"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.

 

[MidiMagic]

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!

Proper storage is a necessity and a cure.

One time a bought a record that had been out in the sun at a garage sale because it was badly warped. I wanted to use it to test vertical compliance of tonearms.

I used it for about a year for that. Then I didn't need to do that test until about 2 years after that. Unfortunately, I stored it with my other records the proper way. The next time I wanted to do that test, the warp was gone.

 

[Quadly McQuadmeister]

None of that is relevant to my experience with Dynaflex. They're cheap and of wretched quality. They are to be avoided. Period.

 

[par4ken]

Proper storage is a necessity and a cure.

One time a bought a record that had been out in the sun at a garage sale because it was badly warped. I wanted to use it to test vertical compliance of tonearms.

I used it for about a year for that. Then I didn't need to do that test until about 2 years after that. Unfortunately, I stored it with my other records the proper way. The next time I wanted to do that test, the warp was gone.

Exactly, I'm hard pressed to find a warped record in my collection, they are stored properly.

None of that is relevant to my experience with Dynaflex. They're cheap and of wretched quality. They are to be avoided. Period.

I'm sure that your experience is limited to maybe getting a warped copy from a store, warped due to the shrink being too tight and improper storage. What did you do with those records? By simply storing them properly they would have straightened out I'm sure!

As for sound, non Dynaflex records of that time period used a lot of recycled vinyl. Recycled vinyl produced noisy records. Dynaflex used virgin vinyl and thus sounded superb! I would suggest that Dynaflex records would wear less as the softer more pliable vinyl would bounce back rather than being sheared off as harder vinyl could be.

 

[Quadly McQuadmeister]

Fixing a fatally flawed product wasn't and isn't my job. Read the entire thread. I had MANY of them. And heard about MANY more from others. They were execrable then and they remain so to this day. You're drowning in your own confirmation bias and bleating the same apologist marketing schmooze from a company that squandered David Sarnoff 's legacy for quality does nothing to legitimize your assertion.

 

[par4ken]

Fixing a fatally flawed product wasn't and isn't my job. Read the entire thread. I had MANY of them. And heard about MANY more from others. They were execrable then and they remain so to this day. You're drowning in your own confirmation bias and bleating the same apologist marketing schmooze from a company that squandered David Sarnoff 's legacy for quality does nothing to legitimize your assertion.

The product wasn't flawed! Dynaflex records sound great! And I did read the entire thread. You are being dismissive of my long experience with Dynaflex. It is obvious to me that you had a bad experience with a few warped records and likely just ran back to the store to complain. You didn't give them a chance. By simply storing them properly for a bit any warps would have gone away! I repeat that I have many Dynaflex records and none of them are warped.

My most recent Dynaflex purchase was Leigh Ashford - Kinfolk and it sounds as good as or better than the CD release! It arrived with no sign of any warp. Warps in harder vinyl are actually much harder to remove.

You and others are the ones with confirmation bias in believing that a light weight flexible record can't possibly sound any good.

I'm not the only one who loves Dynaflex RCA Red Seal Dynaflex LP's from the 1970s, amazingly good sound and quiet surfaces. Get 'em cheap!!

 

[Quadly McQuadmeister]

Confirmation based in evidence isn't bias. It's factually verified conclusions based on experience. It's not about what CAN exist in a highly controlled environment. It's about what cost-cutting did to the quality of a formerly great product. Did a few get through the manufacturing process unmolested? Probably. Your bias towards a product that the collector's marketplace accurately and correctly dismissed decades ago tells the entirety of the story. If a pop record was ONLY pressed on Dynaflex, then it might be an outlier. Pinch warps and all. Heifetz Dynaflexes abound for twenty-five cents apiece and I don't advise paying any more than that for one. You're just trying to boost thread traffic. I'm done feeding trolls. Facts matter and your experience isn't reflected in the marketplace's conclusions. I think a stronger case can be made for Dynagroove's compression technology being less deleterious than Dynaflex's manifestly innumerable failures. Do you like 'em? Great! There's plenty of them out there and they're dirt cheap. As well they deserve to be. Have at 'em!

 

[Quadly McQuadmeister]

One of many links, leading to various supporting articles:

People also ask:

Are Dynaflex records good?

The quality of Dynaflex as a product is debated by record lovers to this day, as *MANY* discredit it as a viable method of listening to music due to its generally poorer audio quality and lack of long-term durability.Jan 4, 2023

 

[Quadly McQuadmeister]

Good enough for me. They'll never be collectible, kuh-klunk, -ectible, kuh, klunk, -ectible, kuh-klunk. ROFL.

 

[bktouchstone]

Form factor. I was starting to buy a little vinyl for a while but then I moved across country. It’s. So. Heavy. It was a disaster and I haven’t bought vinyl for a couple of years now. So I like the size of CD/sacd/blu-ray. We could probably shrink that down further like 1 inch but that would be easy to lose, and they would fall over a lot. And the tiny artwork! That would make me nervous. Form factor is such a personal thing.