Superiority Of Electric Recording Company Releases

[mtemur]

For the last couple of years everything Electric Recording Company released is sold out before hitting the shelves. I highly suspect superiority of London based ERC releases compared to Analogue Productions, ORG, Music Matters etc in terms of sound quality. I compared two ERC titles with OJC counterparts. IMHO modest OJC releases sound more open, transparent and detailed. ERCs sound muffled, rolled off on frequency extremes and softer. Each time I preferred the OJC. If I’m not mistaken M. Fremer played Giant Steps or My Favorite Things ERC in Munich this year and I heard the same softness, John Coltrane was blowing like Ben Webster (I’m totally exaggerating). Regarding the high price tag I got some questions in my mind.

- I don’t know where this softness is coming from? Do you hear softness too? ERC advertise about using all tubes on electronics. Could it because of using all tube electronics?

- Since we know that original master tapes don’t travel even inside USA -let alone over Atlantic- so how could ERC be cutting from tape? There is a rumor that they’re using recording labels’ Europe tape vault in Germany. If it’s true then tapes in the vault are the copy of the original master tapes in USA, which means they’re second or third generation. Would record labels let even those tapes travel from Germany to UK? Or are they using a tape copy made from the master tape in vault in Germany (which is already a second or third generation)?

- Could there be a digital step from original master tape in USA to a digital file then copied to a tape which the lacquers cut from?

- ERC is using Lyrec tape recorder and Ortofon lathe (Neumann vms70 for mono) to cut lacquers and they say lacquers are cut like they were originally cut in the 50s. but we know those titles are originated mainly from USA and cut using Ampex tape and electronics, Scully lathe and Westrex cutterhead in the 50s. Using tube electronics makes it enough to call “they are cut like they were originally cut in the 50s”?

What do you think?

 

[bonzo75]

For the last couple of years everything Electric Recording Company released is sold out before hitting the shelves. I highly suspect superiority of UK based ERC releases compared to Analogue Productions, ORG, Music Matters etc in terms of sound quality. I compared two ERC titles with OJC counterparts. IMHO modest OJC releases sound more open, transparent and detailed. ERCs sound muffled, rolled off on frequency extremes and softer. Each time I preferred the OJC. If I’m not mistaken M. Fremer played Giant Steps ERC in Munich this year and I heard the same softness, John Coltrane was blowing like Ben Webster (I’m totally exaggerating). Regarding the high price tag I got some questions in my mind.

- I don’t know where this softness is coming from? Do you hear softness too? ERC advertise about using all tubes on electronics. Softness could be caused because of using all tube electronics?

- Since we know that original master tapes don’t travel even inside USA let -alone over Atlantic- so how could ERC be cutting from tape? There is a rumor that they’re using recording labels’ Europe tape vault in Germany. If it’s true tapes in the vault are the copy of the original master tapes in USA, second or third generation. Would record labels let those tapes travel from Germany to UK? Or are they using a tape copy made from the master tape in vault in Germany (which is already a second or third generation)?

- Could there be a digital step from original master tape in USA to a digital file then copied to a tape which the lacquers cut from?

- ERC is using Lyrec tape recorder and Ortofon lathe (Neumann vms70 for mono) to cut lacquers and they say lacquers are cut like they were originally cut in the 50s. but we know those titles are originated mainly from USA and cut using Ampex tape and electronics, Scully lathe and Westrex cutterhead in the 50s. Using tube electronics makes it enough to call “they are cut like they were originally cut in the 50s”?

What do you think?

I actually visited the ERC studio here in London and they showed the entire process including cutting on the Lyrec. I am no expert on how cutting is done, but there was no digital step and I got exposed to only one sample cut.

That said, I have sampled all their classical albums released until that visit in summer of 2019, when they were working on the Michelle Auclair release. I preferred only two ERCs, one was the Magda Tagliafero on piano and the other one was the Kogan Tchaikovsky (and I have heard originals of Campoli (Decca), Henryk Szeryng (RCA), and Erica Morini (Westminster). Also the MIlstein. The Kogan and the Szeryng are my favorite performances, the Campoli original Decca is the best sonics of those, and very nice too. I haven't heard the Kogan Columbia original.

The Michele Auclair sounded great when played back in that studio but that wasn't the final prod release I heard so I don't know how the final one sounds.

ERC sonics are not as good as originals. But the key difference between ERC and the other reissues is their catalog is way superior in terms of performances. ORG has very few stuff I want to listen to. Speakers Corner and Classic records/Analog Productions have some stuff I want to listen to, of which Speakers one buys for the price not the sonics, but large part of the catalog is poor. Fone catalog is a joke. One can buy the Fone Accardo to demo system at hifi shows or to visiting audiophiles.

The stuff ERC produces are marvelous performances, sometimes rare, sometimes ultra expensive if you source the originals and not available elsewhere. Only the Du Pre Elgar Cello original is reasonably priced compared to the ERC and therefore the original easily the better buy of the two. But take for example when Kogan Tchaikovsky was released at 450, it was a bargain compared to the original.

 

[rDin]

ERC - Love Forever Changes. Hard to draw any conclusions, but would be interested to know what's going on around 20kHz

 

[Dennis Davis]

For the last couple of years everything Electric Recording Company released is sold out before hitting the shelves. I highly suspect superiority of London based ERC releases compared to Analogue Productions, ORG, Music Matters etc in terms of sound quality. I compared two ERC titles with OJC counterparts. IMHO modest OJC releases sound more open, transparent and detailed. ERCs sound muffled, rolled off on frequency extremes and softer. Each time I preferred the OJC. If I’m not mistaken M. Fremer played Giant Steps or My Favorite Things ERC in Munich this year and I heard the same softness, John Coltrane was blowing like Ben Webster (I’m totally exaggerating). Regarding the high price tag I got some questions in my mind.

- I don’t know where this softness is coming from? Do you hear softness too? ERC advertise about using all tubes on electronics. Could it because of using all tube electronics?

- Since we know that original master tapes don’t travel even inside USA -let alone over Atlantic- so how could ERC be cutting from tape? There is a rumor that they’re using recording labels’ Europe tape vault in Germany. If it’s true then tapes in the vault are the copy of the original master tapes in USA, which means they’re second or third generation. Would record labels let even those tapes travel from Germany to UK? Or are they using a tape copy made from the master tape in vault in Germany (which is already a second or third generation)?

- Could there be a digital step from original master tape in USA to a digital file then copied to a tape which the lacquers cut from?

- ERC is using Lyrec tape recorder and Ortofon lathe (Neumann vms70 for mono) to cut lacquers and they say lacquers are cut like they were originally cut in the 50s. but we know those titles are originated mainly from USA and cut using Ampex tape and electronics, Scully lathe and Westrex cutterhead in the 50s. Using tube electronics makes it enough to call “they are cut like they were originally cut in the 50s”?

What do you think?

I don't know if Fremer was playing his copy of Giant Steps in Munich or not, but Roy Gregory and I conducted a demonstration in Munich, repeated several times in the CH Precision room, part of which involved comparing the ERC My Favorite Things to an original. And yes, both were played with a mono cartridge. The ERC sounded awful in comparison, and it was obvious to the audience. I have no reason to think the result is from a digital step in the process (the current hot button issue). There are lots of ways to fail. I've closely compared 2 ERC issues with originals and not been impressed with ERC.

 

[mtemur]

The ERC sounded awful in comparison, and it was obvious to the audience. I have no reason to think the result is from a digital step in the process (the current hot button issue). There are lots of ways to fail. I've closely compared 2 ERC issues with originals and not been impressed with ERC.

I agree. I wish I had attended your demonstration

 

[iaxel]

I have only very few ERC copies.
A few months ago I've received Mahler's no. 2 conducted by Klemperer.
I admit that I have not heard the original pressing, but compared to other pressings I've heard and its digital counterpart, there's no comparison, the ERC sounds much much better, more natural, less metallic and bright, more low end with image depth.
I wish I had an original in mint condition to compare to, but those come up rare and cost much more than the ERC re-issue.

 

[bonzo75]

I have only very few ERC copies.
A few months ago I've received Mahler's no. 2 conducted by Klemperer.
I admit that I have not heard the original pressing, but compared to other pressings I've heard and its digital counterpart, there's no comparison, the ERC sounds much much better, more natural, less metallic and bright, more low end with image depth.
I wish I had an original in mint condition to compare to, but those come up rare and cost much more than the ERC re-issue.

I have the original . It was recorded without limiters from what I understand so dynamic range is quite high.

The Roy Gregory demo mentioned above is shallow. It is very easy to compare two originals and prove them worse or better depending on what you pick. Ask him to pick Kogan's Beethoven concerto and the Tchaikovsky. Might cost him jointly 15k pounds for the two.

So it is immaterial if the original sounds better (it will)..

The key point is even with Decca originals, some engineers sounded better than others. That's why people look at the matrix on the deadwax to identify which engineer was it. So even if ERC uses lyrec and tubes, it does not have the engineers from the heydey, where making the lacquer and all the process was an art. Those who can source and afford originals should get them.

 

[iaxel]

I'm happy with what I have.
Digging up the original and throwing dices seem identical to me.

And yes, dynamic range is high.
First and foremost, this is a must-have performance. Sound is great too, and that's a bonus.

 

[Dennis Davis]

I have the original . It was recorded without limiters from what I understand so dynamic range is quite high.

The Roy Gregory demo mentioned above is shallow. It is very easy to compare two originals and prove them worse or better depending on what you pick. Ask him to pick Kogan's Beethoven concerto and the Tchaikovsky. Might cost him jointly 15k pounds for the two.

So it is immaterial if the original sounds better (it will)..

The key point is even with Decca originals, some engineers sounded better than others. That's why people look at the matrix on the deadwax to identify which engineer was it. So even if ERC uses lyrec and tubes, it does not have the engineers from the heydey, where making the lacquer and all the process was an art. Those who can source and afford originals should get them.

I've compared the ERC to the original, to a recent HQCD and to a Kevin Gray remastered LP of My Favorite Things released during the Munich show, all of which I owned. The ERC sounds pretty bad compared to any of them. I didn't say the original sounded "better". That suggests it was close. It wasn't. Were you at the demo? I can't recall any participant having the same reaction, you voice (it being "shallow") but on the other hand no one there introduced themselves as Bonzo. I interpret your statement as saying that originals always sound better, which is certainly not the case in my experience.

 

[bonzo75]

I've compared the ERC to the original, to a recent HQCD and to a Kevin Gray remastered LP of My Favorite Things released during the Munich show, all of which I owned. The ERC sounds pretty bad compared to any of them. I didn't say the original sounded "better". That suggests it was close. It wasn't. Were you at the demo? I can't recall any participant having the same reaction, you voice (it being "shallow") but on the other hand no one there introduced themselves as Bonzo. I interpret your statement as saying that originals always sound better, which is certainly not the case in my experience.

In your previous post you mentioned original, not kevin Gray or HQCD

comparing to a couple of originals is a shallow demo because it does not in any way answer the questions of how to source the classical performances that ERC is recording short of sourcing the originals which in most cases are much more expensive than what ERC was issued at.

Also to buy them before ERC announces the release will be expecting the purchaser to know what performances to source and have a good source of original LPs and pay that fortune. Like I said, those who can get those originals should. if speakers corner or analog productions starts issuing the ERC performances at more reasonable prices sure but that has not been happening.

 

[Dennis Davis]

What I asked you was whether you were actually at the demonstration and the fact that you did not respond. That suggests that you did not. Your comment "The Roy Gregory demo mentioned above is shallow" thus seems to be based on speculation as you have no idea what all was presented and I did not present my comment as a complete description of the demonstration. When I said that I also compared the ERC to other versions I was referring to the fact that ERC did a poor job as their reissue compares unfavorably to other recent issues. My comparison had nothing to do with the demonstration, but rather to your defense of a reissue that you may never have heard, and to other reissues that you probably have not heard either. Do you actually own the ERC My Favorite Things? or the recent Kevin Gray reissue? Or are you just defending ERC in the abstract?

 

[iaxel]

BTW, regarding original pressings versus reissues (OT), I've recently watched an interview with Kevin Gray and he mentioned that in the past, during mastering, dynamic range was intentionally compressed due to playback equipment limitations (in order to be more compatible with commercial equipment).
He was specifically discussing Jazz recordings and I know this was done for other mainstream releases (non-Jazz).
Not sure about classical, but I assume a similar path was taken.

Taking the above into account, it seems that properly mastered reissues may be less limited in dynamic range (compressed), and therefore extract more from the original tapes.

This was news to me...

 

[bonzo75]

BTW, regarding original pressings versus reissues (OT), I've recently watched an interview with Kevin Gray and he mentioned that in the past, during mastering, dynamic range was intentionally compressed due to playback equipment limitations (in order to be more compatible with commercial equipment).
He was specifically discussing Jazz recordings and I know this was done for other mainstream releases (non-Jazz).
Not sure about classical, but I assume a similar path was taken.

Taking the above into account, it seems that properly mastered reissues may be less limited in dynamic range (compressed), and therefore extract more from the original tapes.

This was news to me...

Originals is a vast sea. Can't generalize. Many have larger dynamic range.

Also key thing was cutting the lacquer, that was an art. You can compare the same from two different Decca engineers and it will sound different. So you have to know what label what engineer to look for for a particular performance.

 

[mtemur]

BTW, regarding original pressings versus reissues (OT), I've recently watched an interview with Kevin Gray and he mentioned that in the past, during mastering, dynamic range was intentionally compressed due to playback equipment limitations (in order to be more compatible with commercial equipment).

More importantly compressed records of the past conceived as more dynamic due to being louder. Normally more dynamic and not-compressed records sound quieter. Human ear has a tendency to pick louder over quieter.
One important advantage of original pressings over new reissues is tape age. After 50-60 years of storage tape loose it’s magnetic power compared to freshly recorded tape. That’s a big advantage for original pressings.

 

[bonzo75]

BTW, regarding original pressings versus reissues (OT), I've recently watched an interview with Kevin Gray and he mentioned that in the past, during mastering, dynamic range was intentionally compressed due to playback equipment limitations (in order to be more compatible with commercial equipment).
He was specifically discussing Jazz recordings and I know this was done for other mainstream releases (non-Jazz).
Not sure about classical, but I assume a similar path was taken.

Taking the above into account, it seems that properly mastered reissues may be less limited in dynamic range (compressed), and therefore extract more from the original tapes.

This was news to me...

Also, I as skeptical about originals after easing such interviews, Michael Fremer articles, and also that guy who had the high end audio blog.

I then started listening to the right originals at General's and diffetence is night and day. It doesn't require any golden ears, just sourcing the right originals. Analog productions, speakers corner, ERC, Tacet, coup darchet, Chesky, Sheffield, we tried them all.

Could be because of tape deterioration as well but it is what it is

The difference is higher in rock and jazz but I don't look out much into those labels.

 

[mtemur]

In terms of jazz records I enjoy both original and reissues (AP, ORG,impex etc). Sometimes an original surprise you with freshness but not always.
I listened 3 ERC jazz titles. IMHO they’re a joke compared to good reissues. I don’t know how classical ERCs sound.

 

[bonzo75]

In terms of jazz records I enjoy both original and reissues (AP, ORG,impex etc). Sometimes an original surprise you with freshness but not always.
I listened 3 ERC jazz titles. IMHO they’re a joke compared to good reissues. I don’t know how classical ERCs sound.

Like I said in the second post on this thread, I heard all classical ERC till 2019 and liked only two.

It does not take away their performance are great

 

[bonzo75]

In terms of jazz records I enjoy both original and reissues (AP, ORG,impex etc). Sometimes an original surprise you with freshness but not always.
I listened 3 ERC jazz titles. IMHO they’re a joke compared to good reissues. I don’t know how classical ERCs sound.

If the original does not surprise you you are sourcing the wrong originals.

 

[mtemur]

If the original does not surprise you you are sourcing the wrong originals.

that's not always true with jazz. much more care and importance spared for classical titles during 50s and 60s that's why originals can be better than reissues but same care is not spared for jazz titles during that era. classical was the main stream then and regarded as an important music that important people listen. jazz was more considered like pop music for the masses which will not last very long. but unlike common perception jazz titles of that era became classic.

 

[iaxel]

Originals is a vast sea. Can't generalize. Many have larger dynamic range.

Also key thing was cutting the lacquer, that was an art. You can compare the same from two different Decca engineers and it will sound different. So you have to know what label what engineer to look for for a particular performance.

I was not generalizing, I was just stating some info that was provided that I was not aware of.

Anyway, it's an interesting data point, obviously we don't have enough data (who has?) to know how each recording was originally pressed (or issued for that matter - see MFSL story).
We only have our ears, current available inventory and our wallet.