Friends of Distinction: Flimsy Vinyl?

[Q-Eight]

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?

 

[Bob Romano]

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)

 

[quadtrade]

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. 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!

 

[timbre4]

Dynaflex records are damn near see-through... EEK!

 

[5.1 4 Life]

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.

 

[J. PUPSTER]

I seem to remember getting “Nilsson Schmilsson” back in the day and many others, warped right out of the gate!

 

[jaybird100]

I seem to remember getting “Nilsson Schmilsson” back in the day and many others, warped right out of the gate!

That was another problem with many "Dynaflex" pressings.

 

[Bob Romano]

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]

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.

 

[Soundfield]

Weren't Flimsy Vinyl a 70's band?

 

[boondocks]

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.

 

[Wagonmaster_91]

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]

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.

 

[5.1 4 Life]

Here's an article from Wikipedia that I found about RCA's "Dynaflex" Vinyl process. A lot of facts on the logic behind is use can be fond here.

Dynaflex (RCA) - Wikipedia

PS:

 

[J. PUPSTER]

Here's an article from Wikipedia that I found about RCA's "Dynaflex" Vinyl process. A lot of facts on the logic behind is use can be fond here.

Dynaflex (RCA) - Wikipedia

PS: View attachment 59855

Pretty good marketing spin BS

 

[par4ken]

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]

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.]

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