[78-L] Why I Hate LPs

[David Lennick]

Re vinyl V-Discs..Clark's pressings were on much stiffer, harder stuff than Victor's. I wonder how durable they were? And I've had a few V-Discs that were cut by Columbia but pressed on vinyl. Would Columbia have done these or would the parts have gone to Victor (hard to believe)?

 

Re Dynashit..Canadian Victor was pressing on good stuff in the 60s, unlike the brittle US garbage. When we started getting those Salvador Dali-inspired pressings

http://www.leninimports.com/dali_soft_portrait_shop_sculpture_1.jpg, which were still thicker than the US version, we weren't too impressed. And the US ones were incredibly thin and prone to warping. Remember (Dr. Biel, especially) a review in High Fidelity of a Galli Curci Camden LP where the reviewer swore he could hear the other side of the disc playing through the top side? Not beyond the realm of possibility..I have a Marian Anderson flexi where you CAN hear through to the other side at one point.

 

dl


 
> Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2010 23:57:27 -0400
> From: mbiel at mbiel.com
> To: 78-l at klickitat.78online.com
> Subject: Re: [78-L] Why I Hate LPs
> 
> 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 
> _______________________________________________
> 78-L mailing list
> 78-L at klickitat.78online.com
> http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l