LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  September 2012

ARSCLIST September 2012

Subject:

Re: Details on vinyl to digital re-mastering

From:

Roderic G Stephens <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 7 Sep 2012 20:17:17 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (106 lines)

All this about the shortcomings of LPs/45s makes me understand how I've been selling many of my old reel to reel tapes on eBay for premium prices; many collectors value them for their sonic purity even with tape hiss.  Of course, as has been said about LPs, these recordings can all suffer from shortfalls and losses in the manufacturing chain.  Tape duplication was a hit and miss proposition as were some of the disk releases or "innovations" such as Dynagroove or poor vinyl formulas, and as a result, noisy surfaces.  However, in the early days of tape duplication, some of the result were truly dynamic, and those recordings stood the test of time, at least as far as many of my collecting customers.  On the plus side of vinyl, I've got some excellent results after cleaning (thanks, Disc Doctor) which DO stand at the top of remastering ladder as finished products with many happy customers.  I still marvel how we can make it happen with good turntables,
 preamps, and dedicated DAWs.  More than once after remastering a disk,  I've kept an additional copy for my own library, because the recording has stood up to my personal demands, standards and tastes.  It does seem like a special magic to be able bring such quality out of the depths of old grooves.  I still love what I'm able to do, and I guess, so do my customers.  It's a joy I'm sure many of you share.

--- On Fri, 9/7/12, Carl Pultz <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: Carl Pultz <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Details on vinyl to digital re-mastering
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Friday, September 7, 2012, 7:40 PM

Worked for me when I was 14. But, let me ask: did Dynagroove persist because
it led to success in the market, or because an executive, not in technical
or A&R, but maybe in marketing, sold this to the honcho, who couldn't and
wouldn't cry uncle once the bad reviews came in? Without actual info, I'd
bet the continuance of Red Seal was as much momentum as anything. By the
late 60s, the high-priced artists were gone. RCA did continue important work
in the classics, but not, I assume, at Heifetz money. Correct me if I'm
wrong. It took them years to earn back some trust in the market, if they
ever did, and RCA never held classical high-ground again.

One unfortunate result is that these mid-60s RCAs mostly get passed over for
premium reissues, because of their bad rep. The few I've heard that have
been rehabbed suffer from spotlighting, but that's a catalog that musically
shouldn't languish.

BTW, JGH penned a famous denunciation of Dynagroove, published in The
Stereophile. I think it was Pfeiffer who maintained always that there was no
big eq deal to Dynagroove. But that he did fight a tendency for them to use
too many mics, something that the heavy dynamic compression makes sound too
garish. As to the thin discs, some of them sounded good if they weren't
warped - quiet surfaces, good dynamics, even some bass, but you had to crank
them up. As with all things vinyl, it is a case by case thing, hard to make
blanket judgments on sound quality.

A quick fact check proves interesting. The Ives is not bad regarding
distortion. I guess my record player has made some progress in 35 years.

-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Randy A. Riddle
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 9:27 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Details on vinyl to digital re-mastering

I think all of you are being far too hard on RCA for Dynagroove and
Dynaflex.

The introduction of Dynagroove marked the transition in the mass
market from dad's show-off hi-fi in the basement to stereo consoles
for the masses.  Dynagroove was designed to "wow" the average person
who didn't care about all the technical gobbley-gook - they just
wanted a bright sounding, loud record to show off that big piece of
furniture in the den that happened to contain a record changer.  And
they stuck with it to make records sound more dynamic on the smaller
record players that came later.

The goal wasn't accurate reproduction of sound - the goal was
tailoring the sound of their releases to a particular technology they
were also selling at the time.

Dynaflex was introduced to save on shipping costs and returns of
broken records mishandled by shippers.

If you think about the large volume of recordings that RCA had to move
to pay those great artists, you can begin to understand why they had
to pinch pennies and think of ways to market to the masses.

RCA was simply following the market and survived many years because of
it.  Just remember that those crappy sounding Dynagroove discs paid
for those beautiful masters you're listening to now on SACD and 180
gram remastered vinyl.

rand



On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 8:50 PM, Carl Pultz <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> "There's probably a business school case study in why you'd mess so
> drastically with that formula."
>
> If not, as any resident of Rochester can tell you, Eastman Kodak is
> providing an over the top example of total corporate suicide. Spectacular
to
> witness.
>
> My first experience of hifi stereo was as a kid who just got his second
> speaker. (Could only afford one for Christmas, so had to wait till the
next
> year to get the other.) I put them at the foot of my bed, cued up
> Leinsdorf's Mahler 1, laid back and discovered the Soundstage. But that's
> what Dynagroove was for - to play low so your parents won't be annoyed.
Like
> FM radio.
>
> Was it Mahler 5 that was first? My older brother brought back to the US
from
> his 1967 Air Force duty in Spain a German pressing of that album, and a
few
> other RCAs like that. On the cover, they trumpeted, "Das ist DYNAGROOVE!"
So
> I always say it with a Hollywood Prussian voice when a great album like
> Gould's Ives Sym 1 gets all frantic at the end, despite "Verzerrungen und
> Übersteuerungserscheinungen entfallen!". There is no cure, even on a
> tricked-out record player.
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager