Original Led Zeppelin CD Manufacturer Question

This may be out there...
way out there!
(however, it might be perfect for the SHF)

I've got:

"I" SD 19126-2 DADC USA
"II" 19127-3 WEA USA
"HotH" 19130-2 JVC USA
"PG" SS 200-2 Victor Japan
"Presence" SS 8416-2 PDO USA

I've seen posted here at SHF that "all" LZ original ceedee's are "digital clones". Just, I've only seen that in reference to Japan, W.G., & U.S. discs. And beyond that, I'm one that acknowledges the manufacturing process can add jitter. Has anyone found one of the producers of original LZ CD's to better/superior too any others?

How many companies produced original LZ CD's?

Do not turn this into a original vs. remastered discussion.
Thank you.

 

I'm interested in this as well.

I had a JVC HOTH and it sounded beautiful, better than the target imo(but I didn't A /B them). Unfortunately, it skipped like crazy, so it had to go back.

I do remember a few members stating that the Japan 1st pressing sounded a little better than the others....no doubt these guys will be along in a moment.(The second pressing Forever Young 20P2 series should also be the same as the first).

It would be nice to hear from someone who has done a full comparison.

 

IIRC Barry Diament has mentioned before that he preferred the U.S. Specialty pressings (SRC in the matrix). This is awfully convenient since they seem to be the most common.

 

Barry said the SRCs were the closest sounding to his original, which he sent to 3 different mastering/pressing plants iirc.

 

Hi BIG ED,

Not sure where you saw it posted that "all LZ original CDs are 'digital clones'". Do you mean made from digital clones? The statement could be taken to suggest that the other CDs were not made from clones.

Just to clarify:
Whenever a CD master was created at Atlantic (and I believe this was true at Warners too), the original 1630 was kept in house. This original was copied (i.e. "cloned") for any plant that was making pressings. With an artist like Zep, we often had many plants making discs since no single plant could make enough to satisfy the amount required.

This was not unique to the Zep originals, it was standard practice for everything.
Now the question arises as to just what that means. Is the suggestion that there is sonic degradation simply because the plant worked from a clone? Based on my experience, the sonic losses engendered in the manufacturing process exceed any caused by making a clone. And the sonic losses engendered by the whole 1630 system exceed these. With this in mind, I never took cloning to be problem of any significance.

As to finding one of the producers "better/superior", when I made comparisons, at the time, I felt the ones made by Specialty (WEA) sounded a bit closer to what I sent the plant than the others I listened to.
(I've said before that I've never heard a pressing that sounds indistinguishable from the master it is made from and have never heard pressings from two plants that sound indistinguishable from each other.)

Hope this helps.

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

Barry, I thought BIG ED meant something different. I thought that he was talking about differences in manufacturing that might favor one disc over another, for example jitter that might be introduced in the manufacturing stage.

 

Hi Rocky,

Do you mean clones made at the plant?
I guess I'll have to wait until BIG ED clarifies.

As to differences in manufacturing, to my ears, they are certainly there.

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

As I've found out from those on this forum, WEA DADC US disc are somewhat hard to find. Sometime in 1987 Specialty (SRC) started pressing CD's in PA. So the window for US DADC's seems to be rather small. I believe that Japan for US or WG for US are far more common than the DADC's.

Speaking of eary DADC's; they are good low jitter pressings for the most part. IMO just as good as many of the early WG or Japan pressed CD's

Rick

 

Thanks once again for your clarity and professionalism. It is very much appreciated on this end.

 

Very cool!

Even cooler!!

Not exactly what I was looking for; butt maybe better!
(EZ'r)

From "my" stash:

"II" 19127-2 WEA" USA is a "SRC=20"
"III" SD 19128-2 WEA USA is a "SRC+11"
"IV" 19129-2 WEA USA is a "SRC-16"
"IV" 19129-2 WEA USA is a "SRC=17"
"HotH" 19130-2 WEA USA is a "SRC-08"

I like the:
"IV" SRC=17 over the "IV" SRC-16
&
"HotH" JVC over the "HotH" SRC-08
butt hay, that's just me on my system!

Any difference between:
"-", "+", & "=" ???

 

Hi, Barry!

It sure does & GREAT to have you here.
(Thanks too Steve, as well)

 

Hi BIG ED,

I think that just denotes the line at the plant (but I'm not sure).

What do you hear between the two versions of "IV" that you have?

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

Hi BIG ED,

So where do the "clones" come in?

("Send in the clones"? )

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

I'm not BIG ED, but I have heard differences between different SRC pressings for a few titles.

Usually it's a veiled/less veiled difference.

 

So "DADC"'s & "WEA"'s are the same?
No "SRC" on my "I" DADC: DIDX 798 11A6 w/Made in USA Digital Audio Disc Corp on the inner ring.
Thanks.

 

Hi George P,

I've heard folks talk about differences in the result from different LBRs used to cut the glass parts.

Interesting, isn't it? Some folks say differences in sonics between disks made at different pressing plants "can't" be and here we are discussing differences in sonics between disks made at the same plant.

I have not made any LBR comparisons myself (yet). It has been difficult enough finding a plant that can give me back something close to what I send them. (Most of the plants I've spoken with - dozens at this point - promise their disks sound exactly like the masters they're made from. My experience with their output does not support this assertion. Interestingly, the ones who produce the best disks I've heard, i.e. most faithful to the master, told me flat out there will be differences.)

It is gratifying to know there are folks out there listening carefully.
(Twenty five years ago, I thought it was just me and these two other guys.
This forum has shown me otherwise. )

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

They're not the same. (I think the poster meant WEA discs pressed by DADC.)
DADC was in Indiana. Owned by Sony.
SRC was in Olyphant, PA. Owned by Warner.

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

I heard it too

 

Hope I'm not wasting your time w/all all this minutia!
I have to be VERY careful here, as I'm speak to minute differences, if that.
Maybe slightly tighter if not less boomy bass. I'm also bias toward packaging (sick! I know) the 17 has the old tray (larger teeth on the spindle & different tint, as well as framing on the cover photo. The 17 tint tends to be more washed out & the framing shows the nail the picture hangs on where the 16 does not (stupid, huh?). When you consider playing one, taking it out, inserting the other, waiting for it to play... I think one HAS to be aware of psychological inferences, that may/will play into ones conclusions.
To me its more the JVC "HotH" vs. the WEA "HotH" that sound different. With that slightly tighter/less boomy bass on the JVC. Some may prefer the WEA; as (too me) the WEA on my system has more bass 'energy' (at the cost, on my system, of being a bit more boomy).

If you don't mind Barry, what should one (I) look for (in the differences between pressing plants and/or digital clones).

(my mentioning in the opening post about "digital clones" was in reference too "all" LZ CD's being digital "copies" of one another. Thanks again to clarifying that mis-statement)

 

Good one.
This is fantastic!
So much info, this forum is "The Best".

And you prefer the WEA, right Barry?
Thanks, again & again...

Well at least now I can sell that DADC for some outrageous price on eBay, cause its a '1st issue'!

 

I have a JVC Physical Grafitti that I love.

 

There's some good information about the various codes and digits on SRC pressed discs in this thread.
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=146814

 

Have too agree!
Very happy too pick that one (two actually ) up for ten bucks.
However, don't have anything to compare it too.
Do you?

 

Good find. Dave.
Hope this thread doesn't overlap that one by too much.
If this has to be shut down (I understand),; could it be combined w/the original?
Thx Gorts!

 

If the plant is copying one CD to make another, I'd move on to the next plant.

As to what to look for, it is difficult if not impossible, unless you have access to the master from which the CD was made. What I look for is a pressing that sounds like what I send the plant. When I get a pressing, I compare it to a CD-R ref I make for myself during the mastering session. (I also keep the original files, EQ'd versions, versions with the level changes. i.e. I save a copy of each step during the process. Nowadays, what I send the plant is a DDP file set - data, not audio. This eliminate at least one place where errors can creep into the process.)

Without access to the master the plant worked from, all you can really do is assess how you feel about the sound. You might like it, you might not or you might feel somewhere in between.

All that said, do keep in mind (as I think you already do) that pressing differences are relatively subtle. George P mentioned "veiling" and that sounds like as good a description as any to me. I've called it "a loss of focus and fine detail" that is present on the master. I said "relatively" subtle because I've heard pressings where the losses were immediate and I did not need to A/B against my ref to notice.

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com