Record Care

For anything else...

Moderators: sunny, spzretent, BzaInSpace, MODLAB, NightWash

redcloud
Known user
Posts: 2755
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:32 pm
Location: Portland, OR.

Re: Record Care and Tangential Thoughts

Post by redcloud » Sun Jul 03, 2011 4:18 pm

semisynthetic wrote: Benzopyrine, the black residue on a well done steak, is such an aryl hydrocarbon. I like steak, and a little benzopyrine doesn't bother me at all. :D
Another reason why not to eat your steak well done!

Joking aside, I am pretty happy with the record washer system. Although I don't know what the mixture is I don't see any obvious signs of film residue. That is not to say it isn't there but the suggested solution amount is three cap fulls while I actually only put one cap full in to the distilled water. There is no measurement on the tray but going on how much water I have used from my gallon I am guessing the water amount is about two imperial 20oz pints maybe more, maybe less. The caps are small so the solution will be heavily diluted with the distilled h2o. I feel fairly confident I am not risking the life of my records by using it. Trust me, if I did worry I wouldn't do it. Because of their age some of my records have years upon years of built up grime, oil, dust and smoke imbedded in the grooves. In my mind I am actually reclaiming their life by cleaning them.

semisynthetic
Known user
Posts: 1444
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 5:39 pm
Location: Undefined; drifting ever further and further away

Re: Record Care

Post by semisynthetic » Sun Jul 03, 2011 11:30 pm

What you've said redcloud is absolutely reasonable.

If you can reclaim recordings and enjoy them, that is a good thing.

I only put forth my methods and reasoning; ultimately the point is to enjoy, to the maximum extent you can, music you love or new music you are giving a listen. I have been tempted to buy a good record cleaning machine on multiple ocassions.

I might be alter the cleaning method a bit athough. Over the years I have gathered several hundred recordings that I would never think of playing on my primary system, but I have several setups in place for older or less than ideal recordings that I use from time to time; I have considered giving them a good cleaning for listening on one of the better secondary setups.

What make and details can you share? I have no doubt that you would not intentionally take a chance on damaging your recordings!
"Everything is a Poison; it is the amount or degree that separates one Poison from another"
Paracelsus

semisynthetic
Known user
Posts: 1444
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 5:39 pm
Location: Undefined; drifting ever further and further away

Re: Record Care

Post by semisynthetic » Sun Jul 03, 2011 11:57 pm

toomilk wrote:is the thesis of this thread to buy cds instead?

Toomilk, you are kidding, right? :D Yeah, you're kidding.

Olan, redcloud, myself, and others have spent some considerable time and effort in toto on the merits of vinyl and the various philosophies we each hold on the preservation (and method of play) of our recordings.

CD's and certainly DVD's have their place and have improved over time, but I still would rather listen to quality analogue anytime. The contrast between them is an inherent one.
Analogue: a true wave played, recorded and reproduced. (A vinyl disc).
Digital: a 0/1 staircase of a created pseudowave which attempts to mimic a true wave. CD's have improved, but they are just not ideal, convenient yes, but inherently problematic. At least that is my take. I believe that many people on this site have equipment that can show the shortcomings of the media that is played on them. Is hearing a page being turned by the musician on a recording a shortcoming? No, it suggests a level of clarity and reproduction that is, well, better than usual if the same recording is played on a different system that does not bring forth these tiny details in sound. Or am I missing something?
"Everything is a Poison; it is the amount or degree that separates one Poison from another"
Paracelsus

redcloud
Known user
Posts: 2755
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:32 pm
Location: Portland, OR.

Re: Record Care

Post by redcloud » Mon Jul 04, 2011 5:04 pm

semisynthetic wrote: What make and details can you share?
I posted a link to the product in this thread twice already. In fear of being accused of working for the product by my promotion of it I wont re-post the link. BUT...go to the very first post in this thread, scroll to the bottom of the post and you will find the link. 8)

semisynthetic
Known user
Posts: 1444
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 5:39 pm
Location: Undefined; drifting ever further and further away

Re: Record Care

Post by semisynthetic » Thu Jul 07, 2011 2:59 am

OK - I see it; my mistake. I was interested in a little more detail, but your initial postings and an additional
'look-around-whats-available' answered many of my questions. I did have one other simple question,

Does the Cleaning Solution you use list any of the ingredients contained in it? (Maybe it is a proprietary mix and not listed).

I was hoping to see the mention of certain silyl ethers, (these are VERY different than ethers you may have encountered at some point), but of course they would likely be listed in any number of tradenames or under their common names, or even as "silanes". This varied family of compounds can act like detergents with the added benefit of evaporating away. You wash w/ the cleaner, and upon rinsing w/ water, the particulates are removed and the substance that helped remove them into the rinse solution, evaporates and leaves no residue on the disc. Other superior detergents would be specific benzalkylonium salts which although remain in solution, that is, they do not evaporate, DO remove oils and particulates, and are highly water soluble and easier to remove from the recording w/ water than most "soaps" or similar types of detergents. There are even useful silylbenzalklyonium cleaners.
"Everything is a Poison; it is the amount or degree that separates one Poison from another"
Paracelsus

redcloud
Known user
Posts: 2755
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:32 pm
Location: Portland, OR.

Re: Record Care

Post by redcloud » Thu Jul 07, 2011 4:41 pm

semisynthetic wrote:
Does the Cleaning Solution you use list any of the ingredients contained in it? (Maybe it is a proprietary mix and not listed).
Nope. Like I said, that is probably purposeful. The solution might be easily made from household ingredients. By keeping them "secret" it means one has to pay to buy new bottles. Thus, the way the world works.

toomilk
Known user
Posts: 2803
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: San Diego
Contact:

Re: Record Care

Post by toomilk » Fri Jul 08, 2011 1:20 am

I was joking about my "CD" comment.

However, I do think that a lot of albums - mostly those made in the past 20 years - are supposed to be listened to on CD. Digital recordings, mastered digitally, pressed on a digital format. I find that albums made like this don't sound as good on vinyl as they do on CDs. The "s" and "ch-" sounds come through as almost being distorted. A digital pseudowave in analog clothing...

olan
Known user
Posts: 1659
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 2:42 am
Location: Liverpool

Re: Record Care

Post by olan » Fri Jul 08, 2011 8:15 am

toomilk wrote:I was joking about my "CD" comment.

However, I do think that a lot of albums - mostly those made in the past 20 years - are supposed to be listened to on CD. Digital recordings, mastered digitally, pressed on a digital format. I find that albums made like this don't sound as good on vinyl as they do on CDs. The "s" and "ch-" sounds come through as almost being distorted. A digital pseudowave in analog clothing...
I have some sympathy for this view. Some albums just sound better on CD. However, many sound much better on vinyl, irrespective of how or when they were recorded. Annoyingly, with recent vinyl (even the "audiophile grade180g" records) the pressing is quite often either (i) crap, or (ii) where the album was never originally released on vinyl taken from CD, particularly if the mastertapes are lost/degraded. Hence the rubbish sound.

The distortion the 's' and 'ch' sounds can be due to (i) or (ii). That said, this distortion can also occur because your turntable is incorrectly set up, needs a change of stylus, or a new cartridge, or that your vinyl is not as minty mint as it might be.

(Enter the anorak brigade stage left carrying record cleaning machines, alignment protractors and cartridge guages. :roll:)

redcloud
Known user
Posts: 2755
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:32 pm
Location: Portland, OR.

Re: Record Care

Post by redcloud » Fri Jul 08, 2011 4:26 pm

I agree with olan. I too think toomilk has raised some valid points and it potentially opens a pandora's box about the digital age and new technologies vs old analogue sources. All of the records I buy are old albums or they are reissues of out of print, obscure or extremely expensive albums that are impossible to find. But, they were all originally recorded on analogue equipment to be released on record format. All of my contemporary music is on cd.

That said, when cd's originally came on the market the reissuing of 60's albums were done with little thought in mind on the mixing and many of these fell flat. Compare a mint condition vinyl LP of Jefferson Airplane's 'After Bathing At Baxter's' to it's 80's cd counterpart and you will hear a huge difference in tone. The record explodes with sound while the cd sounds cold, tinny and completely flat. All of its psychedelic glory and sparkle is gone.

The remastering of old albums too can sometimes be bothersome. The first few ZZ Top albums are prime examples. These albums were "remastered" and put out to capitalize on the band's 80's fame and they added drum machines and 80's production to the albums to make them sound like the 'Eliminator' record. This completely destroys the earthy, raw Texan muddy, blues, rock boogie that the early albums captured so perfectly (ZZ Top's First Album is an absolute barnstorming killer LP that has to be heard on vinyl to be fully enjoyed). It also goes completely against the liner notes on the first album saying that listening to an album "in this day of homogenized and synthesized music listening to music with no overdubs, retakes, multi-tracking is a rewarding pleasure". Rhino Records thankfully saw the bogusness of these "remasters" and are now faithfully reissuing the early Top albums in all their raw, earthy glory.

I also have some problem with new albums or contemporary bands reissuing their back catalog on 180gm record market. Not least because of some of the points toomilk was trying to make in the post above. I also understand completely the theory behind the thicker vinyl. In the 70's, to get longer album time on single LP's and to cut costs the vinyl quality was sacrificed and the records were much thinner. Thus, many albums from the 70's sound like shit. However, I think the latest trend to release everything on 180gm is somewhat similar to Hollywood releasing films in 3-D that haven't even been filmed in 3-D. It's a cash cow. These records now all cost $40-50 a piece!

semisynthetic
Known user
Posts: 1444
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 5:39 pm
Location: Undefined; drifting ever further and further away

Re: Record Care

Post by semisynthetic » Sat Jul 09, 2011 3:47 am

I agree with you wholeheartedly. Toomilk, olan and redcloud have all made exceptional points.

20+ years ago, there was no genuine argument among true Audiophiles that digital CD records could compare with their vinyl analogue counterpart, except the Hype generated by the Music Industry telling everyone how wonderful it was going to be. I believe that a desire for higher quality of sound is in great part responsible for the increase in vinyl releases. If someone seeking superior reproduction will spend $25-$60 on a Japanese CD or SACD, then I can understand why $15-$40 for a good vinyl recording is not so much. I am glad to see so many recordings, whether from the 1920's to next month being released or re-released on vinyl. In the early 1980's I spent about $17-$19 for an excellent, Japanese YSL virgin vinyl pressing. 30 years later, I am still spending, on average, about $18 for most releases. Redcloud is certainly correct about the prices of original recordings being quite high. I ordered a number of 7" and 12" releases from 1966 to 1974 yesterday and I wrote a sizable check, but these recordings are worth it to me. I love music more than money, and I'm happy to trade $ for mint copies.

For me, the bottom line is very simple, enjoy the music, and this can best be accomplished by reproducing the original sound as best you can with what you have. Superior Quality is usually more costly than simple adequacy for anything worthwhile having.

Although I prefer vinyl for, what I call "Listening Sessions", that is, for pure, uninterrupted enjoyment at the ideal amplitude,
there are exceptions. The other evening I had a wonderful time listening to Brian Eno's "Another Day on Earth", a relatively new, high quality CD. The sound was FANTASTIC; but I believe it could be argued that the TYPE of music Eno gave with that selection lends itself to quality digital reproduction. The next selection was Bowie's "The man who sold the world", a 1971 promo white label vinyl LP. The sound was absolutely wonderful; I had forgotten just how good that album is. The combination of a mint, high quality vinyl disc, along with every component from stylus/cartridge to speakers being of excellent quality was responsible. If one compares Eno's "Before and After Science" (1977) on an original mint vinyl disc, it puts the CD release to shame.

The improvement of sampling per unit time is a major reason that CDs are sounding better. The more data per unit time makes that pseudowave smoother, less step-like, approaching the actual soundwave form. The next problem to overcome will be the oxidation of the metallic component, unless it is gold, and the problem of deterioration of the synthetics that make up CDs.
A good friend of mine works at the Smithsonian. (This guy is a serious archivist; he makes me look like I'm completely indifferent!) There has been, and is, a continuing work to record vinyl to vinyl as a Archival method, because of the problems seen in certain types of CDs and other similar media with deterioration. Most people are maybe unaware or don't care; the CD will last them just fine. That is not unreasonable.

I have enjoyed the discussions, or presentations of ideas and philosophies that are made on this site. Thanks.
"Everything is a Poison; it is the amount or degree that separates one Poison from another"
Paracelsus

TheWarmth
Known user
Posts: 3867
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: Chicago, IL
Contact:

Re: Record Care

Post by TheWarmth » Sun Jul 10, 2011 12:29 am

Can you explain "vinyl to vinyl as an Archival method"?

semisynthetic
Known user
Posts: 1444
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 5:39 pm
Location: Undefined; drifting ever further and further away

Re: Record Care and Archival Storage of Music

Post by semisynthetic » Mon Jul 11, 2011 4:24 am

TheWarmth wrote:Can you explain "vinyl to vinyl as an Archival method"?

Yes. My knowledge deals mainly with Museum preservation of musical recordings. With the advent of digital compact discs, or actually larger "archival" discs that are similar to, but specific to that purpose, (think of 16" Government or Radio records) both Digital and Vinyl recordings were archived to these (larger) high capacity digital discs- big CD's. When oxidation of certain Digital discs was observed, w/ loss of data, and deterioration of the plastic(s) of the CD's themselves, there was a change in methodology that would essentially take the best vinyl recordings available, and that disc would be carefully cleaned, and be copied, usually at 1/2 speed or less, and provide a new recording on far better quality and far less fragile vinyl than the original recording.
Many of the first discs, usually in the form of somewhat brittle 78rpm shellacs, have been copied in this way. Likewise, music of the teens, the 1920's, 1930's and 1940's have been preserved in this manner. Sometimes a combination of "electronic cleaning" and digital cleanup is used to create the sound the vinyl disc would use for copying and storage.

An example
: Early recordings of U.S. Presidents found in the Smithsonian were made on fragile "wax" cylinders and later on, recorded on 78rpm shellacs. The sound quality of these recordings, when transferred to a heavy, virgin vinyl disc is much clearer, cleaner and are a "known" quantity; that is, vinyl, when properly stored and handled, will last a great many years. Early Digital discs were showing decomposition and oxidation of the metal substrate in just a matter of few years. There are still studies under way to determine the "true" lifetime of a variety of these digital discs, so that they may be copied before the data is corrupted. By the way, there is a product available now, it is a disc you store with your CD to slow or minimize oxidation and deterioration.
So, anyway, there will be a minimum of 2 copies made, one of them, still made on digital discs, with a "copy by" date displayed, so that the material on the Digital disc, will be saved yet again before any data corruption, and at least (1) copy on vinyl. The vinyl copies are known to keep the information clear and intact for a very long time. Therefore, those Museums that have the funding, can opt to have actual vinyl copies to archive music or speeches rather than rely on the somewhat problematic CD. In this manner, the institution can always have a reliable copy for play or reproduction.

[You may already have a vinyl recording that is the result of a copy of a master Test Pressing disc; some early Master Tapes were lost and the release was made in that way. The first example that comes to my mind is the Parlophone release of the "Beatles", mainly John and Yoko et al, on the original 12" single of "What A Shame Mary Jane Had A Pain at the Party".] There are many other examples of this practice.

I know this was a streamlined primer, but it should explain the point - many Archivists who have the opportunity and the funding, prefer vinyl for long-term storage of music over digital discs alone.
"Everything is a Poison; it is the amount or degree that separates one Poison from another"
Paracelsus

sunray
Known user
Posts: 2140
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 10:07 pm

Re: Record Care

Post by sunray » Mon Oct 12, 2015 8:40 pm

What are people's thoughts on this contraption? : http://www.ebay.ie/itm/Knosti-Disco-Ant ... 3a94f2a440

I know Redcloud was very enthusiastic about a similar model at the start of this thread. Can't afford a vacuum but could definitely stretch to this, or maybe persuade the other half that it would make a good C******** present.
I'm losing my edge, but I was there...

olan
Known user
Posts: 1659
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 2:42 am
Location: Liverpool

Re: Record Care

Post by olan » Mon Oct 12, 2015 10:41 pm

sunray wrote:What are people's thoughts on this contraption? : http://www.ebay.ie/itm/Knosti-Disco-Ant ... 3a94f2a440

I know Redcloud was very enthusiastic about a similar model at the start of this thread. Can't afford a vacuum but could definitely stretch to this, or maybe persuade the other half that it would make a good C******** present.
Holy thread resurrection Batman! This one is dormant for 4 years! Nice work Joycey :lol:

I had one years ago. It is OK as a starter. The issue for me was that the first record gets clean fluid, but the rest of them are going into fluid that gets increasingly dirty. Yes you can filter the fluid, but it still gets filthy pretty quickly. Secondly, the records drip dry in a kind of toast rack device. IF there is dirt still on the record before it dries out, the fluid evaporates leaving a streaky residue. So in short, it is cheap to buy, it is much better than nothing at all, but there are better ways to clean yer LPs. Also, the fluid ain't cheap and you use lots of it if you have lots of LPs that are dirty (which I had). You also might want to buy new inners as there is little point in cleaning your precious vinyl only to shove it back into a filthy inner sleeve.

When I was recovering from my cancer operation a few years back I built a Moth cleaning machine buying the kit second hand. It is ugly as sin, will horrify anybody with even the vaguest sense of proper design, noisy as fuck when the vacuum is on and owes me about £150 all up. I bought 1 litre of fancy fluid and 2.5 litres of Isopropanol at a total cost of probably £30. Six years later I still have a litre of the IPA and some of the fancy fluid and have cleaned all 1500 LPs I own (including the ones originally cleaned using the Knosti) and all my 45s too. The machine and fluid went to another bloke close by and cleaned about 1000 LPs and goodness only knows how many 7 inches there. My rubbish maths suggests that all comes to about 7.2p per LP (ignoring the unknown number of singles cleaned). It also does a much, much better job than the knosti or something like the spin clean. I can nip out and buy horrible looking records second hand. If the sleeve is in decent condition but the vinyl is filthy, that is great! Invariably, it will be cheap and will clean up beautifully.

My experience with the Knosti suggests it is a false economy if you have lots of records. It you have 100 odd it is fine. But if you have a large collection (and don't mind people ripping the piss out of you for being a bit sad around the edges) buy a second hand machine with a vacuum cleaning setup like a Moth or an Okki Nokki, or build your own for a laugh. It is the best approach to cleaning, uses little fluid and gets the job done quickly and properly.

:roll: This is probably the saddest ever post on this message board. I need to get out a bit more.... :?

olan
Known user
Posts: 1659
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 2:42 am
Location: Liverpool

Re: Record Care

Post by olan » Mon Oct 12, 2015 10:49 pm

Oh, and I gave my Okki Nokki that I spoke about in the earlier part of this threads to one of the lads in Melbourne who bought it for me when he was diagnosed with the big C. He dropped it down a flight of stairs into his basement and broke it to pieces :cry: . He also built a Moth from a kit as punishment for being such a twat, but he recovered, so all is good. :D

Vinyl and record cleaning machines as a cancer recovery aid - who would have thought it? Be a saddo, but be a healthy saddo with clean records! :oops:

BzaInSpace
Site Admin
Posts: 3469
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: HELL

Re: Record Care

Post by BzaInSpace » Tue Oct 13, 2015 9:03 am

Weirdly fascinating... The name "Okki Nokki" makes this thread worth it!

Never considered cleaning any of my vinyl...
O P 8

sunray
Known user
Posts: 2140
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 10:07 pm

Re: Record Care

Post by sunray » Tue Oct 13, 2015 10:48 am

olan wrote: My experience with the Knosti suggests it is a false economy if you have lots of records. It you have 100 odd it is fine.
Hmmm.....I don't know exactly how many records I have but it is closer to 1000 than 100. Thanks for the advice :)
I'm losing my edge, but I was there...

olan
Known user
Posts: 1659
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 2:42 am
Location: Liverpool

Re: Record Care

Post by olan » Tue Oct 13, 2015 2:22 pm

BzaInSpace wrote:Weirdly fascinating... The name "Okki Nokki" makes this thread worth it!

Never considered cleaning any of my vinyl...
Most of the hiss and crackle on vinyl playback is from dirt not damage to the LP. Clen records = little or background noise.

spzretent
Site Admin
Posts: 5221
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: Motor City
Contact:

Re: Record Care

Post by spzretent » Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:16 pm

Here is one for the books.
I walked into a local charity shop today.
After looking ay the vinyl I walked over to the audio equipment.
Sitting there was a VPI record cleaning machine.
It was marked $9.99 because as the price tag said "Needs new arm".
They thought it was a turntable.
I brought it home. Plugged it in and its works just fine.
I just ordered a brush, fluid, strips for the tube and a new tube.
All in it cost me $100.
A good day today.
http://www.lilmoxie.com
Detroit, Music, Sports and Other Stuff(including Spiritualized, Spacemen 3)

olan
Known user
Posts: 1659
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 2:42 am
Location: Liverpool

Re: Record Care

Post by olan » Fri Aug 03, 2018 10:25 pm

spzretent wrote:
Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:16 pm
Here is one for the books.
I walked into a local charity shop today.
After looking ay the vinyl I walked over to the audio equipment.
Sitting there was a VPI record cleaning machine.
It was marked $9.99 because as the price tag said "Needs new arm".
They thought it was a turntable.
I brought it home. Plugged it in and its works just fine.
I just ordered a brush, fluid, strips for the tube and a new tube.
All in it cost me $100.
A good day today.
Nice. I sold my Moth RCM to Dave Aquariantime and invested the proceeds and some other windfalls in a Keith Monks RCM (bought at an unbelievably good second hand price, but sadly far, far more than £9.99 :( ). I have subsequently bought about 120 second hand LPs so poverty beckons....
Last edited by olan on Sat Aug 04, 2018 4:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

spzretent
Site Admin
Posts: 5221
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: Motor City
Contact:

Re: Record Care

Post by spzretent » Fri Aug 03, 2018 11:35 pm

I am just thrilled to have been the one to rescue this.
I have been mulling over buying one of these for a few years.
Was looking at Okki Nokki(There you go Barry). That was at the top of my price range.
I was following an auction a for a VPI few weeks ago too.
Too much for a used one for me.
I am still laughing at the price tag. I may leave it on just move it to the back. Classic!
A photo is on my FB page.
http://www.lilmoxie.com
Detroit, Music, Sports and Other Stuff(including Spiritualized, Spacemen 3)

Post Reply