Quantcast

Friends of Distinction: Flimsy Vinyl?

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

Q-Eight

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Sep 30, 2003
Messages
3,260
Location
Castlegar, BC, Canada
Picked up a dozen CD-4 albums a few weeks ago and am now going thru them. One of them is the Friends of Distinction's Greatest Hits and it is a very thin, floppy vinyl record. Nothing like any of the other CD-4 albums I have.

What's the deal?
 

quadtrade

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Mar 3, 2002
Messages
1,448
Location
Ugene
That very well could be the result of RCA using their Dynaflex vinyl. I have that same title and it does seem to be a bit flimsy though it does not say Dynaflex anywhere on the record.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynaflex_(RCA)

Total greed, as in violation of every policy they understood, about the best conditions for CD-4 replication. The stories about RCA are endless, factories in dirty coal towns in Pennsylvania where they pressed these beauties with open windows no air conditioning. :eek: Terrible conditions, and less than stellar choices in record composites, excess replications with the same stamper, and proven CD-4 technology ignored, left many RCA CD-4 pressings useless out of the sleeve, before you could spin it around!!
Perhaps a list of good RCA pressings would be worth a shot, probably the shortest list i bet!
 
Last edited:

5.1 4 Life

Well-known Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2017
Messages
144
Picked up a dozen CD-4 albums a few weeks ago and am now going thru them. One of them is the Friends of Distinction's Greatest Hits and it is a very thin, floppy vinyl record. Nothing like any of the other CD-4 albums I have.

What's the deal?
'The deal' was Dynaflex. A process that RCA Records was using in the early '70s to make albums with less surface noise. I had a couple of albums by The Jimmy Castor Bunch (It's Just Begun) & Isaac Hayes (Black Moses*) that had Dynaflex. Since I had VERY cheap equipment at the time, I can't tell if it made a difference in sound quality.

* While Isaac Hayes was recording for Stax Records at the time when Black Moses came out in '71, my copy of the album was pressed at RCA's plant using Dynaflex.
 

Bob Romano

Administrator
Staff member
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Apr 26, 2002
Messages
5,070
Location
Viva Las Vegas
I think the difference between Dynaflex and CD-4 vs. stereo is... stereo doesn't have a carrier signal. You add that signal with cheap and often dirty vinyl and you get a nightmare of clicks pops and often a CD-4 carrier that is unstable. I have quite a few CD-4 Dynaflex albums and MANY will not decode properly, even after a good cleaning. Now it could be that they were well used and I wouldn't know for sure because I bought them all on Ebay or in used stores but the stereo discs fare much better. But it is damn thin vinyl that can be almost see-through. On the other hand, I'm kind of getting tired of the whole 180g vinyl thing too. More greed I think and I have heard great pressings on plain old 120 and 140 gram vinyl.
 

MidiMagic

500 Club - QQ All-Star
Joined
Jul 5, 2010
Messages
505
Dynaflex appeared because of the OPEC oil embargo making vinyl more expensive.

I have a few of the 90 g "dynaflap" records. They tend to warp easier.

On the other hand, some 180 g records won't drop from the spindle of a Dual 1229. They are too thick.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

boondocks

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
1,562
Location
boondocks of NC Florida
When I was in the Army "overseas" as we used to say in polite company, I used to pick through the PX's Schwann Catalogue and they would order anything they could get, which was usually anything fairly current.
I think it was C,S, N & Y's 4 way street that I ended up with 4 copies because of warping. Other times I relished in vinyl sourced from the UK and Germany when I could get it as it almost always seemed superior. The rumour, true or not, that US vinyl was recycled, paper labels and all, was the cause of scratchy, crappy, vinyl seemed quite believable in the early 70's. That I met quite a few LP lovers in the service that repeated this only seemed to add credence to what was probably just someone's speculation. Maybe. :whistle:
 

Wagonmaster_91

400 Club - QQ All-Star
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Mar 11, 2002
Messages
449
Location
Dallas,TX
I seem to remember the point of Dynaflex was an attempt to reduce warpage and thus returns, but as you guys noted the experiment did not work. The engineers speculated that if the reord was thinner the increased flexibility would resist permanent changes to the record's shape. uhhh...Nope!
 

jaybird100

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
QQ Supporter
Joined
Apr 27, 2006
Messages
1,353
Location
Pembroke Pines, FL
I seem to remember the point of Dynaflex was an attempt to reduce warpage and thus returns, but as you guys noted the experiment did not work. The engineers speculated that if the reord was thinner the increased flexibility would resist permanent changes to the record's shape. uhhh...Nope!
If anything, they warped worse than regular records. They also played hell with record changers; I was using a Magnavox changer when they came out, and the player tried to drop two records at a time.
 

par4ken

900 Club - QQ All-Star
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
940
Location
NW Ontario
I used to get mixed up between Dynagroove and Dynaflex. Both were reported to be bad. I never noticed any problem with Dynafex records, most Canadian ABC/Dunhill records from the early seventies were Dynaflex (pressed by RCA).
 

Bob Romano

Administrator
Staff member
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Apr 26, 2002
Messages
5,070
Location
Viva Las Vegas
I used to get mixed up between Dynagroove and Dynaflex. Both were reported to be bad. I never noticed any problem with Dynafex records, most Canadian ABC/Dunhill records from the early seventies were Dynaflex (pressed by RCA).
Funny... I was just listening to a live Three Dog Night LP that is a Canadian pressing that is On Dynaflex vinyl. It sounds ok for a live 70’s recording.
 

Doug G.

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Joined
Jul 8, 2007
Messages
1,820
Location
Austin, Minnesota
Like I said,I have many Dynaflex records and they are fine. Now, I'll admit that part of RCA's motivation to develop them was the shortage of petroleum-based products (wasn't THAT a hoax) in the early seventies but mine don't seem any better or worse than the thicker ones.

And, the other manufacturers followed suit. I have some very skinny Columbias, too

Doug
 
Top