GEN
Active topics
  1. I think it can depend on the material used for the vinyls
    The classic black could be more resistant throughout the years because it’s made of the same material
    The clear could have added some other less resistant materials
    Btw : let’s keep our vinyls always safe in paper or soft plastic and we’ll have them growing old in the best way
    It’s like Guinness: the water used in Ireland to “produce “ the beer is not the same water used in other Guinness factories
  2. Originally posted by BigGiRL:[..]
    It seems obvious that the clear vinyl is less hard than the black one and is likely to wear out sooner,
    but where does this number of 15% comes from?
    Colored vinyl is nowhere near as good in terms of audio quality, however cool it looks! The main problem i am told is that color vinyl has a problem with surface noise the wear rate is roughly the same as black, however black will sound better through its entire life span. 
    coloured vinyl isnt specially manufactured for records like the black vinyl is and this is the reason for lesser quality. 
  3. Originally posted by BigGiRL:[..]
    The liner notes do indeed suggest that the original master was used:

    [..]
    Digital or analogue? I think all was done digital, but I have no source to back that up (perhaps someone else has?).
    In fact I am under the impression that Rattle & Hum was the last album by U2 to be recorded analogue, but again
    no source at the moment for this.



    R&H was all analogue recording, as was AB. Neither Sun nor Hansa, nor Iovine's mobile recording studio were digital. IIRC The first studio in the world to go all digital was Wisseloord in Hilversum, Netherlands, ca 1990. At the time you could easily tell, as wholly digital recording was indicated on the CD package as DDD, as opposed to AAD, which is printed on the R&H CD.

    You can also tell by ear as early all digital stuff was rather harsh; too pristine, too clinical, take for example Simple Minds' Real Life.

    Interestingly R&H was the largest single CD pressing at the time: 8 million (!) They were banking on shifting quite some units.
  4. Originally posted by eviltwin:[..]


    R&H was all analogue recording, as was AB. Neither Sun nor Hansa, nor Iovine's mobile recording studio were digital. IIRC The first studio in the world to go all digital was Wisseloord in Hilversum, Netherlands, ca 1990. At the time you could easily tell, as wholly digital recording was indicated on the CD package as DDD, as opposed to AAD, which is printed on the R&H CD.

    You can also tell by ear as early all digital stuff was rather harsh; too pristine, too clinical, take for example Simple Minds' Real Life.

    Interestingly R&H was the largest single CD pressing at the time: 8 million (!) They were banking on shifting quite some units.
    you are dead right about Simple Minds Real Life
    but many many other cds at the beginning of the 90s were pure shit
    first of all all the old albums from the 70s.....like Bowie etc.completely bullshit sound
    that's beacause they have been remastered NOT from the original tapes already destroyed
  5. Originally posted by eviltwin:[...] R&H was all analogue recording, as was AB. Neither Sun nor Hansa, nor Iovine's mobile recording studio were digital. IIRC The first studio in the world to go all digital was Wisseloord in Hilversum, Netherlands, ca 1990. At the time you could easily tell, as wholly digital recording was indicated on the CD package as DDD, as opposed to AAD, which is printed on the R&H CD.
    [￾fefffefffeff2620]
    I know. But masters were already recorded digitally back in the 80-ies. Dire Straits - Brothers In Arms (1985) is a famous example. And while Queen - The Works (1984) was not recorded digitally, it already had digital mastering (see liner notes).

    The liner notes on "Achtung Baby" (1991) says "Digital Editing by Stewart Whitmore," which suggests that while the recording (and mixing) was analogue, the master was "cut" digitally (probably on a DAT tape).

    What I thought was interesting of the "Achtung Baby" 2018 remaster (the first real remaster of AB, as the 2011 "20A" was only" tweaked and sonically improved"), that U2Songs reports that "a number of songs run at different speeds." (Fly, EBTTRT, WH, SC, TTTYAATW). As this remaster project was directed by The Edge, I assume they had good reasons for making these corrections.

    And to go back to the original question of this thread, "Remastered Albums: worth to buy?", I think for Achtung Baby the answer would be a big "YES"!

    For the earlier albums (1980-1988), I am still not convinced. All these remasters seem miles away from the original vinyl pressings. Unless they come up with these half-speed cut masters (taken from the original master tapes), I'll pass for any re-issue/remaster.

    Spoiler (click to toggle)
    Well...I did buy all these 2008 remasters, and they were nice for all the bonus tracks, but I am currently back to the original analogue production masters (vinyl and early CD issues, which are all cut from the same production masters...)
  6. Originally posted by popmarter:[..]
    Colored vinyl is nowhere near as good in terms of audio quality, however cool it looks! The main problem i am told is that color vinyl has a problem with surface noise the wear rate is roughly the same as black, however black will sound better through its entire life span. 
    coloured vinyl isnt specially manufactured for records like the black vinyl is and this is the reason for lesser quality. 
    Ah. I didn't know about colored vinyl still having a similar wear rate as black. So the 15% lesser quality is mainly referring to surface noise? It does make sense as being a something objectively measurable.