Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
On Nov 15, 2:16*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
I'm not sure if you're saying you doubt that tap water isn't the best thing to wash records with. If so, look around to find out what's in tap water, or even just hold up a clean glass full of it sometime. The water is pretty clean around here. Betcha it's not as clean - as in free of stuff that isn't water - as distilled water. If it dries on the record surface, what's in it will be on the record surface, along with residue left by cleaning products that aren't made for the purpose. IOW, someone showed that using relatively pure tap water from say New York city would significantly raise the noise level of a LP, compared to say distilled water. The idea is to remove as much debris from the record surface as possible and have the stylus riding on nothing but plastic. Little chunks that are too small for you to see with your unaided eyeball are going to seem like good-sized rock to that stylus. When it encounters these, yes you'll hear it. It will also grind away the stylus. It also drives these little chunks into the record surface. And there are other considerations besides just the purity of the solution. You also need to effectively get into the grooves which requires a device - i.e. a brush - that's mechanically effective. Besides dirt and mold they acquire, records also have residue from mold release on them from the factory that can attract dirt and impede the stylus from contacting the vinyl. You need to get at it and use surfactant that's effective for the purpose. For someone who spends a lot of time examining sonic issues in minute detail I'm surprised you're so curmudgeonly about accepting this. Why *wouldn't* you take measures that will more surely remove debris since this is the goal when it ultimately doesn't take any more, and possibly less effort? |
#42
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
"James" wrote in message
The idea is to remove as much debris from the record surface as possible and have the stylus riding on nothing but plastic. That's a truism. Little chunks that are too small for you to see with your unaided eyeball are going to seem like good-sized rock to that stylus. That's a truism. When it encounters these, yes you'll hear it. That's a truism. It will also grind away the stylus. That's a truism. It also drives these little chunks into the record surface. That's a truism. What I'm after is not truisms, but actual real-world truth. And there are other considerations besides just the purity of the solution. You also need to effectively get into the grooves which requires a device - i.e. a brush - that's mechanically effective. That's debatable. We routinely clean surfaces while not touching them with anything but water and a surfactant. Besides dirt and mold they acquire, records also have residue from mold release on them from the factory that can attract dirt and impede the stylus from contacting the vinyl. See above. You need to get at it and use surfactant that's effective for the purpose. I agree that a non-residue surfactant is a good thing. Seems to me like pure Ethyl Alcohol and water could fit the bill. For someone who spends a lot of time examining sonic issues in minute detail I'm surprised you're so curmudgeonly about accepting this. I'm just following the same pattern - forget about the folk tales and anecdotes, and see what works based on a reliable criteria that is as free from bias as possible. Why *wouldn't* you take measures that will more surely remove debris since this is the goal when it ultimately doesn't take any more, and possibly less effort? Show me the beef, not the beefcake or the cute story about it! ;-) |
#43
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
And there are other considerations besides just the
purity of the solution.You also need to effectively get into the grooves which requires a device - ie, a brush - that's mechanically effective. That's debatable. We routinely clean surfaces while not touching them with anything but water and a surfactant. But is the surfactant enough to propely loosen the shmutz? And I see no harm in using a soft brush with fine tips. I used to have a Watts Record Wash Brush (it disappeared, and they're no longer made), but my Nitty-Gritty came with a similar brush, which I use. |
#44
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message And there are other considerations besides just the purity of the solution.You also need to effectively get into the grooves which requires a device - ie, a brush - that's mechanically effective. That's debatable. We routinely clean surfaces while not touching them with anything but water and a surfactant. But is the surfactant enough to propely loosen the shmutz? Give it a little time. And I see no harm in using a soft brush with fine tips. I've been known to do that, too. But, is it a requirement? I used to have a Watts Record Wash Brush (it disappeared, and they're no longer made), but my Nitty-Gritty came with a similar brush, which I use. I used to have the full Watts treatment, dust bug, brush, etc. |
#45
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
I used to have a Watts Record Wash Brush (it disappeared,
and they're no longer made), but my Nitty-Gritty came with a similar brush, which I use. I used to have the full Watts treatment, dust bug, brush, etc. Yup, nothing like smearing your valuable LPs with antifreeze. grin I used the Parostatik Preener for several years, until my common sense kicked in. (Or maybe the Discwasher came on the market. I forget which.) I continued using the Dust Bug for a while. Some people claimed they could hear side effects from its relatively stiff fibers "playing" the groove. I later switched to a tracking arm with a carbon-fiber brush at the end. Perhaps I should get it out and set it up on my Well-Tempered system. |
#46
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message I used to have a Watts Record Wash Brush (it disappeared, and they're no longer made), but my Nitty-Gritty came with a similar brush, which I use. I used to have the full Watts treatment, dust bug, brush, etc. Yup, nothing like smearing your valuable LPs with antifreeze. grin Yes, I guess that is what the Dust Bug fluid was. I used the Parostatik Preener for several years, until my common sense kicked in. (Or maybe the Discwasher came on the market. I forget which.) I had one of those, and the Zerostat too. I continued using the Dust Bug for a while. Some people claimed they could hear side effects from its relatively stiff fibers "playing" the groove. Acoustically? No doubt. I later switched to a tracking arm with a carbon-fiber brush at the end. I had several V15s. |
#47
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
I used the Parostatik Preener for several years, until my
common sense kicked in. (Or maybe the Discwasher came on the market. I forget which.) I had one of those, and the Zerostat too. The Zerostat was not a Watts product (that I recall). I have two, and they come in handy for "degaussing" grin a charged LP. They used to be around $25; they're now nearly $100. How a piezo device and a trigger to bend it can cost so much is beyond me. I later switched to a tracking arm with a carbon-fiber brush at the end. I had several V15s. Thank you, I'll keep my Ikeda direct-coupled moving coil. Though I do see the engineering logic of a cleaning/damping brush on the pickup itself. |
#48
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
In article ,
"William Sommerwerck" wrote: I used the Parostatik Preener for several years, until my common sense kicked in. (Or maybe the Discwasher came on the market. I forget which.) I had one of those, and the Zerostat too. The Zerostat was not a Watts product (that I recall). Discwasher. Now it's by Milty, a UK company. |
#49
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
"Jenn" wrote in message
... In article , "William Sommerwerck" wrote: I used the Parostatik Preener for several years, until my common sense kicked in. (Or maybe the Discwasher came on the market. I forget which.) I had one of those, and the Zerostat too. The Zerostat was not a Watts product (that I recall). Discwasher. Now it's by Milty, a UK company. I don't remember Discwasher selling it. But I do remember that it was always a British product, regardless of whose name appeared on it. |
#50
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message I used the Parostatik Preener for several years, until my common sense kicked in. (Or maybe the Discwasher came on the market. I forget which.) I had one of those, and the Zerostat too. The Zerostat was not a Watts product (that I recall). Neither was the Discwasher. I have two, and they come in handy for "degaussing" grin a charged LP. They used to be around $25; they're now nearly $100. How a piezo device and a trigger to bend it can cost so much is beyond me. I paid about $20 for mine. I don't know what happened to it. I later switched to a tracking arm with a carbon-fiber brush at the end. I had several V15s. Thank you, I'll keep my Ikeda direct-coupled moving coil. I am happy that you are happy with it. Though I do see the engineering logic of a cleaning/damping brush on the pickup itself. |
#51
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
On Nov 16, 8:13*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"James" wrote in message The idea is to remove as much debris from the record surface as possible and have the stylus riding on nothing but plastic. That's a truism. Without referencing anything else, clarify what "truism" means to you. |
#52
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 18:48:18 -0800 (PST), James
wrote: That's a truism. Without referencing anything else, clarify what "truism" means to you. I think he's saying "I agree", but trying to do it with attitude ;-) |
#53
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
"James" wrote in message
On Nov 16, 8:13 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "James" wrote in message The idea is to remove as much debris from the record surface as possible and have the stylus riding on nothing but plastic. That's a truism. Without referencing anything else, clarify what "truism" means to you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truism "A truism is a claim that is so obvious or self-evident as to be hardly worth mentioning, except as a reminder or as a rhetorical or literary device." |
#54
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
news On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 18:48:18 -0800 (PST), James wrote: That's a truism. Without referencing anything else, clarify what "truism" means to you. I think he's saying "I agree", but trying to do it with attitude ;-) The attitude comes from the fact that answers framed in platitudes don't show much insight. |
#55
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
Arny Krueger wrote:
"James" wrote in message On Nov 14, 4:23 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Seems like we have a failure to communicate. I said "evidence", and the response was a "procedure". Like so many things about vinyl, there seems to be a total lack of experimental evidence to back up a ton of popular suppositions. I'm not sure if you're saying you doubt that tap water isn't the best thing to wash records with. If so, look around to find out what's in tap water, or even just hold up a clean glass full of it sometime. The water is pretty clean around here. Leave a drop of it on a sheet of glass. Come back in a couple days, and take a look at what's left on the glass. IOW, someone showed that using relatively pure tap water from say New York city would significantly raise the noise level of a LP, compared to say distilled water. That would make sense. Tap water has a lot of dissolved minerals in them. This is usually a good thing and good for your body. It certainly makes tea taste better. Try drinking distilled water some time... it's nasty. NYC water varies a lot from place to place because of the piping infrastructure. There are some neighborhoods that have more dissolved iron than others, and this is a big deal for photo labs. I don't recall the details of where the good and bad places are but Frank at A-1 Cine Labs will. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#56
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
Arny Krueger wrote: "James" wrote in message On Nov 14, 4:23 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Seems like we have a failure to communicate. I said "evidence", and the response was a "procedure". Like so many things about vinyl, there seems to be a total lack of experimental evidence to back up a ton of popular suppositions. I'm not sure if you're saying you doubt that tap water isn't the best thing to wash records with. If so, look around to find out what's in tap water, or even just hold up a clean glass full of it sometime. The water is pretty clean around here. Leave a drop of it on a sheet of glass. Come back in a couple days, and take a look at what's left on the glass. We do that experiment almost daily. It's called washing the dishes and glasses. The answer is, (a) I would never let water stand and dry on my LPs. Never did. (b) My glasses and dishes show no film or residue when I allow tap water to dry on them, anyway. IOW, someone showed that using relatively pure tap water from say New York city would significantly raise the noise level of a LP, compared to say distilled water. I'd like to see the details of that experiment. That's the essence of the question that I keep asking, and people keep dancing around. |
#57
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
Arny Krueger wrote:
The answer is, (a) I would never let water stand and dry on my LPs. Never did. But you do. You _always_ have a thin film of water left on the LPs, unless you use the vacuum to remove it. The whole point of the vacuum system is that it effectively removes all of the fluid from the record so that nothing is left to evaporate and leave residue. (b) My glasses and dishes show no film or residue when I allow tap water to dry on them, anyway. That's impressive. Do try it without any detergent, though.... we certainly get pretty big spots around here. IOW, someone showed that using relatively pure tap water from say New York city would significantly raise the noise level of a LP, compared to say distilled water. I'd like to see the details of that experiment. That's the essence of the question that I keep asking, and people keep dancing around. All you need to do is to see micrographs of records cleaned in various ways. I have seen such things, although I admit that they all came from very biased sources. It's pretty obvious to see gunk left behind by Discwasher-cleaned records, though, even with a 125x light microscope. Stuff left behind with a sink-and-towel cleaning is going to be different; less film left behind (but most of the film at the bottom of the groove) and a a lot of lint from the towel. But the scope should show you. It's not as if the vacuum machines are even very expensive; you can find a used Record Doctor for well under $100. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#58
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote: "James" wrote in message On Nov 14, 4:23 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Seems like we have a failure to communicate. I said "evidence", and the response was a "procedure". Like so many things about vinyl, there seems to be a total lack of experimental evidence to back up a ton of popular suppositions. I'm not sure if you're saying you doubt that tap water isn't the best thing to wash records with. If so, look around to find out what's in tap water, or even just hold up a clean glass full of it sometime. The water is pretty clean around here. Leave a drop of it on a sheet of glass. Come back in a couple days, and take a look at what's left on the glass. IOW, someone showed that using relatively pure tap water from say New York city would significantly raise the noise level of a LP, compared to say distilled water. That would make sense. Tap water has a lot of dissolved minerals in them. This is usually a good thing and good for your body. It certainly makes tea taste better. Try drinking distilled water some time... it's nasty. NYC water varies a lot from place to place because of the piping infrastructure. There are some neighborhoods that have more dissolved iron than others, and this is a big deal for photo labs. I don't recall the details of where the good and bad places are but Frank at A-1 Cine Labs will. --scott I know that no method is 100%; but doesn't aggressive and immediate vacuuming mitigate the effect of suspended particulates in the tap water? jak |
#59
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
"jakdedert" wrote in message
I know that no method is 100%; but doesn't aggressive and immediate vacuuming mitigate the effect of suspended particulates in the tap water? It would appear that the goal is to remove as much water as possible, thus reducing the amount of suspended and dissolved solids that are left behind when it evaporates. There are any number of ways to remove the water. For example, you could spin the disk rapidly and remove the water with centrifugal force. Messy. We've discussed blotting. Suctioning is not necessarily more effective than blotting, it depends on the means of blotting as compared to the means of suctioning. Another method is squeegieing. About 40 years ago I worked as a custodian while attending university. We squeegeed, blotted (mopped) and suctioned (vacuumed) floors while washing and drying them. My recollection was that squeegeed was the first pass, suctioning was the second pass and mopping was the third pass. If there were two passes, the squeegieing was usually omitted, and if only one method was used, it was successive passes with the mop. In every case, a thoroughly-squeezed mop was considered to be the finishing touch as it left the floor as dry as possible. Therefore, I perceive that faith in blotting is not misplaced. However, there is the matter of those tests that actually measured the effectiveness of the various alternatives. It still seems to have gone missing. ;-) |
#60
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
jakdedert wrote:
I know that no method is 100%; but doesn't aggressive and immediate vacuuming mitigate the effect of suspended particulates in the tap water? Yes, this is the whole point of the vacuum system and what makes it so effective. However, Arny is arguing that it is not effective, possibly because he has never used one. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#61
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
Arny Krueger wrote:
It would appear that the goal is to remove as much water as possible, thus reducing the amount of suspended and dissolved solids that are left behind when it evaporates. Yes, precisely. There are any number of ways to remove the water. For example, you could spin the disk rapidly and remove the water with centrifugal force. Messy. Doesn't work. The records have grooves in them, and the water (which has very little surface tension due to the residual surfactant) gets stuck in the grooves and won't fling off. We've discussed blotting. Problem is the grooves again. You can't get anything into the grooves unless it's very feathery and then you get issues with shedding. Suctioning is not necessarily more effective than blotting, it depends on the means of blotting as compared to the means of suctioning. I'm not sure I buy that. The advantage of suctioning is that you get into the grooves without having anything that will drop dust on them. Another method is squeegieing. Again, requires a flat surface. About 40 years ago I worked as a custodian while attending university. We squeegeed, blotted (mopped) and suctioned (vacuumed) floors while washing and drying them. My recollection was that squeegeed was the first pass, suctioning was the second pass and mopping was the third pass. If there were two passes, the squeegieing was usually omitted, and if only one method was used, it was successive passes with the mop. In every case, a thoroughly-squeezed mop was considered to be the finishing touch as it left the floor as dry as possible. Therefore, I perceive that faith in blotting is not misplaced. Imagine a floor that is grooved, now. However, there is the matter of those tests that actually measured the effectiveness of the various alternatives. It still seems to have gone missing. ;-) As I said, I have seen a bunch of them conducted by various manufacturers, none of which are really unbiased. But if you feel the need for such a study, it should be easy to conduct with a light microscope and some test records. I'll even donate a box of RAP LPs to the cause. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#62
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
Arny Krueger wrote: It would appear that the goal is to remove as much water as possible, thus reducing the amount of suspended and dissolved solids that are left behind when it evaporates. Yes, precisely. There are any number of ways to remove the water. For example, you could spin the disk rapidly and remove the water with centrifugal force. Messy. Doesn't work. The records have grooves in them, and the water (which has very little surface tension due to the residual surfactant) gets stuck in the grooves and won't fling off. We've discussed blotting. Problem is the grooves again. You can't get anything into the grooves unless it's very feathery and then you get issues with shedding. Suctioning is not necessarily more effective than blotting, it depends on the means of blotting as compared to the means of suctioning. I'm not sure I buy that. The advantage of suctioning is that you get into the grooves without having anything that will drop dust on them. Suction is not guaranteed to remove all of the water from the grooves. Another method is squeegieing. Again, requires a flat surface. About 40 years ago I worked as a custodian while attending university. We squeegeed, blotted (mopped) and suctioned (vacuumed) floors while washing and drying them. My recollection was that squeegeed was the first pass, suctioning was the second pass and mopping was the third pass. If there were two passes, the squeegieing was usually omitted, and if only one method was used, it was successive passes with the mop. In every case, a thoroughly-squeezed mop was considered to be the finishing touch as it left the floor as dry as possible. Therefore, I perceive that faith in blotting is not misplaced. Imagine a floor that is grooved, now. We had them, and blotting worked on them, as well. However, there is the matter of those tests that actually measured the effectiveness of the various alternatives. It still seems to have gone missing. ;-) As I said, I have seen a bunch of them conducted by various manufacturers, none of which are really unbiased. But if you feel the need for such a study, it should be easy to conduct with a light microscope and some test records. I'll even donate a box of RAP LPs to the cause. No, I'm talking about measuring the noise on the records with a cartridge. |
#63
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
jakdedert wrote: I know that no method is 100%; but doesn't aggressive and immediate vacuuming mitigate the effect of suspended particulates in the tap water? Yes, this is the whole point of the vacuum system and what makes it so effective. However, Arny is arguing that it is not effective, possibly because he has never used one. I've seen them used, and the results were not IMO definitive. |
#64
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:08:46 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: I've seen them used, and the results were not IMO definitive. Well, having washed many a vinyl disc in the kitchen sink (BEWARE water temperature, Brother, beware - it must be absolutely room temperature, or you'll have the biggest potato chips ever seen) and also having an ancient Keith Monks record washer, I can confidently state the following: After moving up to the vacuum method, my life was transformed. I quit my old life hooking and shooting drugs, and was granted a doctorate from Princeton, just on general principles. Thandie Newton begged to be my girlfriend, but I had to tell her No!, I'm sworn to the pure life of vacuum cleaning. Maybe just a single data point, and YMMV, but it worked for me! Much thanks, as always, Chris Hornbeck |
#65
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
IOW, someone showed that using relatively pure tap water
from say New York city would significantly raise the noise level of a LP, compared to say distilled water. I'd like to see the details of that experiment. That's the essence of the question that I keep asking, and people keep dancing around. I would never clean records with tap water. There's no point, when you can get a gallon of distilled (not deionized) at the grocery store. However, the minerals in tap water are not going to "come out" (no joke intended) unless you let the water dry on the surface. A quick, thorough drying should be satisfactory. But... One might also make the argument that you cannot completely remove all the water from the surface (by vacuuming or blotting), so some water remains behind to evaporate. |
#66
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
"Distorted Vision" wrote in message ... I'm looking for an Audiophile soundcard for recording vinyl from my turntable. I set it up last night using the on-board Realtek AC97 audio. I was looking at either the M-Audio Audiophile 2496 or M-Audio Audiophile 192. Also can you please advise what the best non-lossy file format is for archiving purposes and software to use. I used Audacity and saved as uncompressed WAV 48kHz sampling rate. Will sampling at 192kHz justify the extra cost of the Audiophile 192 soundcard? Also is Audacity the best softare to use? From my understanding there is a special version of Pro Tools called M-Powered specificially for M- Audio devices. Is this worth using? Instead of vacuuming,could compressed air(filtered?) be used to dry/remove remaining grit? Keith. |
#67
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
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? And where does that grit come from, anyway? If the disk has been washed with a grit-free cleaning solution, any solids on the record itself should have been loosened and flushed away. Some years ago I reviewed a Nitty-Gritty machine, and the company got upset when I said dirty records should be washed under the faucet (with dishwashing liquid) before being put on the N-G. They thought I said _all_ records should be washed first. Of course not. But record-cleaning machines are for _maintaining_ cleanliness -- and for removing stuff that might not be caught in a hand washing. |
#68
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
And where does that grit come from, anyway? If the disk has been
washed with a grit-free cleaning solution, any solids on the record itself should have been loosened and flushed away. and, I should have added, "no solids would be left behind". |
#69
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
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." |
#70
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
On Nov 17, 7:37*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
Without referencing anything else, clarify what "truism" means to you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truism "A truism is a claim that is so obvious or self-evident as to be hardly worth mentioning, except as a reminder or as a rhetorical or literary device." As I said, I was looking for what YOU thought it meant in your own words. Okay, let's say your original use of the word was correct. Which makes this comment "What I'm after is not truisms, but actual real-world truth." illogical. By calling them "truisms" you're agreement that the various points I outlined were correct. Correct by definition means correct or true in the "real world". When I say "And there are other considerations besides just the purity of the solution. You also need to effectively get into the grooves which requires a device - i.e. a brush - that's mechanically effective...Besides dirt and mold they acquire, records also have residue from mold release on them from the factory that can attract dirt and impede the stylus from contacting the vinyl." And you retort: "That's debatable." Which part of the above statement is "debatable"? You *don't* think there can be mold release, dirt, mold, etc. in the grooves and that it impedes/damages the stylus? That can't be since you've already agreed that's correct since you called it a truism. You think you *don't* need to get into the grooves effectively? Not getting into the grooves effectively is the same thing as saying "not cleaning the record effectively" since the groove is where the stylus rides. "We routinely clean surfaces while not touching them with anything but water and a surfactant." Define "surface" and "clean". Cleaning a flat surface is different than cleaning a surface that has microscopic grooves that serve as a mechanical guide. It's not usually considered crucial that you get all mineral deposits off the windows of your garage when you hit with a hose. It's very crucial when cleaning a record. I guess you're also aware that alcohol can damage records. Which makes using *pure* alcohol as you've mentioned a bad idea, before even getting to the question as to its effectiveness removing all contaminants its likely to encounter on a record surface. If you're saying you clean records touching them with *nothing* but tap water and soap, your standard of "clean" LP's isn't acceptable to me. Whether you're convinced or choose not to be convinced there's a better way to do it has no bearing on the fact that there is. |
#71
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
On Nov 17, 11:57*am, jakdedert wrote:
I know that no method is 100%; but doesn't aggressive and immediate vacuuming mitigate the effect of suspended particulates in the tap water? There are numerous considerations. You want to effectively remove the junk that's already on the record to begin with, and there's no good reason to unneccesarily introduce more contaminants to the record surface. You also don't want to use something that's going to damage the record surface - such as pure alcohol can. Even with vacuum irrigation, you're going to leave a certain amount of water on the surface which you want to air-dry. You don't want there to be minerals in the water that's left behind and you don't want to get it bone dry with the vacuum because that sets up static electricity which can draw more dust to the surface. Granted, unless you're in a clean-room environment, you're going to have dust recontact the record but to mitigate this you use a clean carbon fiber brush both before and after playing which both picks up dust and knocks down the static charge on the record surface. |
#72
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
You're also going to want to repeat the process more than once, and
make liberal use of the rinsing step. |
#73
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
On Nov 17, 3:24*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
We've discussed blotting. Problem is the grooves again. *You can't get anything into the grooves unless it's very feathery and then you get issues with shedding. Right, unless you've got something that's guaranteed to leave NOTHING behind, you're introducing more contaminants to the record surface. Another method is squeegieing. Again, requires a flat surface. And you're also dragging something across the surface of the record. I regard the Disk Doctor brushes as not posing a hazard to the records because of what they're made of and how they're used. As I said, I have seen a bunch of them conducted by various manufacturers, none of which are really unbiased. * *But if you feel the need for such a study, it should be easy to conduct with a light microscope and some test records. *I'll even donate a box of RAP LPs to the cause. One of these Radio Shack lighted 100x magnifiers works great - those grooves look like you're looking at a street from a very low-hovering helicopter. Though probably not much use for photographing it. The trick is getting the angle of the light right, which can involve an alternate light source. |
#74
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
"James" wrote in message
Which part of the above statement is "debatable"? You *don't* think there can be mold release, dirt, mold, etc. in the grooves and that it impedes/damages the stylus? Obviously not. That can't be since you've already agreed that's correct since you called it a truism. You think you *don't* need to get into the grooves effectively? Obviously not. The question is "get into the grooves with what?" Not getting into the grooves effectively is the same thing as saying "not cleaning the record effectively" since the groove is where the stylus rides. See, I answered all of the above questions, once: "We routinely clean surfaces while not touching them with anything but water and a surfactant." Define "surface" and "clean". Check your dictionary. We all seem to agree that perfectly clean is impossible. Cleaning a flat surface is different than cleaning a surface that has microscopic grooves that serve as a mechanical guide. Many such surfaces have grooves that are impractical to clean. It's not usually considered crucial that you get all mineral deposits off the windows of your garage when you hit with a hose. The question is not the need for cleanliness, it is a question of how clean the grooved surface actually gets. It's very crucial when cleaning a record. Agreed. I guess you're also aware that alcohol can damage records. So can water + surfactant. Which makes using *pure* alcohol as you've mentioned a bad idea, before even getting to the question as to its effectiveness removing all contaminants its likely to encounter on a record surface. This is getting tedious. I don't want mind games, I want actual test results. |
#75
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
"James" wrote in message
On Nov 17, 3:24 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: We've discussed blotting. Problem is the grooves again. You can't get anything into the grooves unless it's very feathery and then you get issues with shedding. Right, unless you've got something that's guaranteed to leave NOTHING behind, you're introducing more contaminants to the record surface. Nothing is perfect. There is no such thing as perfect cleaning. It's all a matter of degree. The question is not what works in our minds, but what actually works on the surface of a record. |
#76
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
On Nov 18, 3:34 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"James" wrote in message Which part of the above statement is "debatable"? You *don't* think there can be mold release, dirt, mold, etc. in the grooves and that it impedes/damages the stylus? Obviously not. That can't be since you've already agreed that's correct since you called it a truism. You think you *don't* need to get into the grooves effectively? Obviously not. The question is "get into the grooves with what?" Not getting into the grooves effectively is the same thing as saying "not cleaning the record effectively" since the groove is where the stylus rides. See, I answered all of the above questions, once: "We routinely clean surfaces while not touching them with anything but water and a surfactant." Define "surface" and "clean". Check your dictionary. We all seem to agree that perfectly clean is impossible. Cleaning a flat surface is different than cleaning a surface that has microscopic grooves that serve as a mechanical guide. Many such surfaces have grooves that are impractical to clean. It's not usually considered crucial that you get all mineral deposits off the windows of your garage when you hit with a hose. The question is not the need for cleanliness, it is a question of how clean the grooved surface actually gets. It's very crucial when cleaning a record. Agreed. I guess you're also aware that alcohol can damage records. So can water + surfactant. Which makes using *pure* alcohol as you've mentioned a bad idea, before even getting to the question as to its effectiveness removing all contaminants its likely to encounter on a record surface. This is getting tedious. I don't want mind games, I want actual test results. the national library of canada says so! "Grooved discs * Grooved discs are best cleaned using a record cleaning machine such as the Keith Monks, VPI, Nitty Gritty using 0.25 part of Tergitol 15-S-3 and 0.25 parts of Tergitol 15-S-9 per 100 parts of distilled water. These machines allow for an even dispersion of fluid and can then vacuum the liquid leaving a clean, dry surface. The discs must then be rinsed thoroughly with distilled water and vacuumed dry to eliminate any trace of detergent residue. Records should be cleaned before each playback. * Clean Vulcanite discs showing signs of acid build up using 0.25 part of Tergitol 15-S-3 and 0.25 parts of Tergitol 15-S-9 per 100 parts of distilled water and rinse thoroughly. * Clean acetate discs showing signs of palmitic acid deposits (white greasy substance on acetate disc surface) as if cleaning LPs, except add 1 part ammonia per 100 to the Tergitol cleaning solution. Do not use ammonia on shellac based discs. " they do not agree with your spurious allegations. but that does not make it true for you arny. why don't you do an ABX and prove it yourself? |
#77
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
"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. 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. Keith. |
#78
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
On Nov 18, 3:34*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"James" wrote in message Which part of the above statement is "debatable"? You *don't* think there can be mold release, dirt, mold, etc. in the grooves and that it impedes/damages the stylus? Obviously not. That can't be since you've already agreed that's correct since you called it a truism. You think you *don't* need to get into the grooves effectively? Obviously not. Yet, when I said "And there are other considerations besides just the purity of the solution. You also need to effectively get into the grooves which requires a device - i.e. a brush - that's mechanically effective...Besides dirt and mold they acquire, records also have residue from mold release on them from the factory that can attract dirt and impede the stylus from contacting the vinyl." You said it's debatable. So what are you saying is debatable? Or are you just being contrary for the sake of being contrary? The question is "get into the grooves with what?" Something that's effective, doesn't leave contaminants behind, doesn't damage the record. There's another issue of efficacy with something like Disc Doctor, the brushes themselves are designed to be easily and effectively cleanable, whereas overpriced junk like the the Zero-Stat brush besides not doing a very good job of cleaning to begin with, even in fresh condition keeps building up contaminants and pushes/grinds them into and around the surface. Their design doesn't make them readily cleanable. "We routinely clean surfaces while not touching them with anything but water and a surfactant." Define "surface" and "clean". Check your dictionary. There's more than one kind of surface, it's topography, composition, functionality. We all seem to agree that perfectly clean is impossible. There are ways that come a lot closer than others. Depositing and drying mineral-laden water onto the surface of something you're trying to remove dried dirt from isn't one of the more effective ways. Cleaning a flat surface is different than cleaning a surface that has microscopic grooves that serve as a mechanical guide. Many such surfaces have grooves that are impractical to clean. As far as records, it's quite practical if you're using tools and materials purpose-designed for the job. I guess you're also aware that alcohol can damage records. So can water + surfactant. Undiluted driveway cleaner probably isn't recommended, but not a problem if you use the right cleaner. And you wouldn't use the same cleaner on all records, since they weren't all made of the same material. |
#79
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 18:12:02 -0500, Charlie Olsen
wrote: 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. Yes. The classic recipe is a 50/50 mixture of isopropal alcohol (NOT! rubbing alcohol, which has contaminants, but the stuff from the grocery store or drug store is fine) and water. Add a few drops of Photoflow and a few drops of Windex. Eye of newt, etc. I've never used anything except Little Rock tap water and 79 cent a pint alcohol, and a little bottle of Photoflow will outlive ya. And I don't think that the point has been made as strongly as warranted: a record, even a brand new record, sounds very, very different when properly cleaned. It's not at all a subtle, tweaky difference. It's essential. Nuf said. All the best fortune, Chris Hornbeck |
#80
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile Soundcard for Ripping Vinyl
"Keith." wrote in message ... "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. 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. Keith. 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. The Nitty Gritty is going to need more solution but that is another thread in itself. Keith. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
LP (vinyl records) ripping? | Pro Audio | |||
Opinions on ripping vinyl records to MP3 via USB enabled players | Pro Audio | |||
Ripping Vinyl to the computer? | Pro Audio | |||
Ripping From Vinyl | General |