Why LP crackle between tracks on an otherwise quiet LP?

[brassplyer]

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?

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[brassplyer]

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?

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[[email protected]]

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

[[email protected]]

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?

[[email protected]]

jjaj wrote "I used to scrub records with warm water, stiff brush and mild detergent."

Wai- WHAT?!

[[email protected]]

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

[John Williamson]

On 07/06/2017 13:47, 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?
>
They reduced the average tracking angle error compared to a straight one.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[[email protected]]

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!!) :D

[[email protected]]

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.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

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

[[email protected]]

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

[[email protected]]

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/reference/arc_angles_optimizing_tonearm_geometry/

m

[[email protected]]

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.

[[email protected]]

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/reference/arc_angles_optimizing_tonearm_geometry/
>
> m

and this too

https://static.webshopapp.com/shops/059745/files/024227227/elementen-instelsjabloon.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

[John Williamson]

On 07/06/2017 16:08, wrote:
> I was going to add that the intertrack crackle was added on purpose because people who play vinyl want to hear that stuff. :-)
>
It's also possible that there is some psycho-acoustic masking going on
even at very low levels where the brain is hunting for a signal, so it
masks out the unwanted noise in its signal processing between the ears
and the bit of the brain that does the listening.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[[email protected]]

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

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

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

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

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

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

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

[Trevor]

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.

> 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?

Trevor.

[Trevor]

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.

[PStamler]

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

[geoff]

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

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[[email protected]]

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

[[email protected]]

Jackjjaj: geoff meant focus - as in
on the topic at hand! ;)

[[email protected]]

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

[brassplyer]

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.

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[brassplyer]

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.

[geoff]

On 10/06/2017 12:51 AM, wrote:
> Jackjjaj: geoff meant focus - as in
> on the topic at hand! ;)
>

No, he's right for about the first time ever.

Focus - Dutch band with particularly epic guitars and keys, and yes
yodeling in one of their more famous tracks.

geoff

[geoff]

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

[[email protected]]

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

[Trevor]

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.

[brassplyer]

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.

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 12:45:51 PM UTC-4, Brassplyer wrote:
> 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.

Oh, okay! I like that!

Jack

[[email protected]]

On Friday, 23 June 2017 02:45:51 UTC+10, Brassplyer wrote:
> 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

Follow Scott's advice, microscopically examine the intertrack grooves for physical damage.
There is always the option (discussed before) of using an ultrasonic cleaner with the above liquids i.e. distilled water, some alcohol for drying and a surfactant.

I like to use a fine nozzle on an air compressor with a low flow rate as well.

Keith.
>
>
> 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.