Anyone notice that the radio version and mp3 of 'Vertigo' sound flat?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Michael Griffiths

Michael Griffiths

Rock n' Roll Doggie
Joined
Jun 10, 2000
Messages
3,925
Location
Playa Del Carmen, Mexico
I really doubt U2's production team screwed up, but I have a producer friend who put the Valencia mp3 of 'Vertigo' through his digital equalizer and he couldn't believe that every frequency level was totally maxed out (or "clipped" at the same level). He said the reason he had to check it out was cause it sounded really flat and thus "boring", as this was odd for U2, especially since he said the track is mixed very tightly. His theory was that the mp3 was encoded that way. However, another friend of mine recently commented how flat the radio version sounded, and it kind of got me paranoid. Could U2's production team have overlooked something? I really doubt it... if they did there would mucho hell to pay. I must admit, 'Vertigo' does sound a bit flat. I imagine it won't on the album. Anyone else notice this?
 
It is possible that the radio version your friend heard was actually the downloaded Valencia version! As posted elsewhere, some radio stations played the song early. In doing so, this allowed fans in parts of the world to record the song and make .mp3's - which were then promptly downloaded by radio stations that didn't yet have the CD yet.

The other alternative is that the encoding of the electronic version sent to radio was off.

All of this said, I do NOT notice what you or your friend hear. The production sounds crisp and clear for the most part - the one exception being the whispered rap Bono does. But that was cleared up when I obtained the iTunes version of the song. So my guess is that the Valencia version is a bit off.
 
I've been mentioning this here on interference for a week now ever since Vertigo came out. To me, this is becoming a *real* heavy concern if the album is going to be mastered this way.

But most everybody dismissed it. I can not understand how people aren't noticing it. I am loving Vertigo (the music) but I can hardly stand to hear it anymore it sounds so bad. And, I never even thought my hearing was especially trained or anything. Maybe because almost all new releases are mastered this way we've gotten used to it.

I did notice when I put the song through the spectrum analyzer that the Valencia version is WAY worse than the iTunes version. However, the iTunes version still has been clipped pretty badly.

It is a trend in the industry these days called LOUDER IS BETTER and its absolutely ruining music. It brings the audio closer to the surface (more dB) but by doing so sacrifices depth, clarity and substance.

I just hope and pray its only been done to the radio edit and the album is left the hell alone. I can understand the label (most of the pressure and orders to do this are coming from the label) wanting Vertigo stand out, but I'm a little surprised U2 would agree to this- but it's their record and they can do whatever they want I suppose.

IMO though, the technique destroys the music and I find recordings like this increasingly difficult to keep listening to- even though I may love the actual song.

See http://www.prorec.com/prorec/articles.nsf/articles/8A133F52D0FD71AB86256C2E005DAF1C for a good explanation of this. Its highly recommended reading for every music lover. There are even illustrations of what is happening.
 
Last edited:
I will add that they use a lot of tricks and tradeoffs to get as clean a recording as possible, so certain parts of any song will stand out and be pretty clear. For example, Edge's scratching guitar in the intro is crisp and clear, but the verses get mangled pretty badly.
 
I hear what you guys are saying, but if it's being mastered by Bob Ludwig in NY, it's gonna be ok.
and even if it's not, a group of U2's stature does not put out CD's that are mastered improperly.
don't worry; wait until the Cd comes out.
 
What I have on my computer/cd is the Valencia version.
What they play on the radio (here in Australia anyway) sounds way, way better then that. The different parts stand out far more.
 
perhaps the single version was mastered that way purposely to compete on radio? i doubt that there will be a need to compress the entire album as much as the radio edit of a single...
 
I can't even hear what you guys are talking about ...
 
EvolutionMonkey said:
Here is a pic of Vertigo (Valencia) thru a wave editor



That's not a good thing what's happening there, in order to make it sound louder on radio they have mastered it to the absolute highest level and from what it looks like, certain frequencies are being chopped off. I certainly hope the iTunes and album version are not like that. :(
Click to expand...


Intersesting! So the high and lows are effected?
 
Michael Griffiths said:
I really doubt U2's production team screwed up, but I have a producer friend who put the Valencia mp3 of 'Vertigo' through his digital equalizer and he couldn't believe that every frequency level was totally maxed out (or "clipped" at the same level). He said the reason he had to check it out was cause it sounded really flat and thus "boring", as this was odd for U2, especially since he said the track is mixed very tightly. His theory was that the mp3 was encoded that way. However, another friend of mine recently commented how flat the radio version sounded, and it kind of got me paranoid. Could U2's production team have overlooked something? I really doubt it... if they did there would mucho hell to pay. I must admit, 'Vertigo' does sound a bit flat. I imagine it won't on the album. Anyone else notice this?
Click to expand...

It seemed MAXED OUT!
 
AllBecauseofYou said:



Intersesting! So the high and lows are effected?
Click to expand...

It is definitely maxed out and it's the highs (and lows too i think) that are getting chopped off. Even if it was just a few frequencies here and there it can still make it sound 'less full' to our brains and our ears. Even the slower parts of the song are not allowed to breath at all. I'd be surprised if this was the U2 camps intention, i bet it's the record company trying to compete with all the other rock songs on the radio these days.
 
Unfortunatley I can´t get the itunes version, as it is not avaialable in my country :(
 
After listening to Vertigo several times it began leaving me feeling "empty" as thoough it was severely lacking something. Something wasn't right about it. However I couldn't quite put my finger on it.

My primary version being a copy taped of radio.




Although, I seem to enjoy the incomplete video from Top of the Pops more.

Would that have been mixed differently, or would it be more to do with one is a radio recording, the other being played through a computer?
 
yoshjosh said:


I thought the iTunes version was the same quality as the Valencia mp3. Is iTunes mastered differently?
Click to expand...

I've analyzed both in Sonar (my audio app).

The iTunes version is mastered differently than the Valencia version. Whether this be due to the mp3 encoder or not- I don't know. The iTunes version is I think 2 seconds longer anyway.

Valencia version is clipped far worse than the iTunes version, but iTunes still suffers from the problem pretty badly.
 
It'll be so interesting to see how its different or not on the album.

I used to think it sounded kinda weirdly muddy or flat or far-away in places, but now I don't. But then it's got it's own section of my auditory cortex I've listened to it so much so whatthefuck do I know.
cheers all!
 
Oh dear, it seems some people don't fully understand what mastering actually is. Also whenever ANY song is played on most commercial radio stations is heavily compressed as they compete with each other to stand out as the loudest.

You stick any pop song that has been mastered and heavily compressed into a wave editor, scrunch it all up so all 3 mins of it fits on the screen and it will look exacly like that pic posted earlier. It may be that the peaks of the original sound wave are being compressed but this is different to the song losing certain frequencies.

Sorry but it really gets my goat when people slag off the sound seemingly unaware they are listening to very inferior audio technologies compared to full 16 bit 44 kHz CD quality audio. Put the CD through a pair of decent studio monitor grade speakers and you would think very differently I'm sure.

Check out the link below for more info.

http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/audio_processing.htm

Andrew

:rant:
 
Yeah, well the problem is we don't have a CD version of Vertigo to compare it to. And, I do listen on Sennheiser studio monitor headphones. I also understand mp3 and ACC are lossy algorithms, but that's all we have to go on right now. Maybe the radio stations are compressing and limiting the hell out of it as well- nearly all broadcasters do this anyway.

My question to you is, have you analyzed either recording yourself? Have you seen the waveform uncompressed? Has your software calculated the average dB? I'm sorry, I'm not audio engineer, but it doesn't take rocket science to see whats happening, nor does it take perfect pitch or anything to hear how bad it sounds.
 
elfyx said:
Yeah, well the problem is we don't have a CD version of Vertigo to compare it to. And, I do listen on Sennheiser studio monitor headphones. I also understand mp3 and ACC are lossy algorithms, but that's all we have to go on right now. Maybe the radio stations are compressing and limiting the hell out of it as well- nearly all broadcasters do this anyway.

My question to you is, have you analyzed either recording yourself? Have you seen the waveform uncompressed? Has your software calculated the average dB? I'm sorry, I'm not audio engineer, but it doesn't take rocket science to see whats happening, nor does it take perfect pitch or anything to hear how bad it sounds.
Click to expand...

The CD rip mp3 I have at 250 bit rate is actually very uncompressed sounding and quite dynamic, it also doesn't look that compressesed when looked at through sound forge. People over at U2recording are saying how punchy it is compared to ATYCLB.



Andrew
 
OK- I'm interested in what you're saying.

My recordings are definitely not 250. Does SoundForge show any signs of peak limiting?

What is U2recording, could you point me on over?
 
:ohmy:

Actually, Soundforge is confirming that it's clipping all over the place, I guess it has just been encoded at the wrong settings and normalized in some wave editor. I doubt U2 would release a song that has digital distortion all over the place. Still, I think people are right when it sounds too loud, that's because it is too loud and it's causing distortion! I wouldn't get too worried though as the CD is very VERY unlikely to do this.....................





64l5o
 
Last edited:
I'm hoping that today in mail I'll have a copy of the Promo CD that my friend mailed to me Monday. (Can't wait to get home and check the mailbox.)

Even thought I think I'm a little deaf now from listening to this song so loud so many times I'll let you know If it sounds differently.
 
elfyx said:
I've been mentioning this here on interference for a week now ever since Vertigo came out. To me, this is becoming a *real* heavy concern if the album is going to be mastered this way.
Click to expand...

I read your comments about it, but did not pay too much attention to it. Basically because I could not confirm anything for myself. Yes, I have the 'Valencia version' MP3, but I didn't notice anything different.
However, when the DJ premiered the track here in the Netherlands last Friday I thought that the song sounded quite bad (as in sound quality, not song quality ;)). As I was just waking up, I did not want to make too many conclusions about it. This morning I heard the track again and being fully awake I noticed again that it sounded bad. It has lost much of its punch. And loudness. I haven't clicked on the link you provided, but I think I read that article a few months ago (this is by the guy comparing the Rush CD's, right). In that article the author even states that with a track as LOUDLY mastered as Vertigo it may even sound bad on the radio (because of the radio compressing the track even more). If this is the case, then I truly feel bad about the sound quality of the album.

*is hoping to be wrong though...*

C ya!

Marty
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
The little stranger chapter 13
Replies
0
Views
786
annj
A
A
the little stranger chapter 3
Replies
0
Views
779
annj
A
A
The little stranger Chapter 6
Replies
0
Views
751
annj
A
A
The Little stranger chapter 16
Replies
0
Views
1K
annj
A
A
The little stranger chapter 18
Replies
0
Views
679
annj
A

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom