NYT on Electric Recording Co. vinyl


In today's New York Times there's an interesting (and laudatory) article on vinyl from Electric Recording Co. by columnist Ben Sisario. I think this forum prevents listing of the complete URL, but the piece is easily searched online if you'd like to read it.

Sisario listened to a few ERC LPs at Michael Fremer's house and was taken with the product: "I am often skeptical of claims of vinyl’s superiority, but when listening to one of Electric Recording’s albums of Bach’s solo violin pieces played by Martzy, I was stunned by their clearness and beauty. Compared to the other pressings, Electric Recording’s version had vivid, visceral details, yielding a persuasive illusion of a human being standing before me drawing a bow across a violin." He notes, of course, that MF has a state-of-the-art system to justify the cost:benefit ratio.

On the other hand, he notes skepticism by Chad Kassem (Acoustic Sounds). In essence, the difference is price per Kassem.

Perhaps more interesting are details of the production process, a bio sketch on ERC founder Pete Hutchison and justification for the price/album. All in all, an interesting 5 minute read.

kacomess

Showing 1 response by millercarbon

Yes but unfortunately its five minutes wasted on whatever narrative the NYT wants you to believe. 

Its not even good writing. Check it out:
"I am often skeptical of claims of vinyl’s superiority, but when listening to one of Electric Recording’s albums of Bach’s solo violin pieces played by Martzy, I was stunned by their clearness and beauty. Compared to the other pressings, Electric Recording’s version had vivid, visceral details, yielding a persuasive illusion of a human being standing before me drawing a bow across a violin."


He is "often skeptical of claims of vinyl's superiority, but..." but what???  "Compared to the other pressings!" Oh. I see. So he was skeptical, until he heard vinyl compared to.... itself! 

Oh and you got to love, "one of Bach's solo violin pieces". Ahh yes, the famous "one of!"
Well one thing for sure, it really is "the failing New York Times!"