RCA Dynagroove and recording technique

[Firedome]

RCA Dynagroove has always been a bit controversial. I can remember discussions and critiques, I think in High Fidelity. The recording engineers supposedly sometimes gave untoward emphasis to low and perhaps high Hz in excess of accepted RIAA curves that was intended to appeal to "average" listeners on "mid-fi" equipment but rendered music unfaithful especially on TOL gear and to serious critical listeners. Does anyone remember this controversy?

I also recall praise for London "FFRR" and "FFSS" (full frequency recording reproduction, full frequency stereo signal? separation? not sure) and some of the recording techniques used by certain engineers with other labels.I have a London recording of Mantovani made mid-60s? that is absolutely fantastic. I love how HF would critique not only specific performances but recording technique and the produced LP sound. I can recall Command/Enoch Light being lambasted for stereo gimmickry at times but the sound was great.

I believe some of the very best stereo LP recording was actually done in the early stereo late '50s to mid-60s era. Some truly great mono even earlier. I have yet to buy a vinyl LP made after the '70s but intend to get some for comparison listening of pre-'70s music that I know well...should be interesting. My hearing isn't what is used to be but recording and mastering to vinyl LPs can be pretty easy to screw up, and I don't want anything digitally mastered or processed in any way. Listening these days is most fun for me when not trying to be super-picky or critical of the stereo instruments that you're listening to the music through if the music is right. Nora Jones singing "Come away with me" or Judy Garland on "April Showers" on the ol' duMont SE 6BQ5 console at moderate listening levels is just the ticket for relaxation.

[electra225]

I've heard the criticism of Dynagroove. I'm not sure I agree. I will admit that my hearing may not be as acute as some others'. My personal belief is that the criticism of Dynagroove is like the guys who need cyrogenically treated audio cables and can tell the difference in the sound of rectifiers. Mostly audiophool bilgewater.

I enjoy the hyper-stereo recordings of the late 1950's to the middle 1960's. Both the recording techniques and the equipment to reproduce those recordings were unique and in the zenith of their development. Perhaps if you play Dynagroove recordings on the hyper-bass-boosted equipment of the 1970's, there might be issues there. RCA Victor Dynagroove, Columbia 360 Sound, Decca's Nashville Sound recordings were all about the same hyper stereo. I'm not very scientific, but I like the Nashville Sound era. We've discussed that ad nauseum, so I'll leave it at that.

[TC Chris]

I recall the issue. The criticism is still alive. I don't have any Dynagroove discs at hand but the problem was tinkering with frequency response so discs would sound better on low-fi players. They are still scorned by collectors. The best course of action is always to aim for the best recording, not for something that sounds good on one kind of player.

Chris Campbell

[walyfd]

Dynagroove is junk. Good music on garbage vinyl. Thin, flimsy and barely pressed. Looks closer to a CD than an lp...

I have Arthur Fiedler hits of the 20s I use as a test record. I know the album because my aunt had the 8 track. When I can squeeze just about everything out of its pimply ruts then I'm pretty sure my cartridge is set right.

Best thing to do with them is play them once while you make a tape...

And I agree the London, Mercury, Command and early RCA are fantastic.

[electra225]

Are you thinking of Dynaflex instead of Dynagroove? Dynagroove started in 1963. Dynaflex started sometime in the early 1970's. Dynaflex records were thinner, sometimes downright flimsy.

[walyfd]

Yes, my bad. DYNAFLEX are pitiful but DYNAGROOVE do not sound as good as New Orthophonic or Living Stereo RCA records.

[Firedome]

Yes Dynagroove was about frequency manipulation for lo-mid-fi, as TCC says, a real thing done intentionally by RCA and not some audiophool imaginary fairy dust, their recording engineers were very open about it. While the intent was to improve the experience for average users it lessened it for others so after tons of criticism after a few years they deep-6-ed the idea but then went on to Dynaflex, so thin that there were all sorts of problems with them. Hard to believe it saved them enough to make it even worth it.

[Ken Doyle]

The original Dynagroove records made up for the tracking errors on typical RCA record changers in home stereos, which made it less ideal for someone with a good turntable, a more compliant cartridge, and an elliptical stylus. Dynagroove was discontinued about 1970 for good reason. Sadly, that's about the time they began making those floppy Dynaflex pressings for about 5 years.

[walyfd]

I remember the tonearm on my 1956 6HF1 was terribly short. Now it was the RCA design for New Orthopedic records but there was no way it hit the correct arc for all records. "deleted", even my Edison diamond disk has a longer arm...

With true HIFI and stereo around for 12 years by 1970, why concentrate on the low-end market? There had to be enough people trading up that quality players were available on the used market. Many dealers took trades, too...