XTC Skylarking re-mastered, polarity-correct CD coming April 14

I personally dislike the artwork. I think that the original released version was classier looking and fits the vibe of the music but Andy must have his pound of flesh (and pubic hair...)

 

Ha, yes
I don't like it either. I sort of get where Andy's going with it but it is rather too unattractive for me. I almost felt sorry for the photographer.

 

The Ape House CD is a improvement over the old Geffen.
If that original cover came out in the mid-80's, there would have been a firestorm.
The world isn't ready for a floral beaver on a record cover.

 

I found this quote from vinyl ripper DeusIrae:

I guess it's worth repeating - the "problem" (which 99.9% of people can not hear... at least according to mastering engineers like Steve Hoffman) is that the polarity of both channels was inverted. You can read the explanation on the Ape website here: https://www.burningshed.com/store/ape/product/351/5557/
The remaster does sound wonderful, and very different, because of EQ choices and the mastering style.

 

Yep

 

Inverted or not, it's just another excuse for reissue. All hype and nothing more. I have the Ape CD and the 1986 UK virgin LP and on expensive kit I can't hear ANY differences of significance between them both. They both sound quite good but seeing as though this was not especially well recorded to start with and comes from the mid-80's when everything sounded thin and tinny, it will never sound that great. Polarity my a**e!

 

You don't hear any difference between the original vinyl and the corrected CD. Okay.
I personally think the difference is quite large, but even more so between the original CD/MoFi and the corrected CD (or the corrected LP).

 

Granted I haven't heard the "corrected" LP and as I don;t want to shell out £100 for it I'll happily stick with my original UK pressing. However I was expecting some" jump-out the speakers" differences between the hyped up APE CD release and the original vinyl, especially given the polarity issue. I haven't carried out a studied A-B comparison as such but when I played the APE CD my initial reaction was "ok, this sounds identical to the old LP". As the album progressed and I listened for the extra bass etc I never heard it. The original LP has plenty of bass on it and was never shy of detail. Where are the improvements supposed to be? Can you give me an example so I can listen for it next time?

Maybe comparing the LP to CD is a mistake? After all, CD's rarely, if ever, sound better than the LP equivalents so maybe I would need to hear that over-priced APE LP to better get an idea? Mind you, that is pressed at 45rpm so it's an unfair advantage. I can't see how anyone can compare two identical versions with just the polarity issue to separate them to understand where and how big a difference it has made.

 

I guess you were disappointed because you were expecting an improvement as big as one carried by a remix, say.

I don't remember a particular moment where you could easily pinpoint the change, but to my ears the difference is in the depth of the recording -you know, the 3D effect-, the stereo presentation and the overall tonality. "Detail" is not that improved as the downmix is early 16bit/44.1kHz digital so there isn't so much you can extract from it.
But has the original CD sounded flat, digital cold and tinny, the corrected issue sounds more "analogue" if you can put it that way, with more roundness and a better soundstage. YMMV of course.

 

I understand, thank you. I have never heard the original CD, only the LP which always sounded fine to me as it was. The new CD probably shouldn't sound as good as the original LP, all things not being equal, but in truth it really does so I can therefore "imagine" the differences / improvements, if that makes sense? IOW, if the latest CD can match my original vinyl on a high-ish end deck, then the new CD must be pretty good whilst I can imagine that the old one was not. However I was expecting a real sonic revelation due to the polarity issue and I just can't hear that, sorry to say.

 

This is one reason this forum fascinates me. From the time I dropped the needle on the "corrected" version, it did "jump out of the speakers."

I get that people hear things differently, but, it was night and day for me.

 

Agh, you "dropped the needle". There lies a clue: you are comparing apples with oranges - a 45rpm modern pressed LP on 180gram compared to a thin 80's 331/3rpm single disc. I can understand THAT sounding better, yes, but what I haven't heard when comparing the original LP to the new CD (maybe the worst two elements to directly compare?) is ANY really noticeable differences in sound quality. They both have the same overall sonic timbre and level of detail, dynamics and punch. One isn't obviously better than the other especially allowing for slightly different presentations than CD / LP typically give.

 

The new CD is just as jaw droppingly different. And I have the original Virgin and MFSL versions.

And, an original Virgin LP. Geffen LP with "Mermaid", Geffen LP with "Dear God" and all of the singles.

I know the album pretty well.

 

For polarity, as with Hi-Res, I wouldn't expect just everybody to hear a difference. With some back-and-forth, I hear it almost easily, but it's not a given for everyone.

One album that has had his polarity reversed and sounds worse for it, is the remaster of Peter Gabriel's 3rd album (Melt). The SACD polarity is reversed compared to the other editions and it sounds better when inverted back. I think it is quite audible there.

 

Maybe if you want to keep the experiment going stay on the lookout for a used original CD for comparison. It seems that perhaps the vinyl vs. CD could cause some testing problems. My test was against the MFSL, and while it was not exactly “jump out of the speakers” as you say, the differences were clearly there—not in this spot vs. that spot, or even this instrument vs. that version’s instrument, but on the whole it added up to a seemingly more direct and richer presentation. I remember noting the overtones and decay are now all-around better; but also, how the bass was now better resolved— which is not to say it was any louder in the mix, just more rounded and rich from the better overtones and decay. It did not make the MFSL bad, but the corrected CD, leaving aside different dynamic range preferences, is better; the corrected CD is always my go to version now, which happens quite often.

 

The original Virgin UK pressings did not sound great and probably not entirely to do with the polarity. The double vinyl correct polarity issue was a huge upgrade IMO.

 

Maybe, well clearly, this is off topic so feel free to PM me, but I have been very very close recently to spending way too much money on that SACD given how much I liked 1 which I recently purchased. Does that polarity problem make a CD version better than that SACD, or does the hi-res still win out for it, recognizing the only thing I can invert is a glass of beer.

 

It seems something I said a few pages back bears repeating: it's just unfathomable to me how anyone could listen to the new CD and not hear the difference from the old CD or LP immediately, because it is profound, monumental, night and day, etc.

There are many instances on this board where I feel that people grossly overstate the difference between certain masterings, but this ain't one of them! I didn't even need to a/b the CD with the older versions to hear the difference, but I did anyway (with the original CD and LP) because it was still fun to do a direct comparison.

That said, I also feel that the difference with the new Skylarking could have easily come down to EQ choices, despite what Andy insists. To me it sounds like the highs were aggressively tamed and the lows were boosted, giving it a fuller, warmer, more natural sound. If I knew nothing about the polarity issue, that's what I would've assumed they did.

 

"Floral Beaver" would make a great band name...

 

Agree totally,almost.
The corrected to me vs. the original sounds like the difference between how a crappy, out of focus picture looks and a crystal clear photo with a great color balance etc.
The original is strident and just off.
I didn't need to A/B either but I did and the difference became more apparent.
Very curious to see what this sounds like after SW works his magic.

Re: Sky Larking cover art. Kind of like Blind Faith cover art although not as disturbing. Maybe a wood nymph with strategically placed flora would have fit the album better.

I apologize for my long ago post about someone needing a new system or some other dismissive statement.
Even though I'm often baffled by people's impressions of certain discs\remixes\remasters that's just the way it is.

 

thoutah, my opinion your statement comes off as extremely insulting to any who feels different than yourself. Not sure if that was your intention, only you can tell us that. As for this new Skylarking mastering seems opinions are split down the middle as to hears any real difference due to the polarity and not EQ choices. There is no wrong or right when it comes to the type of sound people prefer.

With a buddy who is a huge XTC fan, this past summer, over 2 hours we compared in detail the "new" CD, Black Triangle and MFSL. The 3 of them of course do not contain all the same tracks but the "new" CD represents a super-set of the other 2.

His thoughts:

The Black Triangle which at one time he thought was nice sounding finished last. The "new" CD was not "night and day different" and he was a bit surprised at the hype over the earlier mastering. He felt while it sounded nice enough it lacked the MFSL's dynamics and was "colder" in sound. So while he did notice some of what the corrected polarity offered it was not enough to defeat the MFSL. He very much likes the new track layout and both discs reside on his shelf.

My thoughts:

I never thought the Black Triangle or the original UK CD [same mastering] sounded good and for me it finished dead last. The polarity difference on the "new" CD was only minimally noticeable to my ears. I do not think the MFSL sounds "warm", but I conceded it is more warm than the "new"CD. I really don't feel it's a warm a recording to begin with. I could not help to think that if all the Dynamics were left intact that perhaps for me it could have overall beat the MFSL. Please note I am not saying the compression in mastering phase was egregious as it by no means was, but dynamics are my thing and the reduction, even if small, to me was noticeable over the MOFI. If Rob or Shawn over at the new MFSL had got a crack at this polarity corrected mastered it could very well have been definitive, but still given the $11-15 cost this "new" CD is quite a deal.

 

I would agree. I have all the UK 12" singles that were released from the album, and they always sounded great, better than any vinyl or CD of the album. I don't find the new version to improve on those.

 

I'm not surprised in the least! Maybe the equipment people are listening on will make quite a difference. In all honesty there is nothing wrong with the original LP. I bought it new when it came out and never thought it sounded bad - of course, this is all relative to what other new 1980's records sounded like back then and I have "grown" with it over the years so it will never sound wrong to me now. I play this LP every 5 or 6 years - I am not a great fan of it anymore but as I said it sounds perfectly good to my ears and always has done. As my kit has improved so has this LP. Today, it sounds pretty amazing on my current t/table and although the new APE CD sounds probably about as good, it doesn't sound any better in any respect, polarity fixed or not. I agree with other posters who say the EQ'ing has as much to do with the "improved" sound as anything else.

 

As far as we know there are no multitracks available so I no SW magic is my guess. As of 2009 anyway… “You'll all be horrified to find out what I just found out about the original multitrack tapes for Skylarking, Oranges & Lemons and parts of English Settlement . . . Virgin can't find them! That's right, they've lost the original multitracks and have no idea where they are. The reason this came up is because Guitar Hero wanted to include a bunch of XTC songs in a future release and now it won't be possible. By the way, the parts of English Settlement that are gone forever are Senses Working Overtime and Ball & Chain. So much for remixing that album, then.” Here.

 

Need some advice here. I'm kind of 'green' to XTC....I have Oranges and Lemons from waaay back and love it. So my question is how does Skylarking compare to O&L and is it essential?