, and create a new file from that, you've essentially created a new "master." As others have correctly pointed out, people on U2 bootleg sites do this all the time. U2's essentially doing the same here, albeit with professional equipment and engineers.
On the other hand, Achtung Baby has certainly not been "remastered" in the way that the previous reissues were, so much so that U2 is not calling it a remaster. A true remaster would involve going back to the sources tapes (whether they're analogue or digital), and from those individual recordings creating a new "final" sound and "master" for the record. Sometimes this process can even result in a completely new sounding "mix" of the song, though not necessarily. They also may clean up tape hiss, errant noises heard in the studio, etc. This is what was done for the previous remasters, but U2 apparently didn't think all this was necessary in the case of Achtung Baby.
The original press releases, and associated materials, for all the other reissues described this process of going back to the original source tapes. Here's an example from the Joshua Tree, but the info for all the releases is easily found on Google:
This is a much more extensive process than simply "re-EQ'ng" the existing, finished recording, which is what apparently U2 did here. And clearly a true remaster going back to the source tapes is not something you can do at home.
So really, everyone should have a reason to be happy with this, because AB as it existed sounded great and apparently represented the original intent of the artist, so they've just cleaned it up a bit without compromising the original sound. As long as what they did didn't result in over compression, etc....it should sound "better", and it will certainly sound different to some extent (your mileage may vary depending on your equipment, what format you're listening in, how familiar you are with the original, and most importantly, your ears). It should definitely sound noticeably louder, and careful listeners may hear increased clarity and depending on what they did, along with other sonic "improvements."
Whether it can be called "remastered" or not at this point is really a question of semantics...though the band certainly doesn't consider it "remastered", at least in the way the previous ones were, so if their opinion about their own record means anything to you, there's your answer.
Nick66
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Fair enough! No one who isn't convinced isn't going to change their mind at this point anyway.
Case closed.
u2passenger
Babyface
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 16
- Status
Similar threads
