"How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb" mastered on vinyl

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I'm sort of curious now as to how the other albums stack up via vinyl v. CD. Anyone have an general ideas about that? Or better yet, specific songs for example?

"How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb" is the only one of their records where they vinyl master makes this big a difference. "All That You Can't Leave Behind" and "No Line On The Horizon" are mastered fairly well on CD. I've ripped the vinyl "No Line On The Horizon", and the differences from the CD master are negligible. I don't have any issues with their CD masters from 1980-2000. And the reissues are fantastic.

The CD master of "How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb" is so blown out and poor that I had to give the vinyl a shot. I always liked the record, and loved some of the songs, but headphone listening was a chore. Which, of course, keeps you away from the tunes, which sucks. Hence my search for the vinyl. I'm glad I sought it out. It actually changes how I rate the record, cause now I can actually HEAR the whole record, adding 1/2 a star in my ears.
 
I'd also like to add that the bit at the start of "All Because Of You" that sounds like a motorcycle starting is not on the actual record. It's my turntable. I liked it, so I didn't rerecord it. But you'll probably have to play it on 11 to hear it.
 
I'd also like to add that the bit at the start of "All Because Of You" that sounds like a motorcycle starting is not on the actual record. It's my turntable. I liked it, so I didn't rerecord it. But you'll probably have to play it on 11 to hear it.

I wondered what that noise was! Its cool.
 
Ok. Here's the visual. The top is the vinyl rip. The lower is the CD. Holy cheese and crackers.

2z7pqtz.jpg
 
Okay, so here's the million dollar question - why mix two formats differently? Does the process for vinyl itself just mean it's differently mixed/compressed and sound better by default? Is it not possible that two exact releases on different formats would sound different? I have no idea how these things work.

I mean, I know people often claim that vinyl sounds better, but I don't buy that CDs sound so much shittier just by nature - I thought the argument for "sounds better" was between audiophiles playing it on top-notch equipment or headphones and are nitpicking about stuff barely audible to non-audiophile ears. That certainly sounds like that's not the case here.

If it's a conscious decision along the line for someone to say "let's make the CD more compressed than the vinyl", then my response to whomever said that (U2? an engineer?) is a hearty "hey, fuck you!"
 
The disadvantage of the whole stereo LP scheme is that although the mastering engineer can adjust the groove pitch for loud or soft passages, the maximum and minimum depth of the groove are constant. Cut too much low frequency information with a wide stereo spread, and you get a lot of deep peaks and valleys in the groove and styli tend to pop out of the groove. Turn that down, and your stereo image collapses.

So the amount of stereo information has a lot to do with the level that can be cut to disc. No matter what you do beforehand, out-of-phase low frequency content will lift the stylus from the groove or drive it into the substrate. On the other hand, in-phase low frequency information causes lateral excursions wide enough to cut into the previously cut groove and into the area where a groove would be cut in the next revolution.

Mastering today has become a catch-all term for any kind of post-mixing audio processing, but LP mastering is the process of making an acetate out of the original tape. The processing is secondary. However, the processing is almost essential to get the most out of the limited channel.

There is a lot of poking and prodding that is often done to get the stereo signal to fit into place, because the LP has less information on it than the original master tape does. Often, you’ll see mastering engineers roll off a lot of the very low bass and add a false bass peak around 200 Hz or so, just to compensate for the mechanical limitations of the equipment. The other alternative is to reduce the running time per side radically.

The one thing that saves us from bass being a big problem is the RIAA pre-emphasis curve. Most of the noise in the recording process is at higher frequencies. So on record, we pre-emphasize the signal by pumping up the highs, and then on playback the phono amplifier has a roll-off curve that is the exact inverse of the curve in the record chain, which rolls them off. This means that the music has the same frequency response, but the noise is reduced, primarily on the high end.

Even with this, though, the mastering engineer is constantly juggling signal processing versus recording time versus groove pitch. Most systems today automatically control the groove pitch, although an expert engineer can override them to some extent and make constant tweaks to get that last bit of performance out.

Traditionally, the way this is done is with a “margin control” system. The tape is played back on a machine with a special “pre-hear” or “pre-listen” head that picks up the signal about half a second before the playback head (i.e., for 30 ips tape, the head is about 15 inches away from the playback head), and feeds that signal into some control electronics.

This means that that control system has information about what the signal level is going to be like on the next rotation of the disk. It can constantly ride the groove pitch up and back so that the grooves don’t get too close that the walls between them get deformed. But they are still as close as possible so that the maximum running time on the disk occurs.

This, incidentally, is why 12" singles are invariably cut much, much hotter than conventional LPs. There is plenty of space for very wide groove spacing, so they are cut as hot as possible and therefore play back much louder. Some of the 12" singles are even cut constant pitch, without any margin control, because there is just too much safety margin available for the mastering engineer.

Lot's more info here:
- Mastering for Vinyl : Recording Magazine -
 
It's not a different mix. Mixing is the level of instruments in relation to one another, panning stuff left/right, etc. The mixes on both formats are identical. Mastering involves the entire track, not individual tracks within the song. The overall song is polished and volume set. I think the CD allows for the higher levels of volume that we hear on "How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb." The format has more potential range, so the mastering engineer pushes it as far as the format will allow. With the vinyl master, they're limited by the vinyl itself, which leads to a quieter recording. And that quieter recording allows more of the music to be heard and not be drowned out. I'd be surprised if a ton of time was spent on the vinyl master. They probably took the final CD master and reduced the overall volume to a predetermined level that they know will be supported by the media.

Why is anyone's guess. The vinyl of "Joshua Tree" or "No Line On The Horizon" don't have this kind of disparity compared to the CD. Someone did a shitty job with "How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb."
 
The format has more potential range, so the mastering engineer pushes it as far as the format will allow. With the vinyl master, they're limited by the vinyl itself, which leads to a quieter recording.

I've had trouble wrapping my brain around the issue in the past - it's just one of those subjects that, despite my interest, just doesn't stick.

But that bit makes sense to me. Thanks!
 
I was just listening to the studio version of Original of the Species (OOTS!) today, and it really struck me how shitty the mastering is on the CD version. It's horrid, really. As has been said, the mastering on the CD versions of All That You Can't Leave Behind and No Line is great. But whoever did the mastering on Bomb isn't my friend.
 
My original comment was about how no matter how many times very helpful people posted helpful, technical information about the mastering/mixing thing, it just does not seem to stick in my head. I can't seem to wrap my brain around the details of the topic.

Then when I re-read VS's comment, I saw that bit and the lightbulb went on.

Besides, I already thanked you once today in the Random Music thread for pointing me to CD Wow for that Saint Etienne CD. You don't get two sets of thanks. :wink:

(No, really - thanks. :hug: )
 
Oh, I definitely knew you were kidding. Weren't you paying attention??? (KIDDING. :wink: )

I thought it was just funny because my original comment actually did thank both of you. Ha.
 
In all honesty, a CD has more potential to sound good than vinyl. It has excellent potential range. But of course, mastering engineers ruin it by turning the volume up louder than it can conceivably go, so data that goes beyond the loudness limit is just flattened off - ye olde loudness wars. The same could happen on vinyl, more easily. The difference is that people who buy vinyl don't want their sound quality to be shit. They're usually audiophiles, and record companies recognize that.
 
My original comment was about how no matter how many times very helpful people posted helpful, technical information about the mastering/mixing thing, it just does not seem to stick in my head. I can't seem to wrap my brain around the details of the topic.

Don't feel bad, you're hardly alone here on this. The only difference is, you can admit it.
 
Back
Top Bottom