[78-L] Decca Specialty Series (DAU-x)

[Michael Biel]

DL wrote:
>>>The U in the prefix almost always indicates "unbreakable".

From: "agp" <agp2176 at verizon.net>
>> So -- I guess that means that DAU stands for D-ecca A-lbum U-nbreakable?

From: "Steven C. Barr" <stevenc at interlinks.net>
> Per-zactly!

We've already discussed that this assumption was wrong, but we need to
issue a further clarification now that I can look at the 1942 catalog. 
It shows that A possibly means album (in the manual sequence) but that
DA definitely means "Drop Automatic". But K was the prefix for kid's
albums. But it is still true that the labels and album covers sometimes
confused the issue.

>>Deccalite pressings are translucent at that time (not Canadian pressings
>>though). Don't know if these would be by World Transcription or Vogue.

>> Ah -- so what was Deccalite --plastic, vinyl, left over to
>> hard raspberry gelatin? I'm sure this is answer somewhere,
>> but just thought I'd ask.

> Presumably, these were some sort of mixture of polyvinyl
> and the usual shellac-based compound of which 78's were made?!

The fact that these Vougue factory pressings were translucent precludes
the inclusion of any shellac compound in the mixture, such as is thought
to be in some of the Varsity-type LPs.  Transparent and translucent
vinyl pressings are often purer vinyl than opaque black. 

>> If such and similar stuff was available and used for promo records by
>> the likes of RCA and Capitol, then why didn't the industry switch to
>> it away from shellac. Naturally one can guess that they didn't want
>> to make a better 78 to compete with the 45 and lp. I do note thought
>> that late 50s Pye 78s in the UK are vinyl, and sound great, so
>> obviously the situation was different there.

> Two reasons...one (fairly) obvious! In the 1950's, MANY record
> buyers had either "wind-up machines" or old horseshoe-magnet
> electric players...

We've already discussed in earlier postings that the Pye vinyl 78s from
the late 50s came after buyers generally had light-weight 3-speed
players, and that there were many vinyl 78s issued in the U.S. but the
format was being phased out before it became more widespread.

> as well, many record owners bought slightly-improved
> "steel needles" (usually with a longer-lasting tip of
> some variety!) with which to play their records! It
> is fairly easy to imagine the effect that these sorts
> of players had(or would have had?!) on vinyl-based records!

Although that did happen, the trend in the 50s was actually away from
heavier armed players.  Yes, some of the holdouts to the speed were
still using old machines, but by 1955 there were a lot of vinyl and
other plastic 78s being made in the U.S.  And dl mentioned in his
earlier posting that Quality was pressing 78s in vinyl throughout the
50s in Canada.

>>>> Lots of pop records in the US were pressed on some form of vinyl
>>>> through the 50s, and everything pressed by Quality in Canada from
>>>> Day 1 (which was in 1950).  dl

> Second...existing record makers had major investments in
> shellac-based record-pressing facilities...the thought of
> investing MORE money in vinyl-based record pressing
> would have raised hackles in the accounting dep'ts!

Vinyl and shellac discs can be pressed on the same presses with just
changed adjustments and a cleaning. And 78s can be pressed on the same
presses as LPs.  If the 78s are pressed on the same vinyl as the LPs, it
would be more efficient because fewer adjustments would have to be made
when pressing both formats on the same vinyl.  And since LPs were being
pressed in increasingly larger quantities, any new presses would be
aimed for pressing them, and thus would be more likely to be approved in
the "accounting dep'ts" (sic) if they were also used for vinyl 78s.  And
to further please the "accounting dep'ts", as vinyl became more widely
used it became cheaper and shellac became more expensive as its use
decreased.  And the "accounting dep'ts" also approved of the lighter
shipping weight of vinyl 78s over shellac 78s.

> Once 45's became the new "standard single" format
> (much lighter, easier to carry and effectively non-
> breakable/non-crackable!) 78's were "on their way
> out!" So, there was VERY LITTLE (read "none!")
> interest in improving 78's;

So I suppose the vastly improved ultra-quiet shellac Victor introduced
around 1953 was a result of no interest in improving 78's.  And Victor's
New Orthophonic High Fidelity 78s were also a result of no interest in
improving 78's.  Too bad.

> only a few audiophiles were aware that the faster speed
> offered improvements in fidelity.  ...stevenc 

But the use of microgroove offset the advantage of the faster surface
speed of 78.  The only higher fidelity advantage of 78 over microgroove
33s was in the microgroove 78s made by the Audiophile label!  (And
ironically, also the Soviets, but unfortunately their vinyl was very
noisy in the 50s.  But their shellac was very quiet!!  Amazingly quiet. 
The more I find  Soviet shellac pressings the more impressed I am -- but
unfortunately they didn't press their microgroove Long Play 78s in that
quiet shellac, only on their noisy vinyl.)

Mike Biel  mbiel at mbiel.com