[78-L] Why I Hate LPs

[Michael Biel]

neechevoneeznayou at gmail.com wrote:
>> 4. Dynaflex- introduced by RCA as a flimsier alternative to what????
>>     
>
> My understanding at the time was that it was reduced costs - less vinyl 
> used. Maybe lower shipping costs too
>   

Yes that is true, but as I mentioned this was a MUCH higher grade of 
vinyl and the use of less vinyl brought the price down to where they 
could afford to use a premium quiet vinyl on even the pop records and 
bargain labels like Camden and Victrola.  The lower shipping costs were 
also factored in.  As I mentioned, the noisy vinyl they had been using 
occasionally broke or shattered if dropped at the wrong angle, and if 
they tried to use that for thin pressings they would crack like a saltine. 
> Even in 78 days records got smaller, did they not? Compare an early 
> acoustic to a late 78 of the same size.

The shellac quality also improved to allow this.

>  Certainly a vinyl 78 would cost 
> less to ship.


The light weight of vinyl was a major reason for using it for V-Discs 
and ETs.  A very few V-discs were laminated Columbia pressings, and they 
were twice as heavy and more fragile -- I can't figure out why ANY 
V-discs were not vinyl!

>  WAY less than a DD, tho it was not shellac.  joe salerno

Shipping costs were pennies back then.  Look at the freight charges on 
old Sears catalogs. 


Mike Biel  mbiel at mbiel.com