this is a fun topic. just an opinion, but i'd say victor didn't issue many LP sets programmed for changers because they just never had much of a chance given the dismal market conditions. all from memory, but i think i remember this was only about a 2-year run. it would thus probably make sense to use existing low cost program material, then create new if the market seemed to respond to it. and by the 2-year mark, it hadn't, so they just quit.
the early-30s RCA changers that play 78 and 33, use the fling-o-matic disappearing center spindle and 2nd tonearm approach - or the 10" swing-away magazine approach. either would require a 3-record set to be programmed 1/4, 2/5, 3/6. seems to me the orthophonic sets came in two different configurations (changer and non-changer) so perhaps they just decided to wait to produce those til they thought the market warranted it as well. a little bit of googlization turns up this link to a 1932 ad for the RAE-84, which cost a goodly amount ($310). the ad includes records, but i can't see if they're LPs or not. http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7608096342 calling Doug Houston...he's encyclopedic on this topic... Robert Wright wrote: > 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" <ediso...@verizon.net> > To: "Antique Phonograph List" <phono-l@oldcrank.org> > 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" <steve_nor...@msn.com> >> To: <phono-l@oldcrank.org> >> 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 >> Phono-L@oldcrank.org >> >> Phono-L Archive >> http://phono-l.oldcrank.org/archive/ >> >> Support Phono-L >> http://www.cafepress.com/oldcrank >> > _______________________________________________ > Phono-L mailing list > Phono-L@oldcrank.org > > Phono-L Archive > http://phono-l.oldcrank.org/archive/ > > Support Phono-L > http://www.cafepress.com/oldcrank >
