Was "Electric Ladyland" on Track Records Really a LOUD CUT?

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by Stefano G., Mar 3, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Stefano G.

    Stefano G. Ab alto, speres alteri quod feceris. Thread Starter

    Surely, the 1st UK pressing of "Electric Ladyland" is hard to find on Track Records label, but the purpose of this thread is to try to clarify whether at the time of its first release it happened something similar to what soon would happen as regards the second Led Zeppelin album: due to some speculation so far neither confirmed nor denied altogether, it would seem that the first UK press on Track label was a LOUD CUT: ie it was mastered in a more powerful way than the US edition and than the subsequent UK edition on Polydor red label (the 1st Track edition was mastered by Polydor, too).

    I have a strange UK Polydor red label edition, having the Track catalog (613008/613009) stamped in the trail-off, but scretched out...

    Has anyone done a comparison test? and possibly, is there a way to distinguish copies having the loud cut without having to listen to them? (it seems that not all the Track copies had the loud cut...).
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2015
    Dino likes this.
  2. Stefano G.

    Stefano G. Ab alto, speres alteri quod feceris. Thread Starter

    Well: just to add some other detail, there are two types of "Electric Ladyland" Track labels:

    The earliest one, shows "Electric Ladyland" overlapping the center indent as following:



    [​IMG]



    But a later Track label exists too: it has "Electric Ladyland" outside of the indent and the unit of text has moved down, so that "Jimi Hendrix" is closer to "A.Schroeder Music" which is now closer to "Made in Britain" at the foot of the label; the later pressings also have the statement "Two Record Set (Set. No. 2657-001)" printed on labels:



    [​IMG]
     
    BIG ED, Dino and crozcat like this.
  3. MONOLOVER

    MONOLOVER Forum Resident

    Location:
    UPPSALA, SWEDEN
    First UK with "corrected" matrixes is certainly loud with stunning audio and a "being there" feeling. I've heard later editions with a more compact sound, but not sure exactly when they did that.

    More on the first press issue here

    http://monolover.blogspot.se/2013/05/the-jimi-hendrix-experienceelectric.html

    [​IMG]
     
    BIG ED, crozcat and Stefano G. like this.
  4. MONOLOVER

    MONOLOVER Forum Resident

    Location:
    UPPSALA, SWEDEN
    BIG ED likes this.
  5. Stefano G.

    Stefano G. Ab alto, speres alteri quod feceris. Thread Starter

    From my point of view, it is quite strange that the Led Zeppelin II by Bob Ludwig is an ultra-famous edition, whereas we never talk about this other loud cut...
     
  6. Stefano G.

    Stefano G. Ab alto, speres alteri quod feceris. Thread Starter

    The UK issue was mastered, produced and distributed for Track by Polydor Records; in those years, Polydor mastered so many masterpieces, also famous because of their excellent audio quality: King Crimson, Led Zeppelin, Jimi Hendrix, Blind Faith...but: who mastered "Electric Ladyland" in the UK?
     
  7. back2vinyl

    back2vinyl Forum Resident

    Location:
    London, UK
    There's no "loud cut" and there's no comparison with LZII. There are simply different masterings with each reissue of the album, such as you get with any LP. The Polydor reissue came years later and of course it's a different mastering - it has a rolled-off top end which makes it smoother-sounding than the original and possibly brings out a bit more detail but also makes it less electrifying. That doesn't make the Track mastering a "loud cut" - it's just a different EQ choice, nothing more.
     
  8. Stefano G.

    Stefano G. Ab alto, speres alteri quod feceris. Thread Starter

    Well: on discogs we can read as following:
    "The 'hi-dynamic' of the mix was found to cause needles to 'jump' on less expensive phonographs of the time. In simple terms, Polydor repressed a 'lower mix' for the Track releases, followed by a third press on Track and then into the Polydor issues."

    ...it seems to me that the story is very similar to the story of the famous Led Zep II RL.
    Now: many collectors agree with this statement: there were two mastering works by Polydor for Track Records: the first one would be a loud cut and the second one would be a "regular" cut, remembering that Polydor mastered all the Track editions.

    I understand that @back2vinyl does not agree. Some other opinion out there?
     
    BIG ED and MONOLOVER like this.
  9. back2vinyl

    back2vinyl Forum Resident

    Location:
    London, UK
    Well, I have the very first UK Track pressing exactly as described by Discogs, sitting right in front of me as I write. I also have a first pressing of the later Electric Ladyland Part One on the Track label and in fact this is a different mastering but with more top end and more bottom end than the original (as measured in software) so if anything I'd say the later pressing is the hotter in terms of EQ! I will measure the volume of each album just out of curiosity but that's gonna have to Wait Until Tomorrow (oops, wrong album).
     
    Stefano G. and MONOLOVER like this.
  10. hvbias

    hvbias Midrange magic

    Location:
    Northeast
    I have the original pressing and the UK Track Part 1 and 2 with the alternative covers (I believe Part 1 has Bilbo in the dead wax). I do not hear a huge difference in mastering between the two. I will need to double check the matrix info on my UK Track.

    Is this information from the Discogs entry correct?

    Disc 1: 613008 Side A; Cat# (613008 A) [inverted over 613008]
    Disc 1: 613008 Side D; Cat# (613008 B) [inverted over 613008]
    Disc 2: 613009 Side B; Cat# (613009 A) [inverted over 613009]
    Disc 2: 613009 Side C; Cat# (613008 B) [inverted over 613009]
    Defect in matrix stamping on this early issue, altered by hand. This typical vinyl is:
    Side A: 61300##8 A//1 12 10
    Side D: 51 61300#8 B//1 1
    Side B: 10 61300#9 A#//1 1 ("10" has the '1' backwards, or it's an oddly stamped "CJ" upside down)
    Side C: 61300#9 #B#//1 12 10
    [The #, #8 or #9 indicates scratch-out]


    With the RL LZ2 that one is significantly better than the others, including the Piros which some people say is close. I don't think it is.
     
    Stefano G. likes this.
  11. Stefano G.

    Stefano G. Ab alto, speres alteri quod feceris. Thread Starter

    Well: in 1968 Track Records UK issued Jimi Hendrix's "Electric Ladyland" as a double LP (the famous "Nude Cover" edition) and because of the high cost of double LPs, they also issued it as two single LPs (called Part 1 & Part 2) with unique album covers.
    Chronologically, the true first UK pressing of this album was the double LP "Nude Cover" version with catalog #613008/613009
    The second UK pressing was the single LP Part 1 with the famous "End of the World" cover with catalog #613010
    The single LP Part 2 album was released later with catalog #613017

    These editions have different catalog numbers, different trail-off and different Track labels and probably different mastering works, too.

    Now, it's very important and interesting to compare the sound between the double LP "Nude Cover" edition and the single LP (Part 1 & Part 2) version, but the dilemma proposed by this thread is another and it's as following: as regards the double LP "Nude Cover" UK edition #613008/613009, is there a difference in sound between the first pressed copies and later ones?
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2015
  12. Stefano G.

    Stefano G. Ab alto, speres alteri quod feceris. Thread Starter

    Many thanks! I think this topic is very interesting and usually little discussed.
     
  13. Stefano G.

    Stefano G. Ab alto, speres alteri quod feceris. Thread Starter

    However, this thread might finally be the occasion for a comparison between the various "Electric Ladyland" UK issues of that era:
    1. the absolute 1st UK pressing had A1//B1//A1//B1 matrix numbers, catalog #613008/613009, Track labels without the statement Two Record Set (Set. No. 2657-001)
    2. the 2nd UK pressing had A1//B2//A2//B2 matrix numbers, catalog #613008/613009, Track labels with the statement Two Record Set (Set. No. 2657-001)
    3. the single LP version (Part 1 & Part 2), catalog #613010 and #613017
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2015
  14. Stefano G.

    Stefano G. Ab alto, speres alteri quod feceris. Thread Starter

    You have the single LP version (Part 1 & Part 2) and the double LP version with the "Nude Cover": but which Track "Nude Cover" issue do you have exactly? the A1//B1//A1//B1 version, or the A1//B2//A2//B2 one?
    Thanks
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2015
  15. muffmasterh

    muffmasterh Forum Resident

    Location:
    East London U.K
    I cannot comment on the audio but the earliest labels do not have the set number on them, but they last a couple of years, the set number labels arrive in 1970....
     
    BIG ED and Stefano G. like this.
  16. Stefano G.

    Stefano G. Ab alto, speres alteri quod feceris. Thread Starter

    Many thanks.
    Now it is really very important to emphasize that copies that have the statement Two Record Set (Set. No. 2657-001) printed on labels, also were pressed starting from subsequent lacquers: these copies were pressed no longer starting from the A1//B1//A1//B1 lacquers but they were pressed starting from the A1//B2//A2//B2 lacquers: only the lacquer of the first side of the first record seems to be exactly the same (A//1).

    The question raised by this thread is as follows: do the A2//B2 lacquers sound exactly like the A1//B1 ones?
     
    BIG ED likes this.
  17. john lennonist

    john lennonist There ONCE was a NOTE, PURE and EASY...

    I don't have a UK First Pressing, but I do have the UK Track Label single LP Part 1.

    FWIW, stampers are:

    A: (machine stamped) 613010 A∇2 420 1 2 1
    B: (machine stamped) 613010 B∇2 420 1 2 1



    I also have a nice German copy of the double LP, but have never A/B'ed them...

    .
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2015
  18. karmicg

    karmicg Forum Resident

    Location:
    new york
    I have a nice clean copy with the second lacquers and it sounds amazing to me. I don't have a first press to compare it to, but can't imagine it's that much better.
     
    Stefano G. likes this.
  19. back2vinyl

    back2vinyl Forum Resident

    Location:
    London, UK
    OK, first I need to apologise because I think I spoke with too much certainty whereas in fact I'm now less certain than I was.

    I've been in this hobby many years and this is the first I've heard about a loud cut of Electric Ladyland. But Discogs does indeed make this claim and I think it will be interesting to find out if there's any truth in it or if they're just mythologising the first pressing.

    The key to this puzzle, as Stefano G. says, is to distinguish between the first two pressings of the Track double LP which came quite close to each other.

    As far as I know the labels don't change between these first two pressings but there's an easy way to tell them apart by the matrix info. The very first pressing has a printed matrix number on Side C but the second pressing that came very soon afterwards has the entire matrix number on Side C scratched out (except the 1 at the end) and it has been replaced by a hand-written number.

    Mine is an A1/B1 A1/B1 and I thought I had the very first pressing but in fact mine has the hand-written Side C so unfortunately I have the second.

    The very first pressing is the one with the blue writing inside the album sleeve and is extremely expensive to buy. I'm old enough to have bought a copy when it first came out but many years ago I gave it to a friend who lives in another city. Next time I see him I'll borrow it from him to check it out but until then there's not much more I can say.

    Incidentally, if you go to Discogs you can get the full info on the matrix numbers if you go to the Versions page and check out each version in turn.
     
    BIG ED and Stefano G. like this.
  20. Stefano G.

    Stefano G. Ab alto, speres alteri quod feceris. Thread Starter

    Exactly!

    Your opinion is respectable, but I do not agree with this way of thinking: based on my opinion, the really important thing is the lacquer number: a simple correction by hand can be performed at any time during the plating/pressing process and it has no impact on the audio quality of the lacquer.

    Again, I do not agree: the outer covers were delivered, in batches of thousands, to pressing plants and it is absolutely not true that the earliest printed covers were always combined with the earliest pressed copies of the album: the fact that a particular type of cover is more rare and sought rather than another one, does not mean that it was printed first.

    At any rate: you have the double LP A1/B1 A1/B1 issue and you said that, based on your ears, it has a less powerful sound than the single LP version (Part 1 & Part 2): I think that yours is a very important testimony.
    Any further opinion is appreciated...Thanks!
     
    Gordon Johnson and BIG ED like this.
  21. muffmasterh

    muffmasterh Forum Resident

    Location:
    East London U.K
    [QUOTE="

    Again, I do not agree: the outer covers were delivered, in batches of thousands, to pressing plants and it is absolutely not true that the earliest printed covers were always combined with the earliest pressed copies of the album: the fact that a particular type of cover is more rare and sought rather than another one, does not mean that it was printed first.

    ![/QUOTE]
    This is totally true, however the blue txt sleeves are the earliest but as you say if the vinyl correct was made before the sleeve correction blue txt sleeves could have later discs....i personally doubt it but it is possible
     
    Stefano G. likes this.
  22. AaronW

    AaronW Senior Member

    Location:
    Los Angeles
  23. muffmasterh

    muffmasterh Forum Resident

    Location:
    East London U.K
    yes and i do not buy it, firstly if what he says is true then there should be white text versions with the larger Mitch and Noel pics. The piece says they are two separate errors but why who come you only see both errors together.

    I am prepared to accept that the blue colour may be something to do with the inking but like i say the blue copies only come with the larger pics as far as i am aware.

    Lastly my understanding was that the sleeve was corrected pre-release, this is totally consistent with copies of the corrected sleeve being available on the first day and also not in-consistent with Jimmy's copy, I stand to be corrected on this but was not Jimmy in the states when the LP was released and did he not have a pink fit when he found about the UK artwork ??
     
    BIG ED likes this.
  24. marcb

    marcb Senior Member

    Location:
    DC area
    My experience is that Discogs is nothing more than a rough guide. I would take the accuracy, completeness, and/or veracity of the details on the site with a huge grain of salt.
     
    Gordon Johnson and BIG ED like this.
  25. marcb

    marcb Senior Member

    Location:
    DC area
    I couldn't agree more with these two statements...particularly the part about outer covers.

    Folks far too often assume (or want to believe) that the productions of phonograph records was a linear process where all records in the first pressing had exactly the same matrixes, same covers, same labels, same fonts, etc. The reality is that it was a far more random process where production and financial efficiency/expediency was more important than accuracy and consistency. One, "errors" weren't always first (if "first" could even be identified), and two, they were often caught and "fixed" before the entire 1st press run was finished and released. But they still got used rather that get discarded.

    More often than not than not, a first pressing isn't differentiated by the error, but rather the error is a subset of the first pressing.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine