GEN
Active topics
  1. Originally posted by yeah:[..]

    I think the album is mastered way too loud. Also the bass is way too prominent and too compressed. Barely any dynamics audible.
    Here's hoping for the vinyls...


    Yep.

    It's always a compromise if you want to sell your music...
  2. Originally posted by scd:[..]

    MP3 is the killer invention for sound since it's introduction.

    Our technology could bring us 24 bits/192 recordings, but because of internet and it's limited bandwidth we are "forced" by the industry to go down in audio quality over the last years. Isn't that weird?

    I personally *hate* mp3. It does compress the audio in a bad way, it mangles the stereo field of a recording, it removes bass in a ugly way...

    And even bands like U2 are forced to sell their music in that format.

    On the positive side: they also put out a vinyl version of the album which will give the best audio experience if you are after that (assuming you have some good gear to play it).


    Yeah, I play the drums myself in a garage band - bit of a laugh really that's all; but we do have a PA system which, luckily for me, is stored in my garage; so I've hooked up my vinyl player to that and have also ordered NLOTH in vinyl format; so hopefully that'll be the business!!
  3. Since we're getting technical and I am not completely knowledgeable about such things, I have a question. I know they often compress things and that this gives Bono some of his signature sound. Is this what is happening on "Moment?" i.e. the part where he sings "I was punching in the numbers..." (3:28) It sounds so rich, but slightly different than normal. I keep thinking on this album that his voice is so incredibly "on". Is there something specific used to add to his sound? Also, Magnificent was, well, magnificent through phones. There is SOOOO much going on in that song and though at first it was not one of my favorites the little details in it are pushing it right to the top of my list. Love the producing on this one quite a lot!
  4. At my flat in uni. halls, I have my laptop connected up to a fairly run-of-the-mill sound system, and it was only last night when I was listening to the GOYB single through my laptop's own speakers that I started hearing a lot more stuff coming out of the mix, e.g. the effects on Edge's main riff, the Vertigo-esque scratching, the acoustic guitars etc.

    Guess it doesn't say much for my speakers lol
  5. Originally posted by mrshewson:Since we're getting technical and I am not completely knowledgeable about such things, I have a question. I know they often compress things and that this gives Bono some of his signature sound. Is this what is happening on "Moment?" i.e. the part where he sings "I was punching in the numbers..." (3:28) It sounds so rich, but slightly different than normal. I keep thinking on this album that his voice is so incredibly "on". Is there something specific used to add to his sound? Also, Magnificent was, well, magnificent through phones. There is SOOOO much going on in that song and though at first it was not one of my favorites the little details in it are pushing it right to the top of my list. Love the producing on this one quite a lot!


    Not sure what you mean with your question. I don't hear any remarkable difference in that part.
    He is singing, panned in the middle, while background left and right others are singing with it (guess that's Edge, maybe Larry, maybe Lanois and Eno).

    But no doubt Bono has a fantastic voice on this album, though it has changed compared to JT and AB. Less absolute power, more soul.

    Compare his today's voice with the one he had on the bonus DVD concert of the JT remastered box, the concert in Paris. His roaring on that one (Exit for example) would have scared off the biggest lion with an appetite...
  6. Originally posted by scd:[..]

    MP3 is the killer invention for sound since it's introduction.

    Our technology could bring us 24 bits/192 recordings, but because of internet and it's limited bandwidth we are "forced" by the industry to go down in audio quality over the last years. Isn't that weird?

    I personally *hate* mp3. It does compress the audio in a bad way, it mangles the stereo field of a recording, it removes bass in a ugly way...

    And even bands like U2 are forced to sell their music in that format.

    On the positive side: they also put out a vinyl version of the album which will give the best audio experience if you are after that (assuming you have some good gear to play it).

    In a HIFI board you'd have to post statements like that under the label "voodoo". Let me give some facts and some opinion if you allow. Thank you.

    MP3 compresses not volume or loudness but data. A compressor / limiter on the other hand compresses volume or loudness, not data. A compressor is a sound effect, mp3 is a file format. These are two completely different animals, one has nothing to do with the other.

    Harder compression / limiting results in "louder" sounding recordings. It adds the feeling of volume but reduces sonic transparency. Over- compression has already lead some CDs up to the point of digital clipping, best known in Metallica's "Death Magnetic". On HTDAAB and NLOTH every instrument and voice has undergone serious compression before the mix, and the mix has finally been multi- band- compressed once again during mastering. HTDAAB seems to be master- compressed a little bit harder in direct comparison. But I think both albums are very well done without being sonically over- compressed.

    Now to mp3, CD and vinyl: Mp3 just reduces audio data to save storage space. It does not really alter the sound - it just reduces it's audible quality. 99% of all listeners don't hear the difference between a good mp3 (256K or 320K) and a CD. Of course, if you reduce audio data down to a 128K mp3 you come to a point of 2/3 of listers noticing the difference, especially when A/B-ing. A 64K mp3 should be immediately recognised as bad sounding by 95% of all listeners.

    A modern album like NLOTH is recorded digitally on hard disks, they don't use analog tapes for that. The final digital data can be stored digitally loss-less on CD or it can be transferred to analog vinyl - in this case some data would get lost in the process, resulting in the vinyl sounding worse than the CD. The vinyl record has also some mechanical problems caused by usage, dust, speed and the used materials (vinyl & diamond needle). In fact a 33RPM LP is just a slight little bit better than the minimum requirement for the label "HIFI" - a 12'' 45RPM maxi- single is a bit better. The CD has no problem to exceed the HIFI requirements by far.

    Conclusion: If a CD sounds worse than an LP on your equipment then it can be one of five cases:
    - The CD has been mastered badly from vinyl or old tape sources (sadly this happens very often).
    - The CD has been mastered differently than the vinyl LP. Now you can choose which one you prefer.
    - The D/A converter in your CD player is pretty bad while your record player is pretty good.
    - You unconsciously like the small sonic inaccuracies that the vinyl / needle / turntable combo produces.
    - You're a victim of selective perception caused by strong prejudice for vinyl against CD.

    A perfectly mastered vinyl LP doesn't sound better than a perfectly mastered CD. Vinyl doesn't sound better than CD. Get over it.

    Alex
  7. Originally posted by Alex:[..]

    - The CD has been mastered differently than the vinyl LP. Now you can choose which one you prefer.


    And that's what's the case pretty often these days - or let's say sometimes - and so some people are hoping for that.
  8. So is antiquated vinyl better in sound quality than the newer CD?
  9. Originally posted by Alex:[..]
    Over- compression has already lead some CDs up to the point of digital clipping, best known in Metallica's "Death Magnetic".


    Alex


    RUINED A GREAT RETURN TO FORM ALBUM!!!!!!!!!!! Sounds like absolute crap.


  10. Rubin did the same with Californication of RHCP and even with Stadium Arcadium.
  11. I don't think you should judge the sound and mixing until you have heard it lossless.

  12. If someone wants to produce a CD from an existing old recording, the quality of the result depends basically on two things.

    First question is what you use as source for your CD. An old vinyl record could be a source if it's mint - that's what anyone could do: Run his turntable through his HIFI amp using "Phono In" and "Line out" into the "Line In" of his soundcard. Another possible source for a CD could be the original master tapes - but don't forget that tapes can sometimes get bad with age. Another source could be the original multi- track tapes, then you could even do a new mix. As far as I know the source tracks for most of these CDs are taken from original master tapes - but not always. So the new CD would use the same source as the old vinyl record.

    Second question is what you do with the source tracks before burning and releasing them. If you just burn and release the result wil most likely be unsatisfying - I've even heard tape hiss(!) on the CD of Atomic Rooster's "Headline News" album. So it's most likely better to put the tracks through some denoising, eq- ing and dynamics processing - we would call this a "remaster" CD. Having a pro mastering engineer can make a massive difference in sound.

    Conclusion: A properly remastered CD from a good source will sound as good as or better than the old vinyl record. Wishbone Ash's 1972 album "Argus" for example is available in a great remastered CD version that just smokes the vinyl record - by faaar.

    Alex
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.
Contribute to the U2 community with uploading photos or by telling us which shows you have visited.