EXP
Active topics
  1. Regarding the sound, one of the main marketing points of the tour was that their sound set-up would allow every part of the venue to have an equally good listening experience. Since my experiences were GA and front row seats, they're practically the same, so I can't say if they succeeded in doing this.
  2. The sound as been reportedly consistently great at ever seat and spot of the venue, so I guess they have succeeded.
  3. I think it's interesting that people haven't really been talking about this, because it's pretty significant. Anyone who's had seats way in the back for other concerts will know that the sound can echo and feel distant. In my opinion, their sound setup combined with indoor venues and drastically improved recording technology is going to usher a golden age for bootlegs. Of all the ones I've listened to so far, almost all have been great.
  4. Had the floor 2 nights, nose bleeds once, and lower bowl once. Fantastic sound in both venues. The hit it out of the park with this sound system.
  5. Originally posted by ahn1991:I think it's interesting that people haven't really been talking about this, because it's pretty significant. Anyone who's had seats way in the back for other concerts will know that the sound can echo and feel distant. In my opinion, their sound setup combined with indoor venues and drastically improved recording technology is going to usher a golden age for bootlegs. Of all the ones I've listened to so far, almost all have been great.
    I partially agree: people not ranting "how bad the sound was at U2 concert fuck off #u2ietour #feelcheated" means the sound is consistently good. That is great and means that nobody feels excluded from the concert experience I like that.

    On the other hand, the sound being consistently "good" means that there is no place where the sound is great while it's poor at others, which also means there is no sweet spot for recording and therefore that most recordings sound just "good to very good", there is not "superb" recordings like we had last tour (we haven't marked any audience recording as 5 stars while we did with a good few ones during 2009 and 2010). Also, as a concert taper myself I don't see where's the drastic improvement in recording technology from the 360 Tour to the current 2015 day, honestly All U2IEtour tapers so far have used equipment that had already been used during past tour(s) so... No.
  6. To be honest though, all the Big Girl remasters from Mixlr's have been astounding.
  7. Originally posted by ahn1991:Regarding the sound, one of the main marketing points of the tour was that their sound set-up would allow every part of the venue to have an equally good listening experience. Since my experiences were GA and front row seats, they're practically the same, so I can't say if they succeeded in doing this.
    I had seats quite close to the stage and seats way up in the balcony. Their suspended oval-shaped sound rig delivers excellent sound regardless of where you are. In fact, I daresay that the sound higher up might have been better. I found it a little clearer and didn't feel like it was as blaring the second night.

    I'd say over all, it was the best sounding concert I've ever been to of theirs.
  8. I TOTALLY agree with this! I was just listening to the 3-source matrix she put up of the 2005-07-16 Amsterdam show. And while it's not bad, the quality just isn't there compared to some of these remastered Mixlr sources. Which really surprises me. I didn't think sound technology had advanced that much in 10 years. I guess it has.

    Note: This isn't a slight against the Amsterdam matrix, just that the sound system of the day, combined with the recording tech of the day just wasn't as good 10 years ago apparently. And it has that very distinctive echoey sound mentioned earlier.
  9. Originally posted by pllsaph:[..]
    I had seats quite close to the stage and seats way up in the balcony. Their suspended oval-shaped sound rig delivers excellent sound regardless of where you are. In fact, I daresay that the sound higher up might have been better. I found it a little clearer and didn't feel like it was as blaring the second night.

    I'd say over all, it was the best sounding concert I've ever been to of theirs.
    I can vouch for this, had GA for N3 and last row in Balcony for N4 for Boston...amazing sound both ways.

    Compared to 360...a much better experience, for sure.
  10. I can't imagine having nosebleeds for 360. I mean, yes you're at a U2 concert and it's still going to be amazing, but even the furthest seats in the IE Tour give you a great view and sound. Sound quality and general experience of audience goers all throughout the venue is definitely one of the most amazing factors of the tour. I almost think the fact that there have not being people talking about these things (or complaining about these things) is a testament to how good things have been.
  11. NYC night one...
    1. Joey ramone
    2. Electric co.
    3. Vertigo
    4. I will follow.
    5. IRIS
  12. Originally posted by ahn1991:I can't imagine having nosebleeds for 360. I mean, yes you're at a U2 concert and it's still going to be amazing, but even the furthest seats in the IE Tour give you a great view and sound. Sound quality and general experience of audience goers all throughout the venue is definitely one of the most amazing factors of the tour. I almost think the fact that there have not being people talking about these things (or complaining about these things) is a testament to how good things have been.
    You say that but I actually thought the sound was better during 360
U2start is run by fans for fans. Help us reduce personal costs. Consider to make a donation to support us.
U2start is run by fans for fans. Help us reduce personal costs. Consider to make a donation to support us.
U2start is run by fans for fans. Help us reduce personal costs. Consider to make a donation to support us.
U2start is run by fans for fans. Help us reduce personal costs. Consider to make a donation to support us.