"Did The Music Business Just Kill the Vinyl Revival?"

[MidiMagic]

Exactly. Dynaflex pressings - which were extremely lightweight - were generally pretty good but got confused with Dynagroove - which generally weren’t. Well that…and confirmation bias.

And Classic Records (among others) had QC issues with 200g records. But bottom line, there is no inherent sound quality or QC benefit with heavier records. It’s all just marketing - and improving margins by getting people to pay $$ more for a few $0.01 of extra vinyl.

I have quality complaints with the new 180g records. They don't fit the spindles of older record players because the center holes are too small. The RIAA standard hole diameter is .286 inch, or just over 9/32 inch. The new records have .250 inch holes and they don't fit some spindles.

 

[barfle]

I recall the dynaflex records being called “dynadroop.” But I don’t recall anyone saying they sounded any different.

 

[Quadly McQuadmeister]

I have quality complaints with the new 180g records. They don't fit the spindles of older record players because the center holes are too small. The RIAA standard hole diameter is .286 inch, or just over 9/32 inch. The new records have .250 inch holes and they don't fit some spindles.

Arguably, that's a good thing. It's not that insurmountable a challenge to slightly expand the center hole. While that doesn't fix an off center hole pressing flaw (yet another thing that was much more common in the dynaflex '80s), it does cut down the innumerable variety of oval and other distortion inducing eccentricities for which post Arab Oil embargo pressings have become justly vilified.

Seek TAS's articles on this. Stereo Review, et al, never mentioned it. But Sid Mark's and Michael Fremer nailed the phenomenon. As did Edward Tatnall Canby and Arthur Lintgen. False equivalencies are being deployed that don't (perhaps purposefully) speak to the complexity of the issue. The fact that not all Dynaflexes were wretched says nothing about the ones that were, and those are PLENTIFUL. Inversely, the fact that a few Classic Records releases had flaws says nothing about the fact that we most were very nearly State of the LP Art.

Everyone gets to have their own preferences and I'm fine with that. But there's an unhealthy, Science averse, and entirely opinion based narrative that seems like a populist/nihilist reaction to the completely indefensible price gouging by record labels. Running the quality down to where it was in 1983 ain't the answer. It's been tried before and the colloquilism regarding the definition of insanity is still applicable. As I also posted earlier, this goes hand in hand with the law of diminishing returns (like rust) never sleeping. There's a sweet spot and some low fidelity lp's might fare okay on a 60 gram pressing. I wouldn't want own it because of the existential perils all records encounter. If not in the playing process, then certainly in the storage and climate variation arenas. Static inertia's your friend. Excited resonances and cooling biscuit eccentricities aren't and never will be.

 

[par4ken]

I recall the dynaflex records being called “dynadroop.” But I don’t recall anyone saying they sounded any different.

I never heard that one before. There is the idea that Dynaflex record were simply made cheap to save the record company money due to the oil embargo. Yes they used less vinyl but I can attest to the fact that they do sound better than most other pressings. I don't recall ever having a problem due to their light weight either. Proper storage reduces or even eliminates the chances of warpage. I'm not sure if it's a big factor but I always remove the shrink as well, if too tight apparently that can cause warpage.

I often wish that the Command Quadraphonic LP's had been presses on Dynaflex vinyl. None were pressed in Canada (RCA Dynaflex) the only copies came the U.S. so no way know for sure. I always thought that those LP's could have sounded just a bit better!

 

[barfle]

I also recall the use of "recycled" vinyl in some records. Apparently the "recycler" would punch out the paper label center, remelt the vinyl, and press a new record.

I have a record (In-a-Godda-da-Vida) that actually has a small piece of paper sticking out of the pressing. It's in a pretty loud part of the record (well, what isn't?), so it's not real noticeable, but if you are looking for it, you can hear it.

That record came out before the oil embargo, if I recall correctly. Every company looks for ways to improve their margins.

 

[marcb]

I have quality complaints with the new 180g records. They don't fit the spindles of older record players because the center holes are too small. The RIAA standard hole diameter is .286 inch, or just over 9/32 inch. The new records have .250 inch holes and they don't fit some spindles.

The weight of the record also has nothing to do with a hole being to large or small. You folks are conflating quality control issues and vinyl weight.

 

[marcb]

I also recall the use of "recycled" vinyl in some records. Apparently the "recycler" would punch out the paper label center, remelt the vinyl, and press a new record.

I have a record (In-a-Godda-da-Vida) that actually has a small piece of paper sticking out of the pressing. It's in a pretty loud part of the record (well, what isn't?), so it's not real noticeable, but if you are looking for it, you can hear it.

That record came out before the oil embargo, if I recall correctly. Every company looks for ways to improve their margins.

Again, this has nothing to do with vinyl weight.

 

[Quad Linda]

Gee, I didn't think that anyone thinks the vinyl weight affects the hole.

I took it as they were complaining in general about vinyl quality.

IMHO, vinyl quality and quality control might be the biggest factors.

 

[Quadly McQuadmeister]

Believe what you want, but experience and Science won't lie on behalf the subjectively self siloed. Too tight is an easier fix than too loose, ten times out of ten. Although, anything other than RIAA spec is still "slop" and doesn't speak for QC from any era. It's a complex topic that is further complicated by a certain amount of subjectivity that self replicates as trolling and self-hypnosis. RCA vociferously defended their shoddy Dyna-products as their collapsing QC destroyed their own heritage from within. James A. Mitchell and others spoke to this phenomenon long before the disinformation riddled click bait, algorithm driven Internet could exploit it. Others can choose to educate themselves or remain ignorant. But I don't feed trolls and simple refutation without serious discourse is a waste of time. If you like it spin it. Or don't. Either way, "America Drinks And Goes Home". Best to all.

 

[MidiMagic]

I recall the dynaflex records being called “dynadroop.” But I don’t recall anyone saying they sounded any different.

I heard "Dynaflap".

Gee, I didn't think that anyone thinks the vinyl weight affects the hole.

I took it as they were complaining in general about vinyl quality.

IMHO, vinyl quality and quality control might be the biggest factors.

All of the ones with the too-small holes are new records on 180g vinyl. Maybe they are thinking from general literature that the hole is 1/4-inch instead of the spindle.

 

[jaybird100]

I never heard that one before. There is the idea that Dynaflex record were simply made cheap to save the record company money due to the oil embargo. Yes they used less vinyl but I can attest to the fact that they do sound better than most other pressings. I don't recall ever having a problem due to their light weight either. Proper storage reduces or even eliminates the chances of warpage. I'm not sure if it's a big factor but I always remove the shrink as well, if too tight apparently that can cause warpage.

I often wish that the Command Quadraphonic LP's had been presses on Dynaflex vinyl. None were pressed in Canada (RCA Dynaflex) the only copies came the U.S. so no way know for sure. I always thought that those LP's could have sounded just a bit better!

I've never had a problem with any of the ABC Command Quadraphonic records, related to the pressings. I've questioned some of the mixes, but for the most part, they've been fairly consistent in quality. Some of them didn't seem to have a whole lot of separation, until I played them through the Surround Master. What a difference! But as far as pressings go, no problems.

 

[par4ken]

I've never had a problem with any of the ABC Command Quadraphonic records, related to the pressings. I've questioned some of the mixes, but for the most part, they've been fairly consistent in quality. Some of them didn't seem to have a whole lot of separation, until I played them through the Surround Master. What a difference! But as far as pressings go, no problems.

You missed my point. The Dynaflex pressings are quieter and so sound better than the others. I didn't say that the other pressings were necessarily bad sounding.

 

[jaybird100]

You missed my point. The Dynaflex pressings are quieter and so sound better than the others. I didn't say that the other pressings were necessarily bad sounding.

Point not missed. I have several records that were pressed on very thin, Dynaflex-type vinyl, and I've found that, if the record isn't warped (which they frequently were), they sounded fine. Back when they were first introduced, many record buyers were still using automatic changers. These records often didn't drop properly when played on those machines. RCA wanted to prove that "less is more". It wasn't always true.

 

[par4ken]

We are not talking ordinary thin type vinyl. Dynaflex was special, more flexible. I don't recall ever having a warped one!

Growing up we used to stack records on the record "changer". I never did that with my own records. I always played just one at a time. I have always preferred totally manual turntables!

Dynaflex was introduced in 1969 long before the oil embargo. Lightweight saves on shipping costs as well!

https://www.djtees.com/blogs/djtees-blog/dynaflex-the-infamous-floppy-vinyl/

 

[barfle]

Again, this has nothing to do with vinyl weight.

What it has to do with is saving money, which I noted.

 

[MidiMagic]

Arguably, that's a good thing. It's not that insurmountable a challenge to slightly expand the center hole. While that doesn't fix an off center hole pressing flaw (yet another thing that was much more common in the dynaflex '80s), it does cut down the innumerable variety of oval and other distortion inducing eccentricities for which post Arab Oil embargo pressings have become justly vilified.

Seek TAS's articles on this. Stereo Review, et al, never mentioned it. But Sid Mark's and Michael Fremer nailed the phenomenon. As did Edward Tatnall Canby and Arthur Lintgen. False equivalencies are being deployed that don't (perhaps purposefully) speak to the complexity of the issue. The fact that not all Dynaflexes were wretched says nothing about the ones that were, and those are PLENTIFUL. Inversely, the fact that a few Classic Records releases had flaws says nothing about the fact that we most were very nearly State of the LP Art.

Everyone gets to have their own preferences and I'm fine with that. But there's an unhealthy, Science averse, and entirely opinion based narrative that seems like a populist/nihilist reaction to the completely indefensible price gouging by record labels. Running the quality down to where it was in 1983 ain't the answer. It's been tried before and the colloquilism regarding the definition of insanity is still applicable. As I also posted earlier, this goes hand in hand with the law of diminishing returns (like rust) never sleeping. There's a sweet spot and some low fidelity lp's might fare okay on a 60 gram pressing. I wouldn't want own it because of the existential perils all records encounter. If not in the playing process, then certainly in the storage and climate variation arenas. Static inertia's your friend. Excited resonances and cooling biscuit eccentricities aren't and never will be.

Dynaflex was not post-Arab-oil-embargo. Dynaflex appeared in 1969 and the oil embargo was not until 1973. I got my first Dynaflex in 1970.

I never had any problem with Dynaflex except that the index arm on a Webster Chicago model 100 caused the record to bend

What price gouging? They are offering a product at a price. The numbers of buyers must be large enough for them to make money, or they would lower the price or discontinue the product.
.

 

[JohnN]

Vinyl thrives at United Record Pressing as the nation's oldest record maker plays a familiar tune

 

[jaybird100]

You missed my point. The Dynaflex pressings are quieter and so sound better than the others. I didn't say that the other pressings were necessarily bad sounding.

Not really. I had to return several Dynaflex records that, right out of the cover for the first play, they were so badly warped that even clamping them didn't help. Sound not withstanding, if you can't play the record when you buy it, that's a problem.

 

[Quadly McQuadmeister]

What HE (Jaybird100) said!

 

[Quadly McQuadmeister]

Dynaflex was not post-Arab-oil-embargo. Dynaflex appeared in 1969 and the oil embargo was not until 1973. I got my first Dynaflex in 1970.

I never had any problem with Dynaflex except that the index arm on a Webster Chicago model 100 caused the record to bend

What price gouging? They are offering a product at a price. The numbers of buyers must be large enough for them to make money, or they would lower the price or discontinue the product.
.

And inflationary pressures were well underway before 1973. See: War, Vietnam. subsection: Deficit financing thereof.