Abbey Road - CP35-3016 - The Definitive Guide

Some interesting posts:

I certainly respect MopTops research. He is the one that started this thread. But I've never read that he tested these CDs. Perhaps he can confirm?

Post #84 does not state this. And I've never read this. Can anyone confirm that the questionable 17A1 has the same peak levels as the CP32 issue?

So this means that the 17A1 has the Sony mastering?

OK. But what is this based on?

You won't find any black triangle discs with an IFPI code on them. IFPI codes weren't introduced until April 1994.

Carry on...

Vernon Fitch
www.PinkFloydArchives.com

 

You are correct. Dave did not say he tested peak levels. He'll need to confirm what his testing entailed but I don't think anyone here is going to doubt him. There have been enough threads on this topic that they're getting blurred. At least this is the most consistent one. And I agree that EAC peak levels would put the fake thing to rest for doubters.

 

I can confirm drbryant's EAC readings on a 'good' 17A1 :

79.0 / 59.4 / 76.3 / 62.6 / 66.6 / 62.8 / 87.1 / 41.8 / 56.0 / 40.4 / 71.0 / 70.7 / 71.5 / 64.1 / 60.6 / 79.1 / 42.5

note that using an older version of EAC (95pb3) you need to Detect the TOC Manually to read the Pre-Emphasis flags.
with newer EAC versions you either get no Pre-Emphasis flag or only the last track depending on the EAC version.

 

I can also confirm those readings based on identical results I obtained from my 20A1 disc.

 

My two discs have the same mastering. I am not sure that Sony mastered the disc.

 

Just my two cents. I bought (and returned) one of the fakes on Ebay a while back (there was a rash of them at the time) and one thing that stood out to me, other than the offset triangle and different hub/mirror band, was the quality of the graphics with regard to the inserts. Ultimately (just before it went back to the seller) I was able to compare it with a known good CP35 CD and the fake inserts looked well, fake - to me anyway (IE blurry, offset poorly as if they were copied from an original which, I'm guessing, the were).

-s1m0n-

 

I am aware that the SID codes were from '95 on. I am the one who posted some of the codes here on the forum.

The above assumes that the fakes are pre-95. My guess is that the value really took off in the last 5-10 years, thanks to eBay. Hence, it was worth to press a batch somewhere to make some money.

I maybe wrong, but fake/illegal pressers also do not leave clues behind either....

 

This has always been the curious thing to me. We can't even assume that the fakes were a response to high prices. It would be interesting to me if there is someone out there who knows when they bought the fake and when they purchased it (baring recent purchases since we know the disc is at least a few years old).

 

I would think that all the CP35-3016s should have the same mastering, and thus the same EAC levels. As more people report in, I think that will become clearer.

And as Sony began manufacturing the discs in Japan in May 1983, who else would have done the mastering for a Sony manufactured disc?

I would still like to see the EAC levels for a questionable 17A1. Anyone have one?

The reason this disc interests me is that I consider the CP35 Abbey Road as the sister CD to the CP35 Dark Side of the Moon disc. They were released the same week (as far as I can tell) and are concurrent catalog numbers (CP35-3016 and CP35-3017). However, there are some stark differences. While the DSOTM CD is very common as thousands were made, the AR disc doesn't seem to have been produced in large quantities. I don't have an explanation for this. I have read (and again I am not a Beatle expert) that the AR disc was in limited production and that production of it was stopped for some reason. IS this true? It is certainly harder to find these days than the DSOTM CD. While you see the DSOTM discs every week on places like eBay, you rarely see the AR discs.

The Abbey Road discs also have those curious round Japanese stickers on them and not obis, which may be a clue to their origin. Is this because they were some sort of limited edition industry pressing? Can anyone here translate the Japanese text on the round sticker?

I'm not sure of the production dates for the AR CD, but I have read it was from 1983-1984 only. Can anyone confirm?

Finally, on to the questionable 17A1. If it has a later mastering, that would certainly prove that it is a counterfeit. If it has the proper mastering (same as the other CP35 discs) that doesn't solve anything. Likewise, if the CP35 AR has an ifpi code on the disc, that certainly would prove it is a counterfeit. The info about the poor graphics also lend weight to it being a counterfeit, but is not definitive proof. One has to wonder why a counterfeit would be made. Usually it is because an item has attained such a high value that counterfeiters want to cash in on it. That would indicate a more recent production as prices have greatly risen in recent years. As mafru2 mentioned earlier in this thread, it would be good to try and find out when these particular CDS began to surface. Not an easy task, admittedly.

So on we go...

Vernon Fitch
www.PinkFloydArchives.com

 

Yes, EMI UK (who owned the licensing) did not authorise the release so it was withdrawn after 2 years.

From what I understand it ran from May 1983 to July 1985.

 

Hi Moptop,

since you name characteristics of the Japanese AR on your website, I thought I´d let you know that the cover of my CP35-3016-1 1A1 shows a "3" at the place I marked with the right arrow and another slightly bigger "3" on the half circle marked with the left arrow, while there´s no "patent pending" anywhere.

 

1. I am not sure whether the disc pressing plant determines who mastered the recording -- does that make sense? Maybe someone who understands the process can chime in. I would think that for early pressings done at the Sony plant, Toshiba-EMI would have provided them with a digital master for pressing purposes, but I don't know how this works.

2. The Abbey Road disc was halted by Apple because it was not authorized. I can't recall exactly when, but it was very early, before most people had even purchased a CD player. The DSOTM CP-35 disc was in production for many, many years, and sold a ton of copies. That is why there are so many in the market.

3. There is no doubt about the counterfeit Abbey Road. I have been buying CD's in Japan for over 20 years, have seen/owned hundreds of "black triangle" discs, and none of them look like the counterfeit. I also have a 17A1 that is clearly legit.

4. The Abbey Road CP35 has always been expensive, because it went out of print shortly after release. I paid $50 for a copy in 1988, if that helps. So, there would be a very good reason to counterfeit it, even back then.

Hope that helps.

 

A few additional points. The CP35 Abbey Road was issued in May 1983. I definitely remember it being for sale as late as June 1984 when I was there as a student.

There is nothing on the gold sticker that is of much interest. If I recall, it says The Beatles, Abbey Road, 3500 Yen, and something like "their masterpiece from their peak period", can't recall exactly.

The other post is correct. Technically, EMI UK stopped the distribution in Japan.

Finally, most people think that the -31 is the first pressing in Japan (CBS/Sony) and that -1 1A1 is the first Toshiba pressing. Again, I have never heard of a Toshiba pressing coming with the gold sticker. I don't think that sounds right.

 

Peak values from my CP35 3016 15A1
============================
Same as above.
I could have sworn the inner disc tray on these was white when I used to see them regularly in the mid '80s.
John H

 

I understand where you're coming from here, but I do appreciate Vernon's rigor with this issue. Certainly there's no doubt in your mind, but I think Vernon's doubts are reasonable, given the lack of iron-clad statements from those directly knowledgeable.

I personally don't have much doubt that the fakes are fake, but I'd love to see some more concrete evidence -- like differing EAC values, for example.

 

I just compared my 17A1 (real) and 20A1.

The difference is VERY slight but is audible if you compare them back and forth about five times. The 17A1 is slightly more liquid and relaxed and the 20A1 is slightly more detailed. These are VERY subtle differences (probably pressing related) - everything else is identical tonally. Both sound great. It's kinda like the diffference between a Meddle UD1 and UD2. It's a personal choice as to which is better because they are so close - probably indistinguishable on another system/room.

 

If the original (1983) Abbey Road was not authorized by apple, then what source tapes did they use, and how did Toshiba get their hands on the tapes?

Could it have just been a transfer of an old officially released "reel to reel" copy of Abbey road? I'm not sure but I think I've heard this suggested before.

 

Toshiba had the tape to make an authorized vinyl version of the album. I don't remember reading that they had a reel to reel tape.

 

That clears it up. Thanks! I may be thinking of the non to grail Dark side of the Moon, which, IIRC was made from a reel-to-reel.

 

Where has it ever been suggested (with any support) that any early Japan CD's were mastered from commercially released reel-to-reel tapes? Some bootlegs are made this way, of course.

 

Great info

 

From what I can tell, the 83 version sounds clear, natural, and unobtrusive. A really pleasant listening experience from beginning to end. The 1987 version is very BASS-EY, like the bass is really emphasized trying to make the recording sound warmer or richer, and I think the 87 CD is also louder than the 83 version.

I could be mistaken though, and would love to hear others opinions.

 

there's another one on ebay :

http://cgi.ebay.it/THE-BEATLES-ABBE...m14&_trkparms=72:758|66:2|65:12|39:1|240:1318

 

Interesting. Does the 1A1 go for more than say, a 20A1 ?

 

Right. It was the half-speed copy of the master they were supplied with for the Pro Use LP.