U2…. Most of their earlier stuff is poorly recorded.. if anyone knows of some quality recordings, please let me know. Thank you
On a different note, share the artists you own that DON'T sound good
Use whatever parameters you pay attention to. Timbres, dynamics, clarity, imaging, soundstage, top-end, mids, bottom-end, etc.
In my collection, the artists that (usually) don't sound good are-
Faces
Rod Stewart
(early) Rolling Stones
(some) Ted Nugent
(some) Eric Clapton
(early) Aerosmith
(early) Beatles
(early) Credence
(early) Doobie Bros
(early) The Clash
Foghat
(early) The Who
(early) ZZ Top
(early) Led Zeppelin
Janice Joplin
I've probably overlooked some other stinkers in my collection
Thank God for talented remastering engineers!
- ...
- 46 posts total
The wild cards in all of this are the pressing plant and mastering. The sonics can vary wildly even with first pressings. Not all remasters are bad. @rtrlover The impex remaster of Souveniers is outstanding. In general, though, I think a lot of the Stone's recordings sound muddy. |
@rbgator94 Agreed on U2's earlier stuff, Though I love Joshua Tree so much I'm willing to tweak it with EQ to make it a little more palatable. I think Achtung Baby and All That You Can't Leave Behind are pretty decent or at least better recordings. |
Imagine any other industry having that reputation. -- Not all Nissans are bad. -- Not all Pioneer receivers are bad. "Come to Bob's service station Not all repairs are bad." "Rent an apartment from World Wide realtors. Not all apartments are bad." "Bring your children to Big Kid medial services. Not all of our doctors are bad." Every re-master should have outstanding sound quality. That the public has to hope that their re-master has good sound quality is shameful of the record companies. Record companies should make their motto "Even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut. |
- 46 posts total