"Later" RCA Dynagroove pressings

I am fairly well versed on the different labels for classical, and own a lot of RCA Living Stereo for the late 50's and early 60's. Also own Mercury Living Presence for the mid-50's (Mono) and the later Stereo releases, and a lot of 60's Deutsche Grammaphone from the 60's (with the Tulips).

I own many more labels / pressings, I have a LOT of classical albums and shop performance first, but pressing / label does matter.... for instance I own a lot of Columbia 2-eye and 70's (no eye) Masterworks, that although at times noisy vinyl, I love the performances which trumps all (sometimes the 70's Columbias can get a little dicey though IMHO) and they still get played... although sometimes I grit my teeth a little on the quieter passages. ;-) I am sure many can relate.

So my question related to the title of the post. Around 1962, RCA went to Dynagroove... yep, I know, lots of opinions on this, and I typically avoid them, never been happy with them - and I have a cursory understanding as to why... so the technical reasons discussion is welcomed. However, I have read that as time went on - and definitely by the time the early 70's rolled around, although the record might have said "Dynagroove", all actual remnants of Dynagroove were removed from the pressing.

The other day I found a mint 1968 VCS-6415 Beethoven: The Five Middle Quartets (Dynagroove) in the 0.99 cent bin at the record store. I played it with both an elliptical and conical, half expecting to be disappointed by the SQ - but was pleasantly surprised. By 1968, were the Dynagrooves still the same as the ones from the early 60's? I have never been happy with the early 60's, but this one is more than acceptable.

Is there any technical reason, or did I just get one performance / release / pressing that falls into the "OK" category for Dynagroove.

I know enough to be dangerous about labels / pressings, but not an expert. I am prepared for some answers to say "if you like the way it sounds, that is all that matters" but that is not why I am asking... I am trying to find out some of the details of the Dynagroove history, and see if there are any technical reasons this might be the case.

A little long winded, but just curious... cheers.

 

I’d sure like more discussion on this issue. By chance are you referring to the Guarneri Quartet LP?

 

Yes Beethoven* ~ The Guarneri Quartet* - The Five Middle Quartets

BTW that post of mine was a year and a half ago .......... I have added so many classical LPs from the 50's and 60's that I have come a long way experience-wise with different pressings since then. (literally 1500+ classical LP's since then)

 

RCA Victor quietly backed away from the original Dynagroove, but kept the name. So, yes, they got better by 1964-1965 or so onward.

 

Good to know. I'm considering at least one LP with the "Dynagroove" moniker with a 1970 issue date. Sounds like playback shouldn't be an issue (at least for that reason).

 

What a steal! IMO, the Guarneri cycle from that period is special. I'm considering whether I should buy some of the quartets in CD or LP format.

So you would say the LPs sound is G/VG/E for the period? Regardless of whether you use an elliptcal or conical?

 

I'm beginning to doubt whether your LPs are really "Dynagroove". It clearly says so on the front, but there appears to be no indication elsewhere, including on the labels and the portions of the inserts I've seen on line. There certainly is none of the Dynagroove braggadocio (example pictured below). In addition, the other similar pressings of the early, late and complete quartets from the same period (1970) do not even have "Dynagroove" indicated on the cover. Very confusing!

 

An interesting article on Dynagroove with some interesting comments, as well - Article: Dynagroove: The Sound of Tomorrow

I bought a Tchaikovsky Dynagroove recording from 1964 to hear for myself. There was a nice-looking trio of Al Hirt Dynagroove recordings available, but I don't really like his music.

 

The Dynagroove pressings on the “White Dog” label are quieter than the early “Shaded Dog” Dynagrooves. The orange label ones are just hissy sounding.

 

I also note that Discogs states that the "middle quartets" LP (which indicates it is "Dynagroove") was released in 1968, and the early, late and complete quartets appear to have been released in 1970. By 1970, RCA may have abandoned Dynagroove entirely and/or stopped using the designation for records that didn't have that pressing. However - and there seem to be a lot of "howevers" floating around this issue - Discogs indicates that the liner notes for the late quartets states the following:

This release is auto-coupled and includes a six-page booklet, which states:
Miracle Surface® / Dynagroove®
Cover portrait of Beethoven courtesy: Society of Friends of Music, Vienna
© 1970, RCA Records, New York, N.Y.
TMK(S) ® by RCA Corporation
Printed in U.S.A.

However - here we go again! - the article I mentioned in my previous post states that Dynagroove "was a comprehensive program to improve sound recording in all aspects from artist’s conception of the music to reproduction of it in the home". It then goes on to list the improvements, some of which were in the initial recording process. So I guess RCA could legitimately label a record as Dynagroove that was recorded (but not manufactured) via the process.

 

My understanding is the the Dynagroove processing was done during the mastering stage (like the CSG process) and not involved in the actual recording stage, but not certain. It’s possible the actual tapes do not have it.

 

From what I understand about RCA Victor's "Dynagroove", the best playback was their intention. They realized that the most common type of stylus was 'conical' so the grooves were cut with that in mind. They also addressed IGD, which other companies didn't care about, including today. Also entered into the mix was their "Miracle Surface" to combat dust accumulation due to electrostatic accumulation.
Although I prefer "Living Stereo" , I've never had much of a problem with "Dynagroove" records. The idea behind "Living Stereo" and other early stereo recordings was wide separation. Over the years stereo width has narrowed with probably the narrowest being many of the Creedence Clearwater Revival records(which were also pressed by RCA). Multi-track recording dates back to the optical film based recordings in the 1930's. RCA Victor started using 3-track magnetic tape recording back in the 1950's before stereo records were invented, especially for classical recordings. Eventhough mono was all you could get on record, 3-track allowed better control of the final mix. RCA introduced 2-track or stereo recordings to the consumer market before stereo records were introduced. RCA introduced a tape cassette which had 2 tracks playing in one direction. In reel to reel, these 2-tracks, now labeled stereo, made it into the early-60's and were sold right alongside regular 4-track stereo tapes.

 

I received a copy of an 11-LP set pressed in 1970 (stock photo below) No indication of "Dynagoove" anywhere inside or on the box. In fact, it sounds better with my elliptical stylus. It goes nicely with my Claude Frank complete Beethoven sonatas.

 

A true Dynagroove LP, which I listened to the first time today. I initially tried using my elliptical briefly. The sound was not horrendous. Just scratchy. Then I went way in the other direction with a .7 mil spherical for the hell of it. Got some distortion with that. Then the appropriate .7 mil conical. Very interesting (and I would say very good) sound reproduction. Not scratchy or distorted. It reminded me of Phase 4 recordings. A bit on the bombastic side, but quite entertaining. I'd buy another.

 

My mid-60s Dynagroove discs (Mancini, Como, Peter Nero, Melachrino Orchestra, etc) have always performed best for me when played back with an .6 conical stylus set at 2g. Never any problems with tracking or IGD. Same goes for the few import Dynagroove discs I have that were pressed by Teldec in Germany.

 

From the mid 60s; a personal favorite.

 

A German Dynagroove pressing by Teldec.