Zoots
Blue Crack Supplier
This album is no way as loud as Bomb. 
I think it's fine.
I think it's fine.
ABSOLUTELY REPULSED by the cd quality of this new album
- Thread starter u2station
- 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.
Most people here probably havent heard the quality of U2 on a Cassette if they are complaining about the quality of the new album....however I know where people are coming from....but the question is how many people would be willing to pay more then the 10-12 dollars for a better sounding format? A lot of people even on this forum think 10-12 dollars is too much for a CD which is pretty disturbing.
To get the best sounding stuff I would be willing to pay a premium price but I am sure I am in the minority.
To get the best sounding stuff I would be willing to pay a premium price but I am sure I am in the minority.
DarkAcrobat
The Fly
I was actually really surprised at how GOOD the CD mix is, compared with the NLOTH Aus/NZ version I bought a few weeks ago.
Edit: As a comparison point, the guitar solo for Miracle Drug is pretty badly distorted on HTDAAB, as are some of the lyrics on Yahweh. I don't hear anything even close to those examples on NLOTH.
Very true, I was listening my Cd today
and sound way much better than the s**tty mp3 leaked days ago. (And I had the two rips, 256 and 320 kbps).Bean Skidds
The Fly
I would be willing to pay up to $25 for a well mastered digital version of the new u2 album. I wish the vinyl came with a well mastered bonus CD, like the Mudcrutch lp did. But youre right, we're the minority, most people simply dont care. Formats like super audio cd and dvd-audio have come and gone and very few people ever bothered to try them out.
purpleoscar
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Eg.
Amazon.com: New Adventures in Hi Fi (CD + DVD+A) (Dig): R.E.M.: Music
DVD-audio
(ignored format)
The original master is WAY better than CD and I will not go back to CD quality for those I replaced. You definately hear much more detail in the background. It's thrilling how much better. Dark side of the moon on SACD is so clear you can hear the talking in the background clearly.
I wish everyone could hear a favorite album in master quality at least once. Let me put it this way. The U2 remasters are poor sound quality compared to a DVD audio. The two formats (DVD-audio vs. SACD) competed but never caught on. I'm hoping Blu-ray will be the answer in a few years.
LyricalDrug
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Pssssst.... vinyl LP 
AndrewCowley
Refugee
The thread that was talking about the 96khz torrent version of NLOTH was strangely closed down. Near the end of that thread someone posted some waveforms of the 96khz version vs. the CD version. You could see that the 96khz version did indeed seem different; more dynamic range and less clipping.
I downloaded it last night and had a quick listen. And yes unless I was mistaken I think had much more 'life' to it than the CD version.
Has anyone looked deeper into the 96khz version? It shows promise, not because it is 96khz (that is just a sampling rate; big deal) but because it seems to have more dynamic range.
A lot of people shot it down under the assumption that it was just the CD copy. From what I have seen (waveforms) and heard (my ears) it might not be.
But that was 24 hours ago, and a lot changes in 24 hours!
I downloaded it last night and had a quick listen. And yes unless I was mistaken I think had much more 'life' to it than the CD version.
Has anyone looked deeper into the 96khz version? It shows promise, not because it is 96khz (that is just a sampling rate; big deal) but because it seems to have more dynamic range.
A lot of people shot it down under the assumption that it was just the CD copy. From what I have seen (waveforms) and heard (my ears) it might not be.
But that was 24 hours ago, and a lot changes in 24 hours!
OP
OP
u2station
Babyface
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2002
- Messages
- 25
i wish it was that easy to "turn down the volume"...but it wouldnt make a difference what volume you have the cd on if the mastering wasn't done well...the clipping and distortion can be easily discerned (as long as you have a discerning ear and listen to a lot of music like me)...but yes, 98% of everyone don't care about cd sound quality, but rather the finished product...i've always found myself to be one of those 98% included but NOW i'm starting to shift over to the 2% of those who want a decently mastered cd.
FOR EXAMPLE, last night i popped in an original 1985 Morrissey cd ("meat is murder") and the dynamic range was solid. i turned up the volume and the sound stayed solid. when i put on a random mainstream rock cd that's mastered in the last 15 or so years (cd mastering really went downhill starting in the mid 1990's), i have the mac book pro volume on level 4 or 5 and its already loud enough...compared to 8 or 9 levels which should be the norm (out of 16 levels of onboard computer volume).
bottom line is, i shouldn't be complaining about something so obvious, in that it actually affects the finished or intended product's vision. and being an artist myself, i am extra sensitive to quality control and that i wouldn't want my creations tainted or "enhanced" to the point of it causing ireperable damage...maybe the masses don't care, but for people who do, it matters.
FOR EXAMPLE, last night i popped in an original 1985 Morrissey cd ("meat is murder") and the dynamic range was solid. i turned up the volume and the sound stayed solid. when i put on a random mainstream rock cd that's mastered in the last 15 or so years (cd mastering really went downhill starting in the mid 1990's), i have the mac book pro volume on level 4 or 5 and its already loud enough...compared to 8 or 9 levels which should be the norm (out of 16 levels of onboard computer volume).
bottom line is, i shouldn't be complaining about something so obvious, in that it actually affects the finished or intended product's vision. and being an artist myself, i am extra sensitive to quality control and that i wouldn't want my creations tainted or "enhanced" to the point of it causing ireperable damage...maybe the masses don't care, but for people who do, it matters.
You just have to listen to Guns n' Roses Chinese Democracy, the engineer that masterd that album did a wonderful work, he said in an interview that presented to Axl 3 different masterings, one loud, the other louder and the third one wasn't loud at all, and that's the one Axl choose. The record doesn't sound loud at all andyou can hear the perfection of the mix...
BigMacPhisto
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2002
- Messages
- 6,351
Great example....always have to crank that on the iPod. Whereas the new U2 album is always loud sounding and fills up the room. Definitely would like to possess a vinyl rip of this album because I do agree with some of the posters that there's a lot going on here sound-wise that is unfortunately muddled.
EmitFlesti
The Fly
If they came form the same source, shouldn't the files be the same length? Opening the waveforms, I notice that the lossless CD files are consistently about .115 -.179 seconds shorter than the files from this 96khz torrent.
If the 96khz torrent files didn't come from just a ripped CD, then the big question is, where did they come from?
AndrewCowley
Refugee
I agree. Those 96khz flac files are worthy of discussion. However the thread got shut down for some weird reason.
Aardvark747
Blue Crack Addict
I havent even played the cd. Just stuck it on the shelf and continued with the download from the other week on my ipod.
Irishteen
Blue Crack Addict
Not that I think the album is perfect but compared to Bomb this album is mastered beautifully, but that's not saying much
Hi,
For me, I'm very happy with the sound quality, but this is only because I was expecting something much worse: an album with the same mastering as HTDAAB.
So when I heard NLOTH I breathed a sigh of relief. Now, looking at it in a colder light, yes, the mastering is not great and if you compare it to other albums (Lanois' Here is what is, for instance), the loudness does seem striking.
Somehow I wonder if the mixing is also involved (whether people mixing may have compressed the recoridng quite a bit) as some songs sound much more distorted than others. Crazy tonight and the Lillywhite mixed songs are probably the worst, and I wondered if there was a link there.
So yes, it's not great but at last it's a step in the right direction.
HyperU2
War Child
What's a CD?
For the people saying they don't care about the CD mastering because they listen to the mp3:
The mp3 is derived from the CD mix, so basically shares the same master. So the whole loudness thing is also an issue for those listening to the mp3s!
The vinyl could be expected to be different, as vinyl copes less well with loudness and bass frequencies
The mp3 is derived from the CD mix, so basically shares the same master. So the whole loudness thing is also an issue for those listening to the mp3s!
The vinyl could be expected to be different, as vinyl copes less well with loudness and bass frequencies
mofo_spacejunk
The Fly
I find my brother's farts repulsive. Not sure how you can use this adjective to explain the mastering.
Here's an idea. Don't like it? Don't listen to it.
Here's an idea. Don't like it? Don't listen to it.
I am also very disappointed about the sound quality and I think it's a U2-thing. The quality of the first release of the JT on cd was a disaster. It's like listening to an old musiccassette. The remaster sounds better but can much better.
Then there is the 5.1 mix dolby digital/ dts. Why on earth are there no soundmixes in this quality???? This is 2009!!! R.E.M. sounds great on their DTS remasters. Depeche Mode sounds magnificent.
Best band + best producers + the best photographer in the world + a lot of mony + worst mixes. I don't get it anymore. U2 wake up and don't screw up your fantastic music!!!!
Then there is the 5.1 mix dolby digital/ dts. Why on earth are there no soundmixes in this quality???? This is 2009!!! R.E.M. sounds great on their DTS remasters. Depeche Mode sounds magnificent.
Best band + best producers + the best photographer in the world + a lot of mony + worst mixes. I don't get it anymore. U2 wake up and don't screw up your fantastic music!!!!
BoyOnTheHorizon
Refugee
I haven't heard on original CD yet but the cd i burned it's good if not great. Much better than Bomb which simply i could never hear in headphones. It was just horrible.
If you want to get really pissed off, just listen to Thriller of Michael Jackson on cd. That is just recording perfection!
If you want to get really pissed off, just listen to Thriller of Michael Jackson on cd. That is just recording perfection!
gman
New Yorker
I wonder how much of this mixing is down to two facts. Ever heard the saying "one mans meat is another mans poison"? Well......its true for the musical ear also!
My mate....he has all the best stereo equipment. Am talking £600-800 for a needle/cartridge for his deck. Anyhoo....i cant sit and listen to music on his system, as his preferences sound wise, are murder to my ear...and vice versa!
Also, u2 use the same team for production/mixing....so maybe these people responsible have a different ear for music than you and I
My mate....he has all the best stereo equipment. Am talking £600-800 for a needle/cartridge for his deck. Anyhoo....i cant sit and listen to music on his system, as his preferences sound wise, are murder to my ear...and vice versa!
Also, u2 use the same team for production/mixing....so maybe these people responsible have a different ear for music than you and I
gherman
New Yorker
S~
If you didn't close my "bitch thread" this new piece of shit never would have started.
If you didn't close my "bitch thread" this new piece of shit never would have started.
mikal
Blue Crack Addict
i don't really care that much, but i just thought i'd mention that these kinds of thread titles like "ABSOLUTELY RUPULSED" are part of why negative views are jumped on like they are around here.
I dont get it. I just enjoy the music. All this technical stuff is just too much for me.
I'm the same way.
I get your point. However, when I am watching a movie on my regular ol' run of the mill TV, I don't find myself thinking, "Man...I sure wish I was watching this on a better screen." I enjoy it for what it is.
To be clear though, I'm not faulting anyone who is knocking the album's sound quality though. I am not trying to pick a fight or get into a debate. I'm personally just not that technical of a person to be bothered by or notice such things, I suppose.
yah i agree, it's pretty bad sound quality, i noiticed it right away
can you repost the link to this article, it's a dead link
The Death Of Dynamic Range
can you repost the link to this article, it's a dead link
The Death Of Dynamic Range
The second half of the album sounds much better than the first, although still loud. Crazy Tonight is embarrassingly bad. It's hard to imagine that something like that can make it on to the final product. Maybe they gave will.i.am to much leeway with that one - still no excuse though.
Similar threads
