Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: XTC Skylarking Corrected?

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Severn, MD
    Posts
    9,225

    XTC Skylarking Corrected?

    Digitally remastered, expanded and corrected edition of the British band's 1986 album. Some 28 years after its initial recording and release, Skylarking finally appears on CD as it was originally intended to sound. Andy Partridge - never entirely happy with the overall sound of the finished album - took it to award-winning mastering engineer John Dent, who noticed something that had never previously been spotted. Somewhere, possibly in the transfer from the multi-channel tape to the stereo master, a polarity had been reversed. This is not the same thing as a reversed left/right channel which puts a stereo picture out of phase and makes the sound unlistenable, but a much more difficult to pin down event that can be triggered by something as simple as a badly wired plug in the overall system which, nonetheless, removes some of the punch and presence from a finished recording. The album's cover and tracklisting have reverted to the band's original vision, making this the ultimate edition of one of the band's most popular albums.

    I noticed the Steven Wilson is producing 5.1 versions of the XTC catalog.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Re-deployed as of 22 July
    Posts
    0
    My original vinyl sounds fine, to my ears it doesn't need any correcting at all.

    But in all honesty, who other than the creator of an album or a super-engineer is going to notice something like a reversed polarity? More to the point, what type of listener even cares?

    My view is that if you change things like that now after so many years, listeners will think there is something wrong with the "corrected" version.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Firth View Post
    I noticed the Steven Wilson is producing 5.1 versions of the XTC catalog.
    He already did Nonsuch. Review here.

    His plan is to do the catalog....but is wholly dependent upon whether or not the multitracks can be found....

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterG View Post
    My original vinyl sounds fine, to my ears it doesn't need any correcting at all.

    But in all honesty, who other than the creator of an album or a super-engineer is going to notice something like a reversed polarity? More to the point, what type of listener even cares?

    My view is that if you change things like that now after so many years, listeners will think there is something wrong with the "corrected" version.
    As a listener who can hear the difference, who does care (as someone looking for the best sounding version available) and am very happy they released it, I couldn't disagree with you more.

    Just because you don't notice the difference doesn't mean nobody will. Just because you don't see value in the re-release doesn't mean there aren't others out there who do.

    I'm one of 'em. Had they not released it, would I have known the difference? No. But A/B the two versions and there is a distinct difference,.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Re-deployed as of 22 July
    Posts
    0
    Fair enough.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Severn, MD
    Posts
    9,225
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterG View Post
    My original vinyl sounds fine, to my ears it doesn't need any correcting at all.

    But in all honesty, who other than the creator of an album or a super-engineer is going to notice something like a reversed polarity? More to the point, what type of listener even cares?

    My view is that if you change things like that now after so many years, listeners will think there is something wrong with the "corrected" version.
    Please stop the only audiophiles can hear stuff. Go switch the polarity of one speaker relative to another. I thought it was just the compressed manner in which Todd produced, sucking the life out of the low end, producing an overly bright sound. By making the polarity correct, and using just the right amount of analog compression, this could be an incredible new release in the the digital domain.

  7. #7
    Progdog ThomasKDye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Vallejo, CA
    Posts
    1,012
    $22 on Amazon and that awful other cover that Andy Partridge thought was cute for some reason.

    I'm good for now.
    "Arf." -- Frank Zappa, "Beauty Knows No Pain" (live version)

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Re-deployed as of 22 July
    Posts
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Firth View Post
    Please stop the only audiophiles can hear stuff. Go switch the polarity of one speaker relative to another. I thought it was just the compressed manner in which Todd produced, sucking the life out of the low end, producing an overly bright sound. By making the polarity correct, and using just the right amount of analog compression, this could be an incredible new release in the the digital domain.
    Like I said in my first post: Sounds fine to me
    Like I said in my second post: Fair enough.

  9. #9
    Member progholio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    st louis
    Posts
    786
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterG View Post
    Like I said in my first post: Sounds fine to me
    Like I said in my second post: Fair enough.
    I'm with PeterG on this - I thought the original sounded well enough after all these years.

    So far my socks haven't been knocked off by any of these uber-remasters.

    I'm only interested in the Hawkwind Warriors reissue mainly because of the scarce availability in the past (just a little put off by the expanded fluff that's built into the price).

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Severn, MD
    Posts
    9,225
    Quote Originally Posted by progholio View Post
    I'm with PeterG on this - I thought the original sounded well enough after all these years.

    So far my socks haven't been knocked off by any of these uber-remasters.

    I'm only interested in the Hawkwind Warriors reissue mainly because of the scarce availability in the past (just a little put off by the expanded fluff that's built into the price).
    I think that when these tapes were converted to digital it was expected that the bass drum and guitar would have more presence or impact. However, it was discovered that it was polarity that produced a cancellation between speakers. If you listen on headphones you will not hear this effect.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by progholio View Post
    I'm with PeterG on this - I thought the original sounded well enough after all these years.

    So far my socks haven't been knocked off by any of these uber-remasters.

    I'm only interested in the Hawkwind Warriors reissue mainly because of the scarce availability in the past (just a little put off by the expanded fluff that's built into the price).
    This isn't an uber-remaster, and the Hawkwind is not just a remaster but a remix. Steven Wilson had nothing to do with the Corrected Polarity reissue of Skylarking because he did not remix it.

    This is about correcting a mistake that has existed since the beginning, so should not be spoken of in the same breath as the other ones. Whether or not you care enough to want it is, of course, up to you, I am only posting this so that it's clear to others reading this thread that this has nothing to do with reissues like the Hawkwind....and also your use of the term "uber-remaster" is a little misleading, since what Crimson, ELP and a variety of other projects Wilson has been involved in are, are remixes as well as remasters. Each serves a distinct and separate purpose when it comes to the sound of the finished product....in fact, Wilson could, theoretically, do a bang-up job with a remix and it could then end up sounding like shite if the person doing the mastering decided to compress it or denoise it or any of the other bad things that sometimes happen with contemporary remasters - but, for the most part (and I know I am welcoming a comment from Jeff C, so no worries, Jeff; I'd feel ignored if ya didn't ) this has not been the case on the reissues with which Wilson has been associated, even though he's no control over that piece of the puzzle.

    So want to be clear that I'm not being critical of either progholio or PeterG - like I said, whether or not you choose to go for these things is up to your ears, your inclination and your wallet; I just want to set the record straight on what this new version of Skylarking is...and what it isn't.

    Now, since Wilson has begun remixing XTC with Nonsuch, it's possible that he might do Skylarking...though I'd be surprised, frankly, since if they chose to release this corrected polarity edition and had the multi-tracks (the defining criterion as to whether or not a remix is possible), I'd have expected them to wait to release the corrected polarity edition with a new Wilson remix. And since Nonsuch is affiliated with Panegyric - also responsible for the Yes and Crimson remixes, and whose reputation is super solid when it comes to reissues (as opposed, say, to EMI, whose price for the super deluxe Floyd boxes are bloody close to the price of, for example, the LTIA Crimson box, which gives you a whole lot more for your money) - I could be wrong but I suspect that this is the case.

    Cheers!
    John

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Severn, MD
    Posts
    9,225
    Quote Originally Posted by jkelman View Post
    This isn't an uber-remaster,

    This is about correcting a mistake that has existed since the beginning, so should not be spoken of in the same breath as the other ones. Whether or not you care enough to want it is, of course, up to you, I am

    Now, since Wilson has begun remixing XTC with Nonsuch, it's possible that he might do Skylarking...though I'd be surprised, frankly, since if they chose to release this corrected polarity edition and had the multi-tracks (the defining criterion as to whether or not a remix is possible), I'd have expected them to wait to release the corrected polarity edition with a new Wilson remix. And since Nonsuch is affiliated with Panegyric - also responsible for the Yes and Crimson remixes, and whose reputation is super solid when it comes to reissues (as opposed, say, to EMI, whose price for the super deluxe Floyd boxes are bloody close to the price of, for example, the LTIA Crimson box, which gives you a whole lot more for your money) - I could be wrong but I suspect that this is the case.

    Cheers!
    John
    The corrected version is here and the description I started this thread with:

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00IXL...aw_d_dsc_music

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Severn, MD
    Posts
    9,225
    A comment at the amazon site:
    Remaster Is Excellent!
    By Intergalatic Purveyor - May 13, 2014
    Amazon Verified Purchase
    The album is spectacular, this is not a comment about the music at all. I did an A/B comparison with the MFSL Gold disc version against this new corrected polarity version. I bought this version in the 90s because it had such better sound than the original Geffen release issued in the States. There is no comparison between the two. They both are mastered at a nice level, not hot or compressed, in fact the levels are so close to identical I couldn't tell the difference. But that is the only way in which they are the same. The new version has a much better stereo field, more detail with the instruments, better highs, lows and midrange, voices, instruments all sound better. The MFSL disc sounds murky compared to this version. I never bought the 2002 remaster so I can't say how different they might be, but in my case, I am very happy with this release.

  14. #14
    Unless we are 100% certain that the ONLY thing which was changed was the polarity, this release doesn't prove any point about inverted polarity being audible.

    Even many "audiophiles" argue that it isn't.

    I don't really have an opinion on this, just making what is perhaps an obvious point.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Severn, MD
    Posts
    9,225
    Quote Originally Posted by JeffCarney View Post
    Unless we are 100% certain that the ONLY thing which was changed was the polarity, this release doesn't prove any point about inverted polarity being audible.

    Even many "audiophiles" argue that it isn't.

    I don't really have an opinion on this, just making what is perhaps an obvious point.
    If most of the audiophile speakers pay attention to time/phase alignment across spectrum, then reversing polarity relative to the manner in which the sound was collected will cause those portions of the soundstage in the center to cancel (L-R). Since bass is usually centered, it will change with some null and some enhancement, in general imbalanced. If ones acoustics or is system is already imbalanced, then polarity won't make a difference, or if you listen in headphones.

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Re-deployed as of 22 July
    Posts
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Firth View Post
    If most of the audiophile speakers pay attention to time/phase alignment across spectrum, then reversing polarity relative to the manner in which the sound was collected will cause those portions of the soundstage in the center to cancel (L-R). Since bass is usually centered, it will change with some null and some enhancement, in general imbalanced. If ones acoustics or is system is already imbalanced, then polarity won't make a difference, or if you listen in headphones.
    The more you describe it the more I'm reminded of two old sayings:

    "spending a pound to save a penny" i.e. is the money they are spending on this really going to lead to vast improvements and increased sales of the album?
    "using a sledgehammer to crack a nut"

    I'm listening to it now on the original vinyl and what I hear is a stereo sound being produced by my left speaker and my right speaker. What am I missing?
    Last edited by PeterG; 07-08-2014 at 11:57 AM.

  17. #17
    Member progholio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    st louis
    Posts
    786
    Quote Originally Posted by Firth View Post
    A comment at the amazon site:
    Remaster Is Excellent!
    By Intergalatic Purveyor - May 13, 2014
    Amazon Verified Purchase
    The album is spectacular, this is not a comment about the music at all. I did an A/B comparison with the MFSL Gold disc version against this new corrected polarity version. I bought this version in the 90s because it had such better sound than the original Geffen release issued in the States. There is no comparison between the two. They both are mastered at a nice level, not hot or compressed, in fact the levels are so close to identical I couldn't tell the difference. But that is the only way in which they are the same. The new version has a much better stereo field, more detail with the instruments, better highs, lows and midrange, voices, instruments all sound better. The MFSL disc sounds murky compared to this version. I never bought the 2002 remaster so I can't say how different they might be, but in my case, I am very happy with this release.
    Sounds like the reviewer makes an interesting case, worth checking out.

    My initial reaction I made earlier was to the first sentence of the original post which said "Digitally remastered, expanded and corrected edition of the British band's 1986 album".

    So in the 28 year history of this album there was a Fidelity Labs version, a 2002 remaster, and now in 2014 we have the 'polarity corrected' version. One has to ask, why wasn't such a glaring mistake dealt with sooner?

    I'm just finding this saturation of re-issues, remasters, expanded yadda yadda to be a bit much (and so far disappointing). In the end I could always go back to my original vinyl - the way it was meant to be heard in the first place.

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Re-deployed as of 22 July
    Posts
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by progholio View Post
    One has to ask, why wasn't such a glaring mistake dealt with sooner?
    I would suggest that the answer is in the question i.e. it wasn't such a glaring mistake at all.

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Firth View Post
    The corrected version is here and the description I started this thread with:

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00IXL...aw_d_dsc_music
    Yes, but my assumption (perhaps my mistake and if so, sorry) was that you were lumping this, as an "uber-remaster," with the recent spate of remixed and remastered albums - some by Wilson but by no means all - because you then brought up the Hawkwind album that Wilson remixed. I also wanted to, as I said, make things clear for others reading the thread, not necessarily you, since you'd already been clear that your mind was made up

    But Amazon is also mistaken; this new corrected polarity adjusts the track order but is not expanded at all from the 2001 remaster, which had the same 15 tracks, but the final three were rearranged in sequence and that, afaik, is all:

    2001:
    13. "Dying"
    14. "Sacrificial Bonfire"
    15. "Dear God"

    Corrected Polarity:
    13. Dear God
    14. Dying
    15. Sacrificial Bonfire

    So I suppose I should take this up with Amazon

    Plus, Amazon may have had it at $22.99 but now has it for $17.99. You can do better at Burning Shed where it's only 6.25GBP, which is where I got it. Can't recall shipping cost but it was very reasonable, as BS usually is.

    Anyway, if you thought I was being critical, my apologies; like I said, just wanted to inject some clarity into the situation...and, even here, do so more because Amazon is misrepresenting the record as being expanded.

    Cheers!
    John

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterG View Post
    Is the money they are spending on this really going to lead to vast improvements and increased sales of the album?
    Sometimes the artist does it because he/she wants the correct version out there. I don't know Andy Partridge or Colin Moulding, but based on what I've read, that seems to be the case here. I am sure they hope folks will buy it, but as Partridge has demonstrated with his Fuzzy Warbles series, sometimes it's more an artistic decision than a money-making one (not sure how many of those FW boxes sold, though I was one who bought it....and love it).

  21. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by progholio View Post
    I'm just finding this saturation of re-issues, remasters, expanded yadda yadda to be a bit much (and so far disappointing). In the end I could always go back to my original vinyl - the way it was meant to be heard in the first place.
    Not sure if I agree with you on "the way it was meant to be heard in the first place," since at one point it was the only media in town but ultimately there were, before CDs, cassette and 8-track versions. Not sure if these different media were mastered differently (you'd hope they would be), but there's nothing to support your suggestion that because music was first released on vinyl, that's how it was meant to be heard. The same argument could be made, then, for wax cylinder recordings. Or that bassists who didn't have the benefit of amplification back in the '50s, say, were meant to be heard (or, more often, not heard) that way. I know a bassist in Ottawa who uses gut strings and no amp because "that's how Charlie Mingus did it." I am pretty sure that if Mingus had been handed an amp in 1950, he would have used it.

    My point being that music may have been mastered for the medium it was on at the time, but as high definition masters are revealing more and more about that same music, there's nothing that dictates because an album first came out on a specific medium, that it was meant for that medium and that moving it to another medium - well, of course, and that's the real issue - is somehow wrong. It isn't. Neil Young has never liked any media until recently with the advent of Blu Ray and high resolution music files. So he would argue that After the Goldrush never sounded the way he wanted it to sound until now....

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Severn, MD
    Posts
    9,225
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterG View Post
    The more you describe it the more I'm reminded of two old sayings:

    "spending a pound to save a penny" i.e. is the money they are spending on this really going to lead to vast improvements and increased sales of the album?
    "using a sledgehammer to crack a nut"

    I'm listening to it now on the original vinyl and what I hear is a stereo sound being produced by my left speaker and my right speaker. What am I missing?
    Try reversing polarity of one of those speakers.

  23. #23
    "Always ready with the ray of sunshine"

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •