U2 Remastered Albums

[pg13myass]

I was checking out the newly remastered CD for Joshua Tree for U2. Kind of glad they are rereleasing a classic album. I'm most likely going to pick it up at some point. I was curious on whether or not this is the beginning of more rereleases of classic albums in their back catalogue? Any U2 fans out there who can answer my question that keep up with this? If so, I'm looking forward to them doing that with Achtung Baby! I've also noticed other bands have been doing similiar (Depeche Mode, Nine Inch Nails, etc).

[EvilHenchman]

I can't answer your question, my friend. But I'm a little skeptical of this whole "remastering" of albums produced during the digital recording "age." Joshua Tree was released just as CDs were taking off, so it could possibly benefit from a sonic tweaking (though I've no complaint with my copy that I've owned since '87).

So, I guess I'd seriously question the value of any remastered post-Rattle and Hum U2 works.

[pg13myass]

Yes, I hear where you're coming from. I, too, own my original CD release of Joshua Tree. I did get around to sampling the new remastered CD, and I do admit it does sounds as if they did polish it up to higher quality. The fact that they included a 2nd CD with some rare B-sides has me interested enough to open up my wallet. As much as I am partial about the whole digitizing of music and movies, I still prefer my CD collection. There's just nothing more better than having an actual CD case with the booklet over a downloaded copy of the music. I still buy my CDs. But, because of the crap being put out, I am careful of what I put into my shelf.

[The Postmaster General]

They rerecord from the masters onto digital media, as opposed to recording the masters onto analogue media and then onto CD. It isn't like they are dumping 8-track tapes onto CDs and saying it's remastered. It's going back to the masters and starting from there. Musicians, like Neil Young, still record masters onto analogue - it's not a matter of how the master is made. When you are listening to analog to analog - you are basically listening to a copy of a copy, like recording from one cassette to another then to another. With digital it would be going from a cassette to a CD then making copies of that CD.

If you load an original and a remastered copy into your iTunes you can hear a distinct difference in volume and dynamic range. It's not just a matter of marketing.

That being said, I won't replace my original Joshua Tree (bought the week after it came back) because it plays fine and I am kind of poor. I'd like to replace those liner notes though. Ouch. Time isn't nice to paper.

[pg13myass]

Right you are. I do my best to keep my CDs in good shape so that whenever I feel like going through the liner notes/booklet, that they remain intact. The new liner notes on the remasters included unreleased photos for the Joshua Tree and also comments from the band and the producers recollecting their experiences on the album.

[EvilHenchman]

Ah...I wasn't aware of the second disc in the new Joshua Tree release. Given that U2 - back in the day of the single - used to put out those previously-unreleased B-sides, this info sweetens the deal somewhat (Though they could've just packaged these tunes with the fairly recent Singles collection discs and saved us all a buncha trouble...).

And Bubba, isn't most CD-era music already digitized? I mean, yeah, old-school guys like Neil Young may use the analog process in recording, but certainly they still have to digitify (I made that up) their stuff for release because the media dictates it. So, then, aren't we already served, by default, the "remastered" version when we first get it in our hot little hands?

Maybe I'm just missing something, which is entirely possible.

[The Postmaster General]

Oh! I would have saved a lot of time typing if I had comprehended you earlier post better. :o

No, it doesn't go from the analog master straight to CD. I don't know how much you know about the recording process, so I'm going to just go through it quickly - Everything is recorded onto the masters - Nothing is mixed. It's everything recorded on a single analog tape with different tracks for drums, guitar, etc.. That master is run through a mixing board where the levels are set, EQ might be done, effects added - what not -- What comes out of that mixing board is the intended final product. Then what comes out is put onto another reel - back in those days they weren't using digital captures.

There may even be more mix downs made before it is eventually put onto a tape, CD, vinyl or whatever. This isn't the case so much now, because everyone is so familiar with digital and trusts it, but back when they were first introduced - they would rely on the old analog techniques because -- well, basically the studios were being hard-headed - and for good reason. No one knew if the digital format would last for the many years that's required for studios to hold on to their property. I think now, though, it's all just hard drives.

So what is happening now, is they are going back to those masters, and straight to digital, or they introduce the digital technology earlier into the process. In addition, there is also the benefit that digital mastering techniques and equipment improves every day. So even remastering something made in 2000 could theoretically yield better results (fuck those last three words, I've been living in corn country too long --- sorry tangent....) More-or-less though, you can call any CD release a remaster, though as you see there's a lot more behind the process than just rerecording it onto digital.

I hope that explained it well and accurately - I have audiophile friends who could probably explain it with two words. :D

[EvilHenchman]

Thanks for going through all of that, and yes, you explained it well.

Still, even though there is, as you say, some advantage to remastering music releases from the last decade or so, I'm certain that my ears are not advanced enough to notice or appreciate what that benefit is. More power to those who can, I suppose.

[The Postmaster General]

I feel the same way, for the most part, or at the least am not going to replace my albums. For some reason, even though I do think it would sound better, I don't see the point of replacing my copy of Nevermind the Bollocks.

There is a nostalgic factor for me, in knowing I'm hearing a version closer to what was being heard when the album was released. I don't necessarily want to hear it "like I've never heard before!!!"

[therealjohng]

I can see how people would want to hear it "the way they first heard it", but man seriously, I have Talking Head's Remain in Light and Nine Inch Nails' Downward Spiral albums remastered and there is shit I never even heard before that is all there because of the digital remastering they did on them.

[The Postmaster General]

Come on! Let me justify my cheapness.

[therealjohng]

Come on! Let me justify my cheapness.


I paid like 11 bucks for them each. That's as cheap or cheaper. Booyah!

[pg13myass]

I can see how people would want to hear it "the way they first heard it", but man seriously, I have Talking Head's Remain in Light and Nine Inch Nails' Downward Spiral albums remastered and there is shit I never even heard before that is all there because of the digital remastering they did on them.

Yeah! I have been eyeing the Downward Spiral remastered CD too. That is pure nostalgia for me too! But, at the same time, it still holds up as one hell of an album! I suppose it means that it's worth picking up then? I am seriouslcy considering picking up the deluxe package with the 2nd CD with dual disc DVD.