[James[_7_]]

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?

[Arny Krueger]

"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! ;-)

[William Sommerwerck]

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.

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[William Sommerwerck]

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.

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[William Sommerwerck]

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.

[Jenn[_3_]]

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.

[William Sommerwerck]

"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.

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[James[_7_]]

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.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

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 ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"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."

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[jakdedert]

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

[Arny Krueger]

"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. ;-)

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[Chris Hornbeck]

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

[William Sommerwerck]

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.

[Keith.]

"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.

[William Sommerwerck]

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.

[William Sommerwerck]

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".

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[James[_7_]]

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.

[James[_7_]]

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.

[James[_7_]]

You're also going to want to repeat the process more than once, and
make liberal use of the rinsing step.

[James[_7_]]

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.

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

[[email protected]]

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?

[Keith.]

"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.

[James[_7_]]

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.

[Chris Hornbeck]

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

[Keith.]

"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.