I just picked up _____ on vinyl!

PJ_Soul said:

show previous quotes

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

I received the 2007 reissue in the mail yesterday and spun it last night. I have a very nice copy of the 1987 original Island. Here are my thoughts about it in comparison, in case you were debating this.

The reissue is definitely better, but by home much is debatable. I found the sound a little fuller than the original. The original is a very good press I think, for the 80's but it's a bit bright, not distant which is why it sounds very good. This reissue is both clear and 'lush', which is the best of both worlds. The big difference is how quiet the vinyl is. It does not have any of the surface noise as a record from 30 years ago will have so that's a plus. I would say that if this record is important to you and one of your favorites (it is for me) then it's worth spending the $30. If it isn't one that you listen to often, the OG is still pretty damn good.

Are you saying you think there is surface noise on an OG in perfect condition? Or surface noise because it's often damaged after 30 years? Just wondering your take, since I don't hear any surface noise on my OG.

I think it's a little noisy as a record. It's just got that vinyl sound that I feel like I hear on any record from the 70's and 80's, just that tiny little static that you hear. It's never dead quiet. And mine is at least a VG+. Some people really like that sound. I'm fine with it, but I prefer dead quiet.
But even if you get past that and maybe my record could be a little nosier than yours, there is definitely a fuller sound on the reissue. I also compared it to my CD FLAC rip and to a 24/96 vinyl rip and it's not even close there.

That isn't my experience with older records in perfect condition... but interesting outlook.
I doubt I'll even need the reissue of Joshua Tree, since I'm very happy with my OG, but nice to know U2 is paying attention to sound quality on the reissues in general.

They really need to remaster WAR. I love that album but it sounds so distant...

MedozK said:

Is it bad that I have zero U2 vinyl in my collection?

nope, the only ones that I would be interested in are Achtung Baby and Zooropa.
but I think they are only available as special editions.

Surprisingly, Zooropa has never been repressed. It was included as a remastered CD in the Auchtung box, but the LP was ignored. Weird.

MedozK said:

Is it bad that I have zero U2 vinyl in my collection?

Nope, it's a very good thing

Got the new Japandroids and Ty Segall today.

MedozK said:

show previous quotes

mrussel1 said:

Joshua is a must have in my book. It's a brilliant, although a pretentious album. But every song on it is beautiful and Bono's singing is stellar.

show previous quotes

mcgruff10 said:

Joshua tree and rattle and hum are a must in my opinion.

show previous quotes

Tim Simmons said:

I think if you want classic albums in your collection, you need The Unforgettable Fire through Achtung.

Oh, I have them in the collection.. just Digital. Downloads (I have original UK pressing needle drops) and CDs... just wondering owning the actual vinyl is a must.

For Joshua Tree.. .definitely. The remaster is so much better than the original CD or the 2007 RE CD. If you have the OG pressing and don't love the album then it's good enough. But there is a stark difference between cd and vinyl on this one. IMO. Like I said above, I have some 24/96 vinyl rips too and they don't compare.
I don't own any other as I stopped liking U2 after Achtung and the albums I really like are not that great on vinyl, from what I understand.

MedozK said:

show previous quotes

mrussel1 said:

For Joshua Tree.. .definitely. The remaster is so much better than the original CD or the 2007 RE CD. If you have the OG pressing and don't love the album then it's good enough. But there is a stark difference between cd and vinyl on this one. IMO. Like I said above, I have some 24/96 vinyl rips too and they don't compare.
I don't own any other as I stopped liking U2 after Achtung and the albums I really like are not that great on vinyl, from what I understand.

Yea, I like the needle drops. I have a few of the more collectable early CDs, but don't listen to those much. In regard to the 2007 vinyl reissue of Joshua Tree, I have just read bad things about the pressing (it being pressed at United).. read that non-fill and scuffs were bad. Do you happen to have a EU version? Is it pressed somewhere else?

https://www.discogs.com/U2-The-Joshua-Tree/release/2094689

This is the one I have. I saw some remarks around that as well but the Hoffman commentary was very good as was the overall rating. My copy is clean..perfect. And I hear everything. I sent back lots of records people rave about.

mrussel1 said:

show previous quotes

MedozK said:

mrussel1 said:

For Joshua Tree.. .definitely. The remaster is so much better than the original CD or the 2007 RE CD. If you have the OG pressing and don't love the album then it's good enough. But there is a stark difference between cd and vinyl on this one. IMO. Like I said above, I have some 24/96 vinyl rips too and they don't compare.
I don't own any other as I stopped liking U2 after Achtung and the albums I really like are not that great on vinyl, from what I understand.

Yea, I like the needle drops. I have a few of the more collectable early CDs, but don't listen to those much. In regard to the 2007 vinyl reissue of Joshua Tree, I have just read bad things about the pressing (it being pressed at United).. read that non-fill and scuffs were bad. Do you happen to have a EU version? Is it pressed somewhere else?

https://www.discogs.com/U2-The-Joshua-Tree/release/2094689

This is the one I have. I saw some remarks around that as well but the Hoffman commentary was very good as was the overall rating. My copy is clean..perfect. And I hear everything. I sent back lots of records people rave about.

Thanks, I may take a look at that one.

lolobugg said:

Blind Melon- Soup (Reissue)
happy to finally get to listen to this on wax.

Same here...the black vinyl sounds fantastic!

MedozK said:

show previous quotes

mrussel1 said:

For Joshua Tree.. .definitely. The remaster is so much better than the original CD or the 2007 RE CD. If you have the OG pressing and don't love the album then it's good enough. But there is a stark difference between cd and vinyl on this one. IMO. Like I said above, I have some 24/96 vinyl rips too and they don't compare.
I don't own any other as I stopped liking U2 after Achtung and the albums I really like are not that great on vinyl, from what I understand.

Yea, I like the needle drops. I have a few of the more collectable early CDs, but don't listen to those much. In regard to the 2007 vinyl reissue of Joshua Tree, I have just read bad things about the pressing (it being pressed at United).. read that non-fill and scuffs were bad. Do you happen to have a EU version? Is it pressed somewhere else?

I wouldn't go off the 'reviews' section on Discogs for individuals comments on certain pressings, I find them grossly misleading, one mans shit sounding record is another mans great pressing. Plus, no one ever seems to say what gear they're playing the records on and weather they've cleaned them properly before playing.

Also, of course there are anomalies within pressings (a warped record, scuff marks) and the people who have a bad one out of, say a batch of 5000, soon jump on Discogs and tell you how crap it is... Rediculous, tedious and very frustrating, it's vinyl, it's not meant to be perfect, never has been, never will be.