"Remastered" CDs sounding worse than the original release?

[SortaSavageLike]

You know the drill: classic album gets reissued with bonus tracks, goodies, new booklets, etc... with the promise that it's been "digitally remastered" and sounds 100 times better than the original. I recently bought the remastered single-disc version of U2's The Joshua Tree, and I have no idea why, but I swear this is the worst remaster I've ever heard. The opening track knocked my socks off, but the audio quality went downhill from there. I counted at least a half dozen cases of distortion, the guitar sound was so shrill in parts I was getting a headache, the vocals are constantly getting buried under the weight of the bass and drums, and so on. This is the complete opposite experience I had with the Tusk remaster, which impressed me after hearing the old release more than 100 times.

Maybe it's because my setup sucks, or that U2 has a tendency to release sloppy-sounding albums, but there's no reason the album should sound this bad. Christ, The Edge even oversaw the whole remastering process! Does anyone else have bad experiences with "remastered" albums sounding worse than the original release? I'm going to write Bono an angry letter now...:rolleyes:

[darklinensuit]

You know the drill: classic album gets reissued with bonus tracks, goodies, new booklets, etc... with the promise that it's been "digitally remastered" and sounds 100 times better than the original. I recently bought the remastered single-disc version of U2's The Joshua Tree, and I have no idea why, but I swear this is the worst remaster I've ever heard. The opening track knocked my socks off, but the audio quality went downhill from there. I counted at least a half dozen cases of distortion, the guitar sound was so shrill in parts I was getting a headache, the vocals are constantly getting buried under the weight of the bass and drums, and so on. This is the complete opposite experience I had with the Tusk remaster, which impressed me after hearing the old release more than 100 times.

Maybe it's because my setup sucks, or that U2 has a tendency to release sloppy-sounding albums, but there's no reason the album should sound this bad. Christ, The Edge even oversaw the whole remastering process! Does anyone else have bad experiences with "remastered" albums sounding worse than the original release? I'm going to write Bono an angry letter now...:rolleyes:

I despise the remastered/re-mixed versions of "If Anyone Falls" and "Leather and Lace" that appear on TimeSpace. Every time I mention that here people tell me they don't hear a difference, but I sure do!

- Jake

[LukeA]

You know the drill: classic album gets reissued with bonus tracks, goodies, new booklets, etc... with the promise that it's been "digitally remastered" and sounds 100 times better than the original. I recently bought the remastered single-disc version of U2's The Joshua Tree, and I have no idea why, but I swear this is the worst remaster I've ever heard. The opening track knocked my socks off, but the audio quality went downhill from there. I counted at least a half dozen cases of distortion, the guitar sound was so shrill in parts I was getting a headache, the vocals are constantly getting buried under the weight of the bass and drums, and so on. This is the complete opposite experience I had with the Tusk remaster, which impressed me after hearing the old release more than 100 times.

Maybe it's because my setup sucks, or that U2 has a tendency to release sloppy-sounding albums, but there's no reason the album should sound this bad. Christ, The Edge even oversaw the whole remastering process! Does anyone else have bad experiences with "remastered" albums sounding worse than the original release? I'm going to write Bono an angry letter now...:rolleyes:

I feel (as does the most of U2 fan community- online, at least) the complete opposite. Every song on the remaster sounds better than the original CD release, and a few manage to sound even better than the MFSL Gold disc version that was released about 10-12 years back. Exit, for example, sounds like a completely different song- along with One Tree Hill, they are no longer buried under the murky bass-heavy mix of the original release.

[WizNicks]

I recently bought the Genesis Platinum Collection, which in which the songs were digitally remastered again. They released their albums on CD in '84/'85 as direct transfers, and in the mid-90s as digital remasteres. A while ago they announced that they are going to re-remaster the catalogue again ad this time, most of the remasters sound amazing. They actually changed them so much that you thing it is a different version (which doesn't work as good on all of the songs, but on most it does). But it is defenetly better then the last versions of it, because I think that no one supervised the last round of remasters, because the CDs have so many mistakes on it (mix up in tracklists, lineups, etc). My wife even has a CD, on which a song just ends in the middle of the track (US version of Trespass). This is something that shouldn't happen in a CD. It would be like you buy a remster of Wild Heart (hopefully soon to come) and If Anyone Falls just suddenly ends after 2 minutes on ALL released CDs.

But IMO, keep on remastering, because most results are really satisfying.

[SortaSavageLike]

The funny thing, I just listened to the remastered Joshua Tree again, and you know what? It sounds a lot better than the first time I heard it. I must have a ton of **** in my ears or something. :lol:

[stevierocks87]

I've been wanting to get into U2 a little more- my mom has the best of 1980-1990, so I know the hits, and I do love them for the most part. We also have the "Slane Castle" DVD, which is killer.

Not to hijack the thread, but would that Joshua Tree re-master be a good thing for a "beginner" fan? It looked pretty cool. Also, has anyone heard about the big U23D thing? Hopefully, my mom I and will be able to go see it on the IMAX digital 3-D thing, which sounds pretty incredible. Heres the link for more info:

http://www.u23dmovie.com/