ABSOLUTELY REPULSED by the cd quality of this new album

[u2station]

forgive me for not being positive, but i wanted to say that the sound quality of "no line on the horizon" is fair at best.

i thought perhaps the 256k mp3s were not encoded properly, but after buying this album in digipack format today, i crank up my speakers only to hear horrible dynamic range, massive compression (on steroids) with distortion & clipping in many of the tracks...

what is wrong with the cd mastering here? they've done what i feared...pumped up the volume so much that the damn sound quality is sh&t...why can't these people understand "dynamic range"! why does everything have to be so improperly boosted?

if you dont know what i'm talking about, why not read these articles:

The Death Of Dynamic Range
Loudness war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Stereophile: "CD Quality": Where Did the Music Go?

it's a real tragedy that we have great producers like danny lanois and brian eno producing great albums with songwriters at the top of their game recording the songs but only to have their masterpieces sent to the cd mastering f#cks to screw it all up in the end!

i went to best buy today to buy an album expecting great cd sound quality only to be repulsed by it....well, there's always vinyl still! maybe i'll just dust off the old turntable and buy the $20 U2 vinyl edition next.

who else agrees with me on the sound quality issue? please weigh in.

 

[TheEdge1967]

Do I hear violins???

Im no expert but Im pretty sure they have mastered the album to sound how they want it to sound when it is played on the radio or at normal volume. Not everyone has Bose stereo speakers that can blare the roofs off their houses. Im sure they want it to sound proper on radio. Thats just my guess.
Sounds fine on my stock car stereo and on my home entertainment system. Actually I have too much bass on my home entertainment system... Not the CD's fault, its my woofer is turned up too much.

 

[purpleoscar]

It's not mixed as loud as HTDAAB but it's LOUD still.

I was hoping someone would have a vinyl copy to compare.

 

[dan_smee]

it is mixed loud, but Repulsed??? thats pretty pathetic

 

[BVS]

It's an industry wide problem!!!

Mostly to do with HOW we listen to music these days...

Can't really blame U2 all that much.

Although I'm sure many will.

 

[paultjr]

Definitely on the loud side, but I don't think it's as bad as HTDAAB at least.

 

[iota]

They probably did it this way so that they can re-issue a remastered version in 10 years. If you master it right the first time, you can't milk it again later!

 

[u2station]

It's an industry wide problem!!!

Mostly to do with HOW we listen to music these days...

Can't really blame U2 all that much.

Although I'm sure many will.

i ABSOLUTELY agree with you too...its an INDUSTRY-wide problem that has to be re-addressed...because there are some people out there who really appreciate good sound quality...and whoever are in charge of the cd mastering going on these days has to have a wake up call..or maybe the artists should be informed of the damage that is being done to their finished albums.

 

[EmitFlesti]

i ABSOLUTELY agree with you too...its an INDUSTRY-wide problem that has to be re-addressed...because there are some people out there who really appreciate good sound quality...and whoever are in charge of the cd mastering going on these days has to have a wake up call..or maybe the artists should be informed of the damage that is being done to their finished albums.

It's a shame that in all the interviews they've done to promote the album, no one has ever asked about mastering issues, loudness, dynamic range, etc. Can we please get some serious interviewers who will ask something other than "33 years, Wow...does it get harder to come up with new stuff after all these years?...and Isn't Obama wonderful, Bono?"

 

[Rosebud]

if it's too loud for you, turn it down.





sorry, carry on.

 

[purpleoscar]

i ABSOLUTELY agree with you too...its an INDUSTRY-wide problem that has to be re-addressed...because there are some people out there who really appreciate good sound quality...and whoever are in charge of the cd mastering going on these days has to have a wake up call..or maybe the artists should be informed of the damage that is being done to their finished albums.

U2 is more concerned about selling albums than just pure sound quality. DTS Blu-ray master audio is the way to go but not enough people have adopted it and demanded this quality. If anything they are demanding music on the go with iPods and iTunes which is even worse than CD quality. There are lots of people who actually don't sit down and listen to an album while flipping through the lyrics and absorbing the music and details. Audiophiles are a small segment of the buying population.

I suggest getting a vinyl version of the album and ripping it to CD so you can listen to something mixed less loud. It's possible that a Japanese mix is different, I'm not sure.

 

[BVS]

It's a shame that in all the interviews they've done to promote the album, no one has ever asked about mastering issues, loudness, dynamic range, etc.

Why would anyone ask them about this? As far as the industry is concerned these aren't issues.

It's only an issue to the audiophiles that listen to everything with high quality equipment, that's a small minority. For the rest of the world that listen to most of their music on an iPod, computer, or even to an extent a car stereo there is no issue.

 

[gweeps]

Computer speakers, earbuds...

 

[corianderstem]

I'm just glad it sounds better than the last album, level-wise. With headphones, there were one or two places where it was noticable to me on this album.

I'm kind of baffled that this has become the norm as well. If audiophiles are up in arms over it, shouldn't engineers/producers (or whoever is in charge of that sort of thing) be concerned about it, too?

I wouldn't call myself an audiophile by any stretch, but I'm really perturbed when I listen to a CD and it's distorted. Sometimes I can chalk it up to it being an MP3, or chalk it up to my iPod, but sometimes it's just the CD. I don't understand why that would be acceptable.

What are the reasonings behind why the people who should care, don't? Would it be along the same lines as whatever caused this to become the norm? Whatever the hell those baffling reasons are?

 

[Yahweh]

The mix on the album is as good as any theyve done in the last many years ATYCLB and Bomb were both mixed a lot louder and with a lot less dynamic range then this album.

I also must say however that no U2 album has ever been mixed perfectly right out of the box without remastering.

The albums in the 80s and 90s were generally mixed too quiet, especially Joshua Tree. So its really a no win situation unless something changes and I dont think it will.

It all comes down to how many people really care about the best sound quality and I would say less then 1 percent of the population really care. A lot of people just listen to music as a background noise to pass time....this is the reality. Unless you are a hardcore fan of something likely you wont care if youre hearing it in the best quality....however there will always be those that want to hear the best...including me.

 

[pacemaker]

The vinyl sounds fucking awesome. It's very clear, crisp and not muddled at all... I guess this is to be expected. When I listened to the LP today, I could actually hear the "Adam Clayton School Off Bass Playing Nuances" really well, and it was groovy (pun intended?!).

I'm still waiting on the CD though...

 

[corianderstem]

Why would the album be one quality and the CD another? Is it just the way it always is with vinyl vs CD?

 

[digitize]

I'm really disappointed to hear this. Maybe... maybe... considering the nature of SOA, there will be more dynamic range... maybe. I'm not getting my hopes up.

 

[digitize]

I almost wish I had the vinyl rip to FLAC or something and use as an 'alternate CD' of sorts.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

They probably did it this way so that they can re-issue a remastered version in 10 years. If you master it right the first time, you can't milk it again later!

While you did get me to laugh, there seems to be some truth in that....the remastered albums from U2 haven't been pumped way the fuck up, so why have the last two studio albums sounded so damn shitty?

For more comparision, check out Pearl Jam's rearviewmirror and compare the songs from Vs. to the versions on that album....Vs. is notably a bit-low volume on CD, so they amplified all the tracks for the greatest hits album so that it would be in the same range as the other PJ songs. The result? Songs like Daughter sound absolutely unlistenable.

An even better example, check out the R.E.M. recordings on IRS records. Than hear the recent compilation from that same period. Everything's jacked way up and the songs lose so many individual elements as they all start blurring together.

 

[coolian2]

While you did get me to laugh, there seems to be some truth in that....the remastered albums from U2 haven't been pumped way the fuck up, so why have the last two studio albums sounded so damn shitty?

because that was a completely band directed project, my guess.

 

[Moser]

Why would the album be one quality and the CD another? Is it just the way it always is with vinyl vs CD?

Because vinyl can replicate an exact analog sound....reproduce a perfect sound wave..but any digital sound can only emulate a sound wave in a steps.

 

[corianderstem]

Thanks for the answer. I knew it was something insanely technical.

 

[Sicy]

I dont get it. I just enjoy the music. All this technical stuff is just too much for me.

 

[ndmaxfield]

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.

 

[Partyslammer]

forgive me for not being positive, but i wanted to say that the sound quality of "no line on the horizon" is fair at best.

(snipped for space)

i went to best buy today to buy an album expecting great cd sound quality only to be repulsed by it....well, there's always vinyl still! maybe i'll just dust off the old turntable and buy the $20 U2 vinyl edition next.

who else agrees with me on the sound quality issue? please weigh in.

I somewhat agree. I can't say I'm "repulsed" by the overall sound quality of the cd, especially since I've only listened to it twice all the way through and really haven't had a chance to listen to it under ideal conditions. But I will say that yeah, a lot of frequencies are maxed out and since the production is more dense and layered then the last two albums, it adds up at least on first impression to a bit of a step down sonically from the last two albums. I don't think it as bad as say, Metallica's last cd, but it certainly could have been mixed and/or mastered for cd better.

Sadly, because the majority of listeners today use extremely low-end stereo equipment from a sonic standpoint, especially earbuds, etc the art of mixing has been "dumbed down" for today's listeners who really can't tell (or care about) the sonic differences between mp3, cd and higher end audio formats. I really wish U2 (and other bands) would make available high resolution audio for discerning listeners either as download or on disc such as someone like Trent Reznor does.

I do definately hear a big improvement over the MP3 version though.

T.B.

 

[coolian2]

I dont get it. I just enjoy the music. All this technical stuff is just too much for me.

exactly. i mean, i could tell with hutdab, because my ears started bleeding.

but maybe i just don't turn it up loud enough.

 

[Bean Skidds]

Why would the album be one quality and the CD another? Is it just the way it always is with vinyl vs CD?

Vinyl is typically mastered at a lower level(more dynamic range) than CD for most releases. Not always, but usually. With vinyl mastering theyre not as concerned with making it LOUD, since noone loads vinyl onto their ipod or plays it on the radio. It doesnt need to stand out, volume wise. Plus theyre aware audiophiles seek out vinyl for a better listening experience.

I really wish releases as big as U2's new album would be released on 2 different CD versions. One loud and butchered for the radio and people who like it that way. And one mastered with care and dynamic range for people who have actual stereo systems or prefer not to have their ears bleed. I'm not really into dealing with vinyl cleaning and storage anymore.

 

[Moser]

I dont get it. I just enjoy the music. All this technical stuff is just too much for me.

Well, what would be more enjoyable...watching movies in theater quality or on your standard tube?

I mean the movie is still good..except at least enjoy it in high quality!

 

[purpleoscar]

Why would the album be one quality and the CD another? Is it just the way it always is with vinyl vs CD?

Turn Me Up! | Bringing Dynamics Back To Music

Mixed loud CD's fatigue your ears because it doesn't sound natural. I'm sure lots of people gave up on atomic bomb for that reason even if they aren't sure why.

CD's that tell you to "turn it up" in the liner notes because it's mixed quietly are (that I know of):

Disintegration - The Cure
Seldom seen kid - Elbow