Achtung Baby/Zooropa remasters CONFIRMED for Fall 2011 by Rolling Stone - Part II

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I hear that there are these amazing things on some stereos called "volume knobs". Sometimes they're in button form.

U2s 80s albums sounded very flat on cd; I don't think people really knew how or were able to make a master for CDs. They sounded a lot better on vinyl. Now the CDs sound just as good as the LPs, aside from the weaknesses inherent in the format. Put on any record from 1991 or 1993, and it will be pretty much the same volume as the U2 albums.

Yeah, because it's fun to always have to sit next to a stereo to adjust it between songs. Mixes, for instance, don't play an album in its entirety and therefore would create a need to be constantly adjusting the volume. Perhaps you just sit around in front of a stereo listening to things all day. Most people have music playing in the background.
 
part of me is glad if this is really true (i still have my doubts that this info is correct). i actually think Achtung Baby sounds great the way it is. the sound, even if it's considered "bad mixing", is part of what makes the album so brilliant, imo.

This is exactly why it rates so low for me. It sounds terrible to my ears. The mixing is just plain poorly done.
 
Yeah, because it's fun to always have to sit next to a stereo to adjust it between songs. Mixes, for instance, don't play an album in its entirety and therefore would create a need to be constantly adjusting the volume. Perhaps you just sit around in front of a stereo listening to things all day. Most people have music playing in the background.

Achtung Baby can be described many ways, but I don't believe "background music" is one of them.

Streets, on the other hand....

Elevator Music: Bono & Edge on Letterman - YouTube

:)
 
analogue remastering's where it's at yo :wink: none of that over-boosting, clipping distorting bollocks..

mind you would i be right in assuming Achtung Baby was recorded digitally thus rendering an analogue remaster pointless?? never considered that actually, just out of sheer curiosity do any U2 Boffins know how the album was originally recorded?

this doesn't answer your question, but this is a fantastic piece from Eno on the album and what went into it.. read it if you haven't.. so good.

News: "The Making of Achtung Baby"

excerpts:

Buzzwords on this record were trashy, throwaway, dark, sexy, and industrial (all good) and earnest, polite, sweet, righteous, rockist and linear (all bad). It was good if a song took you on a journey or made you think your hi-fi was broken, bad if it reminded you of recording studios or U2.

Does it make a difference if people hearing the record say: "that record sounds like trash", rather than, "they've deliberately chosen to make a record that sounds like trash"?

Attention is noticing where you are, as opposed to where you thought you'd be. It's easy to get stuck in the detailed work of overdubbing, fiddling and tweaking, but it often doesn't get you far from where you started. Bigger jumps take a type of nimbleness, the agility to switch back and forth from detail to big picture, from zoom to wide angle. The advantage of working in company is that you don't have to do both yourself. With U2 it's very rare that EVERYONE in the room is using the same lens at the same time. Larry (Mullen) and Adam (Clayton) are reliable wide anglers when things start to lose perspective or become too narrowly focused: they become the voice of musical concience. Edge, the archaelolgist of the rough mix, delved back through earlier strata in the song's development, emerging triumphantly with a different vision on a battered cassette. Steve Lillywhite, a welcome addition at the mixing stage, comes in fresh and enthusiatic, free of history, and trusts his gifted ears. Dan listens to feel, to the skeleton of the song, and draws attention to things that everybody else has stopped noticing. Flood reawakens sleeping songs with brilliantly original mixes after we've all gone home. I trust my instincts, wax doubtful or enthusiastic, grumble Englishly and liberally contradict myself. All these shifts of perspective make the development of a song very non-linear: from the inside, the process often feels chaotic, jumping from one identity to another, stretching the song this way and that until it all falls apart, then picking up the bits and starting over.
 
Yeah, because it's fun to always have to sit next to a stereo to adjust it between songs. Mixes, for instance, don't play an album in its entirety and therefore would create a need to be constantly adjusting the volume. Perhaps you just sit around in front of a stereo listening to things all day. Most people have music playing in the background.

It doesn't sound good in a mix? Who fucking cares? It wasn't made to be part of someone's personal playlist. But if you don't want to fiddle with volume, make a list of songs from the time period.

If you want to talk about a poorly produced, mixed, and mastered, listen to Village Green! Great album, but man, it sounds baaad.

I don't get where all this carping about AB sound comes from. It's regarded as being an excellent sounding album. It's not like it's Californication or Death Magnetic, or Be Here Now.
 
I don't get where all this carping about AB sound comes from. It's regarded as being an excellent sounding album. It's not like it's Californication or Death Magnetic, or Be Here Now.

Yeah. It's kind of funny actually. This album that reinvented U2, that contains several songs that became classics, that people have loved & cherished for two decades, that made legions of people U2 fans, that sold 18+ million copies, won countless awards, and is regarded as one of the most influential albums of the past 20 years, is now described as too low, muddled, fuzzy, sounds like crap, etc.

Pretty unbelievable. How did people ever get by the past twenty years listening to such garbage? It's amazing that album sold at all with that awful master.

Oh well, we'll always have Bomb. That one's real loud.
 
I don't think it sounds anything resembling "bad," but I was kind of looking forward to seeing what they would do to it, if I could notice any differences, like with The Joshua Tree.

Not that I know anything about production or mastering - I just know what sounds wrong to my ears (like most of Bomb).
 
I wonder where is that obnoxious fellow who said this discussion was ridiculous...
 
that was Laz. seems like a good guy, but just overreacts a lot.

i still consider it an open discussion. i believe that there had to be some kind of tweaking done, even if it's only the volume levels, which would still technically be considered a "remaster".
 
that was Laz. seems like a good guy, but just overreacts a lot.

i still consider it an open discussion. i believe that there had to be some kind of tweaking done, even if it's only the volume levels, which would still technically be considered a "remaster".

it'll be interesting to check the liner notes for any additional production/mixing/engineering credits from 2010 or 2011. if there have been any changes, they'll be noted
 
mikal said:
that was Laz. seems like a good guy, but just overreacts a lot.

i still consider it an open discussion. i believe that there had to be some kind of tweaking done, even if it's only the volume levels, which would still technically be considered a "remaster".

Yea, that was the fellow. And i consider it open too. But far from ridiculous.
 
It doesn't sound good in a mix? Who fucking cares? It wasn't made to be part of someone's personal playlist. But if you don't want to fiddle with volume, make a list of songs from the time period.

If you want to talk about a poorly produced, mixed, and mastered, listen to Village Green! Great album, but man, it sounds baaad.

Yes, let's never ever ever listen to Where The Streets Have No Name and Ultraviolet back to back ever.

Village Green sounds good on my remastered copy. :wave:
 
Yes, let's never ever ever listen to Where The Streets Have No Name and Ultraviolet back to back ever.

Village Green sounds good on my remastered copy. :wave:

My remastered copy sounds pretty bad. I still love it, but their 60s albums were recorded so poorly there's nothing that can be done to make them sound good. Which is fine; they're great songs.

I've listened to AB and JT back to back hundreds, if not thousands of times and have never had a problem.
 
i believe that there had to be some kind of tweaking done, even if it's only the volume levels, which would still technically be considered a "remaster".

I actually agree w/you. I've said all along I still believe that, if nothing else, they will have "re-EQ'd" this (for lack of a better term) for loudness. But I believe that will probably be the extent of any "remastering". And simply making an album louder isn't something they'd mention in a press release or anyplace else. It's just not something you draw attention to.

As it stands, right now I'm vacillating between this being the first official U2 release I skip entirely, or just buying the 2-disc edition for completeness sake.
 
I wonder where is that obnoxious fellow who said this discussion was ridiculous...
:wave:
I still think they should at least bump up the volume a bit, though. Not to HUTDAB levels or anything, just slightly louder than it was.
 
I actually agree w/you. I've said all along I still believe that, if nothing else, they will have "re-EQ'd" this (for lack of a better term) for loudness. But I believe that will probably be the extent of any "remastering". And simply making an album louder isn't something they'd mention in a press release or anyplace else. It's just not something you draw attention to.

As it stands, right now I'm vacillating between this being the first official U2 release I skip entirely, or just buying the 2-disc edition for completeness sake.

yep, agreed. i plan on just downloading a torrent for the unreleased tracks and then buying the Super Deluxe months, maybe years later when it's at a reasonable price.
 
Nick66 said:
Which one? :)

I was thinking about that guy with the M. Jackson-Macca pic. But you are right, there are others. That fellow was the one with the gratuitous rude behaviour though.
 
Did recording technology really change that much between 1986 and 1991? I mean, I know it changed a lot, but to the extent that The Joshua Tree truly benefits from a thorough remastering treatment but Achtung Baby would not? That seems hard to believe. 1991 was TWENTY years ago. Surely there is a way to give the recording more clarity and definition rather than just making it "louder?"

If U2 truly believes this album doesn't need remastering (not that we have any confirmation on that one way or the other), then that is their business. I certainly wouldn't want them to remaster the album simply for the sake of being able to stamp a "remastered!" sticker on it. But again, I think it's quite possible that a 1991 recording could be genuinely improved/enhanced with 2011 technology.
 
Did recording technology really change that much between 1986 and 1991? I mean, I know it changed a lot, but to the extent that The Joshua Tree truly benefits from a thorough remastering treatment but Achtung Baby would not? That seems hard to believe. 1991 was TWENTY years ago. Surely there is a way to give the recording more clarity and definition rather than just making it "louder?"

If U2 truly believes this album doesn't need remastering (not that we have any confirmation on that one way or the other), then that is their business. I certainly wouldn't want them to remaster the album simply for the sake of being able to stamp a "remastered!" sticker on it. But again, I think it's quite possible that a 1991 recording could be genuinely improved/enhanced with 2011 technology.

Sure. But they're not going to come out publicly with a press release at this stage of the game and announce "Just to clarify, we didn't remaster it". That's just bad salesmanship, you don't draw attention to the things your product doesn't have.

And of course it's two different arguments....is the album remastered, and should it be remastered.

I never thought the record needed it, but I wanted one anyway just for comparisons sake (and you're right, they may have been able to "improve" upon it). And a remaster certainly would have justified the price they're asking a bit more.
 
I was thinking, when the deluxe sets of Radiohead records were released in 2009 they were NOT remastered. Why? There was no need. And PH is from 93...
 
I was thinking, when the deluxe sets of Radiohead records were released in 2009 they were NOT remastered. Why? There was no need. And PH is from 93...

Yeah. And then the other side of the coin is Rush, who have just begun their second round of remasters (this time 24-bit & 5.1).

U2's just getting started w/ their back catalogue. I think this round will be the final set of reissues in physical CD format, but eventually there will be more remasters, High Def remasters, 5.1, etc. Achtung Baby will get remastered, it's just a matter of time.
 
But then it wouldn't sound 'muddled' any more, it wouldn't be Achtung Baby anymore, that sound was intentional. It was part of the shock!

Yeah. That's the thing, Achtung Baby is tricky. There's a lot of noise on that album. I remember the first time I heard Zoo Station...wow. It would really be easy to fuck that album up with a bad remaster. Not that U2 would do a bad one, the others have been superb. But more than any other U2 record, the "sound" is a big part of what makes Achtung Baby so iconic. Change the sound too much and Achtung Baby is no longer Achtung Baby. Maybe they didn't want to mess with that. At least right now.

I think it's entirely possible they went into the studio, started working on it, it just wasn't happening, and they said "nope."
 
Yeah. And then the other side of the coin is Rush, who have just begun their second round of remasters (this time 24-bit & 5.1).

U2's just getting started w/ their back catalogue. I think this round will be the final set of reissues in physical CD format, but eventually there will be more remasters, High Def remasters, 5.1, etc. Achtung Baby will get remastered, it's just a matter of time.

5.1 DVD or SACD/SHM-CD should be U2's options...

Depeche Mode did the 5.1 years ago... The deluxe editions deserves more than redbook CDs...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom