Joshua Tree Remaster

Posted by: David O'Higgins on 22 January 2008

I have read an opinion that this remaster is actually a lot worse than the original in that the recording has been compressed. Anyone here heard it?
Posted on: 22 January 2008 by Steve S1
Hi David,

If you use "find" it might save you some time. It's covered in this thread.

Regards,

Steve
Posted on: 22 January 2008 by scottyhammer
Im not impressed with it. u2 have always had shite production in my opinion and should be ashamed of themselves, for such a big band its not on! as for the packaging - was it designed by a 3yr old? great music though,just a shame about the sound.
scotty
Posted on: 28 January 2008 by Romi
Why is it that large bands such as U2 who have all the money in the world, yet the production of their albums is so 'shite'. Its as if such bands are only concerned whether their song sounds good on the radio and to hell with Hi-Fi..? I agree with Scottyhammer its not on and there is no excuse.
Posted on: 28 January 2008 by scottyhammer
yes exactly and if the floyd can do it properly then others including u2 can also.
Posted on: 28 January 2008 by count.d
I think the new Joshua remaster on vinyl is better than the original.
Posted on: 28 January 2008 by scottyhammer
possibly count but not on cd im affraid.
scotty
Posted on: 28 January 2008 by ightenhill
possibly U2 (along with coldplay) may argue its recorded under a veil of distortion and the drumkits been recorded through a PA in a warehouse 5 miles away , because it adds to the atmosphere and is intentional.. Then again Smile

Wasn't the Edge suppose to oversee this?
Posted on: 29 January 2008 by count.d
I forgot to add that it still sounds pretty rubbish.
Posted on: 29 January 2008 by Jono 13
I am always reminded of the old phase...

You cannot polish a turd.

Never liked U2.

Jono
Posted on: 29 January 2008 by scottyhammer
which reminds me munch-go to the floyd thread.