odd... I am getting nothing which Robert posts, unless included in a reply, as below. Weird.
----- Original Message ----- From: <pjfra...@alamedanet.net> To: "Antique Phonograph List" <phono-l@oldcrank.org> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 4:56 PM Subject: Re: [Phono-L] RCA microgroove LP demo disc NEW QUESTION! > 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 >>> >>>
