Record Cleaning Machines
 

Hi folks,

I have a collection of about 50 LPs from the 1970s and 1980s which I
would like to transcribe to CD-R. Most of them are in surprisingly good nick
but a few of them - despite my best efforts with isopropyl-based solutions -
stubbornly continue to exhibit more pops and clicks than a Geiger counter in
a microwave oven. So I was thinking about buying a Record Cleaning Machine
for both the "difficult" disks and the ones that are OK but would
undoubtedly still benefit from a proper cleansing job. So I would really
appreciate some advice here...

The VPI machines seem to get good write-ups but I understand they can
literally deafen you if you stand next to them... that would certainly be no
good for me (well, actually, my neighbours!). The "Matrix" range from
ClearAudio is said to be "quiet" but I understand it's actually almost as
noisy as the VPIs. Other than its price, the Loricraft PRC3 seems ideal,
though I note its even more expensive brother, the PRC4, offers
bi-directional cleaning. Is it worth lashing out the extra for this?...

Some machines can clean both sides of the record at the same time but
I'm not terribly bothered about that. Indeed the amount of time needed to
clean just one side is of no matter to me, whether it takes one minute or
ten.

Perhaps a basic "Nitty Gritty" machine would suit me - though, as I say,
anything that's overwhelmingly noisy is not an option.

At the moment either of tehe Loricraft machines seem to offer the best
service. Yes, I know they're very expensive but I guess once I've doen my
own collection, I could start up my own little cleaning service to offset
the cost!

Of course the best thing for me to do is to see some of these machines
demonstrated... but I don't know of dealers here in the North West of
England who sell them....? Alternatively are there any little companies that
offer their own record cleaning service?

Many thanks in advance for any advice!

--

Cheers,

Dave Matthews

'New Avengers' and 'Professionals' sites at:
http://www.mark-1.co.uk

Record Cleaning Machines
 

On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 01:06:25 +0100, Dave Matthews wrote:


Hi folks,

I have a collection of about 50 LPs from the 1970s and 1980s which I
would like to transcribe to CD-R. Most of them are in surprisingly good nick
but a few of them - despite my best efforts with isopropyl-based solutions -
stubbornly continue to exhibit more pops and clicks than a Geiger counter in
a microwave oven. So I was thinking about buying a Record Cleaning Machine
for both the "difficult" disks and the ones that are OK but would
undoubtedly still benefit from a proper cleansing job. So I would really
appreciate some advice here...

The VPI machines seem to get good write-ups but I understand they can
literally deafen you if you stand next to them... that would certainly be no
good for me (well, actually, my neighbours!). The "Matrix" range from
ClearAudio is said to be "quiet" but I understand it's actually almost as
noisy as the VPIs. Other than its price, the Loricraft PRC3 seems ideal,
though I note its even more expensive brother, the PRC4, offers
bi-directional cleaning. Is it worth lashing out the extra for this?...

If you can run a vacuum clean on your carpets without the neighbors
complaining then you can run a vacuum record cleaner. They aren't
much louder and the noise is from exactly the same principle.

Record Cleaning Machines
 

In article , Dave Matthews
wrote:
Hi folks,

I have a collection of about 50 LPs from the 1970s and 1980s which I
would like to transcribe to CD-R. Most of them are in surprisingly good
nick but a few of them - despite my best efforts with isopropyl-based
solutions - stubbornly continue to exhibit more pops and clicks than a
Geiger counter in a microwave oven. So I was thinking about buying a
Record Cleaning Machine for both the "difficult" disks and the ones
that are OK but would undoubtedly still benefit from a proper cleansing
job. So I would really appreciate some advice here...

A friend of mine bought a record cleaning machine and was very dissapointed
by the results.

The problem is that any grit that has been 'stuck' in the groove and played
may well have damaged the vinyl when the stylus hammered the grit. Hence
removing it simply exposes the damage which still produces a click.

I think it is the case that some shops have cleaning machines. If so, try
and find one and use it to clean one or two discs and see if this makes
much difference.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Record Cleaning Machines
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Dave Matthews
wrote:
Hi folks,

I have a collection of about 50 LPs from the 1970s and 1980s which I
would like to transcribe to CD-R. Most of them are in surprisingly good
nick but a few of them - despite my best efforts with isopropyl-based
solutions - stubbornly continue to exhibit more pops and clicks than a
Geiger counter in a microwave oven. So I was thinking about buying a
Record Cleaning Machine for both the "difficult" disks and the ones
that are OK but would undoubtedly still benefit from a proper cleansing
job. So I would really appreciate some advice here...

A friend of mine bought a record cleaning machine and was very
dissapointed
by the results.

The problem is that any grit that has been 'stuck' in the groove and
played
may well have damaged the vinyl when the stylus hammered the grit. Hence
removing it simply exposes the damage which still produces a click.

I think it is the case that some shops have cleaning machines. If so, try
and find one and use it to clean one or two discs and see if this makes
much difference.



The bottom line must be that a clean disc is better than a dirty one, no
matter what...??

Record Cleaning Machines
 

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
The bottom line must be that a clean disc is better than a dirty one, no
matter what...??

To some extent. But I've a feeling it may depend on the type of dirt. If a
hard small particle has been sort of pushed into the wall removing it may
actually make a more audible click.

--
*Work like you don't need the money. Love like you've never been hurt.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Record Cleaning Machines
 

"AZ Nomad" wrote in message
...

If you can run a vacuum clean on your carpets without the neighbors
complaining then you can run a vacuum record cleaner. They aren't
much louder and the noise is from exactly the same principle.

OK, many thanks. Another reason why I need to see & hear one in action
before I decide whether I'm going to buy one. If the VPI machines are no
noisier than a domestic vacuum cleaner, then that's perfectly tolerable. As
I said, some reviews have advised people to wear ear defenders while using
these machines!?!

--

Cheers,


Dave

Record Cleaning Machines
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
The bottom line must be that a clean disc is better than a dirty one, no
matter what...??

To some extent. But I've a feeling it may depend on the type of dirt. If a
hard small particle has been sort of pushed into the wall removing it may
actually make a more audible click.



Possibly and it's probably fair to say that once dust/grit has been melted
into the groove walls it's beyond redemption, but sometimes a disc can be
*silver with dust* and although it may still pop a bit on the first couple
of playings after cleaning, I find they soon settle down. Frequently,
records from charity shops are actually mouldy even if virtually unplayed -
these always benefit from a clean to get rid of the smell. if nothing else!
(I have cleaned *thousands* of records now!)

There are many factors that make for noisy vinyl - cleanliness of the record
alone isn't the whole answer and no record cleaner is ever going to repair
scratches....

Record Cleaning Machines
 

"Dave Matthews" wrote in message
...
"AZ Nomad" wrote in message
...

If you can run a vacuum clean on your carpets without the neighbors
complaining then you can run a vacuum record cleaner. They aren't
much louder and the noise is from exactly the same principle.

OK, many thanks. Another reason why I need to see & hear one in action
before I decide whether I'm going to buy one. If the VPI machines are no
noisier than a domestic vacuum cleaner, then that's perfectly tolerable.
As I said, some reviews have advised people to wear ear defenders while
using these machines!?!



The Moth RCM (which I have) uses a vacuum cleaner motor but it is far
noisier than a vacuum cleaner - due to being closer to your ears than a
vacuum cleaner normally is, if nothing else.! I would certainly advise ear
defenders if you were going to do a lot or if you were going to listen to
them immediately after cleaning them!!

That all said, there is nothing like a nice, clean, *shiny liquorice*
record - enhances the whole experience of vinyl and is well worth the
effort/inconvenience in my book!!

Record Cleaning Machines
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...

A friend of mine bought a record cleaning machine and was very
dissapointed
by the results.

Well I did wonder if these machines are really the "miracle cure" a lot
of audiophile reviews claim they are...


The problem is that any grit that has been 'stuck' in the groove and
played
may well have damaged the vinyl when the stylus hammered the grit. Hence
removing it simply exposes the damage which still produces a click.

Indeed - and I can accept that some of my LPs may be beyond practicable
salvation. But even for records that have a relatively low level of
clicks/pops (and, of course, general surface noise), I fully expect to
further "restore" the digital transcription via "WAV repair" software - and
that's perfectly fine.


I think it is the case that some shops have cleaning machines. If so, try
and find one and use it to clean one or two discs and see if this makes
much difference.

I'm not having any luck finding such shops here, unfortunately. Indeed
Loricraft have just contacted me to say they have no dealers at all in the
north :-(

--

Cheers,


Dave

Record Cleaning Machines
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

Thanks for the info, Keith...


The Moth RCM (which I have)

Woah - the granddaddy of them all!


uses a vacuum cleaner motor but it is far noisier than a vacuum cleaner -
due to being closer to your ears than a vacuum cleaner normally is, if
nothing else.! I would certainly advise ear defenders if you were going to
do a lot or if you were going to listen to them immediately after cleaning
them!!

Good point. And I guess that with a vacuum cleaner, the carpet will soak
up a lot of the noise.



That all said, there is nothing like a nice, clean, *shiny liquorice*
record - enhances the whole experience of vinyl and is well worth the
effort/inconvenience in my book!!
But was it worth the money....? :-)

--

Cheers,


Dave

Record Cleaning Machines
 

I've 10,000+ LPs - but no RCM. Maybe I should have - but..~5mins to
clean each LP....??
For just 50 LPs there's An Alternative.
Ignoring the prospect that your Iso-Alcohol formulations haven't led
to permanent crackles - and assuming that the 70/80s material is 'Pop'
then you could play them WET - the LP side could be re-wetted when
transcribing tracks if the surface dried out.
Although I'd not do the above, it's a safe bet that you'll potentially
get a silent backgound - even more so if you cleaned the LP beforehand
with a water/detergent solution -"Morning Fresh" 'Wildflower
Melody' (Mauve..) is pretty OK - no citric acid, I suspect..rinse
under running lukewarm water (if you're adept you can get an
immediately dry surface using that method..).
Wet-playing is well known to have some advantages - and, for your
application, might well be the answer.

Record Cleaning Machines
 

"Dave Matthews" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message
...

Thanks for the info, Keith...


The Moth RCM (which I have)

Woah - the granddaddy of them all!


uses a vacuum cleaner motor but it is far noisier than a vacuum cleaner -
due to being closer to your ears than a vacuum cleaner normally is, if
nothing else.! I would certainly advise ear defenders if you were going
to do a lot or if you were going to listen to them immediately after
cleaning them!!

Good point. And I guess that with a vacuum cleaner, the carpet will
soak up a lot of the noise.



That all said, there is nothing like a nice, clean, *shiny liquorice*
record - enhances the whole experience of vinyl and is well worth the
effort/inconvenience in my book!!
But was it worth the money....? :-)


Beyond doubt! (A sine qua non in my book!!)

I guess the cost per record for me is in the order of 10p each so far. When
you can find a shop that actually *will* do them, it's usually about 1.50 ea
and a maximum of 10 at a time. (It really is mind-numbingly boring after 3
or 4 of them!) I mix my own juice (DW and Isoprop at 4:1) which works out
about 70p/lt - (from 25lt and 5 lt containers respectively) - not the 15
quid a litre that *someone* might charge!!

Anyway, I wouldn't be without mine - despite that it's fallen to bits once,
been fixed by Mr Moth (Mike Harris) himself and looks like it's going to
need fixing again!

Record Cleaning Machines
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...


I guess the cost per record for me is in the order of 10p each so far.
When you can find a shop that actually *will* do them, it's usually about
1.50 ea and a maximum of 10 at a time. (It really is mind-numbingly boring
after 3 or 4 of them!)

That's a bargain when I consider how much time it could save me in terms
of attempting (probably unsuccessfully) to to a post-transcription "digital
clean-up".


Anyway, I wouldn't be without mine - despite that it's fallen to bits
once, been fixed by Mr Moth (Mike Harris) himself and looks like it's
going to need fixing again!

Well "granddaddies" reserve the right to be a bit decrepit!

--

Cheers,


Dave

Record Cleaning Machines
 

"frankwm" wrote in message
ups.com...
I've 10,000+ LPs - but no RCM. Maybe I should have - but..~5mins to
clean each LP....??
For just 50 LPs there's An Alternative.
Ignoring the prospect that your Iso-Alcohol formulations haven't led
to permanent crackles - and assuming that the 70/80s material is 'Pop'
then you could play them WET - the LP side could be re-wetted when
transcribing tracks if the surface dried out.
Although I'd not do the above, it's a safe bet that you'll potentially
get a silent backgound - even more so if you cleaned the LP beforehand
with a water/detergent solution -"Morning Fresh" 'Wildflower
Melody' (Mauve..) is pretty OK - no citric acid, I suspect..rinse
under running lukewarm water (if you're adept you can get an
immediately dry surface using that method..).
Wet-playing is well known to have some advantages - and, for your
application, might well be the answer.

Thanks for the suggestion! I've just tried that on one of the really
poor LPs (one that I'm not bothered about, I hasten to add) and it made an
amazing difference - other than the occasional crackle, the background noise
was near-absent, compared to previous attempts on it with cleaning but
allowing it to dry. I assume that I should ideally use distilled water for
wet-playing?

--

Cheers,


Dave

Record Cleaning Machines
 

"Dave Matthews" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message
...


I guess the cost per record for me is in the order of 10p each so far.
When you can find a shop that actually *will* do them, it's usually about
1.50 ea and a maximum of 10 at a time. (It really is mind-numbingly
boring after 3 or 4 of them!)

That's a bargain when I consider how much time it could save me in
terms of attempting (probably unsuccessfully) to to a post-transcription
"digital clean-up".



The cleaning of a record won't necessarily remove all the artifacts that
some people don't want with vinyl. I never use 'digital clean-up' methods
myself, in fact I usually do absolutely nothing with a transcription - what
doesn't bother me with a record isn't going to bother me with the
'digitised' version!! I might take a loud pop out here and there, but always
'by hand' in Sound Forge!




Anyway, I wouldn't be without mine - despite that it's fallen to bits
once, been fixed by Mr Moth (Mike Harris) himself and looks like it's
going to need fixing again!

Well "granddaddies" reserve the right to be a bit decrepit!



It's not a big thing, but it is awkward - the 'turntable' goes a bit wobbly
and tries to 'cam' itself off the drive shaft!

The problem stems from the whole thing being just a little bit *too
powerful* - the vacuum is so fierce the record clamp has to be screwed on
very tight to prevent the record being 'seized' (I use paper washers to
preserve the labels), screwing it up so tight places a lot of strain on the
grubscrew, which starts to slip:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/driveshaft.JPG


So you tighten it up and it cuts just a little deeper....!!

;-)

Remember though - this is after *thousands* of records and my impatient,
hamfisted 'wringing it against the rotation' method to do up and undo the
(screw on) clamp!

Record Cleaning Machines
 

Dave Matthews wrote:
"frankwm" wrote in message
ups.com...
I've 10,000+ LPs - but no RCM. Maybe I should have - but..~5mins to
clean each LP....??
For just 50 LPs there's An Alternative.
Ignoring the prospect that your Iso-Alcohol formulations haven't led
to permanent crackles - and assuming that the 70/80s material is
'Pop' then you could play them WET - the LP side could be re-wetted
when transcribing tracks if the surface dried out.
Although I'd not do the above, it's a safe bet that you'll
potentially get a silent backgound - even more so if you cleaned the
LP beforehand with a water/detergent solution -"Morning Fresh"
'Wildflower Melody' (Mauve..) is pretty OK - no citric acid, I
suspect..rinse
under running lukewarm water (if you're adept you can get an
immediately dry surface using that method..).
Wet-playing is well known to have some advantages - and, for your
application, might well be the answer.

Thanks for the suggestion! I've just tried that on one of the
really poor LPs (one that I'm not bothered about, I hasten to add)
and it made an amazing difference - other than the occasional
crackle, the background noise was near-absent, compared to previous
attempts on it with cleaning but allowing it to dry. I assume that I
should ideally use distilled water for wet-playing?

Doesn't the sound alter, I would have thought it would have 'dampened' the
higher frequencies?
Perhaps if you did it with a touch of detergent and distilled (not dionised)
watee then thoughly rinsed them you'd clean them quite effectively?

Record Cleaning Machines
 

jasee wrote:

Perhaps if you did it with a touch of detergent and distilled (not dionised)
watee then thoughly rinsed them you'd clean them quite effectively?

What's the difference between distilled and de-ionized water?
I thought both methods just left H2O. Anyway, it's the rinse
water that should be pure, not necessarily the cleaning solution.

--
Eiron.

Record Cleaning Machines
 

You don't mention whether you've simply 'wet-played' - or combined
that with a detergent clean.
The fact you reduced the 'battleground effects' indicates that your
Iso-Alcohol method was leaving behind residues.
The 'crackle' may well be 'permanent' as Alcohol will damage the vinyl
- even with just one 'clean'...this is my experience (shudder)

The method following is 'mine' - & on an initially 'totally noise-free
disc' will create no deterioration whatsoever.
It relies on through-cleaning - and no 'cross-contamination' (as on
commercial RCM's) from disc-to-disc using shared 'brushes' for
solution application - or 'pads' leaving residue/contamination behind
in the non-vacuum types.

1x Plush Velvet cleaning pad (ie type seen in those feeble Carbon-
Fibre cleaners with the centre pad) - I once used the old 'Emitex'
cloth...the Milty DuoPad will also do the job - although the material
eventually comes adrift from the foam base.
Detergent - as above.
1: Damp pad and clean-off both LP sides. Rinsing pad.
2: Apply detergent to pad - small amount.
3: Holding LP with one hand against body (it's not really a good idea
to use the TT..) clean in 4-5 'sectors' half-dozen times - then, when
the foam has built up - in just 3 sectors. Rinse off pad - do other
side. You can apply quite a degree of pressure without damage.
4: Prior to detergent removal 'even up' the solution by one 'swish'
round the LP side.
5: You (preferably) need a fine stream of lukewarm water from the tap.
Hold the LP under the stream - which should 'land' on the dead-wax
area - to the RH side and you'll see the detergent being washed away -
with 1970s vinyl it quickly forms an 'edge' and rotating the LP anti-
clockwise (ensuring water/detergent is not passed onto the LP from
your Pinkies - it can be done..) carry that edge all the way back to
your start-point...then lift the LP up - moving the water stream the
LP edge - then remove.
The LP should be bone-dry You can continue the above method to
complete a second revolution - as, depending on water velocity/
detergent/rotation speed you could leave behind a slight detergent
trace - though the LP would appear dry.

Using this method there should be no need to wet-play the LP's - so
the question of 'distilled water' doesn't arise.
What wet-playing does is to put existing contaminants 'into
suspension' - hence reduced background noise.

Record Cleaning Machines
 

"Eiron" wrote in message
...
jasee wrote:

Perhaps if you did it with a touch of detergent and distilled (not
dionised) watee then thoughly rinsed them you'd clean them quite
effectively?

What's the difference between distilled and de-ionized water?
I thought both methods just left H2O. Anyway, it's the rinse
water that should be pure, not necessarily the cleaning solution.

Distilled water doesn't contain anything else but H20 so is a better solvent
and shouldn't leave any residues at all. It's theoretically possible that
there could be non ionic impurities in deionised water: I always use
distilled for cleaning camera lenses for example..

Record Cleaning Machines
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

The cleaning of a record won't necessarily remove all the artifacts that
some people don't want with vinyl. I never use 'digital clean-up' methods
myself, in fact I usually do absolutely nothing with a transcription -
what doesn't bother me with a record isn't going to bother me with the
'digitised' version!!

Well I've had 20 years of the "luxury" of CDs! When I started getting my
old LPs out of the loft a few months back, I found it quite a shock
listening to them in terms of surface noise alone - even the pristine ones.


I might take a loud pop out here and there, but always 'by hand' in Sound
Forge!

Indeed - I do all my clean-ups by hand - automated methods never work
satisfactorily.


http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/driveshaft.JPG

That's scary!

--

Cheers,


Dave

Record Cleaning Machines
 

"jasee" wrote in message
...
Doesn't the sound alter, I would have thought it would have 'dampened' the
higher frequencies?

Yes, that was certainly my perception on playing the wetted LP.

Perhaps if you did it with a touch of detergent and distilled (not
dionised) watee then thoughly rinsed them you'd clean them quite
effectively?

It's definitely worth a go!

--

Cheers,


Dave

Record Cleaning Machines
 

"frankwm" wrote in message
oups.com...
You don't mention whether you've simply 'wet-played' - or combined
that with a detergent clean.
The fact you reduced the 'battleground effects' indicates that your
Iso-Alcohol method was leaving behind residues.

Well I detergent-cleaned (with a mild solution of "Flash"), rinsed and
dried it which, as I said, didn't seem to make any difference at all. So I
then wet-played it and that's when I noticed the difference. Having now left
it to dry out again for a couple of days, I can see exactly what you mean by
residues being left over. So I've wetted it again now, and it plays fine
again.

Thanks for the details of your method - I'll give it a try later this
week...


with 1970s vinyl it quickly forms an 'edge' and rotating the LP anti-

Yes, after applying Flash and rinsing I got a glue-like white substance
forming around the circumference.

Will report back soon!

--

Cheers,


Dave

Record Cleaning Machines
 

In article ,
Dave Matthews wrote:

Well I detergent-cleaned (with a mild solution of "Flash"),

I'm pretty certain Flash contains a scouring powder and would be not a
good idea. Cheap washing up liquid should be a better bet.

--
*If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Record Cleaning Machines
 

Yes, after applying Flash and rinsing I got a glue-like white substance
forming around the circumference.

There is a slight misunderstanding.
It was taking the completed 'full-circle' water stream (and now-dry
LP) to the edge of the LP - whilst lifting the LP away from the
stream.
The 'edge' is what you get when, holding the LP almost vertical, is
quickly formed as you rotate the LP - ie; to one side the LP is *dry -
so you are moving this 'edge' around the LP as you are rotating it.
The end-result is an essentially 'surgically-clean' LP. The detergent
solution being *completely.(see above) washed away from the surface as
you're rotating the disc...in fact.if you breathe on the LP you will
see the 'mold-release pattern' - as originally formed.

You will get white deposits left behind in the groove with various
detergents (also the chalk-residues from tap-water if left to 'drip-
dry')..which is why you can't use any-old brand/type - 'Fairy Liquid'
- original - is no good..nor Citrus types.
Even - so-called - 'distilled water' (more like dirty water..if the
Chemist's stuff is typical..) will cause contamination.
Using my 'method' (placing the LP on a flat surface or TT to apply
detergent to just the one side is difficult - and will migrate to the
other side..) there is no need to have all the 'rinsing' nonsense.

The success (when professionally used..) of the vacuum (ie Keith Monks
type) RCM is the effective removal of surface solution (though some
'atomic' residue is likely left behind).
Their drawback is the use of a nylon brush to apply the
'solution' (thus carrying deposits from disc-to-disc) - also 'the
solution' itself.
I've had LPs ruined by Alcohol formulations - also the other 'pad-
type' machines used by shops - in the latter case covering them in
fine scratches.
In both cases with irremovable 'crackle' added...I can't see the point
in Paying to get That result.

Whether High Frequencies are lost when wet-playing is a moot point.
*I* wouldn't wet-play, as mentioned - but it could be that the lack/
lowering of surface noise gives *the impression* of less HF - similar
to hiss on FM stereo appearing to 'brighten' the sound...although I
can see the argument that water could 'smooth-over'/'fill-in' fine
groove detail..
A clean/new LP inherently plays 'smoothly' (all other things being
equal) - it's just that not many people are hearing them that way !!
(I threw away 100s of LPs from my original collection after inflicting
various 'cleaners'/methods on them).

The 'learning-curve' is to know what to avoid.. usually The Advice/
Manufacturers Products....
Interestingly, when I bought large collections, (from 50s onwards)
there were very few (well under 1%) that had been wet-cleaned.
It only becomes a slight problem (%-wise) from the mid-70s on...when
all the destructive contraptions/cleaning solutions mainly appear.
And, you can still buy them...

Record Cleaning Machines
 

"Dave Matthews" wrote in message
...
"frankwm" wrote in message
oups.com...
You don't mention whether you've simply 'wet-played' - or combined
that with a detergent clean.
The fact you reduced the 'battleground effects' indicates that your
Iso-Alcohol method was leaving behind residues.

Well I detergent-cleaned (with a mild solution of "Flash"), rinsed
and dried it which, as I said, didn't seem to make any difference at
all. So I then wet-played it and that's when I noticed the difference.
Having now left it to dry out again for a couple of days, I can see
exactly what you mean by residues being left over. So I've wetted it
again now, and it plays fine again.

Thanks for the details of your method - I'll give it a try later
this week...


with 1970s vinyl it quickly forms an 'edge' and rotating the LP anti-

Yes, after applying Flash and rinsing I got a glue-like white
substance forming around the circumference.

Will report back soon!



If you don't mind me saying so, I think your approach to vinyl is
wrong - there is no way it will compete for silence/noise floor with CD
or 24/192 and it's is a Fool's Errand to try. LPs can vary from
virtually silent to very noisy and the kit used can either help or make
the situation worse - I have a Shure V15/III that delights in finding
hiss and pops and I think the popular Goldring G1042 is a *spitchy
bitch*, whereas some/most Ortofon MCs run nice and quiet, as do some of
the cheaper carts like the AT110E.

Distance lends enchantment - forget about some of the
potentially-damaging potions and lotions that have been mentioned here
and other various voodoo techniques, just wipe a record off thoroughly
with a plush pad until the 'greasy dust' has been rounded up and pulled
off and put the record on. Retire to a safe distance (next room?) and
listen to the music. Train yourself to listen this way gradually moving
closer to the kit until you are not bothered by, or better yet, do not
even *notice* any unwanted noise! I listen to a lot of records while on
this computer (doing it right now) and, while the music fills the whole
house (bungalow) there is virtually *never* any surface noise reaches
me!!

When a record is truly too dirty to play, it's not what is used to clean
it that counts but *getting it off* - which is why there is no real
substitute for a vacuum machine!

Also, the better one's kit is, the more detail it will dig out of a
record and that includes unwanted noise. Sometimes the 'Technics
Technique' is a better way to play records - a modest deck with a modest
cart played through an SS amp's own phono stage will often give a much
less bothersome listen at the cost of possibly the nth degree of detail
and depth...??

Record Cleaning Machines
 

In article .com,
frankwm wrote:

Even - so-called - 'distilled water' (more like dirty water..if the
Chemist's stuff is typical..) will cause contamination.

Can you explain the details of this 'contamination'? If the water is
described as 'distilled' I'd expect it to be free from any precipitates. Or
are you saying that the sellers are selling water that has *not* been
distilled as 'distilled'?...


Whether High Frequencies are lost when wet-playing is a moot point. *I*
wouldn't wet-play, as mentioned - but it could be that the lack/
lowering of surface noise gives *the impression* of less HF - similar to
hiss on FM stereo appearing to 'brighten' the sound...although I can see
the argument that water could 'smooth-over'/'fill-in' fine groove
detail..

I can see that a change in the noise may affect the impression of the HF
level, but I am unclear how the liquid would otherwise affect HF unless the
stylus is aquaplaning... The contact pressures and accellerations for HF
replay are very high. I've not seen any evidence that 'wet' playing affects
this, so I'd be interested in any.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Record Cleaning Machines
 

frankwm wrote:
Yes, after applying Flash and rinsing I got a glue-like white
substance forming around the circumference.

There is a slight misunderstanding.
It was taking the completed 'full-circle' water stream (and now-dry
LP) to the edge of the LP - whilst lifting the LP away from the
stream.
The 'edge' is what you get when, holding the LP almost vertical, is
quickly formed as you rotate the LP - ie; to one side the LP is *dry -
so you are moving this 'edge' around the LP as you are rotating it.
The end-result is an essentially 'surgically-clean' LP. The detergent
solution being *completely.(see above) washed away from the surface as
you're rotating the disc...in fact.if you breathe on the LP you will
see the 'mold-release pattern' - as originally formed.

You will get white deposits left behind in the groove with various
detergents (also the chalk-residues from tap-water if left to 'drip-
dry')..which is why you can't use any-old brand/type - 'Fairy Liquid'
- original - is no good..nor Citrus types.
Even - so-called - 'distilled water' (more like dirty water..if the
Chemist's stuff is typical..) will cause contamination.

Well, I've always cleaned lenses with distilled water with a less than a
drop of fairy (just enough to break the surface tension) then rinsed
throughly with distilled and there is absolutely no residue left on the
lense. I've very critical of lense cleaning solutions, they almost
inevitably alter the bloom of the lense, not obviously when looked at
directly, but obviously if you look at a lense carefully. I don't see why
distilled water should cause contamination.

What exactly have you found in Chemists distilled water? If there were any
residue left, it would be very obvious with lenses

I see no reason why this method of cleaning shouldn't be as effective with
lps.

It's not clear to me what 'detergent' you are proposing and I still don't
entirely understand your method but if you're finishing off with tap water
you're inevitably going to be left with all the impurities in tap water. In
this area, the water is exceptionally hard so you will be leaving calcium
deposites for example all over the lp.

Record Cleaning Machines
 

On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 18:32:00 +0100, "jasee"
wrote:

frankwm wrote:
Yes, after applying Flash and rinsing I got a glue-like white
substance forming around the circumference.

There is a slight misunderstanding.
It was taking the completed 'full-circle' water stream (and now-dry
LP) to the edge of the LP - whilst lifting the LP away from the
stream.
The 'edge' is what you get when, holding the LP almost vertical, is
quickly formed as you rotate the LP - ie; to one side the LP is *dry -
so you are moving this 'edge' around the LP as you are rotating it.
The end-result is an essentially 'surgically-clean' LP. The detergent
solution being *completely.(see above) washed away from the surface as
you're rotating the disc...in fact.if you breathe on the LP you will
see the 'mold-release pattern' - as originally formed.

You will get white deposits left behind in the groove with various
detergents (also the chalk-residues from tap-water if left to 'drip-
dry')..which is why you can't use any-old brand/type - 'Fairy Liquid'
- original - is no good..nor Citrus types.
Even - so-called - 'distilled water' (more like dirty water..if the
Chemist's stuff is typical..) will cause contamination.

Well, I've always cleaned lenses with distilled water with a less than a
drop of fairy (just enough to break the surface tension) then rinsed
throughly with distilled and there is absolutely no residue left on the
lense. I've very critical of lense cleaning solutions, they almost
inevitably alter the bloom of the lense, not obviously when looked at
directly, but obviously if you look at a lense carefully. I don't see why
distilled water should cause contamination.

What exactly have you found in Chemists distilled water? If there were any
residue left, it would be very obvious with lenses

I see no reason why this method of cleaning shouldn't be as effective with
lps.

It's not clear to me what 'detergent' you are proposing and I still don't
entirely understand your method but if you're finishing off with tap water
you're inevitably going to be left with all the impurities in tap water. In
this area, the water is exceptionally hard so you will be leaving calcium
deposites for example all over the lp.


The best detergent is probably photographic wetting agent used for
developing film. It is very weak - all it needs to do is break the
surface tension, and free from the sort of solid residues you will
find in washing up liquids. It certainly should not leave anything on
a lens, so an LP should be fine.

The big problem I can see is one of geometry. The place you really
need to clean is in the grooves. The water may well get in there, but
it can scarcely be expected to move along at speed, which is what you
need to shift dirt particles. So, today I found an old record, which I
was very happy to regard as sacrificial (James Last, second hand and
never played by me). It was fairly grotty, so I tried the ultimate
washer - a garden pressure washer. I used the needle jet and played it
over the entire surface. I used the detergent that came with the
washer. Well, it dried OK after a final rinse with distilled
water/wetting agent, and played a great deal more quietly than before
the washing. Looks OK too.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Record Cleaning Machines
 

On 26 Apr, 18:32, "jasee" wrote:
snip
The Chemists 'distilled water' I've seen appeared to have residue in
it..almost like lint-fibres.
It's not clear to me what 'detergent' you are proposing and I still don't
entirely understand your method but if you're finishing off with tap water
you're inevitably going to be left with all the impurities in tap water.
I did notice that the detergent I mentioned has 'real citrus extract'
- but it isn't at all obvious.
I clean only a handful of LPs/yr.
Although my 'method' is tap-water/detergent the *_whole point_* is
that it's _wholly-removed_ by washing away instantly from the LP
surface - nothing is left behind - therefore there would be no
advantage in using distilled/ionised water...let alone as a later
'rinse'.

Personally, I think most folks have a 'mindset' about 'how' to clean
LPs - but invariably they're just just buggering-them-up..
Although I now no longer want More - I wouldn't entertain buying any
collection that had been wet-cleaned.

I've just listened to 2 Lyrita/Nimbus sides - G.Bush: Sym.1/Bantock:
Greek Tragedy.
Scarcely a 'tick' in 45mins...20 yo 'uncleaned' LPs -other than my
just using a Milty DuoPad.
Nimbus went to great lengths to acquire 'perfect' cutting-lacquers -
if mine had been 'contaminated' I'm confident my method would restore
to the original spec. All my prior methods/tools would have not
achieved that.

The OP was looking for a better method/s to eradicate excessive
surface-noise - which mine will..however, it can't repair any inherent
damage caused from using various weird 'cleaning' solutions.

Record Cleaning Machines
 

jasee wrote:
"Doesn't the sound alter, I would have thought it would have
'dampened' the
higher frequencies? "

My comment was in response to the above.
I've no evidence that water would necessarily diminish HF - but
theoretically it's possible.- after all, one of the 'claims' of Snake-
Oil Salesmen is that their formulations remove so-called 'mold-release
agents' in order to 'read' the groove more accurately.
So, at a molecular level, wet-playing may create some sort of
'barrier' to the stylus/groove interface.
It is also quite likely to subtly change the 'dynamics' of cantilever
performance - so that would constitute overall 'dampening'.

I'm not really fussed about Distilled/etc water, as I don't now use
it.
From experience I suspect some are/have sold *'filtered* as being
distilled - as obviously it should be free from visible 'impurities'.
Tap-water now essentially is..thanks to costly infrastructure
investment...although there is still 'chalk' in some areas - but,
unless this is allowed to actually dry on the LP surface it isn't a
factor in my method.

Record Cleaning Machines
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Dave Matthews" wrote in message
...
If you don't mind me saying so, I think your approach to vinyl is wrong -
there is no way it will compete for silence/noise floor with CD or 24/192
and it's is a Fool's Errand to try.

Oh, indeed - I agree... up to a point. In a previous post frankwm
mentioned his Nimbus disks - my 27-year-old copy of Tangerine Dream's
"70-80" boxset was also done by Nimbus and its surface noise is virtually
non-existent while there are no clicks/pops at all (indeed the tonal
characteristics of the musical signal is preferable to my ears than
subsequent CD releases of the same tracks)....

Another LP I transcribed once (Roy Budd's "The Final Option"
soundtrack - from Varese Sarabande, 1982) produced a brilliant result with
no fancy cleaning technique other than a velvet pad and Hunt EDA carbon
brush. Yes, there is *some* surface noise there but it's perfectly
acceptable.. in fact it's largely covered by the hiss from the master tape!

On the other hand, despite owning four copies of Mainframe's "Tenants of
the Latticework" (1983), I can't get a decent transcription from any of
them. Although all copies are original pressings, I can only assume they
were always pressed on low-quality vinyl - in which case maybe even a
professional RCM couldn't help much...?

Meanwhile the "throwaway" LP I've been experimenting on (as mentioned in
previous posts) underwent such a huge improvement to its surface noise when
wet-playing it that I would have been happy to use that for transcription
(albeit it with mild further digital "clean-up" and the now-occasional
clicks/pops digitally removed).

... I suppose what I'm wondering is, even accepting that LPs will never
render CD-like quality, irrespective of any amount of cleaning done to them,
is it still worth forking out for a professional RCM? Frankwm doesn't seem
to think so.

--

Cheers,


Dave

Record Cleaning Machines
 

I'd find the Keith Monks RCM useful solely for purposes of rinsing/
vacuuming-off.
Definitely No I-P-A solution being applied by nylon brush onto a
rotating / contaminated disc.
I'd detergent-clean the LP before that stage.
It would also solve the problem of pre-mid '70s vinyl (particularly
Decca pressed) not always forming a dry/wet 'edge' with my method -
the water seemingly 'sticking' to the vinyl - so not really much
better than 'drip-dry' cleaning :-(

Although the BBC successfully used KM RCMs - on R3 in the 70s (you'd
hear 'drizzle' sounds on the outermost grooves - due to the KM
suction-head stop-point) - I wonder what state the discs are now in.
They also tracked LPs @ c.3.5grams.....
However, it's hardly cost-effective @ modern prices except for folks
with large/'valuable' (or 'used-to-be'..) collections.
Whether they are wise in going on a cleaning-spree is another matter !

Record Cleaning Machines
 

"Dave Matthews" wrote


snip


... I suppose what I'm wondering is, even accepting that LPs will
never render CD-like quality, irrespective of any amount of cleaning
done to them, is it still worth forking out for a professional RCM?
Frankwm doesn't seem to think so.



'CD-like quality'...???

Who the hell wants it? I still think your approach is wrong if you are
trying to get an LP to sound like a CD. (You like *two dimensional*
sound??)

As to whether or not an RCM is worth it kinda depends on what you have
in the way of records. I have at least 3,000 discs (Swim says 4,000 - I
ain't counting them) most of which came from charity shops. Despite many
of them being *unplayed* there was still the grime of ages on a number
of them and even mould on a few - for me there was no doubt that an RCM
would be useful/necessary....

(Last time I looked, the Moth cleather could be bought as a kit which
represented a considerable saving, IIRC??)

Record Cleaning Machines
 

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
... I suppose what I'm wondering is, even accepting that LPs will
never render CD-like quality, irrespective of any amount of cleaning
done to them, is it still worth forking out for a professional RCM?
Frankwm doesn't seem to think so.

'CD-like quality'...???

Who the hell wants it? I still think your approach is wrong if you are
trying to get an LP to sound like a CD. (You like *two dimensional*
sound??)

The third dimension being pops and crackles?

Tell me Keith, do you have any digitally mastered LPs with your 'third
dimension? Or is it restricted to analogue ones? And do you notice a
difference between direct cut and those mastered on tape?

--
*Toilet stolen from police station. Cops have nothing to go on.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Record Cleaning Machines
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
... I suppose what I'm wondering is, even accepting that LPs
will
never render CD-like quality, irrespective of any amount of
cleaning
done to them, is it still worth forking out for a professional RCM?
Frankwm doesn't seem to think so.

'CD-like quality'...???

Who the hell wants it? I still think your approach is wrong if you
are
trying to get an LP to sound like a CD. (You like *two dimensional*
sound??)

The third dimension being pops and crackles?

Tell me Keith, do you have any digitally mastered LPs with your 'third
dimension? Or is it restricted to analogue ones? And do you notice a
difference between direct cut and those mastered on tape?



The 'Slavic All Analogue' recordings on Melodiya, Supraphon and
Hungaraton from the 60s and 70s are *particularly* to my taste - does
that help?

Play these *warts and all* direct to hard disk recordings (no editing,
but faded out for neatness and with the 'set-down' left on to give you a
little 'vinyl thrill'):

A record I have owned and played for over 40 years:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...20Martinez.mp3


And this one being quite recent:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Livonia.mp3


Both a bit sloppy with a slight channel imbalance, but otherwise 'Vinyl
WAVs' grabbed off my hard disk at random - if either of these is too
noisy for you at a *normal* listening distance, then you should
definitely avoid vinyl at all costs...

Record Cleaning Machines
 

"frankwm" wrote in message
ups.com...
I'd find the Keith Monks RCM useful solely for purposes of rinsing/
vacuuming-off.

So what, if any, would be the difference between using an RCM for
rinsing & vacuuming and simply using a high-pressure hosepipe and a Dyson
with its fine brush attachment? I'm honestly not being flippant when I ask
this... just very naive, perhaps!



Although the BBC successfully used KM RCMs - on R3 in the 70s (you'd
hear 'drizzle' sounds on the outermost grooves

Ah, yes - I know exactly what you mean!

--

Cheers,


Dave

Record Cleaning Machines
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...


'CD-like quality'...???

Sorry, I meant purely in terms of (lack of) noise - not musical quality!


As to whether or not an RCM is worth it kinda depends on what you have in
the way of records. I have at least 3,000 discs (Swim says 4,000 - I ain't
counting them) most of which came from charity shops. Despite many of them
being *unplayed* there was still the grime of ages on a number of them and
even mould on a few - for me there was no doubt that an RCM would be
useful/necessary....


Well that brings me back to my original post - I currently only have
about 50 LPs I want to transcribe to CD-R (though I'm buying more and more
at the moment), so splashing out £1500 on an RCM might not seem very
cost-effective. However given the seeming lack of any RCM retailers or
service in my area (north Lancs/south Cumbria), I can see a potential
business opportunity! (Not that I'd give up the day job, mind!)

--

Cheers,


Dave

Record Cleaning Machines
 

"Dave Matthews" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message
...


'CD-like quality'...???

Sorry, I meant purely in terms of (lack of) noise - not musical
quality!


As to whether or not an RCM is worth it kinda depends on what you
have in the way of records. I have at least 3,000 discs (Swim says
4,000 - I ain't counting them) most of which came from charity shops.
Despite many of them being *unplayed* there was still the grime of
ages on a number of them and even mould on a few - for me there was
no doubt that an RCM would be useful/necessary....


Well that brings me back to my original post - I currently only
have about 50 LPs I want to transcribe to CD-R (though I'm buying more
and more at the moment), so splashing out £1500 on an RCM might not
seem very cost-effective. However given the seeming lack of any RCM
retailers or service in my area (north Lancs/south Cumbria), I can see
a potential business opportunity! (Not that I'd give up the day job,
mind!)




Jeezus! Who's talking about **1,500 quid** FFS!?

A Moth record cleaner like mine:

http://www.britishaudio.co.uk/mothrcm.htm


Will cost 'from 450 quid' made-up/ready to go or 'from 255UKP' if you
have got the nouse to make a simple box from a single sheet of ply!! (I
believe the kit even supplies sticky corner strips to make the box
with!!??)

Keep it real....

Record Cleaning Machines
 

"So what, if any, would be the difference between using an RCM for
rinsing & vacuuming and simply using a high-pressure hosepipe and a
Dyson
with its fine brush attachment? "
Dunno..not got 'A Dyson'

If you go to www.vinylengine.com forum and type my moniker into
author / search you will discover (#2) (also #9 etc) on the list a
thread on the Cadence Nokki-Okki-Wokki RCM.
You will find A Wealth of Knowledge/Erudition/Commonsense on the other
73 threads I contributed too to. tooo....
However, the site-owner went Quite Beserk in September 2005...and
banned me.

:-)

Record Cleaning Machines
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...
Jeezus! Who's talking about **1,500 quid** FFS!?

A Moth record cleaner like mine:

http://www.britishaudio.co.uk/mothrcm.htm


Ooops!! For some reason I'd got it into my head that the Moth was in
excess of two grand. I must have been thinking about the high-end Loricraft
ones.

--

Cheers,


Dave