Flood Should be Fired for COBL

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.
ImOuttaControl said:


Yes, it IS up for dispute. What is VERY annoying is people are like "it's terrible" and think that's the end of story. "It's quite literally like arguing that the sun doesn't go down at night." Wow, I'm a teacher and with arguements like that over a subjective subject, you would fail miserably.

FACT: It sounds great to me and obviously others who have said so. The album isn't my favorite U2 album, but that's because of the songs, not the production. I know that the FACTS are that the mix is turned up, and I know for a FACT that bothers some of you. But also a FACT for me and obviously others is that the album DOES sound crisp and DOES NOT sound distorted. The FACT is that everyone here is a different person and processes the music in their brain differently. They will either like it or not like it. Hence, the word subjective; others WILL hear the album differently than to you do. I suggest to others with this same "end of story" arguement look up the meaning of subjective in the dictionary.

There are parts of the songs that are GONE buddy! GONE! because of the production. They blew it to hell!!!!!
How can you be ok with that?! Why would you want that? Sheesh!!! I'm outta here...


PS. I'd hate to teach sound engineering to you. You'd be telling me that destroying a tracks levels was subjective. It's not. It's production 101.
 
Last edited:
tkramer said:


There are parts of the songs that are GONE buddy! GONE! because of the production. They blew it to hell!!!!!
How can you be ok with that?! Why would you want that? Sheesh!!! I'm outta here...


PS. I'd hate to teach sound engineering to you. You'd be telling me that destroying a tracks levels was subjective. It's not. It's production 101.

Like I said, I know it is a "hot" record...I'm not disagreeing there. You just don't get it! Some people like the production, some people don't...Subjective subjective subjective! You need to differentiate between fact and opinion. It's your OPINION that the tracks were destroyed. I don't agree; it is my opinion that they weren't destroyed by production. How about just respecting that other people have other opinions? That's what I'm getting at.
 
Actually, one more thing. I'm not trying to be a punk, I'm just frustrated. I'm a creative director that deals a little with video and audio. Its a craft. Yes, a lot of it IS personal taste. But digital distortion and the like is a no no. A teacher would never tell a student France is in North America. Conversely, I would never teach an intern that disintegrating the sound is ok.

You have to remember, we're not talking about the band's work. This disc is the result of someone taking the finished piece and ramming it through the roof. If the band wants a distorted guitar, that's fine. If they want a hard drum, that's fine. This issue happened after they left the studio. Its post production gone wrong.

ps. I'm glad your a teacher. Teachers are the most important thing on earth.
 
Last edited:
elfyx said:


Actually, I think that is a very disingenuous response. Production quality can be measured both objectively and subjectively. I agree with you on the subjective part; however not on the objective half.

The production and mastering of this album is very much objectively a disgrace. I am not a new poster. I have been around this forum specifically for several years and have followed and defended U2 through ups and downs since I became enchanted by them during AB. I went to 15 Elevation tour shows. This band means the world to me.

Yet, I am embarrased for U2 with this album. The production quality, and moreover the mastering quality of the album, is very objectively and technically abysmal. I have another post detailing a few of the technical reasons why. I have since discovered more (average RMS, square sine waves, digital distortion, overused compression)

And, the sad thing is I'm only an amateur in the field of audio recording and engineering. But I know enough, technically, and it doesn't take anything but a halfway descent ear to hear the rediculous flaws in this album. And, I hate to pull the 'my friends' card too, but yeah OK I do have a couple of friends in the field and they all spot the exact same recording errors. Errors so bad, that any engineer would have been laughed at and fired on the spot would this have been only a couple of years ago.

But that is not the trend. The trend is to make incredibly shitty but LOUD recordings at any and EVERY cost. It is a phenomenon well known in the audio engineering industry and everyone agrees it is shameful and unfortunate. But the reality is the engineers don't own the music, effects or soundtrack, and they are no longer able to make such decisions. It is a short-sighted mandate from record executives that CDs be mastered and produced this way these days.

I always thought U2 had enough influence, and/or rights that something like this would never happen. But it did. And I have to wonder- did U2 agree to it (unlikely), or was it a mandate from Interscope (who releases nearly everything this way these days). If U2 did authorize the mastering of this CD, then I'm very deeply saddened to say that in my mind, at least- they have disgraced themselves in my eyes for the first time. Because, there is simply no reason for audio to be ruined the way it has.

BTW, you will never see a classical recording mastered using the methods and techniques used these days for pop/rock/rap/etc... Why? Not necessarily because it is a different genre, but because classical listeners tend to have very well trained ears, and as audiophiles would never put up with a release whose audio has literally been mangled and trashed the way it has on these other releases.

This is a very serious problem to add to the numerous other problems the recording industry faces. Hopefully it will be a self-correcting problem, as none of this audio will stand the test of time. The music itself is another story, and I hope we see a remastered version of How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb in the future.


...very well said !
 
Crap, I can't leave this alone. I guess I just want to clarify that those of us that are saddened by the mastering aren't dissing the work in the studio. I love a hard rock song with distortion effects.

But that's not what we're talking about.

Someone took the U2 album and changed it into something else. That's what we think isn't cool. The job of the mastering/finishing work on an album is to bring to you, the listener, what the band made. This isn't it. It's some other version of it.
 
tkramer you are right. as an audiophile / experienced listener you know the differences.
It`s just very difficult to clarify the point if you can`t compare the album as it is and the way it could be.

In fact, I love the new album and I think the boys are excellent musicians but I`m frustrated by the errors in the production chain.
 
Still not one person here has given me an example of a CD that they think has been perfectly mastered so I can hear the difference.
 
It should be noted that Flood has produced many albums outside of the U2 spectrum which include some of the classics from other genres like Violator from Depeche Mode. Many Nine Inch Nails albums and of course has been an Engineer on U2 albums since Joshua Tree....so even if what you are saying exists can this all be blamed on Flood, I would think surely not.
 
Yahweh said:
Still not one person here has given me an example of a CD that they think has been perfectly mastered so I can hear the difference.

I agree... I have listened to the album like everyone else many many times and I think the sound quality and crispness of the tracks is very clear and crisp and sound brillant. They have an earthy sound to them that is rich and deep. As a fan not knowledgable on the technical side of things like 99 percent of the people, the album sounds fantastic. In addition, the band no doubt listened to the mastered CD prior to release and obviously approved. But nothing is going to be completely percect as far as sound if it is made by humans and not a drum machine or whatever.

Whoever, has a problem with the sound quality in my opinion is being super anal and picky to their own detriment. The same people would complain about taxes if they hit the lottery or complain about a present somebody bought them. An example would be to focus in on breathing too much instead of just doing it..and something else. My advise, lighten up and turn it up...man.
 
Anticipation said:


I agree... I have listened to the album like everyone else many many times and I think the sound quality and crispness of the tracks is very clear and crisp and sound brillant. They have an earthy sound to them that is rich and deep. As a fan not knowledgable on the technical side of things like 99 percent of the people, the album sounds fantastic. In addition, the band no doubt listened to the mastered CD prior to release and obviously approved. But nothing is going to be completely percect as far as sound if it is made by humans and not a drum machine or whatever.

Whoever, has a problem with the sound quality in my opinion is being super anal and picky to their own detriment. The same people would complain about taxes if they hit the lottery or complain about a present somebody bought them. An example would be to focus in on breathing too much instead of just doing it..and something else. My advise, lighten up and turn it up...man.

Thank you for proofing me right. You`re saying it in your own words. and maybe this is a 1 percent of the people discussion. You still don`t get the point. There are obvious production problems on the album. You can hear it. The music and the band is brilliant. It`s just sad that they are not captured the best way it could be. and thats got nothing to do with your back.:ohmy:
 
How come I am being ignored...please refer to an example of so called good mixing is it that difficult?
 
Yahweh said:
It should be noted that Flood has produced many albums outside of the U2 spectrum which include some of the classics from other genres like Violator from Depeche Mode. Many Nine Inch Nails albums and of course has been an Engineer on U2 albums since Joshua Tree....so even if what you are saying exists can this all be blamed on Flood, I would think surely not.

Agreed!

Flood has nothing/very little to do with this issue!The CD was MASTERED like crap. He didn't do that part! Doesn't anyone know the difference between mastering a CD and being a producer in the booth?!
 
okay.There are plenty out there. but lets look a a popular one.The last coldplay album has sort of the same instrumental density at times but here the instruments are well defined and the tracks are less muddy.
and i`m not only talking about the mixing but also about the post production.
 
Yahweh said:
How come I am being ignored...please refer to an example of so called good mixing is it that difficult?

Peter Gabriel's Up DVD is amazing. Listen to Mercy Street. The super audio 5.1 CD version of the album is awesome.
 
Last edited:
Yahweh said:
Maybe it is mixed loud for a reason and that reason simply is that most people dont really take music all that seriously and for them to listen to an album it has to be mixed loud. How many times have people been at a party where music has been played, its nothing more then background noise for most people. U2 albums of the past have been mixed quiet and nobody can really argue that fact.

THAT MAY BE TRUE, BUT WHEN A RECORD IS MIXED TOO LOUD, PEOPLE ALSO WON'T LISTEN. WHEN EVERYTHING IS AT THE SAME LOUD VOLUME, YOU WILL LOSE THE NUANCES THAT MAKE A RECORD COME TO LIFE. YOU KNOW, LIKE LARRY LOSING HIS DRUMSTICK OR COMING IN TOO EARLY. THAT FAINT PIANO LINE THAT YOU CAN HEAR IF YOU LISTEN REALLY CAREFULLY, ANYTHING.
AS FOR A REAL EXAMPLE OF WHAT YOU CAN HEAR WHEN IT'S MIXED TOO LOUD, TRY TO CATCH VERTIGO ON THE RADIO. IF YOU CAN CONTROL YOUR ECSTATIC FEELING THAT THEY'RE PLAYING U2, TRY TO HEAR HOW IT SOUNDS. I, FOR ONE, THINKS THAT VERTIGO SOUNDS LIKE SHIT ON THE RADIO. THE MIX IS NOT GOOD ON THE RADIO. IT MAY BE LOUD MUSIC, BUT IT DOESN'T BLAST OUT OF YOUR SPEAKERS.
SO YOU MAY NOT SEE OR UNDERSTANDS THE GRAPHS THAT ARE BEING SHOWN HERE. YOU MAY SAY THAT YOU DON'T HEAR ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE SOUND AND THAT THE SONGS ARE GREAT. BUT DOES THE SOUND (NOT THE SONGS) EMOTIONALLY INVOLVE YOU? DO SONGS GIVE YOU THAT STRANGE FEELING THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BONO'S LYRICS, BUT WITH SOMETHING ELSE? YOU KNOW, FOR AN ALBUM TO BE A KNOCKOUT, IT ALSO HAS TO KNOW WHEN TO HOLD BACK.


C ya!

Marty
 
Here are a few hilights for those that don't want to swim through this.


"Over the past few years, record labels have increasingly attempted to dictate to the artist and producer the target volume level of the CD. For some reason, record labels have it in their head that “LOUD” equals good, and therefore, “LOUDER” equals better. Not caring to understand even the basics of audio, these morons simply demand more volume (typically from the mastering engineer) and really don’t understand – or care – about the consequences of their demands."

Mastering engineers are caught in a Catch-22. If they do not deliver a product that is appropriately LOUD, then they are consdered inept by the labels and are shunned. If they refuse to destroy the artist’s music, then they aren’t being “team players” and quickly fall out of favor. But if they provide what the customer demands (and remember, the label, not the band, is the customer) then they ruin a perfectly good piece of music, and they know that sooner or later, people are going to figure out why the sound is so horrible, and then the mastering engineer will be blacklisted for having followed orders.

"Understandably, nobody wants to have the quietest CD in the CD changer. Nobody wants to have the one CD that doesn’t get heard. The problem with the LOUDER IS BETTER approach is simply that with any medium – digital or analog – there is only so much signal that will fit in the space provided. Beyond a point, you cannot gain anything without losing something."

"People discovered that with modern limiter technology, you could pretty much ride ALL of the peaks, and squeeze another few dB of gain out of the signal. This approach definitely changes the sonics of the signal because the peaks are being limited throughout the song. However, depending on the source material and your personal taste, this approach to limiting can sound pretty good as long as it is kept in the range of reasonableness. A lot of CDs have been mastered using this approach to limiting, and most of them still sound pretty good.

"However, the latest trend is LOUDER IS BETTER. This approach basically ignores any distortion caused by limiting and seeks to make the audio as loud as possible. The idea is to peg the meters and keep them pegged. As a result the signal is just ruined."

"The good news is that LOUDER IS BETTER is definitely a self-correcting problem. Because this stuff just plain sounds bad, and sooner or later (hopefully sooner) people are going to realize that the music doesn't "rock more" or "cut through better" but that it's just plain annoying.

Because the simple truth is that audio such as this does NOT cut through better. In fact, in all probability this song will be QUIETER on the radio than, say, Roll the Bones! How, you may ask, could this be possible?

The answer lies in the simple fact that the radio station uses compressors and limiters as well. The station's signal processors are also designed to get the hottest signal on the air. As such, they expect a certain amount of peaks in the signal. A broadcast processor that can't "see" any peaks is simply going to clamp down on the whole signal. In the end, the song is no louder (and maybe quieter) than other, more dynamic material - AND it is further penalized because it has no punch and is very harsh."
 
Last edited:
Popmartijn said:
BTW, here's an article that explains the LOUDER IS BETTER problem in bigger detail. You have to forgive that the author is a Rush fan. :)
http://www.prorec.com/prorec/articles.nsf/articles/8A133F52D0FD71AB86256C2E005DAF1C

Thanks for the link. It sums up perfectly what most (including me) have been trying to say all along about the sound quality of the new U2 cd. But said much better than I could have said it myself. It is such a pity really to see U2 resort to that. Perhaps a remastered version should come out in a few years.

Cheers,

J
 
That was a very interesting article. I learn something new every day. My hearing is not tuned in to pay attention to such details so I am unable to listen to a new CD for the first time to tell that the sound is bad. I would need to compare it to a quality recording to see the differences.
 
Isn't education grand. :wink: I do understand after reading this article and the rest of this thread, some (not all) of what is being said.
Some of the instruments sounds are not coming thru as clear and "the loudness" of Bono's voice is obscuring some of the actual music. Is this making any sense? or am I still missing the point? I'm really trying to hear what some of you are hearing.

Anyway it doesn't lessen the love I have for the album, but I can see/hear part of what the point is...as well as my untrained ears will let me. :wink:
So..and I think this was asked before, why would U2 allow it to go out?
Thanks for the enlightenment, all. Just love learning new stuff. :up:
 
sue4u2 said:

Anyway it doesn't lessen the love I have for the album, but I can see/hear part of what the point is...
Thanks for the enlightenment, all. Just love learning new stuff. :up:

Oh, yeah, the album itself is still a kick.
You can't hide that!
 
maybe it has to do with an age thing. doesn't your hearing get worse as you get older, thus bono, larry, adam, and the edge couldn't hear how crappy the cd sounded? just a theory...:wink:
 
tkramer said:
Actually, one more thing. I'm not trying to be a punk, I'm just frustrated. I'm a creative director that deals a little with video and audio. Its a craft. Yes, a lot of it IS personal taste. But digital distortion and the like is a no no. A teacher would never tell a student France is in North America. Conversely, I would never teach an intern that disintegrating the sound is ok.

You have to remember, we're not talking about the band's work. This disc is the result of someone taking the finished piece and ramming it through the roof. If the band wants a distorted guitar, that's fine. If they want a hard drum, that's fine. This issue happened after they left the studio. Its post production gone wrong.

ps. I'm glad your a teacher. Teachers are the most important thing on earth.

Just to clarify, I do see your point. I'm just sort of getting at is that I don't think it's that bad...When it comes down to it, I don't know what's better; the muddy production of JT/AB or the hard production of this. Right now I'm into listening to things loud, so the hard production is doing it for me. Who knows, if this had been produced differently I would like the album more? For the first couple weeks I thought it was U2's best, but now that the novelty has worn off it and it's fallen behind AB, Pop and JT for me. I guess I can't know unless it is someday re-mastered. Thanks for the compliment; teaching is a lot of fun...I can't imagine a job where the day moves by faster.
 
ImOuttaControl said:


Just to clarify, I do see your point. I'm just sort of getting at is that I don't think it's that bad...When it comes down to it, I don't know what's better; the muddy production of JT/AB or the hard production of this. Right now I'm into listening to things loud, so the hard production is doing it for me. Who knows, if this had been produced differently I would like the album more? For the first couple weeks I thought it was U2's best, but now that the novelty has worn off it and it's fallen behind AB, Pop and JT for me. I guess I can't know unless it is someday re-mastered. Thanks for the compliment; teaching is a lot of fun...I can't imagine a job where the day moves by faster.

Muddy Production of AB. No way.....Achtung Baby is perfect in every single way!:wink:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom