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

[canedge]

As an aside, I agree about all the "layering" in AB, and I think that's part of the reason a remaster would not necessarily result in an improvement to that album. I think it sounds just the way they want it to, or as close as they can get without screwing it up. At some point, where the "sound" of an album like Acthung Baby is so central to what it is, if you mess around with it too much Achtung Baby is no longer Achtung Baby. I suspect the band (especially Larry, I'd imagine) agrees with this. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to hear a remaster, for comparisons sake if for no other reason. But there has to be a compelling reason (beyond $$$) to do a remaster.

One of the many rationales for remastering is that when you play a track like WOWY on the radio next to something like Ga Ga, it is just not fair. The circumstances under which they were recorded are radically different and therefore they sound disjointed next to each other. It is like when I used to make cassette tapes and volumes would fluctuate from song to song because they came from different sources.

If your music is 'low' then it is seen as 'less.' Not good for the artist. The second rationale is that many of the artwork has been compromised over time to a lot space for whatever. This applies to Joshua Tree and maybe October but less so with AB or anything post 1990. Another and finale rationale, espoused by Billy Corgan, is that most of the music made in the 1990s was intended for CD players whereas X percentage of listeners are now either using headphones or computer speakers.

 

[canedge]

I am going to ask Daniel Lanois what the scoop is in two weeks. We'll know then.

 

[doctorwho]

I did mean plethora. They run the risk of 'de-valuing' their live videos by offering too many. JT Paris would be first on the chopping block if I was stranded on a dessert island with an old DVD player and 2HR batteries.

I think it is generally agreed amongst U2 fans that an early ZOO show would suffice. That being said, they snuck the JT Paris gig with little fanfare. I would bet that Stockholm or Washington gets put on that four DVD stuff.

My point with the JT Paris show is that U2 gave us something new with the JT remaster. This was a common boot - but it was never officially released. Now it is and it's a great treat. And it was only released with the remaster JT box set - a perfect place for it. You may not like it, but it hardly devalues what U2 released to date.

In fact, I simply cannot agree with your comment about "devaluing their videos". U2 are known for being a great live act. Yet how many videos have they truly released? How many official Boy, TUF, JT or Love Town shows have been released? R&H is not one full show, but a composite of many shows and studio recordings. ZOO TV Sydney is a great concert show - and one reason it sold well. But U2 only have one show from that era. Then there's one PopMart show. There are two Elevation era shows, mostly due to fan demand. And now just one from Vertigo and one from 360. So it's not like U2 is flooding the market with all of these live shows.

Then you contradict yourself stating that you'd like a Washington ZOO show - and that's exactly what I was saying. LOL! You correctly stated that the Paris JT DVD was released with little fanfare - just something extra for the JT remaster box set. So why not do the same with ZOO TV? Why release an item that has been out for years and that many fans have? After all, who is going to buy this Uber box set? Clearly the die-hard fans will - so why give them something they already have? If these fans are willing to pay big $$ to get all the AB era songs and remixes and b-sides that they already have, toss in a few more goodies. The Uber box set does have some goodies with the "Baby AB" CD and some new songs. But in terms of videos, so far, I'm not seeing anything great. And I hardly think having one extra show - and a popular boot (like the Paris JT show) - would devalue their live material.

 

[ntalwar]

Yeah. I agree. On the other hand, who's to say that's not all they did with the previous "remasters"? We really don't know how much work actually went into those releases to justify them putting that label on them.

The audio waveforms for the JT original and remastered are radically different (when viewed in an audio editor). They boosted the levels and compression quite a bit. AB's levels have significantly less headroom compared to the original JT.

 

[canedge]

And I hardly think having one extra show - and a popular boot (like the Paris JT show) - would devalue their live material.

Well, The age is different now then fifteen years ago. Video is more readily accepted now then it was 15 years ago in music circles and for chrissakes, every band is making a movie or documentary now! Bands have no choice but to put all of their material out there because inferior versions keep popping up.

One of my points is that from 2001 to 2010 I think they released at least one DVD every year in some capacity. There was a bit of saturation for a while.

 

[angelordevil]

Those noises are less prominent on AB because of the layering, but they are still there. I would have loved them to clean up those aspects. I am most looking forward to heaing the drums in Acrobat, and the quiet songs like So Cruel and One where those noises are much easier to hear.

Absolutely. I'm all for more Larry, in general...

I think the new Even Better Than the Real Thing mix is obviously the best indicator of what awaits us for the 'remaster.' The mixes in that version are less muddied (especially Larry's, which is also used at more prominent points in the song), and it all sounds MUCH fresher than the original, IMO.

That album is noisy as it is, and I think it could be easy to really fuck up certain songs (Zoo Station, for example) with too much compression, etc. Would a "cleaned up" Actung Baby sound like Achtung Baby? I don't know. I really think the band is just pretty happy with the recording as it is.

Of all the AB songs, I'm most interested in hearing a potentially new version of Zoo Station...mainly because of the super-heavy vocal processing of the original.

 

[mr_perfect]

amazon.com has the superdeluxe price up now for $167.25

 

[mobvok]

Nick there is actually a notable caveat that should probably be included with Paul McG's explicit reference to a remastered The Joshua Tree; that for quite a few years in the US they were selling Joshua Tree CDs with a clusterfuck version of the One Tree Hill ---> Exit transition. The Hill coda was cut out of Track 9 and played at the start of Track 10, and the opening "you know he had the cure" part of Exit was WAY too quiet. Given those mistakes, I can understand why "remastered" would be in metaphorical 40 point font for the press releases.

At the same time, of course it's possible to get too bogged down in caveats. I do like the notion that remastering isn't necessarily a binary thing. It's been 20 years so I would be a little annoyed if the band DIDN'T at least take a look at what could be done, but it certainly makes sense that given U2 was rich as hell at that point and originally recorded these songs for the AB CD (<--- holy crap) release that there really was not a lot they wanted to change.

Besides, you know, the loudness.

 

[U2DMfan]

But simply pumping up the volume would not be a true remaster (i.e. going back to the source tapes as they did with the previous reissued records).

A "true remaster"?
You're talking about literally going back to analog tape then.
That would be the only difference between tweaking ANY audio, digitally, and analog, where you can literally physically affect those original masters.

Achtung has both, IIRC.
DAT and Analog.

With that said, "pumping up the volume" is most definitely remastering.

Not necessarily. A true remaster involves actually going back to the "master" tapes (hence the word "remaster") and making a "new" master of the recording.

You have to make a "new" master even when you tweak or EQ the audio in all cases. Literally - remastered.

It's just semantics confusing the issue here. It's either the exact same digital recording from 1991 or it is remastered. That simple. I assure all of you. If you're changing the original master directly or indirectly by making a new one = remastering.

The fact that "remaster" doesn't appear in the press notes, probably means NOTHING was done to the analog tapes (or as Nick put it, "true remastering"). I think we'd all agree on that. Right? They just didn't want to sell this one in that way. I think this is the likely case.

So any changes to that original master, even if it is literally a 'copy' of an original master...is a "remaster". And those changes are still possible and probably quite likely.

Anyone confused? All answer your question with a question.
Why is "EQ'ing" still remastering? Because the CD that you would buy from Amazon or in a store was printed off a new master. And there is no such thing (in that context) as a "true remaster" of a digital copy.

So let's all stop splitting hairs, it's either the same audio from 1991 or it is remastered. Period.

 

[cobl04]

This is almost as pointless as Maoli vs Moggio...

 

[blueeyedgirl]

So, to save me reading 65 pages, I own the original AB vinyl. Do I need to buy this new thing?

 

[cobl04]

Don't you want Fly shades?!!??!!

 

[blueeyedgirl]

I still have the ZooTV tour condoms!!! Why would I need fly shades?

 

[trevgreg]

Out of curiosity, did the previous reissues/remasters get this much thought and discussion too?

 

[cobl04]

I'd get some of those, but they probably just sit in my drawer for 10 years

 

[slimongi]

I am going to ask Daniel Lanois what the scoop is in two weeks. We'll know then.

Sorry but i don't understand what u mean with the scoop???

 

[solemole]

So is that Deluxe 2CD just Achtung and Zooropa, or Achtung and B-Sides&Rarities?

Zooropa definitely needs remastering.

Uber remixes tracklisting looks interesting; but the Unter remixes tracklisting looks like a bunch of remix clones of same songs (like the other remixes in the past 10 years).

Bonus & Rarities tracklisting also looks interesting... is Down All the Day = Take You Down/Wake Up Dead Man from Salome Outtakes?

Early takes don't interest me much.

That's 4/6, including Zooropa.

Sorry, I'm late keeping up with the news...

 

[An Cat Gav]

I actually think that Zooropa is the best "sounding" of all U2 albums and doesn't need remastering at all.

 

[midnightlemon]

Amazon US just listed the Uber Deluxe set for $588.57. Holy shit! That price tag just blows my mind. I don't even know how to react...

 

[solemole]

I actually think that Zooropa is the best "sounding" of all U2 albums and doesn't need remastering at all.

IMHO, playing my Zooropa CD (1993) on my stereo sounds a bit puny and light...

I would like to hear a bit more volume and distinction in the production; that's all.

 

[dan_smee]

Separation of instruments is the biggest thing for me with a remaster. Really distinguishing between the drums, bass, background sounds and vocals, and not letting them mash together

 

[dan_smee]

Trying hard to have the remaster question answered on U2.com. No responses yet.

I have posted once about it, and responded to another chain discussing it:

What worries me is that the questions about whether or not it is remastered are getting ignored. Initially I thought it must be oversight, but the lack of anyone from u2.com clarifying on the message board, altering the press release, or saying ONE WORD about it is highly disturbing. If it isn't remastered, there was no point. I had no problem with price points, inclusions, even the Sydney thing didn't bother me that much, but if it isn't a remaster, well, do they really expect ANY of the hardcore fans to pay their good money for it?

So, can someone from the U2.com camp, who I'm sure read these boards frequently PLEASE put us out of our misery and let us know either way?

pspa wrote:
Only one question : Remastered or not??

MacFoley wrote:
Look through this thread and you will find out... Or look at other threads about achtung and you will find out...

Dan Smee said
I haven't seen this question answered...

Be really nice to hear official word form someone in the U2 camp...

 

[Galeongirl]

Maybe they were scoping out fan reaction and are going to change it?

That's what I'm thinking that could happen here. only Universal had the complete list of the Uber box set on, and the outrage on Twitter on the inclusion of Sydney was rather obvious. So perhaps they are going back thinking of changing it. It may be very wishful thinking, but a fan can hope right?

By the way, GaleonGirl, after the ugly, ugly "is it or isn't it remastered?" drama that's been going on in here, I should apologize to you for arguing much earlier in the thread that "From the Sky Down" would NOT be included in the box set. I was convinced that it wouldn't be. You were absolutely right, and I was wrong. In this case, I'm happy to be wrong.

That said, I'm still 100 percent convinced this will be remastered...

I'm glad you saw it, and it speaks volumes that you're willing to admit you were wrong.

I'm still pretty convinced it is remastered as well, but yeah, there's that tiny seed of doubt that no site has included it. But I refuse to give it more credit than that. We'll see in the next month when the sites update with more info.

There is a lot of muddiness in AB (and I'm not talking about the intentional dark and 'industrial' sound). A lot of things could be fixed and the levels could stay very much the same. I think oftentimes people mistake cleaning of the sound as adding loudness. Yes, sometimes tracks get clipped etc because loudness is pumped up, but the previous remasters have all been excellently handled, with no loudness issues to speak of. Boy especially has been handled magnificently, cleaning up the minor tape noise, crackles, background 'garbage' that mics always pick up (shuffling feet etc). Those noises are less prominent on AB because of the layering, but they are still there. I would have loved them to clean up those aspects. I am most looking forward to heaing the drums in Acrobat, and the quiet songs like So Cruel and One where those noises are much easier to hear.

That's exactly what I'd love them to change. The cleaning up part, they did that brilliantly on Streets for the JT remaster. It was like hearing the song for the first time again, magical. I haven't actually gotten any of the other remasters, but I imagine they're cleaned up the same way. I love being able to actually separate the instruments and different guitar takes and overlays etc.
Remastered Acrobat would be a bit of a toss up. With the drums and guitar and bass enhanced? I'm interested to see if they can pull it off, as that song is pretty sacred for a lot of fans. Are they going to make their best song more epic?

 

[Galeongirl]

Trying hard to have the remaster question answered on U2.com. No responses yet.

I have posted once about it, and responded to another chain discussing it:




pspa wrote:
Only one question : Remastered or not??

MacFoley wrote:
Look through this thread and you will find out... Or look at other threads about achtung and you will find out...

Dan Smee said
I haven't seen this question answered...

Be really nice to hear official word form someone in the U2 camp...

The very day the news came out I asked u2com on twitter. No response. At all.

I don't see why they wouldn't want this cleared up for everyone. IF it is a remaster, they'd want people to know right? And if it's not, they wouldn't want to trick people in believing that. That's not how U2 works. But, it scares me because I'd reason that it is how Universal works. They wouldn't mind cashing in on fans expecting a remaster when it's basically the same album with some added shit.


ETA: Another random observation.

On the achtungbaby U2.com site. It says on the formats

5. The Standard CD is the original album.
Pre-order: [UK | US]

1. A limited, numbered Uber Deluxe Edition is a magnetic puzzle tiled box which will contain: 6 CDs including the original Achtung Baby album

yet, the deluxe says something different:

4. The Deluxe Edition is a 2xCD set containing the reissue of the original album plus B-sides and rarities.
Pre-order: [UK | US]

Another accidental mistake?

 

[U2girl]

I think it is generally agreed amongst U2 fans that an early ZOO show would suffice. That being said, they snuck the JT Paris gig with little fanfare. I would bet that Stockholm or Washington gets put on that four DVD stuff.

Hopefully, but so far Sydney is the show on DVD we are getting...

 

[ntalwar]

The single CD is now repriced at $13.48.

 

[Swan269]

omg..i left for two days....

rarities and baby disk and doc. will be more than enough to warrent the purchase for me.

 

[senrab]

Amazon US just listed the Uber Deluxe set for $588.57. Holy shit! That price tag just blows my mind. I don't even know how to react...

calm down...amazon.ca has it listed at around $314 US. It will be re-adjusted.

 

[senrab]

I still have the ZooTV tour condoms!!!

no achtung bebehs

 

[digitize]

A "true remaster"?
You're talking about literally going back to analog tape then.
That would be the only difference between tweaking ANY audio, digitally, and analog, where you can literally physically affect those original masters.

Achtung has both, IIRC.
DAT and Analog.

With that said, "pumping up the volume" is most definitely remastering.

You have to make a "new" master even when you tweak or EQ the audio in all cases. Literally - remastered.

It's just semantics confusing the issue here. It's either the exact same digital recording from 1991 or it is remastered. That simple. I assure all of you. If you're changing the original master directly or indirectly by making a new one = remastering.

The fact that "remaster" doesn't appear in the press notes, probably means NOTHING was done to the analog tapes (or as Nick put it, "true remastering"). I think we'd all agree on that. Right? They just didn't want to sell this one in that way. I think this is the likely case.

So any changes to that original master, even if it is literally a 'copy' of an original master...is a "remaster". And those changes are still possible and probably quite likely.

Anyone confused? All answer your question with a question.
Why is "EQ'ing" still remastering? Because the CD that you would buy from Amazon or in a store was printed off a new master. And there is no such thing (in that context) as a "true remaster" of a digital copy.

So let's all stop splitting hairs, it's either the same audio from 1991 or it is remastered. Period.

Thank you. This needed to be said. New remasters exist just to increase volume all the time. It's still a remaster. A bad remaster? Sure. But a remaster nonetheless. It's a remaster unless they press CDs from the same master copy that was used in pressing the two copies of AB I own now.