Discussion of U2's future: new singles, new tour, etc.

Originally posted by drewhiggins:

1) being louder than the competition, in the mastering process, also known as the loudness war
2) maybe having the music with beats that drown out the vocals

Originally posted by yuri31:[..]

that's exactly what I hate and that's exactly why other kids at school think I'm crazy

Originally posted by drewhiggins:[..]

People think I'm mad, and then I mention the Red Hot Chili Pepper's Californication. It is, one of the loudest and most distorted albums in music history due to crap mastering. Even the fans, who couldn't care less, complained and are asking for the album to be reissued.


Here's something interesting:

Oasis' What's The Story Morning Glory from 1995 achieves -8 dBFS. That may not be rare now, but it was back in 1995. That means it's a god damned loud album, due to mastering yet again. Iggy Pop and The Stooges remixed and remastered Raw Power from 1973. It is the loudest rock album ever recorded, achieving -4 dBFS in some places. Why artists and the labels have to do this, is beyond me.

This is all due to iPods, and the MP3 age (damn Napster). They have an algorithm built in called a finaliser. Not an equaliser, but finaliser. It finalises the sound level, or you might know it better as a sound check. That's designed to lower the volume but keep the sound levels consistent. However, with people ripping their CDs (hopefully none of the following above or below) at 128Kbps through iTunes, Windows Media Player etc, which use terribly outdated MP3 encoding software - iTunes is up to five years old, I don't even know what WMP is using - it still sounds crap.

An MP3 might be 80% smaller than a FLAC (anywhere upwards of 350Kbps) or 85% smaller than a WAV file (1411Kbps), but all the goodness of the sound is thrown away! I've bought albums, quite recently and the songs are mastered so badly, I cannot listen to it. This is an album from 1982, remastered for 2006.



And that's not all. Loud albums recorded include:

Christina Aguliera - Back To Basics
Lily Allen - Alright, Still
The Arctic Monkeys - Whatever People Say I Am, That's What I'm Not
Paul McCartney - Memory Almost Full
Red Hot Chili Peppers - Californication
Red Hot Chili Peppers - Stadium Arcadium
Led Zepellin - Mothership
Fall Out Boy - Infinity on High




Where does U2 fit in all of this? Presenting The Joshua Tree sound levels. Look!

[image]

Above: Original recording, 1987 - With or Without You (excellent)

Below: Remastered recording, 2007 - With or Without You (very good)

[image]





But wait...there's more.


Nirvana - Smells Like Teen Spirit (good) (1991

[image]






The Arctic Monkeys - I Bet You Look Good On The Dance Floor (very bad) (2006)

[image]


So looking at this one above, in particular, it never comes down from heavy distortion.

Originally posted by Yogi:I also think that The Killers albums (especially Sam's Town) are also way too loud, because when listening to it trough earphones my ears get tired very fast and sometimes headache comes in.

That makes me sad because they're one of my favorite bands. Luckily U2 and The National aren't to loud. : ))

Originally posted by Yogi:I also think that The Killers albums (especially Sam's Town) are also way too loud, because when listening to it trough earphones my ears get tired very fast and sometimes headache comes in.

That makes me sad because they're one of my favorite bands. Luckily U2 and The National aren't to loud. : ))

Originally posted by thefly07:[..]

I like Sam's Town because it is loud and U2 certainly is LOUD. see them live (or have you?) but I know you are referring to cds

Originally posted by drewhiggins:[..]

The loudness of the performance is fine. The mastering is the issue. Those diagrams are taken from the same RS article you got it from originally.

Originally posted by thefly07:[..]

i don't even understand those diagrams lol