Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 48 of 48

Thread: Vinyl surface noise and cleaning records

  1. #26
    Member hippypants's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Tyler, Tx
    Posts
    704
    This is actually an update, and I imagine works well.


  2. #27
    Ultrasonic record cleaners are MUCH better than wet vacuum cleaners, or any other type of cleaning, period.

    They are, by far, the best method for cleaning vinyl. Seriously, no comparison.

    Right after I got my ultrasonic cleaner, I ran several records through my vacuum record cleaner, then played them. I took good notes on the number of clicks/pops on each side. I then took the same records and cleaned then again on my newly purchased ultrasonic cleaner. The decrease in the number of clicks/pops was obvious.

    This is not mine, but gives you an idea of the improvement:



    And no, you don't have to spend in the thousands to get an ultrasonic cleaner. There are some available that are priced the same as lower priced vacuum cleaners.

    For example, Vinyl Stack is available for $275, plus the price of a 6 Liter ultrasonic cleaner, available all over Ebay for a little over $100. So, for a right around $400, you end up with a record cleaner that will best even the most expensive vacuum machines.

    https://thevinylstack.com/view-cart/...=0&sort=normal

    Some people hang on to their vacuum machines to dry their freshly cleaned records. But this is not necessary.

    Last edited by simon moon; 4 Weeks Ago at 07:44 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

  3. #28
    Member Emeritus (A.M.P.) rcarlberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    5,253
    Thanks Simon. Good post.

  4. #29
    Man of repute progmatist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Mesa, Arizona
    Posts
    840
    Quote Originally Posted by simon moon View Post
    Ultrasonic record cleaners are MUCH better than wet vacuum cleaners, or any other type of cleaning, period.

    They are, by far, the best method for cleaning vinyl. Seriously, no comparison.

    Right after I got my ultrasonic cleaner, I ran several records through my vacuum record cleaner, then played them. I took good notes on the number of clicks/pops on each side. I then took the same records and cleaned then again on my newly purchased ultrasonic cleaner. The decrease in the number of clicks/pops was obvious.

    This is not mine, but gives you an idea of the improvement:



    And no, you don't have to spend in the thousands to get an ultrasonic cleaner. There are some available that are priced the same as lower priced vacuum cleaners.

    For example, Vinyl Stack is available for $275, plus the price of a 6 Liter ultrasonic cleaner, available all over Ebay for a little over $100. So, for a right around $400, you end up with a record cleaner that will best even the most expensive vacuum machines.

    https://thevinylstack.com/view-cart/...=0&sort=normal

    Some people hang on to their vacuum machines to dry their freshly cleaned records. But this is not necessary.

    The $40-$50 method I mentioned 2 days ago gets very similar results. Not just that, it transformed my used copy of Kansas s/t from a steady crackle to brand new sounding.
    "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"--Dalai Lama

  5. #30
    Member LASERCD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Voorhees, NJ
    Posts
    245
    Quote Originally Posted by progmatist View Post
    The $40-$50 method I mentioned 2 days ago gets very similar results. Not just that, it transformed my used copy of Kansas s/t from a steady crackle to brand new sounding.
    Define ďsimilarĒ. Iím sure you method provides some kind of improvement. Ultrasonic cleaning is demonstrably better than any other form of record cleaning treatment.

  6. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by LASERCD View Post
    Define ďsimilarĒ. Iím sure you method provides some kind of improvement. Ultrasonic cleaning is demonstrably better than any other form of record cleaning treatment.
    Tempting but a bit expensive, I have a couple of used records that are quite dirty and some records where I am not sure if cleaning will bring better sound but I'd like to try. I will try to hunt down a used one...

  7. #32
    I found a comparative overview on a German website , the pro ones are really too expensive , a good solution seems to be the kits that you can connect to standard ultrasonic cleaners.

    https://www.good-vinyl.de/pflege/sch...gsger%C3%A4te/

  8. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by alucard View Post
    I found a comparative overview on a German website , the pro ones are really too expensive , a good solution seems to be the kits that you can connect to standard ultrasonic cleaners.

    https://www.good-vinyl.de/pflege/sch...gsger%C3%A4te/
    That's like a smorgasbord of vinyl cleaners.
    NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF STUPID PEOPLE IN LARGE GROUPS!

  9. #34
    Member LASERCD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Voorhees, NJ
    Posts
    245
    Quote Originally Posted by alucard View Post
    I found a comparative overview on a German website , the pro ones are really too expensive , a good solution seems to be the kits that you can connect to standard ultrasonic cleaners.

    https://www.good-vinyl.de/pflege/sch...gsger%C3%A4te/
    A lot of people use them with excellent results. In fact I know of some audiophiles who have Audio Desk and KLaudio units and are selling them to go the DIY ultrasonic route because they have more control over the process.

    The biggest downside to these DIY units is drying the albums. You have to use something like a dish drying rack and wait for them to dry off. The benefit of the DIY units is you can clean up to 8 albums at one time.

  10. #35
    Man of repute progmatist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Mesa, Arizona
    Posts
    840
    Another problem with vinyl cleaning machines is if I use one at 11:00pm or midnight, my neighbor who works the early morning shift will be thoroughly pissed.

    Quote Originally Posted by LASERCD View Post
    Define “similar”. I’m sure you method provides some kind of improvement. Ultrasonic cleaning is demonstrably better than any other form of record cleaning treatment.
    I'm currently in the process of going through my massive vinyl collection to find a noisily dirty one. Once I find one, I'll post a before and after comparison.
    "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"--Dalai Lama

  11. #36
    NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF STUPID PEOPLE IN LARGE GROUPS!

  12. #37
    Member Emeritus (A.M.P.) rcarlberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    5,253
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow View Post
    All good tips -- that were common knowledge 40 years ago. Nice to see hipsters rediscovering them, and claiming them for their own.

    And it nicely reminded me how much I don't miss vinyl, and why.
    Last edited by rcarlberg; 3 Weeks Ago at 10:31 PM.

  13. #38
    Question : I bought a couple of days ago two older records, both in good shape (record and cover) btw for cleaning laminated covers I use a soft towel with a bit of dishwasher fluid and rub gently, often this gets away the dirt and gives back a bit of shine.

    Pink Floyd More Original soundtrack (Columbia French Pressing 69)
    Ennio Morricone : Giua La Testa RCA French Pressing 72
    Both have light surface noises , but while the Morricone one has a very clear crisp sound the PF one has a very muffled sound. From memory the More vinyl sonded much better. Question : Can frequent listening over the years alter in any way the frequency range of a record? or is this just due to a bad pressing?
    Dieter Moebius : "Art people like things they donít understand!"

  14. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by rcarlberg View Post
    All good tips -- that were common knowledge 40 years ago. Nice to see hipsters rediscovering them, and claiming them for their own.

    And it nicely reminded me how much I don't miss vinyl, and why.
    At least you don't need to borrow the Hubble Telescope to read the credits and liner notes.
    NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF STUPID PEOPLE IN LARGE GROUPS!

  15. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by alucard View Post
    Question : Can frequent listening over the years alter in any way the frequency range of a record? or is this just due to a bad pressing?
    If they use a shitty stylus. So many of those cheap turntables had ceramic styluses that slow, but surely ruined the discs.
    The White Zone is for loading and unloading only. If you got to load or unload go to the White Zone.

  16. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by alucard View Post
    Question : Can frequent listening over the years alter in any way the frequency range of a record? or is this just due to a bad pressing?

    Your ears start to wear out over time.
    NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF STUPID PEOPLE IN LARGE GROUPS!

  17. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by ronmac View Post
    If they use a shitty stylus. So many of those cheap turntables had ceramic styluses that slow, but surely ruined the discs.
    The ceramic used in cheap cartridges actually refers to the transducer in the cartridge itself, that is responsible for turning the mechanical movement of the cantilever, to electrical impulses, not the stylus material. A ceramic cartridge can have a diamond stylus, but usually has sapphire, but not, ceramic. As far as I know, styluses were never made out of ceramic.

    The reasons ceramic cartridges ruin records, is not due to the stylus material, it is that to get any sort of decent output from them, they require high tracking forces (usually in the neighborhood of 5 grams!). The reason high tracking forces are required is that, the stylus/cantilever structure is making direct contact with the piezoelectric crystal, and has to deform it to produce electrical signals.

    Another problem, at least as bad as the high tracking force, is that, because the back of the cantilever is held in place by the piezoelectric crystal, this impedes its freedom of movement, thus causing the stylus to not be able to track the groove undulations anywhere near as well as a MM or MC cartridge. The stylus will tend to follow a straighter path through the groove, causing more record wear.

    And finally, the stylus shape of ceramic cartridges is another record wear culprit. Add to the high tracking forces and inability to track the groove, with a conical stylus, and you have a record destroying machine.

    Stylus shapes, like Shibata, line contact, micro ridge, VanDenHull, make their contact with the record groove over a much larger surface area than a conical stylus (or even an elliptical, for that matter), thus dispersing the tracking force over a larger area, than conical or elliptical. In other words, a 2 gram tracking force with a Shibata, line contact, micro ridge, VanDenHull, will have a lot less weight per square inch, than the same tacking force of a conical or elliptical tracking at the same force.

    A correctly aligned Shibata, line contact, VanDenHull, micro ridge, tracking at the correct force, will cause substantially less wear than an elliptical (or the horror that is a conical stylus). And by substantially less wear, I mean close to zero. A record played with a good cartridge, correctly aligned, with a good stylus shape, will have no audibly noticeable wear over many, many plays. Record wear is drastically exaggerated by the digital only crowd.

    I guess, the main downside in using equipment that will not cause record wear, is that, it gets a bit costly. Cartridges with Shibata, line contact, micro ridge, VanDenHull styluses, tend to start at about $750.
    Last edited by simon moon; 3 Weeks Ago at 02:23 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

  18. #43
    ^^ Learn something new every day.
    The White Zone is for loading and unloading only. If you got to load or unload go to the White Zone.

  19. #44
    Member Emeritus (A.M.P.) rcarlberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    5,253
    Yep. Another good post Simon. You're absolutely right that record wear is wholly avoidable with a decent setup.

    And for that reason, Pink Floyd's problem is more likely a crap pressing than a crap cartridge. If it'd been repeatedly played with a crap cartridge the overarching impression wouldn't be one of missing highs, it'd be noise and distortion.

  20. #45
    Man of repute progmatist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Mesa, Arizona
    Posts
    840
    Quote Originally Posted by alucard View Post
    Question : I bought a couple of days ago two older records, both in good shape (record and cover) btw for cleaning laminated covers I use a soft towel with a bit of dishwasher fluid and rub gently, often this gets away the dirt and gives back a bit of shine.

    Pink Floyd More Original soundtrack (Columbia French Pressing 69)
    Ennio Morricone : Giua La Testa RCA French Pressing 72
    Both have light surface noises , but while the Morricone one has a very clear crisp sound the PF one has a very muffled sound. From memory the More vinyl sonded much better. Question : Can frequent listening over the years alter in any way the frequency range of a record? or is this just due to a bad pressing?
    According to the instructions for the Disc Washer I bought in the 80s, when playing a dirty record, the stylus can actually embed the dirt into the grooves. I can kind of see what they were talking about. When I worked as a janitor as a young adult, I used an internal cumbustion engine driven ultra-high speed buffer. It was extremely important to make sure the floor was clean before using it. Otherwise, the buffer would permanently melt the dirt into the acrylic wax on the floor.
    "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"--Dalai Lama

  21. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by progmatist View Post
    According to the instructions for the Disc Washer I bought in the 80s, when playing a dirty record, the stylus can actually embed the dirt into the grooves. I can kind of see what they were talking about. When I worked as a janitor as a young adult, I used an internal cumbustion engine driven ultra-high speed buffer. It was extremely important to make sure the floor was clean before using it. Otherwise, the buffer would permanently melt the dirt into the acrylic wax on the floor.
    Makes perfect sense,
    I normally put all records that sound strange for one reason or the other to the side for later treatment. I was just wondering if anyone heard of a commercial ultrasonic record cleaning service? I would rather pay a decent amount to have the records cleaned in the best way then invest in a profesional disc cleaner .
    Dieter Moebius : "Art people like things they donít understand!"

  22. #47
    Member LASERCD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Voorhees, NJ
    Posts
    245
    Quote Originally Posted by alucard View Post
    Makes perfect sense,
    I normally put all records that sound strange for one reason or the other to the side for later treatment. I was just wondering if anyone heard of a commercial ultrasonic record cleaning service? I would rather pay a decent amount to have the records cleaned in the best way then invest in a profesional disc cleaner .
    http://www.thevinylarchivist.com

    Perhaps there is a similar service in Europe.

  23. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by LASERCD View Post
    http://www.thevinylarchivist.com

    Perhaps there is a similar service in Europe.
    Thanx for the link,
    That's exactly the kind of service Iam looking for.
    Dieter Moebius : "Art people like things they donít understand!"

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
  •