Bad experience buying a $450 ERC reissue

Preferences are subjective and inarguable but..., posted on December 1, 2020 at 00:49:19
Analog Scott Audiophile Posts: 9933 Joined: January 8, 2002	any review, even amateur reviews have no business speculating that the company is flat out lying about the source tape unless they have verifiable objective evidence in support. "I don't like it" is no reason to engage in such damning speculation.

IMHO preferences and defective records are wholly different things., posted on December 1, 2020 at 15:33:11
viridian	I agree that the idle speculation on the source of the pressings is irresponsible and potentially damaging to the reissuer. But really, who gives a damn about the source of the master if the disc has bubbles in it?

Those are two different subjects, posted on December 1, 2020 at 21:48:30

Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002

It's the nature of the beast to get some defective pressings. It was replaced free of charge without question. That is what one would expect for such a premium but that is what he got. If there are tape drop outs that is a different matter. A matter that is worthy of a call to ERC to find out what was up. I just have a real low tolerance threshold for anyone doing reviews and making assertions of fact based on assumptions.

I would respectfully differ on that point...., posted on December 2, 2020 at 08:00:53

viridian

........as I do not believe that it is "the nature of the beast". $450 per LP would seem to provide for some QC after the pressing process, after all $25 Mobile Fidelity pressings in the 1980s at JVC were almost completely dead quiet, and many current pressing are also quiet.

I guess we differ in that I don't think that folks should be part of the QC process, particularly for this type of premium product, and I have been buying records since the late 1960s.

If you read the Hoffman threads, one of which is linked below, and this one is long, you will see that this is not a one off, but there are any number of end users that are unhappy with noise on their ERC LPs. And while I am aware that bad pressings and questioning the source of the tapes are different things, the one does make the other moot.

Hoffman Music Forum

RE: I would respectfully differ on that point...., posted on December 2, 2020 at 09:11:00

Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002

The JVC formula is no longer used. It was too toxic. So that is not a reasonable comparison. Every label in the business has to choose from the available pressing plants and every pressing plant will turn out some bad pressings. There were even some bad pressings from Japan from the JVC plant. I know, I have a few. That is the nature of the beast.

I don't read the Hoffman threads as they are littered with idiots with unreasonable beliefs and expectations. ALL vinyl has some degree of noise. It is inherent in the medium. All pressing plants turn out some defective pressings. Defects range from innocuous to attrocious. One can not discern those variations in defects or their relative frequency based on anecdotes on the Steve Hoffman forums. Anecdotes from OCD fanboys are not particularly informitive.They lack objective criteria and are simply unreliable.

None of the labels are immune to the reality of pressing defects. Granted at the price of ERC pressings one could argue that no record should slip past a visual inspection. But a record can pass a visual inspection and still be noisier than normal. Likewise a given pressing can look bad and play with less than normal noise levels.

I would agree that the first copy of that LP in the video should not have ever made it past the visual inspection. Shit happens.Even at a premium price But it was replaced free of charge no questions asked.

You can find examples of the same things from any and every other audiophile label out there. And one really can't rely on OCD fanboy anecdotes as an objective filter for assessing the relative incidences coming from these different labels. Quite the opposite actually.

It's not OK to idly speculate on the source of a master...., posted on December 2, 2020 at 12:05:58
viridian	....but it's fine to denigrate the posters on another forum. Thanks for the education, LOL.

I think you are mistaken, posted on December 2, 2020 at 12:40:31
Analog Scott Audiophile Posts: 9933 Joined: January 8, 2002	Perhaps you don't understand the difference between criticism and denegration. My criticism of the broad base of posters at SHF is not personal denegration. It is an observation and no individual is singled out.

And you are welcome for the education, posted on December 2, 2020 at 12:41:40
Analog Scott Audiophile Posts: 9933 Joined: January 8, 2002	hope you see the difference.

Oh, I think that the repeated phrase "OCD fanboy" is denigrating. , posted on December 2, 2020 at 12:50:48

viridian

Not to mention, ..."idiots with unreasonable beliefs and expectations."

All one has to say is, "Those folks don't have credibility with me", or " I disagree with their views". But that would be less demeaning.

As with any post, our choice of words reveals more about the poster than those posted about.

The definition below:

Denigrating

RE: Oh, I think that the repeated phrase "OCD fanboy" is denigrating. , posted on December 2, 2020 at 13:23:10

Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002

I believe I said it once and I did not name any names. It is also much more specific so it makes my position more clear. If anyone actually took offense to it then maybe it hit too close to home. Sometimes nothing is more offensive than criticism that is spot on. By the way, OCD is an actual diagnosable mental condition. I have a very close friend who has dealt with it for years. He is not ashamed of it and is quite open about the condition and it's manifestations. It's not a derogatory term. Fanboy? Seriously? I often refer to myself as a fanboy of numerous interests. Should I be offended by me? The only "derogatory" term I used was "idiots." Again, it's an observation. Should I have been more verbose and less politically incorrect and refered to them as "mentally challenged" or "persons of bellow average intelligence"? Are you genuinely concerned that I may have hurt the feelings of members of the Steve Hoffman Forums by not using more sensitive terminology?

And mental retardation is a medical condition as well, OK to call people "retards" as well then. Nt. , posted on December 2, 2020 at 13:41:31
viridian	Nt

You might want to work on your logic, posted on December 2, 2020 at 14:19:16

Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002

OCD which is short for obsessive compulsive disorder is a medical term. Do a google search and see for yourself. You will find all kinds of links to various medical websites on the subject of OCD/obsessice compulsive disorder. There is a whole article on it on the Mayo Clinic Website. Now do the same google search on the word "retard" and see if you can find anything at the Mayo clinic on "retards" or any other medical websites. Did I really have to explain that to you? Do I need to cite the specific form of logical fallacy you are using here? Just in case look up false equivalence. Unless you actually do find an article on "retards" at the Mayo clinic webpage.

Valid point, you would refer to those you don't agree with as "mentally retarded". nt, posted on December 2, 2020 at 16:17:39
viridian	Nt

RE: I would respectfully differ on that point...., posted on December 2, 2020 at 16:28:55
Tre' Industry Professional Posts: 17302 Location: So. Cal. Joined: February 9, 2002	"The JVC formula is no longer used. It was too toxic." Should I be worried? Tre' Have Fun and Enjoy the Music "Still Working the Problem"

Not unless You are working in a pressing plant, posted on December 2, 2020 at 18:33:56
Analog Scott Audiophile Posts: 9933 Joined: January 8, 2002	and they are illegally using the old formula. Not much to worry about once the vinyl is mixed and solidifies

what the hell is wrong with you? , posted on December 2, 2020 at 18:38:30
Analog Scott Audiophile Posts: 9933 Joined: January 8, 2002	Talk about one's posts saying more about themselves. You fit the bill quite well. I was talking about the nature of record manufacturing and basic responsibilities in posting public reviews that could affect peoples' real live businesses. You go off on this bizarro tangent trying to make it look like I am calling people "retards." Check yourself bro. You are way out of line.

Oh, then it was I who called those that disagree with me "idiots"., posted on December 3, 2020 at 10:54:01

viridian

It seems like your anger management problems are getting in the way, clouding the discussion. Why not try keeping it on topic without disparaging others? Incapable? Unwilling?

We agree to disagree on the subjective point of what an acceptable amount of defects are in, what appear to be, the most expensive new records for sale. I appreciate your position of being an apologist for ERC, I simply have a differing perspective.

apparently I struck a nerve, posted on December 3, 2020 at 17:55:30
Analog Scott Audiophile Posts: 9933 Joined: January 8, 2002	Let me guess, you are one of them?

RE: I would respectfully differ on that point...., posted on December 4, 2020 at 04:55:40
Dale Clark	"it was replaced free of charge no questions asked" Did you watch the entire video? The $450 LP was replaced...however...the second one had BUBBLES in the vinyl. It was replaced free of charge TWICE and actually had worse (IMO) defects.

Of course, everyone is an idiot except Anal og Scott. nt, posted on December 4, 2020 at 14:36:42
viridian	Nt

RE: Of course, everyone is an idiot except Anal og Scott. nt, posted on December 4, 2020 at 15:24:45
rivervalley817	I'm trying to figure out which one is Oscar and which one is Felix yeesh never mind, carry on

Point taken, River. I'm done. nt, posted on December 4, 2020 at 15:32:06
viridian	Nt

Yes I did watch the entire video. And I just watched it again. even worse the second time, posted on December 4, 2020 at 15:37:52

Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002

I have no problem with anyone having reasonable expectations when it comes to objective quality control on a product that comes at such a premium. I did not take issue with the complaints about QC. I took issue with the speculation on the tape source used to master the LP. Watching the video again I have to take further issue with his speculation. He actually spins a small conspiracy theory about ERC not using the original master tape. He also speculates that reviewers are deliberately giving ERC fake positive reviews so they can secretly sell the "crap" product and make illegitimate income on the side. The review is filled with assertions of fact that are blatently false and clearly unresearched. His opinions on the quality of the jacket shows his lack of research on and understanding of the goals of ERC. Given the guy's viewership on Youtube there does come a reasonable expectation (something he talks about quite a bit) of getting objective facts right. I would say Mike was extremely irresponsible in posting this content. IMO it is inexcusable.

Now as to *your* opinion on the subjective relative pressing qualities of the two records in the video (the record was only replaced once according to the video). What are you basing those opinions on? Are you Mike? If not did you personally get to play both discs and compare the objective noise levels on both discs? Not saying you are right or wrong, just asking what you are basing that particular opinion on?

Of course? If that is the answer to my question then, posted on December 4, 2020 at 15:41:21
Analog Scott Audiophile Posts: 9933 Joined: January 8, 2002	thank you for demonstrating what I am talking about on SHF

That's easy, posted on December 4, 2020 at 15:43:37
Analog Scott Audiophile Posts: 9933 Joined: January 8, 2002	I am much more like Oscar than Felix. :-D

There is no excuse for having a bad experience buying a $450 reissue..., posted on December 5, 2020 at 01:29:06

musetap
Audiophile

Posts: 31879
Location: San Francisco
Joined: July 8, 2003
Contributor
Since: January 28, 2004

ESPECIALLY if QC is the issue.

There should not be any reason for one either.

The whole point of charging that much money for a reissue is to guarantee NO
physical problems with a purchase.

If there are physical problems with the product then you've failed, wether you've
replaced the product or however you've "guaranteed" the product.

If you can't get it right at that price point for a record you should find something else to do for a living.

"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination"-Michael McClure

RE: Yes I did watch the entire video. And I just watched it again. even worse the second time, posted on December 5, 2020 at 11:23:51
Dale Clark	I meant that the replacement was defective AS WELL. not that Mike got 2 replacements. I probably should have worded it better.

The first record was not defective, posted on December 5, 2020 at 12:03:12

Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002

he simply didn't like it. He says there were micro scratches from it moving around during shipping. Micro scratches that would not show on the video. That is not a defect. He didn't like the sound quality. An opinion he gets to have. He makes no mention of even playing the second LP.

Like I said in my first post, preferences are inarguable. The original jacket was damaged. That was the reason for the replacement. I'd be curious to know how it got so severely bent.The packaging does not have enough room for that degree of bending. And that severe bend was not a factory defect either. It was damage. Really bad damage.

We have no idea how either LP sounded as far as noise is concerned. It was never specifically addressed in the video. So I take it you did not get to personally listen to either copy?

RE: The first record was not defective, posted on December 7, 2020 at 06:06:05

Dale Clark

Hopefully, he gets a 3rd copy as a replacement and gives an update. I got the opinion Mike was not crazy about the "sound" (his personal opinion) of the album Quality wise, I believe he is referring to the micro scratches which should not even be visible on a MoFi one Step let alone this high of a price. I do give mike some credibility.....Mike will pay for a high dollar album (he's got plenty, plus expensive Analogue Tape R2R Project releases. Plus, MMJ stopped selling thru dealers (including Mike's) and he still holds them in the highest regard.

We'll see if Mike gets a new version.

Why bother with a third copy?, posted on December 7, 2020 at 09:25:07
Analog Scott Audiophile Posts: 9933 Joined: January 8, 2002	nothing wrong with inaudible micro scratches from the record coming in and out of the sleeve or even from the record moving around in the sleeve during shipping. If he doesn't like the sound quality of the first record it won't get any better with replacements.

No Thanks- I stay with my 1st Pressing...., posted on December 20, 2020 at 06:28:33

Ross
Audiophile

Posts: 1814
Joined: January 24, 2000

S7017 / DG / D1 matrix

Purchased for mid 2 figures.

LP in EX/VG++ condition
Cover in VG condition

Plays beautifully.

I sometimes fail to understand the reissue business model. There have been several previous reissues of this title. All excellent, and all currently available for less than $100.

Highest recent price for a NM or M 1st pressing of S7017 is $215.

But ERC sold out their version at $450 ?

I understand the premium reissue model when a 1st pressing has a 4 figure value. But charging 2x CMV for a reissue ?

PT Barnum lives.

It's about picking your colorations., posted on December 24, 2020 at 00:38:31

Analog Scott
Audiophile

Posts: 9933
Joined: January 8, 2002

Every different cut of this recording will have it's own colorations.Your original is no exception. If nothing else, ERC seems to have developed a sonic signature with it's custom tube driven cutting lathe that at least 300 audiophiles with the money really seem to enjoy. It's not a P.T. Barnum thing. It's about subjective preferences. And quite possibly the exclusivity aspect of such low runs. ERC is not misleading anyone. What they produce is exactly what they advertise.

Critic's Corner

Bad experience buying a $450 ERC reissue

107.139.217.246