Print

Print


"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.