BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
No. In short they've been "digitally remastered" which is not the same thing as a true remaster.
Achtung Baby/Zooropa remasters CONFIRMED for Fall 2011 by Rolling Stone - Part II
- Thread starter Sicy
- 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.
- Status
No. In short they've been "digitally remastered" which is not the same thing as a true remaster.
Nick66
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
+1
Nick66
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
It hasn't been, at least not by U2 in the manner they did the recent remasters. I'll say it again...Boy, War, October, TUF and JT have all been "remastered" in the past more than AB ever would be, and that didn't stop U2 from issuing genuine remasters of those albums.
Every time there's a format change (i.e. LP to CD, LP to cassette, cassette to CD, CD to vinyl) there's usually a remaster. The early U2 albums were "remastered" by Island in the late 80's/early 90's (I have an old copy of War I think that has a sticker saying "The Island Remaster Series" or something like that). They apparently got another "remaster" in the late 90's (and perhaps AB was part of this, that I don't know). None of this was really publicized that much because it was just common practice before "remaster" went from being a technical to (also) a marketing term.
In addition, as you mentioned, all the tracks on the compilation albums were remastered for loudness (an unfortunate practice which is common on most new release and reissues these days).
Then there are foreign labels, who often make their own master...there's a noteworthy Japanese pressing of Joshua Tree with a supposedly good remaster, though I haven't heard it.
Record clubs (when they existed) often made their own masters, which most people assumed were inferior, though that wasn't always the case.
Then of course there's the excellent (and hard to find, and expensive) Mobile Fidelity (MFSL) remasters of War, TUF and JT, which were the gold standard until the new reissues came along (and some people still prefer them). In fact the MSFL remaster of JT was the first CD edition of that album to correct the One Tree Hill/"Oh Great Ocean" fade out mistake that was present on the early Island release.
With noteworthy exceptions, changes are usually subtle on a remaster and you know have to know what you're looking for to hear the difference. Though in some cases the difference can be dramatic (but usually this would involve remixing as well as remastering).
A true remaster goes back the the original source tape, whether it's digital or analogue. The U2 reissues so far have been genuine remasters, supervised by The Edge. The clean up studio noises, imperfections in the recording, etc. Apparently U2 didn't do this for AB, for whatever reason. However like many I assume it will be at least "remastered" for loudness.
Catman
Rock n' Roll Doggie
goddamn nick, you know your shit
elevated_u2_fan
Blue Crack Supplier
Nick66 said:
Thats all I ever wanted
There needs to be a seperate term for remastering for loudness vs actual remastering, it would have probably saved 20 + pages worth of arguing...
Nick66
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Thats all I ever wanted
More like 50+ pages. And it really wouldn't have made a difference, I said from almost the beginning I thought it would be "remastered" for loudness. That didn't stop tons of people (most of whom have gone oddly quiet) from saying I was crazy, that the conversation was "ridiculous", "guaranteeing" it was a remaster, calling me a troll, wanting to make a cash-value bet with me, saying "OF COURSE it's remastered" , etc.
Of course, I don't expect many of them to have the maturity to admit they were wrong, or apologize for the insults. Rather, the conversation will morph into variations of "Well, technically it is remastered, but was just done years ago", or "I won't believe it until I ask Daniel Lanois personally" (both of which have been said already) or "Let's wait until the album comes out" and then "It sounds different to me, you can't convince me it's not remastered, the band just 'forgot' to mention it".
Some people just made the argument personal and are psychologically incapable of admitting when they're wrong.
gareth brown
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2003
- Messages
- 6,593
well then let me just apologise for what I said in that last thread. i didn't say anything along the lines of it DEFINITELY being remastered and stuff the others have said, but I just re-read what I wrote about pitying your students so yeah sorry about that. judging by your reply just above it sounds like you're teaching the wrong degree/major anyway 
I thought it would be remastered, and I'm truly surprised that it's probably not. It will be interesting to look at the waveform for the new audio and see if there's any difference - my guess is that it's probably identical to the CD I have sitting two feet from me.
Nick66
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
well then let me just apologise for what I said in that last thread. i didn't say anything along the lines of it DEFINITELY being remastered and stuff the others have said, but I just re-read what I wrote about pitying your students so yeah sorry about that. judging by your reply just above it sounds like you're teaching the wrong degree/major anyway
What I teach is about as far from music and remastering as you can get...that doesn't stop me from throwing out the occasional quote from a U2 song into one of my lectures....once I managed to slide "Hope and history won't rhyme" in there without mentioning it was a lyric. I got busted. I should have known better, I see lot's of U2 shirts at the Uni I teach at.
Registered Dude
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
morgan1098
War Child
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2006
- Messages
- 700
I kind of feel like I tried to make peace with you earlier in this thread, but then I just remembered that I accused you of "trolling" at one point, so yeah, I'm very sorry about that.
THAT SAID, you did say "it's not remastered" long before we had any concrete evidence of that (the absence of the word "remastered" in the press release is not concrete evidence). And really, we still have no concrete evidence in the form of a direct word from U2 or Universal (which was your own criteria for settling this issue). I trust Aaron at U2Wanderer implicitly, but that's not to say his sources at Universal know what they're talking about. The information is still second-hand.
So yes, you were right and I was wrong, most likely. And I was CERTAINLY wrong for name-calling. But we're still awaiting the "official word" that you said was so important in settling this issue early on.
Nick66
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Fair enough man, we're cool. I saw your peace offering earlier, and considered it bridge under the water then.
I do regard Universal to be an "official source", and I trust the reporting of U2 Wanderer on this. This is actually the kind of thing I've been waiting for, since I know U2 would never come out and directly issue a press release saying "It's not remastered", thats just not done. I'm satisfied at this point, in my own mind, that the issue is closed, barring any new evidence that comes to light (e.g. Bono telling Oprah it's been remastered, which I'm sure is on her mind).
And if you don't mind, I think I'll keep trolling for a while.
canedge
Refugee
Nick If you are referring to me I have one thing to say. I find you in unsufferable in a social setting, be it in an internet chat room or a cafe or tennis social. Better that you hear it from me that you are unsufferable than one of your superiors who hold power over your life. If you act in the manner that you do to one of of your superiors (family, career), they are likely to act harshly upon you.
I am just doing this for your own good. That is not a personal attack, that is me telling you are grating in a social situation.
canedge
Refugee
Well they released the Best of in 2002 which says it was remastered and then the Complete U2 in 2004 which might require a remastering for a different format. I am not privy to the matters. I am only guessing.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Like I said earlier these were "digitally remastered" this is much different from a true remaster. This would do little to nothing to the original masters.
Also the 02 and 04 are probably the exact same.
Nick66
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
They are. It's not generally necessary to a remaster when you're going from one digital format to another, which is all that happened w/the Complete U2. For all intents and purposes, the complete U2 was the same as a CD rip of those songs...except at a crappy bit rate and iTunes lousy DRM.
Registered Dude
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
I think (and I'm not positive) I heard once that the Pop was the first digitally-recorded U2 album. I am not sure if that includes Original Soundtracks 1 or not.
dstalksalot
Acrobat
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2001
- Messages
- 320
LOLing at Fever Dog. I always wondered if anyone noticed the resemblance to Nancy Wilson's Fever Dog from Almost Famous and BulletTBS by our boys. Both are ......incendiary
Registered Dude
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
yeah I obviously posted that in the wrong thread. but, in retrospect, I like that it's here. 
then use the ignore function and put the guy on ignore. if you feel so strongly about this then take it off-forum or at least use the pm feature.
lancerla
The Fly
I'm just saying this for your own good. This is not a personal attack. You should take your own advice and look how you're coming off. Anyone who posts something like that to a stranger on the internet is in a deeply sad and unhealthy place.
mikal
Blue Crack Addict
Guys. Dream is Over
albums ARE NOT REMASTERED
"Newest info (source Universal UK) from u2.tour.de (from Germany) said that the AB re-release will not be remastered but the original tracks from 1991"
probably for the better. they'll definitely be louder but have the same mix as the original. think about it, at least we won't have 15 threads pop up in 3 months about how U2 destroyed a masterpiece because they don't have a clue on how to properly mix an album (see HTDAAB).also, because we know that they album did go through a remastering process, which was confirmed by Twitter last year, maybe the band listened to it and felt the same way.
mikal said:
also, because we know that they album did go through a remastering process, which was confirmed by Twitter last year, maybe the band listened to it and felt the same way.
Remixing is not the same as remastering. Totally different things.
But i think you are right: it will be louder. EQ'd, not remastered. Lazy solution...
whackjester
Acrobat
I personally have a shred of hope that they will be remastered. So what if the remastered version sounds worse (this is subjective of course and are any of the previous remasters worse than the originals)? How many people will actually be buying this addition as their first copy of Achtung Baby and not be able to compare the original to the remastered version? To me it makes no sense to not remaster Achtung Baby and Zooropa when U2 just got done remastering almost all of their previous catalog before them. I will be extremely disappointed if it isn't remastered. Achtung Baby is the holy grail of U2 albums for me (and I think many other fans) and I have been looking forward to its remaster ever since they produced the Boy remaster.
bicyclejoe
The Fly
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2009
- Messages
- 43
It makes perfect sense: out of touch and greedy band, greedy manager and greedy record company making a cash grab. "We glorify the past when the future dries up." Yep, $600 for an uber deluxe version that offers nothing really deluxe. They should compare that to what Nirvana has planned for this fall's release of Nevermind. I was going to at least buy the vinyl box set. But $170 for four records? Fuck them. Fuck them. This fan is done. I now wish U2 had called it quits after Pop. Fuck them.
- Status
Similar threads
