Good info on Columbia vinyl matrix codes

from forum friend Michael Fremer over on AnalogPlanet

Cracking the Columbia Records Code

 

Good stuff.

 

Seconded.

I came to similar conclusions on comparing many, many Columbia cuts from the 60s-80s.

 

Awesome, something even I can understand about this for a change!

 

Sorry to nitpick, but that article is not entirely accurate. I know of examples where the second part of this statement is incorrect:
"According to him: 'An initial lacquer order was 6 sets plus a ref for QC and 4 Dolby copies (of course. 1A&B went to Pitman (N.J.), 1C&D to Terre Haute, (IN) 1E&F went to Santa Maria (CA).'"
Those lacquer numbers/letters were not always sent to those designated plants.

The part about a typical initial lacquer order being 6 sets etc. is correct. For LP's that Columbia anticipated a high demand, the initial order may have been several lacquers more than 6. Pink Floyd The Wall is a good example.

 

Really good info, but I'm not sure I buy the offered explanation wholesale. Several questions comes to mind:

1. If we accept the assignments of A/B, C/D, E/F lacquers going to the same plants, how does one account for a 1A/1D pressing? One LP wasn't pressed at 2 plants. This is probably the norm. Rarely do I see Columbia pressings "paired" by A/B, C/D, E/F lacquers. I also suspect that the lacquers were more dynamically assigned and not the same letter lacquers always going to the same plant.

2. What about G-L?

3. What about doubled-up letters? These are referred in the post but no explanation offered. How do we explain a 2AB or 5AE pressing?

4. I'd love to know the meaning of the Gxx inscriptions that started in the late 70s/early 80s.

 

"You can find a great deal of information online about matrix codes and their meaning. Unfortunately some of it is incorrect.
For example a post on the often useful Steve Hoffman Forums claims that Columbia “cuttings” are A-1st, B-2nd, C-3rd through L-11th and then AA is 12th “cutting” with AB being 13th. AA through AL would be cuttings 12-22, BA through BL would be 23-33, and so on.
However, that is incorrect..."

Where is the accused post? I can't find it...

 

That post looks to be #10 on this thread: columbia stamper info needed

 

Anyway, every record collector will continue to look for "early" letters (A and B). The practice of cutting many lacquers serially and simultaneously (via the "master and slave"system) was used by many major record labels (not by Columbia only).

 

When I first brought up the codes for how many lacquers cut (#A-#L, #AA-#AL and so on), it was a cumulative amount amassed over all the years the record was in print - and specifically referred to the protocol at Columbia's own New York studios, with the machine stamped type in the deadwax, as in effect since at least 1952 and into the '80's. (Lacquers cut by others, which have had dash numbers ranging from -1M to -1P or probably higher letters, are not counted in this calculation.) To which plant a certain set (-1A & -1B, -1C & -1D, -1E & -1F) is shipped, is just a part of the equation; but those would have been the first six lacquers cut, two of which each went to a different plant. But as for -1A/-1D dash numbers on one record, it's also not uncommon for metal parts from one plant to wind up at another. How many Pitmans, for example, has one had over the years, with one side of the deadwax suggesting Terre Haute and/or Santa Maria?

I also brought up on that page, that other set(s) of lacquers, besides what went to the U.S. plants in question, were shipped north of the border to the Quality Records pressing plant in Canada between 1954 and 1971 for pressing of Columbia product there. (1971 was when Canadian Columbia set up its own mastering and pressing facilities at their Don Mills, Ontario HQ.) Whether they were #G-#H is anyone's guess.

 

@W.B. , no one, anywhere, has ever questioned your competence and usefulness of your posts. Thanks. Again and again.

 

No one, that is, except perhaps Michael Fremer.

 

Michael Fremer just wrote the article. It was Columbia Records cutting engineer, Phil Brown who contacted him with the information.

 

I wonder, how many of the records I have from that period did Phil cut? But seriously, it seems that people "in the business" have a different memory from what us collectors have accrued. I know about the first six lacquers for a title going to three different plants and everything. I can't tell ya' how many times Sony archivists have told me I knew more about what they put out than they did! And I only know a small fraction thereof!

 

You should post your statement over on analogplanet. See what they say.

 

I like Mike Fremer but I also like clowns. They are entertaining (and sometimes has useful information) but I don't take them 100% seriously. As for me, I don't like being on stage. Perhaps, W.B. should post on analogplanet since W.B. definitely knows his stuff (based on empirical and deconstructionist facts)!

 

W.B. has already made a number of excellent posts in the comments section of that article.

 

Oh, I have posted. Check on the link above, you'll see my contributions (I am on analogplanet as 'W B').
- EDIT: I see @jon9091 has read them.

 

Yes...great info @W.B.


Btw, my intention in linking to that article here was definitely not to shoot down their expert, or shoot down our expert(s)...but to share information in hopes we all learn more about this stuff.

 

I think that Fremer is on the right track with this and I ALWAYS love W.B.'s wealth of information. But I have to disagree with one thing in the article, even though it may be nitpicking.

1A is really the first cut. 1B is really the second cut. Yes, they most likely have the same EQ moves and settings (even though we don't 100% know for sure unless we were in the room) ... but the first time the record was cut to lacquer was on the 1A. The concept of 'the other ones done at the same time' is true in the fact that they were probably all done on the same day. But.. it never says in the article that Columbia had a master / slave system in the style of places like The Mastering Lab. This was most likely because Columbia was a union shop and union regulations may have not allowed for a 'robotic' cutting process. A person had to probably make the actual cutting per union rules.

I try to get 1A copies when I can, but I don't frown upon other low, single letter cuts when I can find them.

Its really just semantics and the way you look at it.. rather as a 'cutting day/process' or as an 'individual' lettered cut.

But, in actuality.. A=1, B=2, etc.. One comes after two, therefore being the second time it was cut to lacquer.

The tape still has to be played each time... F= the 5th time the master tape was played to cut it.... and so on...

 

The Mastering Lab would have based their "master/slave" cutting system on what Capitol used in their Hollywood and New York studios, from what I understand.

But Columbia's setup sounds similar to RCA's where that studio would have cut masters with '-#S' dash numbers ('S' signifying 'stamper'), with sets for different plants (-1S/-2S, -3S/-4S, and -5S/-6S).

 

In an effort to solidify my own understanding, I'm going to attempt to answer my own questions from above:

Metalwork from various plants moved around a lot, thus all sorts of combinations were the norm. It seems everyone basically agrees with the A/B, C/D, E/F assignment to the 3 Columbia plants at the time. Obviously , many titles required more than 6 lacquers, so the G, H, J... lacquers may have been sent to any pressing plant depending on need.

Answered above.

The doubled-up letters are simply the continuation of the lacquer enumeration with, AB being the 13th lacquer and so on. The 2 and 5 in this case represent tape/mastering changes or copies.

Still would!

Thinking of practical applications for this knowledge, the lowest stamped side on commercial US releases of Pink Floyd's Animals is 2B. This means, then, that the first lacquer cut was probably discarded due to a problem, and also that the first tape wasn't usable to cut lacquers from.

Another one -- Billy Joel's The Stranger. The lowest matrix Masterdisk/RL once can find is 2A. This would be because the first tape was used for Ted Jensen's cutting at Sterling (1A, 1B...) and later a tape copy (#2) was sent to Masterdisk for Bob to master.

Do I have it straight? It would be amazing if someone put together a comprehensive reference, similar to what Valin did for RCA Living Stereo.

 

I keep thinking someone should attempt to collate all this information and produce an actual reference book. Take note @W.B., I think there's a decent market for something like this if you self-published with a Go Fund Me. I'd volunteer to help edit

 

I can't figure out The Stranger either..

My two copies: Sterling (maybe Ted Jensen, but no initials) 3BJ / 4CF .... Masterdisk RL both sides 2E / 3F.

So they used yet another tape copy for side 2 (#3) with Ludwig.. and then eventually sent the job back to Sterling for later cuts with yet another tape copy in the 4, but used a 3 on side 1..

 

Mikey is great and all, but W.B. wrote the book on the subject.

https://www.amazon.com/Columbia-Records-popular-discography-1939-1974/dp/0964628309