U2 - Achtung Baby (Atmos), digital release date Jan 26, 2024

[sjcorne]

Some interesting info about mixing "The Fly" from the Wikipedia article:

Towards the end of the sessions, U2 were unhappy with the mix of "The Fly", which was selected well in advance of the album's release to be the first single. The band ended up taking the song's mix, placing it on a two-inch multi-track tape, and adding additional vocals and guitars. The Edge and producer Daniel Lanois mixed on top of the previous mix live in the studio, an unusual practice. The Edge says the technique would "make studio professionals laugh" and believes "part of the reason why [the song] sounds so dynamic is because it was a real hands-on performance mix." The guitar sounds in the opening were created by mixing additional guitar on top of the existing guitar, creating a "really crazy natural phasing effect".

I wonder if there are other instances of this practice throughout the album, which might explain why certain elements couldn't be separated for the Atmos mix? It still doesn't explain the weird lack of low-end and overall punch.

 

[millertek]

I kind of noticed, especially with Mysterious Ways, the surround mix really maintains a stereo (front) output. The rear channels are just echos of the front channels....very little discrete isolation's. Try extracting the channels and listening to the individual rear channels - you don;t get much...just quieter echoes of the front channels....

I guess that is how they wanted it....

 

[JFHiggins]

Pardon me while I vent...

Achtung Baby should be a Top 5 Atmos product. A showcase for the format. An experience that truly reflects and honors the brilliance of the original album and its absolute mind-f*ckery that U2 fans listened to it for the first time. The 1991 album was thick, deep, and rich. It reflected its unique (for the band) and stressful recording process, bringing listeners into places they had not been before and leaving them joyfully exhausted-invigorated by the end. The Atmos should be that...times ten! I cleared my schedule. I queued it up with expectations that had been well managed while waiting for the release. I closed my eyes. I pressed 'play'.

So very, very disappointing. What an absolute let-down. It is, at best, a mediocre mix that does not take advantage of the technology at all. Sure, there are some moments, but far too few. Mysterious Ways, for example, starts off with promise and does its best to hang on. But there is a blatant mistake moment in the mix. An unforgivable drop-out at the final bump of the guitar solo section, at 2:22. What the actual hell??

The original album was bold. It was brave.

The Atmos mix is...

Safe.

And, to me, there is no more offensive word in the Atmosverse.

Rant complete.

#achtooeybaby

 

[Dynamic Editor]

So very, very disappointing. What an absolute let-down. It is, at best, a mediocre mix that does not take advantage of the technology at all.

What sort of things did you want to hear from the mix? How was it "too safe", to your ears?

 

[Mcallister]

I agree the mix sucks.

 

[omnipotent1]

Some interesting info about mixing "The Fly" from the Wikipedia article:

I wonder if there are other instances of this practice throughout the album, which might explain why certain elements couldn't be separated for the Atmos mix? It still doesn't explain the weird lack of low-end and overall punch.

Isn't that just the sound of U2?Always a weak sounding bunch IMHO

 

[himey]

Isn't that just the sound of U2?Always a weak sounding bunch IMHO

In what respect? Achtung Baby and Rattle and Hum, for example, never sounded "weak".

 

[JFHiggins]

What sort of things did you want to hear from the mix? How was it "too safe", to your ears?

Thank you for asking me to offer some solutions to the problem.

The press release for this album went out of its way to mention that the Atnos mix was done in five studios globally over a 17-month period. Imho, the dynamics do not reflect this amount of effort. But I am having a hard time putting my thoughts into words without the context of the music itself. Generally, I find the mix to be very front-heavy, with the rears being used more for ambiance than actual instruments/vocals. There are exceptions to this, but not many. It's like they were afraid violate the original mixes, but there are many ways to pull the songs apart without turning them into completely other pieces of music.

Let me try "One". The opening riff has two elements, other than the drum sticks...I suggest putting one or both of them in the rears, with the cello-sounding guitar in rear-center. This will leave more space in the fronts for the rhythm section to kick into. Definitely the keyboards that rise at 1:58 could be centered between front and rears, to make the mix sound far less muddled. (I know the mid-range is a primary factor in the original mix; I am not saying we should lose that, but spread it around the listener.) Then when the next rise comes, at 2:22, use the rears or heights to direct the listener's attention away from where it has been for the entire song, which is the front. Cymbal crash could be above the average height plane. Edge's acoustic guitars that come up front at 2:41...again, the rears would be great for those. The electric guitar chiming riff towards the end...everywhere, but with an emphasis off to the sides. And the vocal echo at the end utilize the heights somewhat but should envelope the space to whatever degree does not ruin the original intent. By the final chord, the listener should be in a cloud of sound.

Obviously, I am not a mixing engineer, or any sort of audio worker at all. But I take my listening very seriously and hope the above makes at least some sense.

 

[srbjab]

After listening to the mix a couple of times I would agree that it does little to nothing to enhance the music - in fact for many songs I would rather listen in stereo or through the dolby upmixer. For most songs, it's predominantly front heavy with ambiance in the surrounds/overheads, but even with these the sound seems somehow harsher and less enveloping than it should. Occasionally it seems like too much was crammed into the overheads without much thought on how it would enhance and expand the sound field. Basically, it doesn't sound like whoever did these mixes had a good grasp of the material before just diving in and playing around.

It doesn't happen very often, but sometimes I simply have a negative reaction to a surround mix. This is one of those times. Too bad because the album has several of my favorite U2 songs.

 

[dobyblue]

It still doesn't explain the weird lack of low-end and overall punch.

Ugh, this is awful to read...like on top of all the bad reviews of the surround choices I mean, to hear it's muted in the low end is more than I can take. I love the original mastering of this CD, it's got lovely deep bass and sounds terrific in both my main HT room and in the van with the dual 8" JL Audio sub...the Atmos mix should be heavenly in the low end, not muted. What a wasted opportunity.

 

[alek2702]

Really wanted to like this mix as it's one of my favourite albums but having given it a fair chance since the release I must agree with most of you here, it's a massive disappointment.

Barely any discrete action at all, the whole soundstage is completely glued to the front speakers and congested, and there's what sounds like weird drop outs or phasing issues on several guitar solos.

Wonder why it took 17 months to produce such an inane mix. Too much band interference perhaps?