War is in Serious Need of a Remaster

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Does War Need to Be Remastered

  • Yes, the original sounds to harsh and compressed...

    Votes: 20 58.8%
  • I like the harsh digital noise so no!

    Votes: 6 17.6%
  • Huh?

    Votes: 8 23.5%

  • Total voters
    34

freebot

The Fly
Joined
Oct 9, 2006
Messages
176
I just listened to New Years Day from the First Compilation (1980-1990) on my ipod and heard some things I had never noticed before. Besides all those helicopter guitars, there was some real production that kinda foreshadowed the Eno/Lanois years. I immediately listened to the same song on the War album. Those touches were lost in a harsh digital murk.

Those of you that were not around when Cd's first came out, the early CDs had a very harsh tone to them. War was one of the very first CDs released. My copy is on Island/Warner Brothers. I am guessing when Island/Universal took up the band's back catalog, there was no remastering.

I guess I wonder if anyone hears what I hear. I remember a Mobile Fidelity gold disc coming out years ago that is no longer available. I wonder what that sounded like.

In short, I think war needs a remaster. what says the group?
 
Their entire back catalogue would really benefit from an excellent remastering. Let's just hope thy wait until I'm out of college so I can afford to buy all their albums again. :drool:
 
I agree,but War is just awful. Listen to the songs on 1980-1990 then listen to war. TUF sounds much better, even tho its a weaker effort (Pride could have fit on War easily...)
 
I have that gold disk I found it in the used cd's at Hastings , I think
I paid about seven bucks . I really don't know if the sound is any better .
 
u2trinity said:
I have that gold disk I found it in the used cd's at Hastings , I think
I paid about seven bucks . I really don't know if the sound is any better .
if you can hear the secondary guitar parts clearly in the background of NYD during the piano in the left speaker, it sounds better. Let me know...

On the regular those parts are audible but murky...:hmm:
 
There is definitly a difference but it is subtle . If I was scoring on a scale from 1-10 the gold war would be about 1point to 1half points higher . on the original I can hear the secondary guitar parts but they sound abid distorted , on the gold disk the sound
is immediate in Bono's voice and the secondary guitar parts sound smooth .
 
My vinyl copy still sounds plenty good to me.

It's really fun to play NYC, Seconds and THBAO at ear blistering levels though my stereo on weekend nights when neighbours give me a pass.

Last year I saw a Gang of Four concert and they played SECONDS as one of their lead-in songs. I wonder how many people attending the gig knew what they were eharing.

u2fp
 
Every U2 album needs to be remastered. Including (especially?) HTDAAB. The production is generally awful. Just hire Steven Wilson already, U2.
 
I'm sure it could use a good remaster, but the raw, bare bones style makes War a classic. It was 1983 and only U2's 3rd album. That comes through on the record. The Boys are young and ready to take on a shitty world.
 
Get the MFSL discs.

Based on how they mixed HTDAAB any remastering job on the older releases would probably sound worse :(
 
CTU2fan said:
Get the MFSL discs.

Based on how they mixed HTDAAB any remastering job on the older releases would probably sound worse :(
didn't lillywhite mix it? (Atomic Bomb?)

And I do like the harshness to war, but I think they were looking for a clearer mix. It comes through on the record which I still have somewhere. Listen to SBS and NYD on 1980-1990 and then on War. There is a big difference. Adam and Larry are Mixed better and Edge's secondary guitar comes right out. And judging by the vocal sound effects I think they were listening to some Pink Floyd in those days (Seconds). If that's true, any Floyd production sounds clear... I think they meant the record to sound clear, but the original CD mix was never fixed. Boy and October were released on CD in 1985 and sound much better. Most CDs mixed in 1983-84 have this problem.
 
CTU2fan said:
Get the MFSL discs.

Based on how they mixed HTDAAB any remastering job on the older releases would probably sound worse :(
I wish they still sold em. Most of em on ebay go for big $$$...
 
Yes, the original sounds to harsh and compressed

Some tracks are done great but Refugee sounds a bit hoarse
 
Lancemc said:
Their entire back catalogue would really benefit from an excellent remastering.

Count me in too :up:

There's a lot of friends here who have a BIG confusion between remastering and remixing !!! :ohmy:

IT IS NOT THE SAME THING FOLKS :yes:

Just listen to Peter Gabriel SACD remastered catalog :drool:

The sound is sublime, oustanding, unbelievable, pristine, :shocked: ... but ... every album keeps its original sound and mixing!, so you can clearly notice that Peter Gabriel III (by the way, produced by Steve Lillywhite ;) ) DOES NOT sound as Us, Up or So. It does sound like Peter Gabriel III, but with much better sound this time!. Same with Peter Gabriel IV, an unique album in his collection that has a very particular sound.

So don't be afraid of remastering albums, a good remastering job (like Peter Gabriel did on his albums) just improve 1000 times the sound, but it doesn't change the original feeling of each record.

:heart:
 
Everything that's more than 10 years old in their catalogue I think could use a remaster, and I don't see why they won't do it, you'd think they'd jump at the chance to sell more albums.
 
Led zeppelin got their back catalogue digitally remastered and it didnt do them any harm.
 
freebot said:
didn't lillywhite mix it? (Atomic Bomb?)


Several people mixed it.

I think that the loudness of Bomb is due to mastering and post-production, not mixers and producers.
 
Back
Top Bottom