Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why LP crackle between tracks on an otherwise quiet LP?
I clean all LP's with vacuum irrigation - purpose-made Disc Doctor surfactant mixed with distilled water, distilled water rinse, use purpose-made Disc Doctor brushes at all stages and all solution sucked off the surface with a vacuum wand - I always repeat the cleaning/rinsing at least a couple of times, but even on a pristine, sealed LP even if the tracks themselves seem crackle and pop-free even in quiet sections, I always detect some crackle in the break between tracks. I've even tried using glue cleaning as an intermediate step between liquid irrigation applications. Last step is always a going over with a carbon fiber brush.
Btw if you're not familiar with glue cleaning it's not as horrific as it sounds - you coat the surface with a pliable glue (Titebond II) and when it dries you peel it off along with whatever contaminants the glue captures. Any notions why this between track noise remains stubbornly in place? |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why LP crackle between tracks on an otherwise quiet LP?
Brassplyer wrote:
I clean all LP's with vacuum irrigation - purpose-made Disc Doctor surfacta= nt mixed with distilled water, distilled water rinse, use purpose-made Disc= Doctor brushes at all stages and all solution sucked off the surface with = a vacuum wand - I always repeat the cleaning/rinsing at least a couple of t= imes, but even on a pristine, sealed LP even if the tracks themselves seem = crackle and pop-free even in quiet sections, I always detect some crackle i= n the break between tracks. I've even tried using glue cleaning as an inter= mediate step between liquid irrigation applications. Last step is always a = going over with a carbon fiber brush.=20 So, check with an inspection microscope and see what the surface looks like. Dust? Microcracking? Bubbles from pressing issues? I think you'll find that in general, most of the pressings out there just aren't very quiet, because the customers didn't really care if they were quiet or not. With a microscope you'll see scratches from poor treatment of the lacquer and the metal, bubbles from running the process too fast, cracking from putting too much or too little regrind in the mix. There are some excellent pressings out there... but major labels in the seventies and eighties were mostly churning stuff out as quickly as possible without much regard to quality. Btw if you're not familiar with glue cleaning it's not as horrific as it so= unds - you coat the surface with a pliable glue (Titebond II) and when it d= ries you peel it off along with whatever contaminants the glue captures. It works well to remove certain kinds of debris, but it can't always get to the bottom of the groove and it won't remove nonpolar greasy stuff. Any notions why this between track noise remains stubbornly in place? Not without using a microscope. However, may I suggest that careful damping of the arm so that it doesn't ring when it's excited by a click is the most valuable thing you can do to reduce perceived noise floor. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why LP crackle between tracks on an otherwise quiet LP?
On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 9:15:49 PM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
However, may I suggest that careful damping of the arm so that it doesn't ring when it's excited by a click is the most valuable thing you can do to reduce perceived noise floor. What damping would be needed beyond whatever is already in place on a Technics SL1200 MK2? |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why LP crackle between tracks on an otherwise quiet LP?
Brassplyer wrote:
On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 9:15:49 PM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote: However, may I suggest that careful damping of the arm so that it doesn't ring when it's excited by a click is the most valuable thing you can do to reduce perceived noise floor. What damping would be needed beyond whatever is already in place on a Technics SL1200 MK2? Remove the awful bent arm completely and put on a used SME. There are some people out there who say that the very high-mass arm that comes standard with the SL1200 is okay if you get a low enough compliance cartridge. Jon Hall always swore by the Denon DL103. I can't say if this is true or not. I never had much luck with it. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why LP crackle between tracks on an otherwise quiet LP?
On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 9:05:36 PM UTC-4, Brassplyer wrote:
I clean all LP's with vacuum irrigation - purpose-made Disc Doctor surfactant mixed with distilled water, distilled water rinse, use purpose-made Disc Doctor brushes at all stages and all solution sucked off the surface with a vacuum wand - I always repeat the cleaning/rinsing at least a couple of times, but even on a pristine, sealed LP even if the tracks themselves seem crackle and pop-free even in quiet sections, I always detect some crackle in the break between tracks. I've even tried using glue cleaning as an intermediate step between liquid irrigation applications. Last step is always a going over with a carbon fiber brush. Btw if you're not familiar with glue cleaning it's not as horrific as it sounds - you coat the surface with a pliable glue (Titebond II) and when it dries you peel it off along with whatever contaminants the glue captures. Any notions why this between track noise remains stubbornly in place? IF you hear crackling, it is STILL dirty. I used to scrub records with warm water, stiff brush and mild detergent. I'd then play, and you'd see the crud collect on stylus. Used Disc Washer wand many times until pleased. If I heard a (single) pop, I'd disconnect turntable drive belt and would abuse stylus to dislodge debris. PITA, but quiet... ahhhhhhh Jack |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why LP crackle between tracks on an otherwise quiet LP?
Scott Dorsey wrote: "Remove the awful bent arm completely and put on a used SME."
What was the point of those S-shaped tonearms anyway? |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why LP crackle between tracks on an otherwise quiet LP?
jjaj wrote "I used to scrub records with warm water, stiff brush and mild detergent."
Wai- WHAT?! |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why LP crackle between tracks on an otherwise quiet LP?
On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 8:50:18 AM UTC-4, wrote:
jjaj wrote "I used to scrub records with warm water, stiff brush and mild detergent." Wai- WHAT?! Whatever it took, my dear TKMA, whatever it took. And it WORKED, but a PITA just to listen to music, other than crud! Feel sorry for my Audio Technica cartridge though. Jack |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why LP crackle between tracks on an otherwise quiet LP?
|
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why LP crackle between tracks on an otherwise quiet LP?
In article ,
wrote: Scott Dorsey wrote: "Remove the awful bent arm completely and put on a used SME." What was the point of those S-shaped tonearms anyway? There is a paper in the AES Compendium on Disc Recording on the subject. The basic issue is that the grooves are cut parallel to the disc radius, and an arm fixed at one point can't move parallel to the radius but instead makes an arc across the disc. There were various attempts made to change the shape and position of the arc by bending the arm. There were also attempts made to flatten the arc out by using exceptionally long arms. And of course in the seventies there were a bunch of linear tracking systems either using servos or complex air bearings. All of these cures in the end turn out to be worse than the disease they are intended to address. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why LP crackle between tracks on an otherwise quiet LP?
In article ,
wrote: jjaj wrote "I used to scrub records with warm water, stiff brush and mild detergent." Wai- WHAT?! Yes, this is what we call trolling. I am surprised he didn't mention using a belt sander on them also. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why LP crackle between tracks on an otherwise quiet LP?
Scott Dorsey wrote: "In article ,
wrote: jjaj wrote "I used to scrub records with warm water, stiff brush and mild detergent." Wai- WHAT?! Yes, this is what we call trolling. I am surprised he didn't mention using a belt sander on them also. " LSHIFDS.. (Laughing so hard I fell down the stairs!!) |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why LP crackle between tracks on an otherwise quiet LP?
Scott Dorsey:
So the best we can do is design som that tracking with a conventional pivot arm is as linear as possible to the grooves in the middle of the playing area of a record. Meaning there is *some* angle error in the beginning (outer edge) and end(inner area) of a side, on a 12". On a 45, most of the angle will be from middle toward the end, I guess. |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why LP crackle between tracks on an otherwise quiet LP?
On 6/7/2017 8:50 AM, wrote:
jjaj wrote "I used to scrub records with warm water, stiff brush and mild detergent." Wai- WHAT?! Well, you don't want to do that with an acetate or wax disk, but vinyl is pretty robust. The trick is to get the dust and crud out of the grooves. The water and detergent loosen it up and lubricate the groove so you don't grind the groove with the dirt particles, and the brush moves them out of the groove where they can be rinsed off. It's just like when you take a bath. -- For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why LP crackle between tracks on an otherwise quiet LP?
On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 9:53:32 AM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 6/7/2017 8:50 AM, wrote: jjaj wrote "I used to scrub records with warm water, stiff brush and mild detergent." Wai- WHAT?! Well, you don't want to do that with an acetate or wax disk, but vinyl is pretty robust. The trick is to get the dust and crud out of the grooves. The water and detergent loosen it up and lubricate the groove so you don't grind the groove with the dirt particles, and the brush moves them out of the groove where they can be rinsed off. It's just like when you take a bath. Bath? Excellent piece, Mike! Jack -- For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why LP crackle between tracks on an otherwise quiet LP?
On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 9:41:21 AM UTC-4, wrote:
Scott Dorsey: So the best we can do is design som that tracking with a conventional pivot arm is as linear as possible to the grooves in the middle of the playing area of a record. Meaning there is *some* angle error in the beginning (outer edge) and end(inner area) of a side, on a 12". On a 45, most of the angle will be from middle toward the end, I guess. I think the standard offset angle that the cart makes to the arm (which has the same effect as the S shape but doesn't look as cool), allows you to achieve 0 tracking error at 2 points on the disc. I think the original papers are cited here https://www.stereophile.com/referenc...earm_geometry/ m |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why LP crackle between tracks on an otherwise quiet LP?
On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 8:33:50 AM UTC-4, wrote:
IF you hear crackling, it is STILL dirty. I used to scrub records with warm water, stiff brush and mild detergent. I'd then play, and you'd see the crud collect on stylus. Used Disc Washer wand many times until pleased. If I heard a (single) pop, I'd disconnect turntable drive belt and would abuse stylus to dislodge debris. PITA, but quiet... ahhhhhhh Jack Stylus stays clean. If by warm water you mean tap water you're just depositing minerals -i.e. little pieces of rocks - on the record. Disc Doctor brushes are meant to get inside the grooves, I doubt any supermarket brush is going to do that. |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why LP crackle between tracks on an otherwise quiet LP?
On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 11:01:51 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 9:41:21 AM UTC-4, wrote: Scott Dorsey: So the best we can do is design som that tracking with a conventional pivot arm is as linear as possible to the grooves in the middle of the playing area of a record. Meaning there is *some* angle error in the beginning (outer edge) and end(inner area) of a side, on a 12". On a 45, most of the angle will be from middle toward the end, I guess. I think the standard offset angle that the cart makes to the arm (which has the same effect as the S shape but doesn't look as cool), allows you to achieve 0 tracking error at 2 points on the disc. I think the original papers are cited here https://www.stereophile.com/referenc...earm_geometry/ m and this too https://static.webshopapp.com/shops/...elsjabloon.pdf thankfully we no longer have to worry about this stuff I was going to add that the intertrack crackle was added on purpose because people who play vinyl want to hear that stuff. :-) m |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why LP crackle between tracks on an otherwise quiet LP?
|
#20
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why LP crackle between tracks on an otherwise quiet LP?
On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 11:02:09 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 8:33:50 AM UTC-4, wrote: IF you hear crackling, it is STILL dirty. I used to scrub records with warm water, stiff brush and mild detergent. I'd then play, and you'd see the crud collect on stylus. Used Disc Washer wand many times until pleased. If I heard a (single) pop, I'd disconnect turntable drive belt and would abuse stylus to dislodge debris. PITA, but quiet... ahhhhhhh Jack Stylus stays clean. If by warm water you mean tap water you're just depositing minerals -i.e. little pieces of rocks - on the record. Disc Doctor brushes are meant to get inside the grooves, I doubt any supermarket brush is going to do that. You are correct, I know tap water has minerals, but far less solids than the crud embedded in the grooves. If you are sure vinyl is clean, then it has to be the quality of vinyl. I'd play mine right after washing so (wet) crud collected on stylus. Jack |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why LP crackle between tracks on an otherwise quiet LP?
Mike Rivers wrote:
Well, you don't want to do that with an acetate or wax disk, How often have you played a wax disc? I have transferred many thousands of historic recordings and I have only ever had one batch of three wax discs. -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why LP crackle between tracks on an otherwise quiet LP?
Scott Dorsey wrote:
[...] And of course in the seventies there were a bunch of linear tracking systems either using servos or complex air bearings. All of these cures in the end turn out to be worse than the disease they are intended to address. I don't know why you think a parallel tracking arm is a cure worse than the disease? A properly designed parallel tracker gives a huge improvement over any sort of radial arm, so perhaps you have only come across badly designed examples. Resolving the output of a stereo cartridge with an X-Y oscilloscope very clearly shows the tracking errors caused by cartridge misalignment, they are quite audible too. With a parallel tracker and a swivel mounting for the cartridge, these errors can be minimised for each individual disc, giving a very noticeable improvement. The swivel cartridge mounting is necessary because some discs were mistakenly cut with a skewed cutter facet, so the waveformss on the two groove walls are not in step. At high frequencies, that sort of error shows up as an elliptical or circular stylus motion on mono recordings. In my opinion (and experience), messing about with a radial arm in an attempt to minimise the errors is just 'polishing a turd'. Get, or construct, a proper parallel tracker and hear the difference it makes. -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why LP crackle between tracks on an otherwise quiet LP?
Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote: And of course in the seventies there were a bunch of linear tracking systems either using servos or complex air bearings. All of these cures in the end turn out to be worse than the disease they are intended to address. I don't know why you think a parallel tracking arm is a cure worse than the disease? A properly designed parallel tracker gives a huge improvement over any sort of radial arm, so perhaps you have only come across badly designed examples. Well, the servo systems invariably introduce low frequency junk from the servo, and they provide a whole other set of mechanical resonances because you now have all kinds of unsupported structures. There may be some theoretically possible system out there, but I have never come across one that didn't have serious problems. The air bearing is more promising a concept, and my ex's husband used an MG-1 for many years. You have a different set of resonance issues since now the tonearm is free-floating and not fixed in any plane, but all of that can be dealt with. Anti-skate can even be dealt with. But tracking never really seemed as good as with a conventional arm. Resolving the output of a stereo cartridge with an X-Y oscilloscope very clearly shows the tracking errors caused by cartridge misalignment, they are quite audible too. With a parallel tracker and a swivel mounting for the cartridge, these errors can be minimised for each individual disc, giving a very noticeable improvement. This is true, but as I said, the cure is worse than the disease in every case I have tried. The swivel cartridge mounting is necessary because some discs were mistakenly cut with a skewed cutter facet, so the waveformss on the two groove walls are not in step. At high frequencies, that sort of error shows up as an elliptical or circular stylus motion on mono recordings. Indeed. And often the cutting folks didn't care much about this for mono discs anyway, since they're expecting playback with a spherical stylus that would handle the error comparatively well. I never saw folks doing more than just eyeballing azimuth alignment on mono lathes. In my opinion (and experience), messing about with a radial arm in an attempt to minimise the errors is just 'polishing a turd'. Get, or construct, a proper parallel tracker and hear the difference it makes. Where would I find such a thing? --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why LP crackle between tracks on an otherwise quiet LP?
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Adrian Tuddenham wrote: Scott Dorsey wrote: And of course in the seventies there were a bunch of linear tracking systems either using servos or complex air bearings. All of these cures in the end turn out to be worse than the disease they are intended to address. I don't know why you think a parallel tracking arm is a cure worse than the disease? A properly designed parallel tracker gives a huge improvement over any sort of radial arm, so perhaps you have only come across badly designed examples. Well, the servo systems invariably introduce low frequency junk from the servo, and they provide a whole other set of mechanical resonances because you now have all kinds of unsupported structures. There may be some theoretically possible system out there, but I have never come across one that didn't have serious problems. I designed several that didn't seem to suffer from resonances. In most cases they used a fairly hefty 'truck' on ball-race wheels running on centreless-ground silver steel rails. From the truck was hung, on rubber damping, a die cast box housing the angle-measuring optics. A short arm made from a sandwich of thin hard sheet aluminium, roofing felt and plywood. was pivoted from the box. I tested the mechanisms by hitting every part of them and listening to the 'clonk' sound. None of it showed any obvious resonance. If the rails were kept clean, the L.F. noise was minimal (but not entirely absent); with sliders instead of ball races, they would have been even quieter (but more vulnerable to damage under the industrial conditions they were designed for). Some used pulley-and-string drive, others used a fine-threaded leadscrew. One used a leadscrew driven by a stepper motor, which was noisy at high slewing rates, but inaudible at normal tracking speeds (that one was for wax cylinders). You can see one of mine in the background at: http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/lifebeforevinyl/main.htm ....amd another in the 7th image down at: http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/other/recordgraph/recordgraph.htm (the half-nut looks like a tilted letter "D" in front of the black rounded gearbox casing). So, apart from the L.F. noise of the first prototype, which I never bothered to improve because it was only detectable when the servo was running above normal groove pitch speed, there isn't much inherently wrong with the parallel tracking system - and it has a lot in its favour. The air bearing is more promising a concept, and my ex's husband used an MG-1 for many years. You have a different set of resonance issues since now the tonearm is free-floating and not fixed in any plane, but all of that can be dealt with. Anti-skate can even be dealt with. But tracking never really seemed as good as with a conventional arm. The inertial side forces when playing an eccentric or oval pressing would be significant, so might the forces due to the stiffness of the pickup wiring. A servo system overcomes this. The swivel cartridge mounting is necessary because some discs were mistakenly cut with a skewed cutter facet, so the waveformss on the two groove walls are not in step. At high frequencies, that sort of error shows up as an elliptical or circular stylus motion on mono recordings. Indeed. And often the cutting folks didn't care much about this for mono discs anyway, since they're expecting playback with a spherical stylus that would handle the error comparatively well. I never saw folks doing more than just eyeballing azimuth alignment on mono lathes. The Blumlein cutterhead had a nearly-vertical rotational axis for the stylus cantilever and very low side restraining force. If the cutting face was the slightest bit misaligned, it would develop side thrust which would push the stylus bar to one side and make the error worse. In some studios, if the swarf-sucker broke down, the recording engineer would skew the stylus so as to throw the swarf towards the centre of the disc, so that a mechanical collector could be used. Sometimes whole batches of matrix numbers show this fault. Misalignment didn't generally matter too much on entertainment material, but at least one frequency test disc was cut with 90-degree displacement between the groove wall waveforms at the highest frequency - and this gave rise to no end of problems until the cause was recognised. In my opinion (and experience), messing about with a radial arm in an attempt to minimise the errors is just 'polishing a turd'. Get, or construct, a proper parallel tracker and hear the difference it makes. Where would I find such a thing? The Revox one was pretty good, but you would probably have to finish up designing and making one yourself if you needed it for professional transcription work (especially if the discs were more than 12" diameter). -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why LP crackle between tracks on an otherwise quiet LP?
|
#26
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why LP crackle between tracks on an otherwise quiet LP?
On 8/06/2017 7:10 PM, Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote: [...] And of course in the seventies there were a bunch of linear tracking systems either using servos or complex air bearings. All of these cures in the end turn out to be worse than the disease they are intended to address. I don't know why you think a parallel tracking arm is a cure worse than the disease? A properly designed parallel tracker gives a huge improvement over any sort of radial arm, so perhaps you have only come across badly designed examples Resolving the output of a stereo cartridge with an X-Y oscilloscope very clearly shows the tracking errors caused by cartridge misalignment, they are quite audible too. With a parallel tracker and a swivel mounting for the cartridge, these errors can be minimised for each individual disc, giving a very noticeable improvement. The swivel cartridge mounting is necessary because some discs were mistakenly cut with a skewed cutter facet, so the waveformss on the two groove walls are not in step. At high frequencies, that sort of error shows up as an elliptical or circular stylus motion on mono recordings. I've used a Rabco SL8E and B&O 8000, and never considered it a real problem given how few mono recordings I own. In my opinion (and experience), messing about with a radial arm in an attempt to minimise the errors is just 'polishing a turd'. Frankly I'd say that about ANY vinyl playback system these days! Trevor. |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why LP crackle between tracks on an otherwise quiet LP?
As someone who spends a lot of time with vinyl records, I'm aware that most of the time the phrase "polishing a turd" is apropos. However, *that's where the music is* -- a lot of stuff on LP has never been reissued on CD. So I've learned techniques foe getting the best possible transfer of LPs. And 78s, which are worse -- because a lot of great records have never been reissued on LP *or* CD.
I recently had the distinct pleasure of making a CD from the original analog tapes of one of my favorite LPs. It was like taking of tight shoes, and I wound up admiring the unnamed engineer who cut that LP master -- they did a remarkably good job, considering the limits of the medium. (The piece with the fiercest yodeling was the last cut on a side -- a nightmare for the cutting engineer. But they pulled it off.) Peace, Paul |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why LP crackle between tracks on an otherwise quiet LP?
On 9/06/2017 5:23 PM, PStamler wrote:
As someone who spends a lot of time with vinyl records, I'm aware that most of the time the phrase "polishing a turd" is apropos. However, *that's where the music is* -- a lot of stuff on LP has never been reissued on CD. So I've learned techniques foe getting the best possible transfer of LPs. And 78s, which are worse -- because a lot of great records have never been reissued on LP *or* CD. I recently had the distinct pleasure of making a CD from the original analog tapes of one of my favorite LPs. It was like taking of tight shoes, and I wound up admiring the unnamed engineer who cut that LP master -- they did a remarkably good job, considering the limits of the medium. (The piece with the fiercest yodeling was the last cut on a side -- a nightmare for the cutting engineer. But they pulled it off.) Peace, Paul Focus ? geoff |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why LP crackle between tracks on an otherwise quiet LP?
In article , Trevor wrote:
On 8/06/2017 1:02 AM, wrote: If by warm water you mean tap water you're just depositing minerals -i.e. little pieces of rocks - on the record. Distilled water is hardly that expensive. It also doesn't get into the grooves because the surface tension is so high. To get down in the grooves you need a solution with a surfactant, and then you need to get that out of the groove mechanically rather than trying to flush it out. Which is what the original poster is going with his vacuum machine. The vacuum machine is very very effective and leaves very clean surfaces. Disc Doctor brushes are meant to get inside the grooves, I doubt any supermarket brush is going to do that. Can you tell us what the special magic is you believe the Disc Doctor brush contains then? The carbon fibre bristles are very, very thin. Thin like 0.3 mils. You can buy similar brushes made by a lot of vendors, though. Radio Shack even used to sell them. They work well for what they are designed, but of course they can only do so much. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why LP crackle between tracks on an otherwise quiet LP?
On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 2:26:47 AM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
On 9/06/2017 5:23 PM, PStamler wrote: As someone who spends a lot of time with vinyl records, I'm aware that most of the time the phrase "polishing a turd" is apropos. However, *that's where the music is* -- a lot of stuff on LP has never been reissued on CD. So I've learned techniques foe getting the best possible transfer of LPs. And 78s, which are worse -- because a lot of great records have never been reissued on LP *or* CD. I recently had the distinct pleasure of making a CD from the original analog tapes of one of my favorite LPs. It was like taking of tight shoes, and I wound up admiring the unnamed engineer who cut that LP master -- they did a remarkably good job, considering the limits of the medium. (The piece with the fiercest yodeling was the last cut on a side -- a nightmare for the cutting engineer. But they pulled it off.) Peace, Paul Focus ? Hocus Pocus, by Focus? Great song!! Although, not sure how it EVER charted. Single version NEVER heard before! Album version made the song excel, but Billboard is NOT supposed to grade music via albums! The "single" is what is SUPPOSED to chart!! And people wonder why I doubt everything!! Same with Time Has Come Again - Chambers Brothers. Single version recorded on Halloween? A laugh!! Oh, well, nobody cares Jack geoff |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why LP crackle between tracks on an otherwise quiet LP?
Jackjjaj: geoff meant focus - as in
on the topic at hand! |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why LP crackle between tracks on an otherwise quiet LP?
On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 8:51:37 AM UTC-4, wrote:
Jackjjaj: geoff meant focus - as in on the topic at hand! Oh. I guess I blew that one!! Jack |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why LP crackle between tracks on an otherwise quiet LP?
On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 7:59:40 AM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Can you tell us what the special magic is you believe the Disc Doctor brush contains then? The carbon fibre bristles are very, very thin. Thin like 0.3 mils. You can buy similar brushes made by a lot of vendors, though. Radio Shack even used to sell them. They work well for what they are designed, but of course they can only do so much. While the cleaning process recommended by Disc Doctor includes using a carbon fiber brush, the Disc Doctor cleaning brushes aren't carbon fiber, they're a particular kind of short nap cloth that mount to a curved rubber piece and are supposed to get right into the grooves and agitate the surfactant to get the crud out. I've never seen another brush exactly like them. I've seen the old Radio Shack brushes as well as Disc Washer brushes, they're not quite the same. The guy who sells the Disc Doctor system says to wick the fluid off with paper like toilet paper but I use a vacuum. Surely any paper is going to leave debris behind. I'm sure the Radio Shack and other cleaning stuff largely just push the debris around and don't do a particularly effective job of getting it off the surface. |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why LP crackle between tracks on an otherwise quiet LP?
Brassplyer wrote:
While the cleaning process recommended by Disc Doctor includes using a carb= on fiber brush, the Disc Doctor cleaning brushes aren't carbon fiber, they'= re a particular kind of short nap cloth that mount to a curved rubber piece= and are supposed to get right into the grooves and agitate the surfactant = to get the crud out. I've never seen another brush exactly like them. I've = seen the old Radio Shack brushes as well as Disc Washer brushes, they're no= t quite the same. The discwasher brushes with the short nap are mostly useless, they just move the garbage around on the disc. If anything, they tend to make things worse because they wind up carrying garbage from one disc to another. So, this makes me a little suspicious of other short nap brushes, though less so if used with the vacuum machine. Normally with the vacuum machine you use a carbon fibre brush to get down into the grooves safely and cleanly, and then of course you vacuum up all the solvent, schmutz, and surfactant together so there's no debris left. The guy who sells the Disc Doctor system says to wick the fluid off with pa= per like toilet paper but I use a vacuum. Surely any paper is going to leav= e debris behind. I'm sure the Radio Shack and other cleaning stuff largely = just push the debris around and don't do a particularly effective job of ge= tting it off the surface. Wicking the fluid off might remove dissolved gunk effectively but it won't do anything to remove insoluble junk. So I am a little suspicious of this system as you describe it. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why LP crackle between tracks on an otherwise quiet LP?
On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 1:12:48 PM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
The guy who sells the Disc Doctor system says to wick the fluid off with pa= per like toilet paper but I use a vacuum. Surely any paper is going to leav= e debris behind. I'm sure the Radio Shack and other cleaning stuff largely = just push the debris around and don't do a particularly effective job of ge= tting it off the surface. Wicking the fluid off might remove dissolved gunk effectively but it won't do anything to remove insoluble junk. Which is why I deviate from his recommended method. It seems obvious to me that it needs to be vacuumed off for best results. I think he's got a great product but he drops the ball at a crucial step with his recommended method of removal. Besides not fully removing everything it's going to leave behind any particles that come off the paper. |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why LP crackle between tracks on an otherwise quiet LP?
|
#37
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why LP crackle between tracks on an otherwise quiet LP?
On 10/06/2017 4:50 AM, Brassplyer wrote:
.. The guy who sells the Disc Doctor system says to wick the fluid off with paper like toilet paper but I use a vacuum. Surely any paper is going to leave debris behind. Naa , toilet paper should get all the **** off your record. geoff |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why LP crackle between tracks on an otherwise quiet LP?
On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 7:29:47 PM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
On 10/06/2017 4:50 AM, Brassplyer wrote: . The guy who sells the Disc Doctor system says to wick the fluid off with paper like toilet paper but I use a vacuum. Surely any paper is going to leave debris behind. Naa , toilet paper should get all the **** off your record. geoff I do not see vacuum being able to suck embedded debris from groves. I mean, I probably didn't do much with a brush, warm water and detergent, but what I did do was loosen/soften the debris, and that is why it kept collecting around the stylus afterward. Jack |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why LP crackle between tracks on an otherwise quiet LP?
On 9/06/2017 9:59 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Trevor wrote: On 8/06/2017 1:02 AM, wrote: If by warm water you mean tap water you're just depositing minerals -i.e. little pieces of rocks - on the record. Distilled water is hardly that expensive. It also doesn't get into the grooves because the surface tension is so high. To get down in the grooves you need a solution with a surfactant, Yes you add some photoflow or a few drops of alcohol to the distilled water which aids drying as well. and then you need to get that out of the groove mechanically rather than trying to flush it out. Which is what the original poster is going with his vacuum machine. The vacuum machine is very very effective and leaves very clean surfaces. Yep vacuum before AND after washing. Disc Doctor brushes are meant to get inside the grooves, I doubt any supermarket brush is going to do that. Can you tell us what the special magic is you believe the Disc Doctor brush contains then? The carbon fibre bristles are very, very thin. Thin like 0.3 mils. I use a carbon fibre brush to eliminate static before playing a record. (which is what they are designed for) They do not dislodge the dirt sufficiently when washing IME however. Trevor. |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Why LP crackle between tracks on an otherwise quiet LP?
On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 7:52:47 PM UTC-4, wrote:
I do not see vacuum being able to suck embedded debris from groves. I mean, I probably didn't do much with a brush, warm water and detergent, but what I did do was loosen/soften the debris, and that is why it kept collecting around the stylus afterward. Jack It's not just the vacuum - the crud gets sucked out once it's been loosened with the surfactant solution and then subsequently removed along with the rinse. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Speaker crackle | Car Audio | |||
pioneer crackle | Pro Audio | |||
Audacity: how to split long tracks to shorter tracks | Pro Audio | |||
snap crackle pop | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Comparison of Quiet PC's & US Vendors of Quiet PC's | Pro Audio |