[Chris Hornbeck]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:23:41 -0500, Charlie Olsen
wrote:


Currently I have a reasonable sized collection of D2D and "early digital"
vinyl I am interested in preserving, more for the music, so this thread is
important to me.

You may find, as I finally did just a couple years ago (I'm a
really slow learner), that you can make a pair of .wav files as
you play your nice clean records, tops-n-tails 'em, chop into tracks,
save, and enjoy it just as much from then on without all the drama and
ceremony of properly playing vinyl.

Or maybe not - transparent A/D/A conversion is in the ear of the
beholder, and I'd be the last person to discount the importance
of ritual and personal, physical involvement to us Human Beans.

Much thanks, as always,
Chris Hornbeck

[Scott Dorsey]

Keith. wrote:

I have a garage full of precious LP's covered in fine clay from a recent
flood, so I am taking a special interest in this thread.

This is a seperate sort of problem. These are records that require
pre-washing by hand, before they can be put into the vacuum machine.
An ultrasonic dunk tank may actually be the best solution for them,
followed by the vacuum cleaning.

The discussion seems to focus on removing water from the grooves after
washing,so I thought if you can suck ,then you may as well blow. A perfectly
clean wet groove in a perfectly clean room may result in a perfectly clean
dry groove,with time,but we aren't perfect are we?.....so remove the
remaining water with the best available means as quickly as possible.

The purpose of the vacuum machine is to take a clean record and make
it very, very clean. It removes very small amounts of residue in the
groove.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Charlie Olsen wrote:
I went /am still going through a similar situation.
In my case it was a basement flood and mold.

Mold sends filaments into the vinyl and damages it physically. This can
substantially increase the noise floor. If you have mold, you need to
get it stopped as quickly as possible. Freezing may be the easiest solution.

I have done a few test cleans with various dish soap / brush /rinse/light
alcohol etc and have not had very good results overall.
Some records seem to clean up reasonably good and others sound awful with
mostly ticks and pops.

Take one of the ones that ticks and pops and look at it under a light
microscope and see what is going on.

I even tried playing wet, you can only do this once so they say, to get a
good transcription and that failed as well.

I'm not sure I really understand what the mechanism of wet playing really
is.... it's not just that it keeps gunk in solution in the groove but it
also seems to provide some mechanical damping too. But if it does not
change the noise floor, the noise floor is probably not surface noise but
actual physical scratching.

I'm starting to think a decent vacuum based cleaning machine is the only
real solution however I am concerned with the cost of the fluid and if it's
just snake oil anyway.

It's not snake oil, it's extremely effective. It's also not very
expensive, really. You can make your own fluid with photo-flo, water,
and alcohol, without any problem. It's really just 25% alcohol with a
strong surfactant added.

BUT, it won't solve your problem, I don't think. Call around to used
record stores in town and see if any of them have a cleaning machine...
a lot of them will let you take a record in and have it cleaned for a
couple bucks. Doing this will let you see if it's of any real benefit
for your problem, but I suspect if you have physical damage from mold
it might not be.

If you want, you're welcome to send me a record with a couple bucks and
I'll run it through and send it back.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Keith. wrote:

In another life I have used ultrasonic cleaners to great effect to vibrate
fine debris away. A commercial version designed to take an LP,to my mind
would be brilliant.

There are several on the market. I have one of them here and it is very
effective at getting deep gunk out of grooves, especially on styrene 45s.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Keith.]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Keith. wrote:

In another life I have used ultrasonic cleaners to great effect to vibrate
fine debris away. A commercial version designed to take an LP,to my mind
would be brilliant.

There are several on the market. I have one of them here and it is very
effective at getting deep gunk out of grooves, especially on styrene 45s.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis.

Do you have any details on these units?.I would be very interested in
tracking these down.

Vinyl quality was mentioned before and I am sure it varies with time and
country.In Australia I preferred GB pressings to ours and US pressings. I
have an Australian pressing("That's enough for me" Peter Yarrow 1973) that
was remarkably clean when purchased and seems to stay relatively grit
free.This was the time of the first oil crisis and I can remember 'virgin'
vinyl becoming scarce and the industry was reluctant to recycle old vinyl.

Keith.

[Chris Hornbeck]

On 18 Nov 2008 20:07:44 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

I'm not sure I really understand what the mechanism of wet playing really
is.... it's not just that it keeps gunk in solution in the groove but it
also seems to provide some mechanical damping too.

I wonder how much of the effect is thermal, from the excellent
thermal conductivity and huge thermal mass of water, and whether
this is also the reason for the reported damage.

The argument would go like this: playing in air generates
temperatures of 700 to 900 F; playing in water would cause
a big thermal difference between the inside bits and the
outside bits of the groove depth; instead of the slower post-
play de-melting of air-cooling, the vinyl would undergo a shocking!
rapid post-play freezing.

Or maybe, the thermal conductivity of vinyl is good enough
over small distances to allow more-r-less isothermal, rather
than adiabatic play, even in contact with the presumably perfect
heat sink of a water bath. But then, why the reported damage?


Dunno, but that is My Theory, and what it is, too.

Much thanks, as always,
Chris Hornbeck

[William Sommerwerck]

I'm starting to think a decent vacuum-based cleaning machine
is the only real solution however I am concerned with the cost
of the fluid and if it's just snake oil anyway.

A 25% or 50% mixture of denatured alcohol and distilled water -- with a drop
or two of Photo-Flo -- is fine. You don't need those horribly expensive
fancy fluids.

[Ben Bradley[_2_]]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 18:12:02 -0500, Charlie Olsen
wrote:

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 09:46:06 +1100, Keith. wrote:

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
Instead of vacuuming,could compressed air (filtered?) be used
to dry/remove remaining grit?

Did you think this through before posting this?

Why would you want to dry the record surface in such a way that left grit
behind?

I have a garage full of precious LP's covered in fine clay from a recent
flood, so I am taking a special interest in this thread.

Get a record cleaning machine already. You may need to do some
'brushing' while the cleaning fluid is on an especially dirty record,
OTOH you might NOT want to do that as it might push this clay around
and scratch the surface. Start with your "least valuable" LP's, or buy
a stack of LP's from a thrift store, perhaps give some the same
treatment your valuable LP's went through, and experiment with
cleaning one at a time, and play it to hear the results.


The discussion seems to focus on removing water from the grooves after
washing,so I thought if you can suck ,then you may as well blow.

Getting it sucked is much better. Trust me.

A perfectly
clean wet groove in a perfectly clean room may result in a perfectly clean
dry groove,with time,but we aren't perfect are we?.....so remove the
remaining water with the best available means as quickly as possible.

Keith.

I went /am still going through a similar situation.
In my case it was a basement flood and mold.

I have done a few test cleans with various dish soap / brush /rinse/light
alcohol etc and have not had very good results overall.
Some records seem to clean up reasonably good and others sound awful with
mostly ticks and pops.

I even tried playing wet, you can only do this once so they say, to get a
good transcription and that failed as well.

I'm starting to think a decent vacuum based cleaning machine is the only
real solution however I am concerned with the cost of the fluid and if it's
just snake oil anyway.
IOW can I substitute some household chemicals and get decent results.

Maybe not "household" but you can buy a large supply of whatever
chenicals are suggested for less than the cost of the Nitty Gritty.
Scott mentioned Alconox many years ago, and I bought a quart container
direct for under $20. At 1 percent to 5 percent mix with distilled
water, I probably have enough to clean all my records, and at one
record a day it's gonna take ten years to go through them anyway.

I recall trying a water/alcohol/photoflo mix, and the record
(perhaps) ended up 'too clean' - I had poping in the playback caused
by static (successive plays had the pops in different places). YMMV,
just get a cleaning machine already.

[Keith.]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Keith. wrote:

Instead of vacuuming,could compressed air(filtered?) be used to dry/remove
remaining grit?

No, the whole point is to AVOID evaporation. Just spend fifty bucks and
buy a used Nitty Gritty machine.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

It was just a thought about using compressed air to physically 'blast' the
water out of the grooves rather than evaporating the water. Could have used
a heat gun for that
No Nitty Gritty's on Ebay at the moment.

Keith.

[James[_7_]]

On Nov 18, 8:07*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

I even tried playing wet, you can only do this once so they say, to get a
good transcription and that failed as well.

I'm not sure I really understand what the mechanism of wet playing really
is.... it's not just that it keeps gunk in solution in the groove but it
also seems to provide some mechanical damping too. *But if it does not
change the noise floor, the noise floor is probably not surface noise but
actual physical scratching.


A problem I've seen described with wet playing is that it cools the
record surface and changes the elasticity of the grooves, the stylus
tends to break off the tips of the peaks in the groove.

[William Sommerwerck]

I even tried playing wet, you can only do this once so they say,
to get a good transcription and that failed as well.

I'm not sure I really understand what the mechanism of wet playing
really is... it's not just that it keeps gunk in solution in the groove
but it
also seems to provide some mechanical damping too. But if it does not
change the noise floor, the noise floor is probably not surface noise but
actual physical scratching.

A problem I've seen described with wet playing is that it cools the
record surface and changes the elasticity of the grooves, the stylus
tends to break off the tips of the peaks in the groove.


This has been discussed several times. Ortofon (or another company) took SEM
photos that showed the damage done playing the disk wet. The water cools the
vinyl, which instead of heating and deforming under the stylus, remains
rigid (or more rigid) and is damaged. Chunks of vinyl are supposedly torn
out.

I am of the opinion that you should let a disk sit for at least 10 minutes
after wet cleaning before playing it.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
Keith. wrote:

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Keith. wrote:

In another life I have used ultrasonic cleaners to great effect to vibrate
fine debris away. A commercial version designed to take an LP,to my mind
would be brilliant.

There are several on the market. I have one of them here and it is very
effective at getting deep gunk out of grooves, especially on styrene 45s.

Do you have any details on these units?.I would be very interested in
tracking these down.

I have a big unit from Branson that can hold about a dozen LPs at a
time. I bought it surplus a decade ago, and it's basically one big
relaxation oscillator built with two sets of four 2N3055 transistors in
parallel going into some kind of ceramic transducer on the side of a fluid
tank. The oscillator settles down into the resonant frequency of the
transducer.

I think VWR also makes some ultrasonic units with reasonable dimensions
for LPs.

Vinyl quality was mentioned before and I am sure it varies with time and
country.In Australia I preferred GB pressings to ours and US pressings. I
have an Australian pressing("That's enough for me" Peter Yarrow 1973) that
was remarkably clean when purchased and seems to stay relatively grit
free.This was the time of the first oil crisis and I can remember 'virgin'
vinyl becoming scarce and the industry was reluctant to recycle old vinyl.

Well, the problem is that those are often not just different pressings but
sometimes different mastering jobs. If you compare the British pressings of
the first four Beatles records with the American ones, they sound totally
different... the American label rolled all the top and bottom end off and
made them sound awful in comparison.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Chris Hornbeck wrote:

The argument would go like this: playing in air generates
temperatures of 700 to 900 F; playing in water would cause
a big thermal difference between the inside bits and the
outside bits of the groove depth; instead of the slower post-
play de-melting of air-cooling, the vinyl would undergo a shocking!
rapid post-play freezing.

Yes, this clearly does happen. BUT, how does this reduce the noise
floor?

Or maybe, the thermal conductivity of vinyl is good enough
over small distances to allow more-r-less isothermal, rather
than adiabatic play, even in contact with the presumably perfect
heat sink of a water bath. But then, why the reported damage?

The damage is visible on a scope... the microcracking does happen. One
of Marshall Leach's grad students did a study on this in the seventies
completely with SEM micrographs. I can't imagine anything could cause it
other than rapid cooling but I'd be happy to be disproven.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message


Well, the problem is that those are often not just
different pressings but sometimes different mastering
jobs. If you compare the British pressings of the first
four Beatles records with the American ones, they sound
totally different... the American label rolled all the
top and bottom end off and made them sound awful in
comparison.

Oh, so true. When I was serving in Germany during the late 60s, buying
european pressings of my favorite artists, both US and European, was a
tremendous revelation. As a rule they were remastered for sound quality, not
loudness or ????.

[[email protected]]

On Nov 19, 11:56 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message



Well, the problem is that those are often not just
different pressings but sometimes different mastering
jobs. If you compare the British pressings of the first
four Beatles records with the American ones, they sound
totally different... the American label rolled all the
top and bottom end off and made them sound awful in
comparison.

Oh, so true. When I was serving in Germany during the late 60s, buying
european pressings of my favorite artists, both US and European, was a
tremendous revelation. As a rule they were remastered for sound quality, not
loudness or ????.

broadcast capacity!

[Chris Hornbeck]

On 19 Nov 2008 09:51:25 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

BUT, how does this reduce the noise floor?

The mechanical damping argument doesn't really work for me.
It just seems (to my poor understanding, anyway) that the
pressures involved are so high that some liquid nearby
wouldn't be significant.

But, on a very, very local level, the liquid might be
churned up into a turbulent froth, maybe with extra
resistive effect. A wacko theory, fersure, but stuff
at these small dimensions can surprise. And my money
would be on a surprising answer (if an answer is ever
found).


One understandable product of cooling is to decrease
vinyl effective compliance, pushing the stylus effective
mass x vinyl compliance higher, and reducing the
resonant rise in frequency response. Maybe a few dB,
or whatever, here is important enough to matter some too.


The damage is visible on a scope... the microcracking does happen. One
of Marshall Leach's grad students did a study on this in the seventies
completely with SEM micrographs. I can't imagine anything could cause it
other than rapid cooling but I'd be happy to be disproven.

This happens to me all the time, and I'm getting really
tired of it. I think up some really great idea, some new
Theory or something, and *somebody* sends it back through
time, just like in the movie _12 Monkeys_ ya know?, just
to make me look foolish.

Well, I don't need any help looking foolish, so *whoever*
it is, please stop. Thank you in advance.


And Scott (assuming that it's not you...) much thanks, as always,
Chris Hornbeck

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 01:02:54 GMT, Chris Hornbeck
wrote:

missed an important word:

One understandable product of cooling is to decrease
vinyl effective compliance, pushing the stylus effective
mass x vinyl compliance RESONANCE higher, and reducing the
resonant rise in frequency response. Maybe a few dB,
or whatever, here is important enough to matter some too.

[Scott Dorsey]

Chris Hornbeck wrote:
On 19 Nov 2008 09:51:25 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

BUT, how does this reduce the noise floor?

The mechanical damping argument doesn't really work for me.
It just seems (to my poor understanding, anyway) that the
pressures involved are so high that some liquid nearby
wouldn't be significant.

This could be. The problem is that I don't have a better argument.

But, on a very, very local level, the liquid might be
churned up into a turbulent froth, maybe with extra
resistive effect. A wacko theory, fersure, but stuff
at these small dimensions can surprise. And my money
would be on a surprising answer (if an answer is ever
found).

Maybe, but what good would that do? I can imagine it happening,
I can't figure out how it would help.

One understandable product of cooling is to decrease
vinyl effective compliance, pushing the stylus effective
mass x vinyl compliance higher, and reducing the
resonant rise in frequency response. Maybe a few dB,
or whatever, here is important enough to matter some too.

I don't buy it, because what drops is the actual impulse noise.
It's not just a change in response or an improvement in damping
causing the impulses to ring less.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Chris Hornbeck]

On 19 Nov 2008 21:02:50 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

wacko theory

Maybe, but what good would that do? I can imagine it happening,
I can't figure out how it would help.

reducing the resonant rise in frequency response

I don't buy it, because what drops is the actual impulse noise.
It's not just a change in response or an improvement in damping
causing the impulses to ring less.

Okay, if we can't believe that either mechanical or electrical
damping (six-o'-one, ha'pence of another, anyway) is causing the
observed noise reduction, it must (always a bad word to enter any
discussion, because implying futility. arf) be an actual mechanical
effect on the impulse noise generation.

Assuming that the boulders causing the impulse noise are fixed
in place (are we assuming this? yikes!) then the observed noise
reduction might be related to the way that the stylus interacts
with the boulders. Or not. Cool gedanken-thingy either way.


Much thanks, as always,
Chris Hornbeck

[Scott Dorsey]

Chris Hornbeck wrote:
On 19 Nov 2008 21:02:50 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Okay, if we can't believe that either mechanical or electrical
damping (six-o'-one, ha'pence of another, anyway) is causing the
observed noise reduction, it must (always a bad word to enter any
discussion, because implying futility. arf) be an actual mechanical
effect on the impulse noise generation.

Right. And I'm not sure I even understand all the impulse noise generation
issues.

Assuming that the boulders causing the impulse noise are fixed
in place (are we assuming this? yikes!) then the observed noise
reduction might be related to the way that the stylus interacts
with the boulders. Or not. Cool gedanken-thingy either way.

Well, we have several mechanisms:

1. Striking big chunks of stuff in the groove.

Now, I know that wet playing DOES help this a lot because it gets some
of the stuff in solution and allows them to move around. But I also know
that wet playing can reduce the noise floor on _some_ perfectly clean
records.

2. Groove damage due to scratches
3. Groove damage due to surface layer cracking
4. Uneven groove surfaces due to rough surface (sometimes the result of
small bubbles in pressings
5. Stiction against the groove wall

I have no idea which of these are improved by wet playing, if any. And
I probably missed a bunch more noise mechanisms too.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Distorted Vision]

Hi Scott,

I think the Kontrapunkt B is a wonderful musical catridge, great
resolution and dynamics with a nice clean neutral sound. I haven't
listened to the rest of the range but they have similar qualities. So
I'm surprised you didn't like the Kontrapunkt A.

On 13 Nov, 14:34, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Distorted Vision wrote:


How is the Kontrapunkt B? *I tried the Kontrapunkt A and didn't think it
was worth the extra money over the old MC5, but I never got a chance to
hear the more expensive version.

[Scott Dorsey]

Distorted Vision wrote:

I think the Kontrapunkt B is a wonderful musical catridge, great
resolution and dynamics with a nice clean neutral sound. I haven't
listened to the rest of the range but they have similar qualities. So
I'm surprised you didn't like the Kontrapunkt A.

Oh, I liked it... it was a great sounding cartridge, but I just didn't
think it was head and shoulders better than the MC5. And it is head and
shoulders more expensive than the MC5. The MC5 really is a great sounding
cartridge at a reasonable price... it's neutral but not as dry as the A-T OC9
and it tracks worn discs just as well.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Steven Sullivan]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
Chris is broadly correct (though in common usage, it's ultrasonic, not
supersonic).

You need a good TT, pickup, and preamp. This needn't cost an arm and a leg,
but we're talking a system running $500 or more.

I have a not-inexpensive system, and its _lack_ of surface noise -- which is
due to the pickup's wide bandwidth, and the overall "deadness" of the 'table
and arm -- is remarkable. Sampling at a high rate preserves more of the
ultrasonic energy that helps distinguish surface noise from music.

....for software noise reduction, you mean. For human ears, not so much.
"Ultrasonic" by definition is beyond audible.




--
-S
I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can
seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit
the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have
woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy

[Steven Sullivan]

John wrote:
In article ,
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Distorted Vision wrote:

Yes I have a record cleaning machine - Cadence Okki Nokki which I use
with L'Art du Son record cleaning fluid.
My turntable is a Michell Gyro SE with a SME IV tonearm and Ortofon
Kontrapunkt B.

How is the Kontrapunkt B? I tried the Kontrapunkt A and didn't think it
was worth the extra money over the old MC5, but I never got a chance to
hear the more expensive version.

I'm interested in what people have to say about the M-Powered version
of Pro Tools for the application that I want.

I think it's a whole lot of crap that you'll never use, and it doesn't
buy you anything over the cheaper alternatives. But then, I had horrible
experiences with earlier versions of Pro Tools and tend be biased against
it.
--scott

i think he needs one of these.

http://www.mil-media.com/lpe-2.html

for not much money you could get a basic 2ch apogee convertor that will
sound miles better then the m-audio.

Miles better? Really? Would this apparent in a blind listening test?



--
-S
I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can
seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit
the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have
woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy

[Arny Krueger]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

John wrote:
In article ,
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Distorted Vision wrote:

Yes I have a record cleaning machine - Cadence Okki
Nokki which I use with L'Art du Son record cleaning
fluid.
My turntable is a Michell Gyro SE with a SME IV
tonearm and Ortofon Kontrapunkt B.

How is the Kontrapunkt B? I tried the Kontrapunkt A
and didn't think it was worth the extra money over the
old MC5, but I never got a chance to hear the more
expensive version.

I'm interested in what people have to say about the
M-Powered version of Pro Tools for the application
that I want.

I think it's a whole lot of crap that you'll never use,
and it doesn't buy you anything over the cheaper
alternatives. But then, I had horrible experiences
with earlier versions of Pro Tools and tend be biased
against it. --scott

i think he needs one of these.

http://www.mil-media.com/lpe-2.html

for not much money you could get a basic 2ch apogee
convertor that will sound miles better then the m-audio.

Miles better? Really? Would this apparent in a blind
listening test?

Yes, when digitizing vinyl with maybe 65 dB dynamic range, the difference
between and audio interface with 110 dB versus 115 dB dynamic arange will be
immediately apparent. ;-)

IOW, I'm sure he's joking.

[Keith.]

"Keith." wrote in message
...

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Keith. wrote:

Instead of vacuuming,could compressed air(filtered?) be used to
dry/remove
remaining grit?

No, the whole point is to AVOID evaporation. Just spend fifty bucks and
buy a used Nitty Gritty machine.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

It was just a thought about using compressed air to physically 'blast' the
water out of the grooves rather than evaporating the water. Could have
used a heat gun for that
No Nitty Gritty's on Ebay at the moment.

Keith.

I agree with vacuuming grooves, but until this technique is available to me,
I thought I would experiment with compressed air.
I used a sacrificial '45 and a home/auto air compressor at 8bar/115psi
through a 2mm trigger nozzle. The record with water/surfactant as expected
produced a thin film over the surface and grooves. Rinsing produced water
clinging to the grooves due to surface tension but was removed fairly
rapidly with the nozzle angled at 45degrees and swept over the
record,progressing from one side to the other. About 20 seconds to complete
the task. I did the job outside as inside the air would no doubt stir up
dust.
It looked clean !,new sleeves would be needed as the old sleeves quickly
returned dust.

Keith.

[Keith.]

"Charlie Olsen" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 16:01:17 +1100, Keith. wrote:

"Keith." wrote in message
...

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Keith. wrote:

Instead of vacuuming,could compressed air(filtered?) be used to
dry/remove
remaining grit?

No, the whole point is to AVOID evaporation. Just spend fifty bucks
and
buy a used Nitty Gritty machine.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

It was just a thought about using compressed air to physically 'blast'
the
water out of the grooves rather than evaporating the water. Could have
used a heat gun for that
No Nitty Gritty's on Ebay at the moment.

Keith.

I agree with vacuuming grooves, but until this technique is available to
me,
I thought I would experiment with compressed air.
I used a sacrificial '45 and a home/auto air compressor at 8bar/115psi
through a 2mm trigger nozzle. The record with water/surfactant as
expected
produced a thin film over the surface and grooves. Rinsing produced water
clinging to the grooves due to surface tension but was removed fairly
rapidly with the nozzle angled at 45degrees and swept over the
record,progressing from one side to the other. About 20 seconds to
complete
the task. I did the job outside as inside the air would no doubt stir up
dust.
It looked clean !,new sleeves would be needed as the old sleeves quickly
returned dust.

Keith.

Interesting

How did it sound when played?

I really need to do a before(regular cleaning) and after(regular plus
water/air cleaning),with a decent recording to do a fair comparison. I will
try to estimate debris reduction and not have excess record wear interfere
with this.

Keith.