October 10, 2014 - 08:29 pm|
|Hi John, Thank you for your exuberant posting! From your emphatic endorsement, I was moved to order a copy of Supercussion via eBay. It's hard to say whether the most commonly cited characteristics of the Dynagroove methodology were determining factors in what you heard. There were so many aspects to the effort, many of which could have more prominent. For example, microphone placement was carefully researched, with formal evaluations of the results. Dr. Olsen, who led the effort, was an expert in acoustics and new studios were designed with controlled reverberance characteristics. While we techies often like to focus on the electronic or electromechanical related craft, the scientific effort which was put into the other aspects of the recording process could well have been the most important. And that was a key point in the article. Thank you for your supportive testimony! |
October 10, 2014 - 07:27 pm|
|Just wanted to add my 2 cents here. I just found a dynagroove recording called Supercussion. It is the best recording i've ever played on my system. I have a pretty resolving system and have tweaked it as much as my small budget allows. The presentation was just so stunning, airy, detailed. I have never been so amazed by the sheer impact of a recording as this one. Which has sent me running to find out more about this dynagroove process and hence to this page. I am using an elliptical needle and if there is any distortion, who cares. My jaw dropped at every moment in this recording. From what i experienced, these guys in 1963 nailed it. Everything recorded since seems like flatland to me. The horns blew into my ear canals, the vibes tickled me, the dynamic range was breathtaking. Space, tons of space.... where no man has gone before! Even though the tunes seemed old hat, I wanted more. Make all my recordings sound like that.... please. |
What happened to the recording art after that pinnacle? With the compressors, and mixing boards etc., the pride of so-called technological development. Aah what we have missed. If any of you guys can turn me onto recordings and labels with as much slam as this I'd be obliged. Wow.
October 22, 2014 - 08:26 am|
|Hi Andrew, Thank you for your comments. They seem to confirm that Dynagroove DSC does cancel spherical stylus tracing distortion. Your description of the "mushy HF artifacts" suggests that Dynagroove DSC does degrade the sound, when played with an elliptical stylus. Would it be possible for you to record an mp3 file comparing the spherical and elliptical playback? Would love to post that with the article. You can reach me at: [see homepage ABOUT]. |
August 17, 2014 - 02:44 pm|
|Seems this thread has been around for a while...|
I have the Dynagroove pressing of Paul Desmond Take Ten. It is above average in sound quality for 1963 recordings of popular music, but alone among my records it does sound 'better' when played with a spherical stylus. An elliptical seems to bring out surface noise and some odd mushy HF artefacts.
January 24, 2013 - 08:35 pm|
|Hi Fred, Certainly, DSC was applied at the disk mastering step. Since that was not frequency selective, it is unlikely that it could be responsible for the effects you mentioned. Indeed, since you play the records with a spherical stylus, it should reduce inner groove distortion as it was designed to do and otherwise be transparent.|
That leaves DSE as the other possible cause. It would have been applied after the final mix. It could have been applied either before or after the master tape. Common engineering sense would lean towards keeping the master tape unprocessed, in my opinion. So yes, your assessment that the most controversial element of Dynagroove was only applied in the final stages, seems correct.
It's wonderful that today via the Compact Disc, we can enjoy the best aspects of Dr. Olson's efforts. By the way, do you have a reference that the tape decks were vacuum tube? They could have been but by 1963, they could also have been solid state. I note that RCA was a leader in transistor production and engineering.
January 24, 2013 - 06:40 pm|
|Thanks for your quick response Steve. RCA's HP series of CD's have released many Dynagroove recordings and without fail, the 1960's recordings in these HP series are excellent, comparing to the best of the "Living Stereo" era due to Pfeiffer's minimal miking techniques and the vacuum tube 30 IPS tape drives that they used.|
I play many of my vintage records on a Grace 707 tonearm equipped with a Shure V15 Type IIIG which has a spherical stylus (I've been using this setup since 1975 -- luckily, I bought about 20 extra styluses for this cartridge back in the early 80's).
Unfortunately, the Dynagroove LP's (e.g. Martinon/Chicago Symphony Rhapsodie Espangnole) sound like crap compared with the new HP CD's. The Dynagroove LP features no dynamics, weird pumping of the low end, shrieky highs while the HP CD features a warm rich vacuum tube sound with a life-like 3 dimensional defined stereo image (the recording was made with only 4 mikes).
Thus, since the CD sounds so great (as good as ANY "Living Stereo") it is apparent to me that the offensive parts of the Dynagroove process (the "dynamic equalization" etc) was something applied at the mastering and cutting stages ONLY and that the original 4 track tapes were representitive of the BEST of Pfeiffer/Mohr.
Perhaps Dynagroove "encompassed" things like minimal miking, superb mike placement for a "20th row center" perspective, 30 IPS tape speed to reduce tape noise, but the actual "doctoring" was ONLY done at the mixing and cutting stages.
Is my assessement correct????