U2 reissues

I beg to differ with the quality of 'October'. I think it sounds good to my ears.

The song "Where the streets have no name" from "The Joshua Tree" seems to lack resonance and punch. To be honest I could not tell the difference between this newly remastered version and any other that I've heard.

Since they've put out their earlier albums first(with the exception of "War" I am not a fan of their earlier work)I will have to see how my favorites sound when they are released-"The Unforgettable Fire", "Rattle and Hum" and "Achtung Baby"

U2 sound was mostly engineered by Steve Lillywhite. This was one of the first bands (apart from Punk rock) to go towards hypercompressed music. It was very successful for U2 - a kind of raw fatiguing unpolished sound that works well in a pub and comes over clearly compared to ther music of those times (but tends to sound flat and monotonous). This sound gives the music a feeling of urgency - it works but it sounds awful when turned up loud on a good dynamic system.

You can also hear the hypercompression by comparing Simple Minds stuff like Waterfront (done with Steve) against their earlier releases. Also you hear it on Dave Mathews Band - yes - that is why the music sounds harsh, edgy and aggresive - it was done deliberately. To me, U2 was one of the bands that led us into the loudness wars by their huge succes, which made many artists follow. Ultimately, the success of this compressed raw sound means that nearly everything produced today in pop is mastered "hypercompressed" or "loud" - thanks partly to Steve Lillywhite!

I would be interested to know if the U2 remasters have fixed the raw edgy sound of U2 (I like U2 for music but not their studio sound. Same as Santana). Generally, uncompressed music will sound much softer and less punchy at low volumes (may even sound thin) but this will sound way way better at higher volumes. Bands like Duran Duran (who had roots in a dance club and tried to emulate the lush sound of Roxy music) made specific studio sessions to record dance mixes for the clubs (these were far less compressed than their regular albums which were targeted at FM radio). A lot depends on what was archived all those years ago...but I would certainly buy more U2 if the new releases sound better.

'it works but it sounds awful when turned up loud on a good dynamic system.'

I disagree with that comment.

'it works but it sounds awful when turned up loud on a good dynamic system.'

I disagree with that comment.

Yes you are not alone. U2's great success proves it. Most mastering engineers now agree that pop music requires heavy handed compression to give it that aggresive sound - it has become the norm - nothing gets released without heavy compression these days. There is no doubt that distortion can be pleasing and a heavy dose of distortion in the mastering stage is now seen as an essential part of the aesthetic music process - just as "gated drums" keep the music to a completely "mechanical" precise robotic quality and allow more EQ to be excessively applied.

Here is a link that mentions U2 remasters but also discusses the problem of aggresive sound. Of course, what Steve Lillywhite did in the 80's was not half as bad as what they do today. U2 sound quality is not bad at all by most modern standards but we have all forgetten that Pink Floyd, Roxy Music, Alan Parsons and many others showed us that there was another way...