[jimdgoulding]

I just have.  Guess I'm good to go.  Thanks a bunch, fellas.

[midfi]

I make and bottle my own brew of cleaning fluid for dirty records as well as a light duty cleaner I've labeled "touch up" for normal use.  The cleaner needs to be rinsed (works well with vacuum's) and the touch up can be used with a lint free cloth or simular.  Used to sell it at Apple Records back in the day 

[Old timer]

Products used: Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs Plus enzyme cleaner, Mo-Fi Pure rinse water and LP#9 stylus cleaner.
 
Machine: I own a 16.5 but prefer my homebuilt unit which uses a $30 wet/dry vac, and a custom made pick up tube which is covered with white velvet. White because it is easy to visually inspect for debris. It gets rinsed after each use to avoid cross contamination and stored in a Tupperwear when not in use. Each fluid used has its own cleaning brush, which is rinsed after use and stored in a Tuperwear to avoid environmental nasties such as dust, etc. The cleaned LP is then stored in a new inner sleeve.

It might sound anal, but my records are clean, and they are far less likely to have debris from one spread onto the next.

[cheap-Jack]

Hi.

(1) I tried many cleaning ideas, but in the end got the best results playing my records wet,
(2) using plain old tap water applied with my nice, expensive anti-static cleaning brush.
(3) The only caveat is you can never go back to playing them dry as the dirt seemed to build up at the bottom of the grooves.

(4) Most cleaning solutions seemed to make the surface noise worse or clog the stylus.

(1) Bingo!! WET play is the BEST vinyl play. I've been playing WET my many hundreds of LPs (mind you, 95% are recycles from thrift stores) for last few years. All play like a chime! NO no no problem at all. Sonically, music sounds so much more fluid & vivid than dry play.
(2) NO no no tape water bud. Tape waters are usually so contamminated with chemicals, & debris which can only ruin any vinyl finally.
You know what I use for wet play since day one? Pure steam distilled ozonated water, available cheaply in 4-litre bottle from local drug stores. It works bigtime. No need to spend big bucks to get from those cleaning fluids vendors.

(3) I think I'd somehow disagree with you. I say so from my past experience.
I was not so sure until I went thru an audition session in an hi-end audio boutique on a SWiss-made USD24,500 phono-preamp using a couple of my wet play LPs, played DRY on an expensive hi-end brandname TT. MY both wet-played LPs sounded excellent on dry play !!!

(4) YES, most, if not all, commercial available vinyl cleaning fluids are made of chemicals mixed in water. Only pure distilled water does not leave any residue in the grooves. I can prove it with my years wet-play expereience with pure distilled water.

I am very glad know a wet play fan like you.

c-J
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." quoted Albert Einstein.

[cheap-Jack]

Hi.

(1) You're kidding, right?
(2) Moisture may wick up the stylus and damage parts in the cartridge.
(3) And I don't know about you, but my tap water is horrid with contaminants that would be left behind when the H2O dries.

(1) NO Kidding at all. Wet play sounds more fluid, vivid & much much more quiet than dry play. No need any anti-static devices as moisture in the grooves already kills ALL tracking friction statics. This is physics.

(2) Contrary to tons of hearsays or negative allegations out there, my years WET play experience proves there is NO, repeat no, damage done to my MM cartridge body inside out nor its diamond stylus as my wet-play music never get worse if not better since day one.

(3) Fully agreed. No tape water please, being so contaminated with chemicals & debris.
99% of my many many hundreds of LPs are recyles from thrift stores (as cheapas 0.75 buck a pop!!!) are always rinsed with steam distilled ozanated water (available in 4-lire bottle for on sale only 99 cents a bottle from local drug stores) & scrubbed with a linn-free cloth & then hung dry before use.
Wet play with the same distilled water applied to the spinning disc with a nylon painter brush (dirt cheap from any hardwsre store).

No chemicals for my vinyl please. My vinyl music (from Pavarotti to Acker Bilk) can't stand any chemicals.

c-J
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." quoted Albert Einstein.

[Wayner]

OK, cheap-Jack. When I first read your post, I had to say to myself, "what has this guy been smokin'"?

But, I decided to try it, so I'd never be accused of having a closed mind, or what's left of it.

I actually thought the stylus might micro-hydroplane, but I hear no evidence of it (YET). On the positive side of the technique, it certainly can subdue static, so that is a plus. It also may damp the record surface, so that is another plus.

On the minus side, it's a slight hassle. The record has to dried off before putting it to bed or mold will certainly start growing.

So, I'm still listening........

 

Wayner 

[*Scotty*]

cheap-Jack, there are so many thousands of pound per square inch at the point where the diamond contacts the groove wall that the water is displaced and cannot be between the stylus and the vinyl.
 Water could be present on the cantilever and further up the shank of the stylus as well as on either side of the stylus in the groove. The water could very easily act to "dampen" spurious vibrations in the vinyl and the stylus assembly by providing an impedance matching medium through which unwanted vibrations could flow away into the body of the record.
 There is also a possibility that the water present could flash to steam due to the forces involved.
The vinyl itself frequently vaporizes when mis-tracking occurs as the stylus momentarily loses contact with the groove wall and then recontacts the groove wall with extreme violence.
 For an idea of the magnitude of the forces involved look up diamond anvil. Only the elastic memory that virgin vinyl has makes it possible for a record to be played more than once.
Scotty

[cheap-Jack]

Hi.

(1) cheap-Jack, there are so many thousands of pound per square inch at the point where the diamond contacts the groove wall that the water is displaced and cannot be between the stylus and the vinyl.
(2) Water could be present on the cantilever and further up the shank of the stylus as well as on either side of the stylus in the groove. The water could very easily act to "dampen" spurious vibrations in the vinyl and the stylus assembly by providing an impedance matching medium through which unwanted vibrations could flow away into the body of the record.
(3) There is also a possibility that the water present could flash to steam due to the forces involved.

First off, let me make it very clear:- whatever printed in the papers you posted below does NOT happen to my many many hundreds of old old recylced LPs I picked up dirt cheap from thrift stores, let alone many brandname LPs I own. So if you believe in whatever published therein, be my guest, please. But please do not put your words in my mouth. Many thanks.

So let's take a look at those so called 'facts' in the papers you posted:-

(1) 7.726lbs/in2 stylus point pressure? Sorry my common sense tells me this figure is unreal. My research shows it is only 340lbs/in2 which makes sense to me.

Let's find out how a stylus tracks a record groove. The contact is made with one SIDE of the stylus touches the corresponding SIDE of the groove. NOT the tip of the stylus making any contact which so many misunderstand. IN fact, the stylus tip should not touch the bottom of the groove, otherwise it will dig out tons of dirts buried down there, causing mistracking & noises.

How much down the stylus shaft the tracking contact is made depends on the shape of the stylus, be it conical or elliptical. Modern LPs get groove width of 1mil (1mil=1/1,000inch) vs old old LPs get much wider grooves 2-3mil
That's why too fine elliptical stylus may not track old vinyls well vs conical stylus with wider radius which tracs lold LPs much much better. That's explains why my cheapie MM cartridge with a conical stylus tracks my old old LPs so well.

A paper from Acoustical Scoiety of America :- "A large radius stylus for the reproduction of lateral cut records".stated the "unexpected benefits" of using a stylus of sufficient LARGE tip radius, including increase of stylus,& record life & better high end response. etc etc.

If what stated in yr papers was fact, how come my old old recyled LPs still sound so nice & quiet with WET play instead of already too torn apart to be listenable???

(2) Is it an advantage of wet play - to suppress tracking vibration??

(3) It is only a "possibility" or speculation, not a fact yet!

I don't take in anything I read without first filtering, digesting & verifying it, not even the bible which was written by man not by the Almighty. Man is prone to err.

c-J
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." quoted Albert Einstein.

[*Scotty*]

 cheap-Jack, I have binned my second post/reply and started thread on the topic
here:  http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=100567.0
This discussion takes the record cleaning thread WAY OFF TOPIC!
Regards,
Scotty

[vinyl_guy]

I don't take in anything I read without first filtering, digesting & verifying it, not even the bible which was written by man not by the Almighty. Man is prone to err.

Cheap-Jack,
rather than respond and violate one of the rules of AC (no religion or politics), let me suggest that you edit your post and remove the reference to the Bible. Thank you.

Laura

[Old timer]

It's amazing that we'll put up with ultra low output phono cartridges because they have 1 inch less wire on the coil (less weight/faster transient response), yet we'll add multiples times that in surface tension (wet playing) and many will not notice any sonic defect because of the extra weight.

Makes me wonder if there is anything to the weight/moving mass issue between a .3mv and 2.0mv output moving coil cartridge?

Any thoughts?

[brandon w]

wow, a lot of different ideas in here.  i'm glad i read through all 9 pages.

[J-Pak]

I use a Loricraft PRC-4 for my fluid vacuuming. Here is my process:

1) VinylZyme sprayed on the LP, spread around with a DiscDoctor brush. Let sit for around 3-5 minutes. Reapply if it starts to evaporate (this is an enzyme cleaner)

2) Vacuum off VinylZyme

3) Apply DiscDoctor Miracle fluid, dilated with deionized water. Spread with DiscDoctor brush.

4) Vacuum off DD Miracle fluid

5) Two rinses with deionized water (use plenty of water, making sure there is no DD Miracle left)

6) Vacuum off water.

This will get 95% of VG++/NM visual vinyl to play back darn quiet. The stubborn 5% I put down to poor/cheap vinyl formulations.

[painted_klown]

Hello all,

I am self admittedly not very good at DIY projects, and find that the commercial vacuum cleaning machines are far, far beyond my budget.

Having said that, I think a manual scrubbing, along with a good vacuuming would probably work very well.

My question is this: Are there any commercially available vacuum attachments that are designed specifically for us on vinyl records? If so, are they well made, and do the job well?

I apologize for the silly questions, but we all have to start somewhere. 

Thanks.

-Dave

[MaxCast]

Hello all,

I am self admittedly not very good at DIY projects, and find that the commercial vacuum cleaning machines are far, far beyond my budget.

Having said that, I think a manual scrubbing, along with a good vacuuming would probably work very well.

My question is this: Are there any commercially available vacuum attachments that are designed specifically for us on vinyl records? If so, are they well made, and do the job well?

I apologize for the silly questions, but we all have to start somewhere. 

Thanks.

-Dave

I have never used a commercial vac machine.  I do use a spin clean manual followed by rinsing and diy vac.
I use a micro shop vac.  From a recommendation in this circle I cut a 1/8" groove in the crevice tool that came with the vac.  I then applied a soft material on both sides of the groove.  After spinning and rinsing I place the record on an old table and rotate it around twice and vacuum both sides.
It pulls a pretty good vacuum and I don't see how a machine could suck any harder and keep the disc spinning, therefore, I think it is about as good as it gets.   

spin clean is about $80
vac is about $30

[J-Pak]

I sold my Loricraft this summer and switched to ultrasonic cleaning. It's amazing! I'm getting records much quieter I couldn't get through a conventional vacuum.

[painted_klown]

What is ultrasonic cleaning?

Sorry, I don't know all of the jargon yet. 

EDIT: Never mind, I looked it up. Interesting concept for sure. I wounder how well that would work with extremely dirty records, or if the grime is deep in the grooves.

Would there be any issues with the grime just sticking to the record as you pull it out of the water?

I assume such a system would be expensive as well. I can't seem to find any pricing for ultrasonic cleaners, just some promotional type literature regarding the process and how it works.

[J-Pak]

What is ultrasonic cleaning?

Sorry, I don't know all of the jargon yet. 

EDIT: Never mind, I looked it up. Interesting concept for sure. I wounder how well that would work with extremely dirty records, or if the grime is deep in the grooves.

Would there be any issues with the grime just sticking to the record as you pull it out of the water?

I assume such a system would be expensive as well. I can't seem to find any pricing for ultrasonic cleaners, just some promotional type literature regarding the process and how it works.

Some more information here: http://www.analogplanet.com/content/worlds-best-record-cleaning-machine

Michael puts in better words than I can.

[painted_klown]

Thanks for the link. 


That's a nice review, and certainly a strong recommendation to give one a try. Unfortunately, those cleaners will have to go on my "lottery winner" dream gear wish list. 

[orientalexpress]

Wow,That thing cost more then my first car .

lapsan