Rubber Soul mono vinyl-the loud cut

What were the complaints about the -4/-4 cuts and why was she told to cut the next ones the same if there were complaints ?]

 

They are not second generation dubs, they ARE the final mix masters.

The note doesn't elaborate, but can only assume it was for the usual complaint of jumping at certain points when played back on the primitive equipment of the day.

 

It wasn't. The "loud cut" is well documented.

 

I believe it went something like this:

- I want to complain.
- You want to complain? Look at these shoes; I've only had them three weeks and the heels are worn right through.
- No, I want to complain about ...
- If you complain nothing happens; you might just as well not bother.
- Oh!
- Oh my back hurts, it's not a very fine day and I'm sick and tired of this office.

(For those playing the home game, this is from Monty Python's Argument Clinic sketch)

 

You doubt me? Ha!

Look closely at the notations on some of the boxes. The box for Let It Be, for example, says not to use that tape for cassette mastering, but to use the original master. Likewise, Please Please Me is marked as an EQ'ed and compressed copy. We know that the original master--sans that EQ and compression--exists because it was transferred flat and sent to Germany for cutting Die Beatles.

Look at some of the other tape boxes for more.

 

The jump from 1/28/66 to 6/26/81: does that mean that no new mono lacquers needed to be cut during that period? If so, was that because they quit pressing mono copies? When did they stop issuing RS in mono?

 

Or, put another way, a perfect example of why a collector needs to buy every variation that's out there. I had three copies..................

 

I can see why you think that may be the case as I was under the same impression, believing they were cutting or production masters, until Allan Rouse from Abbey Road Studios posted here concerning the 2009 CD remasters -

 

I believe that's a myth. My comparisons found that 'Die Beatles' was the same as 'Please Please Me' apart from some slight EQ changes, but most importantly - the left channel is 3dB quieter on the 'Die Beatles' mastering (which accounts for 'less echo' and a different sounding result). Otherwise, same compression and very similar EQ. In other words, the same tape as the UK, but different mastering.

PPM is marked as 'EQ'ed and compressed copy' because that is the final stereo master made from the twin-track (as opposed to the raw twin-track session tape itself).

 

Correct, they didn't require new lacquers for the mid 1981 single album mono reissues as the earliest RS copies were pressed with -5/-5 stampers.
However, for Side 1 a new lacquer was required soon after and the -6 cut with scribed HTM in the dead wax ends up in the later 1982 Mono Box Set.

The last RS monos until their 1980s reappearance are the 1969 pressings on the short lived black and yellow label without the "Sold in the UK..." centre text.
Only 3 monos made it to later pressings on the 1 Box label, circa 1970 - PPM, Help! and Sgt Peppers.

 

Are we talking about the same cut here?

XEX 579-1 1 OD
XEX 580-1 3 HA

Those are the markings from my Dad's copy, the significant parts being the XEX numbers.

I've analysed needledrops of the guitar solo from Drive My Car, the 1966 mono as above and the 2014 mono.

There is plenty above 8k on the 1966, in fact although I hear a very slight lift and perceived clarity in the top end of the 2014 mono over the 1966 one the spectrogram of both is near identical apart from there being a bit more harmonic stuff on the 1966 up to 40k which for some reason doesn't happen with the 2014. This might contribute to a slightly smeary top end on the 1966 even though it's out of hearing range really. This wouldn't make me think it sounded bad without the comparison to the 2014, and it still doesn't sound bad even with that comparison.

I also don't hear any significant drop in bass on the 1966 over the 2014, both have that nice boomy end to the guitar solo section.

Maybe there is a touch less punch in the 1966, but that is probably because the top end isn't so crisp rather than a compression thing. Both sound compressed in that Beatles way.

Bear in mind the 1966 one is battered and has been played on Dansette / Fidelity decks etc...

I'll leave it up to whoever to guess which is the 1966 and which is the 2014. Wav:
Dropbox - 2014vsLoud.wav »

 

the -1-1 is the so called " loud cut " and is actually from 1965 not 66 ( although as it was December 65 that could be splitting hairs ).

i am not a technical audiophile so I'll leave it to others to make comments in that regard, I've personally never heard much different in any of the -1 -4's or -5's ...

 

That could be the case for PPM--I don't know--but for LIB, there certainly was an EQ'ed production master made. Just look at the notes on the tape box for proof.

 

Alan Rouse's comments are not correct for LIB. All you need to do is to look at the comments on the tape box for confirmation that it is an EQ'ed production copy for vinyl and that an unequalized original master was used for tape production.

 

Thank goodness we have the 2014 mono box!

 

Ah yes, 65 it is.

 

See here:

The Beatles »

Note comments on the LIB tape box:

"For cutting only (use original master for tape copies - AR16216)."

 

I have been researching for a couple hours and have yet to find the combination of matrix number with font and sleeve details.
Main issue is the label on record is exactly the same as first presses loud cut - 1/-1. It is San serif with * credit indicator spaced away from the song title.
All the images of 2nd press vinyl labels don't match my copy.
The sleeve for the record is a second press with the bottom reading 12 LL printed by Garrod etc.

Matrix side 1 XEX 579-4
DRR press right side and 11 left
Matrix side 2 XEX 580-5
ADR right side and 9 left

Please help!!

 

what you have there is a quite unusual -4 -5 crossover, I've seen many -1-4 -4-1 half cuts but never a -4-5

Forget the labels, the labels can be found across the matrices, you can have loud cut sans serif & TNRS, if anybody tell's you a loud cut has only one type label they are WRONG.

and as for the sleeves the 60's mono's never changed although there are both Garrod and EJ Day variants, again they can come with almost any mono vinyl combination with probably the exception of the final UK 60's mono's which most probably only came in Garrods.

 

Great Post Ben!!
Excellent Information-THIS is what us collectors need more of.
Connecting the dots of the manufacturing information!!
Thanks again Ben!!
the beave

 

That would be the one exception and likely a 1:1 safety copy as the LP was mastered at Apple Studios by the relatively inexperienced George Peckam, but not an "EQed production master" as you state.
One tape does not equate to your original statement that "many of them are equalized and compressed dubs"
What Allan Rouse is clarifying and what slane has also tried to explain is that the eq and compression you've noticed on the tape boxes refers to the mixing process in transferring from the twin-track and 4 track tapes to the 1/4 inch stereo masters, there are no 1/4 inch masters upstream, they are the original masters.
For Die Beatles, so the story goes, it was a copy of the twin-track tape that was sent to Germany, not some copy of the "original master--sans that EQ and compression".

 

Thanks muffmaster! I had thought it was a very early second pressing due to the label. If I understand correctly, the San serif and spaced * do not confirm a press as implied on
The Beatles Collection » Search Results » Rubber soul »
?
Could advise on which press it may in fact be?

 

i agree with much on that Beatles collection page, the only thing i disagree with is the Sans serif coming before the TNR, they ran alongside each other possibly until 1967 ( this date of this is unconfirmed it could as easily be late 66 or even but less likely early 68 ) , then the sans serif takes over completely and i agree that is more likely where the credit indicator changes also.

But as far as i know there is no evidence to suggest the TNR was added to the sans serif labels it could be the other way around or neither, we just cannot be sure, even mother stampers will not help us as so many would have been needed for a mass mono press so a 1G could be JUST as early as say a 3 RPH

We could date your copy quite precisely if we knew when the -5-5 replaces the -4-4. The -5-5 was cut early on we know from the tape box but we need some help on the date it went into actual production as that date would date your copy on the nail as it is a -4-5 crossover copy.

I hate the term pressings it is so misleading but if we were to use Beatles collectors definition then yours would be a second pressing but still with the original Sans serif labels, their mistake is not to include this label in the second press info alongside the TNR.

I do agree however with their asscetion that most -5-5 copies are found on later Sans serif labels.

There is another small error in their information too ~:-

" Variation A-1. This vinyl was pressed on the EMI on old machines press. IT’S NOT CBS PRESSING as many people think! THIS IS EMI PRESSING! To date only three Beatles albums have been found in this variation and they’re A Hard Day’s Night, Rubber Soul and Revolver. The label has the old tax code MT on side 2. "

in actual fact FOUR Beatles albums are know to exist with this odd pressing ring, as well as the three mentioned there is a 65/6 press of Please Please Me with it too.

 

Same here, collected the whole original UK LPs, but I’ve gone digital for actual listening......

 

I haven't heard much difference between the -4 and -5 cuts. Even comparing four or five -4 cuts alone will reveal slight differences, no doubt due to stamper wear, stamping 'mojo,' and LP use or play. The -5 cuts generally seem to have a hint more clarity or dryness to them. The -4 being a tad warmer for lack of a better word. They're both great.