Darn. I wish I'd made that connection before posting my question. Thanks, Dan. It is indeed the DL-5 record that's missing. Aside from the fact that the blurb described precisely the musical content of DL-5, I'm recording my copy right now and side 1 was already just over 11 minutes. Further, though I never noticed it before, the grooves of DL-5 are indeed microgroove; well, not exactly, they're a little wider than a 1949 Columbia LP, but they're certainly not as wide as standard 78 like I thought. (Side 2 turned out to clock in around 9:25, btw.)
In fact, I went back to check my other Program Transcriptions and all the 10" PT's have the same fine groove pitch. But I have a pair of 12" PT's that are just as widely-grooved as VE Orthophonics, even though their original sleeves instruct use with the orange-shank chromium-tipped needle (as well as the yellow paper insert inside each original sleeve). Another thing that made the "20 minutes from a single 10" record" claim suspect is that a lot of my PT's don't come close to using the entire available space, particularly the 12" PT's (one of which is one-sided and only uses about 1.5" worth of its cutting space, almost looks like Gen. Pershing's Nations' Forum record). So although they certainly could've put up to 20 minutes on a 10" and probably more than 30 minutes on a 12", they just never did it much. Seems pretty pointless. For all the boasting about the convenience of putting on a stack and having your entire evening's entertainment 'programmed' automatically, not only did RCA NOT take advantage of the technology they were pushing in terms of using cutting space, I've never seen any multiple PT sets that were changer-sequenced. (These 12" PT's are Stokowski's 1st Symphony, records 3 & 4 of a 4-record set, and they're not sequenced for changer-play -- though that blurb did say the 12" records wouldn't work with the changer.) As it turned out, I think a lot of the PT's were just dubs of existing recordings anyway, both sides of a 12" 78 fitting on one side of a 10" 33, such as my PT of Paul Whiteman conducting Rhapsody in Blue with George at the piano. Boo, RCA. Not good enough. No wonder it failed -- probably would have even without the Depression. (Get this - I'm timing the Stokowski sides, and the two-sided 12" came in at 7:40 per side, with electric volume fadeouts at the ends. The one-sided on had 4:08. Bleh, lame.) This means I've been playing PT's with the wrong stylus all this time. The LP stylus 'clicks' down into the first groove with a satisfying tick, moreso than the 78 stylus, but they both make the same music and surface noise. I guess this means the orange-shank needles weren't 1 mil OR 2.5 mil, but somewhere in between? Does anyone know for sure what stylus size exactly fits the Program Transcription groove? And what exactly should Columbia be credited for, ca. 1948? Using a 1 mil groove in conjunction with vinyl, or what? Seems like they didn't "invent" much! Thanks again, Robert ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Kj" <[email protected]> To: "Antique Phonograph List" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 11:58 AM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] RCA microgroove LP demo disc from ca. 1932 -any info?? > Not all that rare, actually; every buyer of a new 78/LP phono got that > album, with the (DL-5) Victor Artists Party Lp. Not common either, of course > :) > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Steven Medved" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 12:54 PM > Subject: Re: [Phono-L] RCA microgroove LP demo disc from ca. 1932 - any > info?? > > > > Hi Robert, > > > > I always understood RCA Victor made the first 33 rpm around 1933 and it > > was > > a failure, so I believe this would be a very rare record. > > > > Steve > > _______________________________________________ > Phono-L mailing list > [email protected] > > Phono-L Archive > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org/archive/ > > Support Phono-L > http://www.cafepress.com/oldcrank >
