"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. -----Original Message----- From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom Fine Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 4:14 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Details on vinyl to digital re-mastering When the first Dynagroove record came out -- I think it was a Mahler symphony by Leinsdorf/BSO -- RCA made a huge splash, including lengthy technical essays in the album packaging plus much publicity in trade publications and hifi mags. There were probably some moments of fear and loathing among competitors -- until they put the first Dynagroove LPs on their turntables, took a listen and laughed loudly. RCA ruined a major competitive weapon -- their excellent sound quality -- in one ill-conceived move. Until Dynagroove, RCA was making classical records of a sound quality usually on par with the smaller quality-oriented labels, but with RCA's superior roster of famous musicians and conductors. Their pressing plant in Indiana was the best in the US. The point is that they were already putting out excellent records and didn't need to upset the apple cart. There's probably a business school case study in why you'd mess so drastically with that formula. And then, they stubbornly stuck with Dynagroove even after it was panned. And then, in the late 60's, they came out with paper-thin Dynaflex records. It's interesting how a company that ushered in many technical innovations over the years, and established a very strong quality-oriented culture, went down such a wrong path and then stuck on it until the end. -- Tom Fine ----- Original Message ----- From: "Donald Tait" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 3:47 PM Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Details on vinyl to digital re-mastering I'd like to add my voice to Tom's about Dynagroove LPs. They were a major "retro" step around 1963. In addition to the sonic faults cited so far, another was the squashing of dynamic range. As we know, Ravel's Bolero is among other things a very long crescendo, beginning extremely quietly and gradually building to a loud climax. Charles Munch's last (1962) Boston Symphony recording of Bolero, released on LM/LSC-2664, begins as loudly as it ends. There is no dynamic range to speak of. Speaking metaphorically, what happens is that the sound becomes progressively thicker in sonority rather than changing dynamically. And some Dynagroove LPs indeed had distortion. Morton Gould's circa 1965 recording of his Spirituals with the Chicago Symphony (I don't have the catalogue number to hand) is extraordinarily sonorous and tonally rich on the Red Seal stereo Dynagroove LP, but the climaxes are seriously overloaded. But as has been said, some Dynagroove LPs were better than others. Especially later in the series, when they seemed to back off a bit from the manipulation. Dynagroove reminds me of what a late friend used to say, paraphrasing David Letterman: "another stupid RCA trick." My experience has parallelled Tom's: the CD reissues are better. Don Tait -----Original Message----- From: Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]> To: ARSCLIST <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Fri, Sep 7, 2012 5:24 am Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Details on vinyl to digital re-mastering Hi Evan: Most RCA stuff from the dynagroove era got released on CD. My advice is, find the CD. Dynagroove was a bad idea. Often, it was a badly executed bad idea. Some of those records sound so bad they are not fixable because of the sibilance problem you mentioned. There might be some gold-plated, made-in-the-moonlight-by-virgins megabux cartridge that doesn't splash that kind of high-frequency energy, but I doubt it since i think the overload was in the cutterhead, so it's baked in. -- Tom Fine ----- Original Message ----- From: "Evan MacBeth" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 12:19 AM Subject: [ARSCLIST] Details on vinyl to digital re-mastering Hi all, Only moderately off track, does anyone have any particular tips for transferring Stereo RCA Dynagroove discs from the early 60s? The disc i'm trying to copy has such an over-the-top top end. I intend to reduce the top end a bit, but does anyone know if Dynagroove used a specific top end boost? In addition, certain sibilant syllables from the vocalist distort terribly while others in the same song do not - but if i sum the two channels to mono the sibilance doesn't distort at all. Whether this is down to the vocalist's mic technique or not, i wouldn't know - i don't have any other Dynagroove albums to compare this to. Also, this is a brand new disc, it was still sealed until i cracked it open on Tuesday (and yes, it needed a clean!) but i've had the same problem in the same place with other copies too. Any tips at all? Cheers, Evan.