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

[par4ken]

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.

What HE (Jaybird100) said!

I don't recall ever having a problem with a warped Dynaflex record. Obviously they need to be stored properly and I always remove the shrink wrap. I would also suggest that if a warped record was found you could lay it flat placing something heavy on top to flatten it. I've used the technique both successfully and unsuccessfully in the past. I would suggest that it should be easier to flatten a warped Dynaflex record in that manor, than it would a thicker one.

The main benefit of Dynaflex is the lower noise of the pressings compared to others of the same time period. The Canadian tan label ABC/Dunhill LP's pressed by RCA sound fantastic. As do the Dynaflex RCA's both Canadian and US pressed. By comparison earlier black label ABC/Dunhill Canadian pressings by Polydor are noisier, the same goes for The US black label ABC and Dunhill pressings as well as the Command Quad releases. All those releases could have sounded better if they had been pressed on Dynaflex vinyl!

 

[Quadly McQuadmeister]

Um, no. Just. Plain. No. About 700 (give or take, including some Dynagroove early experimental compressor technology recordings) Shaded and White Dog RCA's in my collection beg to differ. The DynaFLEX vinyl was SOFT and therefore held up worse under multiple playings, and warp wow (and skips) were legion among entire generations of collectors. I had a two-LP set of Woody Herman's 40th Anniversary concert that I returned four DIFFERENT times because of skips and warp wow (including PINCH WARPS) so nice try but now, as before, NO SALE. They were cheap. That was their entire reason for existing and they lived down to that potential in my not low sample size experiences. Doc Severinsen's "Rhapsody for Now" early pressings beat the Dynaflexes about the face and ears. If you like'em, I'm happy for you, but their reputation was justly earned decades before this thread was started.

 

[par4ken]

Um, no. Just. Plain. No. About 700 (give or take, including some Dynagroove early experimental compressor technology recordings) Shaded and White Dog RCA's in my collection beg to differ. The Dynagroove vinyl was SOFT and therefore held up worse under multiple playings, and warp wow (and skips) were legion among entire generations of collectors. I had a two-LP set of Woody Herman's 40th Anniversary concert that I returned four DIFFERENT times because of skips and warp wow (including PINCH WARPS) so nice try but now, as before, NO SALE. They were cheap. That was their entire reason for existing and they lived down to that potential in my not low sample size experiences. Doc Severinsen's "Rhapsody for Now" early pressings beat the Dynaflexes about the face and ears. If you like'em, I'm happy for you, but their reputation was justly earned decades before this thread was started.

Dynagroove and Dynaflex were two totally different things! Dynagroove were designed to sound better on equipment typical in the mid to late sixties. Dynagroove got a bad reputation as the technology (compression and pre-distortion for conical styli) made them sound worse especially in the eyes of the HiFi press, when played over more audiophile type equipment.

Dynaflex was designed to save money on vinyl however despite thier light weight they sound superb! I've heard of problems running them on a record changers but very long ago I adopted the practice of playing all of my records manually. The thought of stacking naked records on top of one another is a recipe for disaster! Todays 180 gram pressings are a joke. The extra thickness and weight does nothing to improve sound and they cost a fortune to ship! The secret is in the formulation of the vinyl. Dynaflex pressings are very quite indeed. The same vinyl formulation could have been used to make a thicker record I'm sure.

I do have a few albums that are unplayable due to warps, usually just the first track or two and none of those are Dynaflex.

Warps like you describe were likely the result of too tight shrink around the record. It is probable that is where the oft quoted recommendation to always remove the shrink came from. Softer vinyl might not stand up as good after multiple playing but that would depend what you are playing it on. I "wore out" many records in the early days including some Dynaflex LP's but didn't notice more wear on them than with other well played albums. Non Dynaflex replacement copies usually didn't sound as good.

Today I make digital copies of my records so the record seldom has to played again or be played very often, so record wear is not really a consideration.

 

[Quadly McQuadmeister]

Mistyped "Groove" for "Flex". Sorry for the typo. My bad. As for the rest, I stand by the sentiment, my fumblefingers not withstanding. We'll continue to agree to disagree. Just got home from the Dentist, so...please forgive the lack of proofreading.