Page 10 of 13 FirstFirst 12345678910111213 LastLast
Results 226 to 250 of 324

Thread: Record Cleaning Regimens

  1. #226
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    6,676
    Quote Originally Posted by LASERCD View Post
    There is no record cleaning process that can return an album to a like-new state. The cleaners clean. They don't restore.
    I guess this will be my takeaway from this thread.

  2. #227
    Quote Originally Posted by LASERCD View Post

    There is no record cleaning process that can return an album to a like-new state. The cleaners clean. They don't restore.

    True.

    But the thing is, there are probably many records in collections that people think are lost causes.

    I have a Japanese pressing of Renaissance' "Scheherazade", that if didn't know what some of the causes of noise were, I would have thought it was lost cause. It was loaded with surface noise and extremely muffled sound. Lucky I know that those are quite often caused by mold, and not be dust, scratches or too many plays on inferior equipment.

    Most people would have thought that this LP was damaged beyond repair.

    A couple passes on a cheap vacuum machine, with an enzyme cleaner (not an alcohol based cleaner), and it is completely returned to a mint state. Even if it was cleaned with the same machine, but an alcohol based cleaner was used instead, it would have still been unlistenable, as alcohol based cleaners do not remove mold.
    And if there were a god, I think it very unlikely that he would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence - Russell

  3. #228
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    6,676
    Of course, "Sheherazade" has been issued on CD so....

  4. #229
    Member LASERCD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Voorhees, NJ
    Posts
    307
    Quote Originally Posted by simon moon View Post
    True.

    But the thing is, there are probably many records in collections that people think are lost causes.

    I have a Japanese pressing of Renaissance' "Scheherazade", that if didn't know what some of the causes of noise were, I would have thought it was lost cause. It was loaded with surface noise and extremely muffled sound. Lucky I know that those are quite often caused by mold, and not be dust, scratches or too many plays on inferior equipment.

    Most people would have thought that this LP was damaged beyond repair.

    A couple passes on a cheap vacuum machine, with an enzyme cleaner (not an alcohol based cleaner), and it is completely returned to a mint state. Even if it was cleaned with the same machine, but an alcohol based cleaner was used instead, it would have still been unlistenable, as alcohol based cleaners do not remove mold.
    100% agreement. Audio Intelligent #15 is a great enzymatic cleaner. If I have an album that looks mint but plays noisy after a cleaning in the Audio Desk I'll do another round of cleaning but I will use the AI #15 first on the VPI and then another dip into the bubble bath. Often works wonders.

    Recently got a rare Heikki Sarmanto album that was graded as NM. It arrived and my eyes popped open. It literally looked like the surfaced were covered in dried milk. Multiple rounds with enzymatic cleaner and then ultrasonic bath and it looks near flawless. Not dead quiet through out but more than acceptable.

  5. #230
    Quote Originally Posted by rcarlberg View Post
    Of course, "Sheherazade" has been issued on CD so....
    The reissue I heard sounds like crap. Pretty compressed. The remastered 2012 release is the worst of all.

    There is a SACD version from Audio Fidelity from 2014 that has dynamic range better than the vinyl. But the standard CD versions are all worse.

    EDIT: I see there is a Friday Music reissue from 2010 that looks like it is worth getting. The reviews claim it is not compressed.
    Last edited by simon moon; 11-11-2015 at 09:43 PM.
    And if there were a god, I think it very unlikely that he would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence - Russell

  6. #231
    Quote Originally Posted by simon moon View Post
    The reissue I heard sounds like crap. Pretty compressed. The remastered 2012 release is the worst of all.

    There is a SACD version from Audio Fidelity from 2014 that has dynamic range better than the vinyl. But the standard CD versions are all worse.

    EDIT: I see there is a Friday Music reissue from 2010 that looks like it is worth getting. The reviews claim it is not compressed.
    IMO, while both are quite acceptable for digital, neither the Friday or the AF SACD can touch an original UK LP. For my taste, neither can the Japan LP for that matter, as it's a bit on the bright side.

    There is no better example of a band that has been butchered on the CD medium than Renaissance. Too much treble on pretty much everything.

  7. #232
    Quote Originally Posted by LASERCD View Post
    There is no record cleaning process that can return an album to a like-new state. The cleaners clean. They don't restore.
    You are absolutely correct. And in my experience (I foretold that I've been displayed the AudioDesk), with two similarly "dirty" LPs (that also had to be played approximately the same period), A.D. gave something like a +20% better result than the VPI. So for me (considering my financial condition) the additional cost wasn't compensated by the the additional benefit.
    Macht das ohr auf!

    COSMIC EYE RECORDS

  8. #233
    Member LASERCD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Voorhees, NJ
    Posts
    307
    Quote Originally Posted by spacefreak View Post
    You are absolutely correct. And in my experience (I foretold that I've been displayed the AudioDesk), with two similarly "dirty" LPs (that also had to be played approximately the same period), A.D. gave something like a +20% better result than the VPI. So for me (considering my financial condition) the additional cost wasn't compensated by the the additional benefit.
    I used a VPI 16.5 for 20+ years before it shit the bed. Replaced it with a model 17. Wonderful cleaning machines. The ultrasonic units work differently and do a better job.

    BTW, Harry Weisfeld, the owner of VPI documented his cleaning regimen. It includes both a VPI unit and a generic DIY ultrasonic cleaner.

  9. #234
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    6,676
    Ken, do you do the whole cleaning regimen (VPI + AD) for every LP before you play it? Or are some clean enough to get a lesser treatment?

  10. #235
    Quote Originally Posted by rcarlberg View Post
    In my experience, air drying -- without vacuuming off (or sham-wowing off) the contaminants you've just dislodged -- merely redistributes them. They settle back onto the record as the liquid evaporates.
    Isn't this the point of rinsing?
    "Always ready with the ray of sunshine"

  11. #236
    Member LASERCD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Voorhees, NJ
    Posts
    307
    Quote Originally Posted by rcarlberg View Post
    Ken, do you do the whole cleaning regimen (VPI + AD) for every LP before you play it? Or are some clean enough to get a lesser treatment?
    For me to buy a really dirty album it has to be something that I can see doesn't have scratches, or a vendor mis-represents what they are selling me (happens too often). When I get those I do a pre-clean on the VPI, typically with Audio Intelligent #15 (their enzymatic cleaner). Soak each side for about 3-5 minutes. They it goes in the Audio Desk.

    So the normal regimen is to just use the Audio Desk on new and used albums, slip it into a new anti-static sleeve and I'm done. I used to do a post-wash on the VPI with Walker Audio Step 4 fluid which is basically Lloyd's magic water but laziness and a general feeling it makes no difference has curtailed that procedure.

    [Re-read your question. I don't clean an album before each play. I clean it thoroughly once before it ever hits the turntable. After that its pretty clean. I do know some guys that clean a specific album after 4 or 5 plays but I think thats overkill to be honest.]

  12. #237
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by LASERCD View Post
    This thread encapsulates everything that is wrong with this forum and the people that post here.

    This was one of the rare occassions (IMHO of course) when Robert posted a simple and non-flame bait question: What regimen do you use to clean your records? It was an invitation for people to post their vinyl cleaning process. Simple.

    Its quickly devolved into 4 pages of CD vs vinyl wars. Isn't there already an ongoing moronic thread about that?

    Then you wonder why people lurk and don't post....
    Amen

  13. #238
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    6,676
    Compressed air - yea or nay?

  14. #239
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    6,676
    Quote Originally Posted by Father Tiresias View Post
    Amen
    I'll ask of you the same thing I asked of Carney, please contribute. Don't just take potshots from the sidelines.

  15. #240
    Jazzbo manqué Mister Triscuits's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Utopia
    Posts
    2,637
    Quote Originally Posted by rcarlberg View Post
    Compressed air - yea or nay?
    I wouldn't use it. Seems like a good way to force grit deeper into the groove.

  16. #241
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    6,676
    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Triscuits View Post
    I wouldn't use it. Seems like a good way to force grit deeper into the groove.
    Seems softer than a diamond to me.

  17. #242
    Jazzbo manqué Mister Triscuits's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Utopia
    Posts
    2,637
    A diamond's a good way to force grit deeper into the grooves too.

  18. #243
    Quote Originally Posted by rcarlberg View Post
    Compressed air - yea or nay?
    Seems that filtering it so it's clean would be paramount.....
    "Always ready with the ray of sunshine"

  19. #244
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    6,676
    How clean are cans of air? They're used for delicate electronic work....

  20. #245
    False Number 9 Pr33t's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Jackson Heights, NY
    Posts
    57
    I don't have a bottle around me, but aren't there chemicals in there? There is that cold residue you get when firing it off at a bad angle. I would keep it far away from vinyl if that is the case.

  21. #246
    Jazzbo manqué Mister Triscuits's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Utopia
    Posts
    2,637
    Yeah, it's not actually air, it's difluoroethane. And I notice the can bears a warning against using it on camera mirrors, I would guess because it might leave scratches by driving grit across the surface.

  22. #247
    Member Jerjo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    small town in ND
    Posts
    4,124
    Just read an account of a visit to Joe Bussard, the crotchety king of 78 record collectors. Joe pulled out what may be the only existing copy of a performance of "Stack-O-Lee Blues" on the Black Patti label, a 78 he's been offered tens of thousands of dollars for. Before he played the record he cleaned it with what the author described as a cleaner the size of a blackboard eraser. Oh jebus, I hope it wasn't a blackboard eraser.
    I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down.'- Bob Newhart

  23. #248
    The old shellac 78s have wider grooves though, right, and are probably actually able to be treated more roughly (relatively speaking) than the thin bendy albums of later years... plus they can only ever sound so good. The crackle and pops are part of the charm.
    Last edited by trurl; 11-12-2015 at 10:38 PM.

  24. #249
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    6,676
    And poor Joe can't hear 'em anymore anyway.

  25. #250
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    6,676
    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Triscuits View Post
    Yeah, it's not actually air, it's difluoroethane. And I notice the can bears a warning against using it on camera mirrors, I would guess because it might leave scratches by driving grit across the surface.
    You are correct sir.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    Despite the name "canned air", the cans actually contain gases that are much easier to compress into liquids, such as 1,1-difluoroethane, 1,1,1-trifluoroethane, or 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane. Hydrocarbons, like butane, were often used in the past, but their flammable nature forced manufacturers to use fluorocarbons.
    Incidentally, this has been discussed (though not resolved) over on the Steve Hoffman Forum.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •