Remastering old cds?

[redrover]

New fan here - hope this is the right forum....


Has there any talk of U2 remastering the old cds? Sometimes its done to milk an old catalogue, but since the early U2 cds still sell very well I was wondering if there was any discussion from the band members about this.

Thanks for any info!

 

[Zoots]

The first thing I said when I looked at this thread is... Wow!!! What are the odds? Cos I was just gonna make a post about why they need to remaster 'War'. Was listening to it yesterday and the sound quality is soooo bad. It doesn't help if I turn up the volume either.

And regarding Pop... despite the fact that I'm still a little with them for butchering the songs for a best-of from an album that really had nothing wrong with it, I still would be curious to listen to a remastered version.. as the band intended it. The Beatles' Let It Be... Naked comes to mind.

 

[redrover]

Yeah, I was listening to Joshua Tree tonight - kept turning up the sound, adjusting the equalizer and nothing was helping - then I put on Achtung Baby and the difference in the sound quality from one to the other is amazing. Just surprised U2 has not remastered anything.

Also - nothing in DVD Audio either - again - surprising since they have such a large fanbase and opportunity.

 

[Zoots]

Yeah.. Remastering of JT would help Exit so it can at least be heard. I mean, I'm not saying bring it up to the volume of the other tracks.. since then, it may lose that special feeling it gives at that point in the album. But at least let it be audible. If I'm driving especially and listening to JT, I end up hearing just the second half of the song pretty much. It's so freakin in-audible.

 

[typhoon]

The Eno/Lanois albums all sound perfect. They don't need to be remastered. I'm serious. If you think these albums sound bad, you probably paid too much for your audio equipment.

"Exit" is supposed to be quiet.

 

[redrover]

The Eno/Lanois albums all sound perfect. They don't need to be remastered. I'm serious. If you think these albums sound bad, you probably paid too much for your audio equipment.

I strongly disagree - when you hear a recording of a certain era remastered the difference can be, and most often is - night and day. There's technology available today that just wasn't around then - they're still the same recordings. There are artists who have listened to their albums re-done in DVD Audio (which is 1000X better than a remaster of a cd) and 'cried' - I'm not joking - that's how astounding the difference is.

As for the audio equipment - if you're ever interested - listen to a pair of IPod headphones back to back to a premium pair like Shure E3s - it's like the difference between a $10 transistor AM radio and a symphony playing in your head Different strokes, I guess

 

[ultraviolet7]

|i]Originally posted by redrover [/i]


I strongly disagree - when you hear a recording of a certain era remastered the difference can be, and most often is - night and day. There's technology available today that just wasn't around then - they're still the same recordings. There are artists who have listened to their albums re-done in DVD Audio (which is 1000X better than a remaster of a cd) and 'cried' - I'm not joking - that's how astounding the difference is.

As for the audio equipment - if you're ever interested - listen to a pair of IPod headphones back to back to a premium pair like Shure E3s - it's like the difference between a $10 transistor AM radio and a symphony playing in your head Different strokes, I guess

IMV Digital remasters don't guarantee great audio. In fact I'm not so sure that present day technology is necessarily better quality than that around 15/20 years ago. Proof is that many artists today still choose analogue to cut their records on. IMO high quality analogue stuff beats the sh*t out of digital any day. If not try listening to a good vinyl on an equally good turnatable and a/b it to the same CD. As for DVD audio it depends which of the available sampling rate/bit depth combinations is used and whether the audio is encoded using lossy compression schemes or not. It is also important to know whether the DVD has a dedicated stereo mix - something that requires the use of some compression scheme (there's just not enough room to store a 5.1 AND a 2.0 version of a standard album without resorting to data compression) or if the stereo mix is a downfold of the 5.1 version (it could give rather questionable results in many cases). DVD-A in itself is not a guarantee of great audio.
Other than the technical side, I'm not a great fan of remasters since this process may alter part of the essence of an album itself. In fact the sound IS part of what an album is and relates to the moment it was released. of IMV it makes absolutely no sense (except commercially) to update perfectly listenable material as audio goes. In my opinion the only material that may need remastering is real old stuff of which no original masters are available or are now in a very bad condition in order to preserve them.

 

[phanan]

The Eno/Lanois albums all sound perfect. They don't need to be remastered. I'm serious. If you think these albums sound bad, you probably paid too much for your audio equipment.

"Exit" is supposed to be quiet.

I disagree as well. The sound quality of the early albums on CD are awful when compared to how they would sound remastered with today's technology. Just compare some of the songs from those albums to the ones that made it onto the Best Of 1980-1990. Nobody can tell me that I Will Follow or The Unforgettable Fire don't come through with a much fuller sound, with the highs and lows so much more present, than the originals.

 

[Aardvark747]

I'd love to hear how they sound on 'A Day Without Me' and 'Shadows And Tall Trees' these days!

 

[U2mixer]

IMV Digital remasters don't guarantee great audio. In fact I'm not so sure that present day technology is necessarily better quality than that around 15/20 years ago. Proof is that many artists today still choose analogue to cut their records on. IMO high quality analogue stuff beats the sh*t out of digital any day. If not try listening to a good vinyl on an equally good turnatable and a/b it to the same CD. As for DVD audio it depends which of the available sampling rate/bit depth combinations is used and whether the audio is encoded using lossy compression schemes or not. It is also important to know whether the DVD has a dedicated stereo mix - something that requires the use of some compression scheme (there's just not enough room to store a 5.1 AND a 2.0 version of a standard album without resorting to data compression) or if the stereo mix is a downfold of the 5.1 version (it could give rather questionable results in many cases). DVD-A in itself is not a guarantee of great audio.
Other than the technical side, I'm not a great fan of remasters since this process may alter part of the essence of an album itself. In fact the sound IS part of what an album is and relates to the moment it was released. of IMV it makes absolutely no sense (except commercially) to update perfectly listenable material as audio goes. In my opinion the only material that may need remastering is real old stuff of which no original masters are available or are now in a very bad condition in order to preserve them.

Good post.

There are older recordings that could do with an 'overhaul', but also, as you state, the most important part of an album's magic is it's 'essence' - ie the production.

The producer is an extra band member because without him/them then the album could sound lifeless and flat.

If I play the JT vinyl on my record deck then the mix is fantastic, but if I play the JT CD on my system (always PAY for quality and not gimmicks) then it sounds flat - the quality is there, but it has lost of lot of the original's dynamics. And just turning up the volume or throwing it through an EQ or playing with the levels doesn't help much AND this is something that you don't want to do with every single CD you throw in.

If U2 considered remastering then it would have to be done with the same people behind the desks AND without any add-on production techniques which could affect the 'essence' of the original.

 

[phanan]

If U2 considered remastering then it would have to be done with the same people behind the desks AND without any add-on production techniques which could affect the 'essence' of the original.

I would agree. I want the old albums remastered because they were never transferred to CD very well in the first place. But I definitely wouldn't want anything changing the "essence" of the originals. Just improved sound quality without anything added on please.

 

[gman]

Av always thought that the U2 sound on recordings was poor in quality compared to other recordings of the same vintage. Good Headphones would increase your enjoyment of the sound. Its Amazing the detail you can pick up.

 

[WinnieThePoo]

they should remaster stuff from boy to joshua tree
from R&H and till the latest everything is quite good

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

any cd recorded/mastered from about 1995 on doesn't really need to be remastered. (that's not my opinion, but like an actual fact taken from somewhere i don't remember. mayhaps an audiophile can come in and explain the technical reasons, lol.)

 

[flangerchorus]

i wonder how many people here actually know what mastering really is

 

[redrover]

If U2 considered remastering then it would have to be done with the same people behind the desks AND without any add-on production techniques which could affect the 'essence' of the original.

I think a band like U2 would be sensitive to the original recordings and there are other artists who have had the original producers and engineers work on the remasters - preserving the integrity of the original tapes. I agree that I would not want to lose the essence of the recording, but that being said, the early cds could use the most basic help in remastering.

 

[starvinmarvin]

any cd recorded/mastered from about 1995 on doesn't really need to be remastered. (that's not my opinion, but like an actual fact taken from somewhere i don't remember. mayhaps an audiophile can come in and explain the technical reasons, lol.)

From what I understand, it took until the mid 90's before people learned how to master recordings for the digital CD format. Early CD's were mastered just like vinyl was, which explains why so many of the early U2 albums sound crappier on CD than they do on vinyl. It took a while to fully switch over to digital, that's all.

I think that some people are getting "producing" and "mastering" confused. Just because an album is remastered doesn't mean it will change the integrity of the original recording - it will just make it sound better on CD.

 

[starvinmarvin]

What I'm trying to say is that the early U2 albums desperately need to be remastered. October in particular is a sonic mess on CD.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

As was earlier mentioned, everything that's on the Best Of's is remastered. On your iTunes or whatever, put Mysterious Ways off Achtung back to back with Mysterious Ways off the Best Of (and do the same with something from the 80's) and you'll see that the difference is simply a little bit of extra clarity and it's certainly nothing to be afraid of if it's done to that degree. U2 could simply remaster them and the remastered version could be what you buy from now on and no-one may necessarily notice - except of course that would go against every rule of marketing.

I say do it. An audiophile will certainly notice and appreciate the extra 5-10% of depth and clarity, while the average Joe probably won't notice a thing.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

I say do it. An audiophile will certainly notice and appreciate the extra 5-10% of depth and clarity, while the average Joe probably won't notice a thing.

i just notice it's louder, lol.

 

[ultraviolet7]

Remastering is acceptable as long as it is done with the only idea of adapting a recording to a new format. However remastering is a great temptation to introduce tweaks here and there which end up changinging the overall sound of the recording, which as I've already said is an integral part of that recording. Some remasters are a complete disgrace - the audio is undoubtedly better but the essence of the original recording is lost. In my opinion a 1987 recording should sound as a 1987 recording, if a remaster done conscientiously can preserve that at the same time of adapting the recording to the newer format it is OK. Otherwise it is not.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

I agree. That's why I'm cool with U2 doing it only to the level they've done on the Best Of's.

 

[ultraviolet7]

From what I understand, it took until the mid 90's before people learned how to master recordings for the digital CD format. Early CD's were mastered just like vinyl was, which explains why so many of the early U2 albums sound crappier on CD than they do on vinyl. It took a while to fully switch over to digital, that's all.

I think that some people are getting "producing" and "mastering" confused. Just because an album is remastered doesn't mean it will change the integrity of the original recording - it will just make it sound better on CD.

In the early 90s people already knew how to master for CD. I think the problem used to lay with the way albums were produced and actually recorded. In the studio you didn't have the chance to hear how your mixes would sound on a finished format as you do now. Producers and recording engineers had however a more or less precise idea of how the mixes translated on vinyl and cassette tape and worked with this concept in mind. CD was a new format in the late 80s and it took a time until producers and recording engineers got the knack as to how to mix to make the recording work on CD. At that time you didn't get to hear your mixes on a CD until after they were mastered, and there is a limited amount of tweaking you can introduce in the mastering process. If a mix doesn't work mastering won't make it work. As a reference as to why it wasn't too usual to burn a CD with a copy of the mixes during the mixing process it must be said that CD recorder in the late 80s cost @ $50,000! Another problem still was that vinyl was still a widespread format and the mixes had to be thought out as to translate well both on vinyl and CD. There wasn't much info on that yet. Later when vinyl was reduced to limited editions all the effort was concentrated on producing for CD.

 

[blueeyedgirl]

Leave them fucking well alone!!!! All this talk for what? So you can hear 80's records as if they'd be made now! Well they weren't! They were made in the 80's, so that's how they should fucking well sound. It's like colourizing black and white movies! The reason given usually was "Young people are used to watching TV in colour so they won't want to watch B & W. Well BOLLOCKS TO THAT! If it's not good enough for you to listen to, then don't FUCKING LISTEN!!!!!

*Rant over*

 

[liamcool]

That was a pwnage rant.

 

[phanan]

Leave them fucking well alone!!!! All this talk for what? So you can hear 80's records as if they'd be made now! Well they weren't! They were made in the 80's, so that's how they should fucking well sound. It's like colourizing black and white movies! The reason given usually was "Young people are used to watching TV in colour so they won't want to watch B & W. Well BOLLOCKS TO THAT! If it's not good enough for you to listen to, then don't FUCKING LISTEN!!!!!

*Rant over*

Um, ok.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Leave them fucking well alone!!!! All this talk for what? So you can hear 80's records as if they'd be made now! Well they weren't! They were made in the 80's, so that's how they should fucking well sound. It's like colourizing black and white movies! The reason given usually was "Young people are used to watching TV in colour so they won't want to watch B & W. Well BOLLOCKS TO THAT! If it's not good enough for you to listen to, then don't FUCKING LISTEN!!!!!

*Rant over*

Do you own the two Best Of CD's?

Can you tell a difference between, say, With or Without You on The Joshua Tree & With or Without You on the Best Of CD?

 

[redrover]

Leave them fucking well alone!!!! All this talk for what? So you can hear 80's records as if they'd be made now! Well they weren't! They were made in the 80's, so that's how they should fucking well sound. It's like colourizing black and white movies! The reason given usually was "Young people are used to watching TV in colour so they won't want to watch B & W. Well BOLLOCKS TO THAT! If it's not good enough for you to listen to, then don't FUCKING LISTEN!!!!!

*Rant over*

well the same could be said of any remastered cds - you can leave them the BLANK alone. surely there'd be enough of the old ones rattling around that people like you wouldn't have to get yourselves all worked up about it..while allowing anyone else who wanted some better sound to enjoy the remasters. So perhaps you can take your own advice - and don't BLANKing listen to anything that is ever remastered. We can't hold back everything for you, as much as that seems like what you want to do.

Also your analogy to coloring black and white films is wrong - when done properly its not the same at all.

someone needs to calm themselves and not worry about things they wouldn't buy anyway

 

[U2mixer]

Leave them fucking well alone!!!! All this talk for what? So you can hear 80's records as if they'd be made now! Well they weren't! They were made in the 80's, so that's how they should fucking well sound. It's like colourizing black and white movies! The reason given usually was "Young people are used to watching TV in colour so they won't want to watch B & W. Well BOLLOCKS TO THAT! If it's not good enough for you to listen to, then don't FUCKING LISTEN!!!!!

*Rant over*

What a FUCKING post!

 

[blueeyedgirl]

Oi, I'll have you fucking know I fucking deleted a couple of fucks in that post!

For the record, no I don't own the best ofs.

My point is there's a lot of hooha about U2's old records not sounding as good as they would be using today's technology. The Beatles' early records were recorded in mono, does that mean they should be re-released in 5.1 format, just because that's the latest technology? Obviously, technology is an ever moving thing, what's latest today, will be out of date tomorrow. And most of this argument comes from audiophiles anyway, you ask the average dilbert in the street and they'll have no idea what you're talking about, I would surmise.

Music is often of a time and a place. The early U2 records are of their time, they reflect where U2 were in the 80's and of the technology around then. I prefer it to remain so, you may not want to, to each their own.