Great record, though.
10 responses Add your response
We called 'em "Dyna-Flaps." The "excuse" given by RCA at the time of their introduction - circa 1970 - had to do with oil prices/need to conserve oil. In addition to being flimsy, they were prone to other pressing defects, like "bubbles" which, if they could be tracked at all, sounded like a *dull thud* for 3 or 4 revolutions.
Having said all that, some actually sounded pretty decent to very good - - my favorite is ARL 2-0731, which contains both Schubert Piano Trios performed by Rubinstein/Szeryng/Fournier.
Anyhow, "dynaflex" sucks. But at least it still sounds better than the lifeless German CD issue.I only have a few Dynaflex LPs, and I only had a few back in the day. Although the thinness and flexibility always seemed odd, I never had an issue with the sound.
Now that I have a higher rez LP playback system than what I had in the '70s, I can hear differences among different types of LPs and make adjustments easier. What I've found with thinner LPs in general and Dynaflex in particular, is that they sound better with a record weight or clamp on them. When I clamp my Dynaflexes, sound quality--including slam, weight, heft, bass extension--is not an issue.
I've encountered bubbles more often on Living Stereo shaded dog pressings than Dynaflexes. Of course YMMV.
Looking at Dynaflex (and reading the original RCA ad copy), it seems like a scam, but I never had a sonic issue with a Dynaflex and some of the ones I have now sound particularly good.