Re: arsclist Re: Record cleaning machines

["H. Duane Goldman" <lanyap@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Graham,

A special thanks for this clarification.  It was to the point & well done.
While we usually support do-it-yourself vacuum wand-based systems as the
economical approach for the individual collector that wants to minimize the
labor involved in thoroughly cleaning records, we whole heartedly support
the use of the Keith Monks machine for large collections and institutional
applications where the combined use of both products permits a much greater
volume of cleaning to be done within a shorter time frame & the use of less
manpower overall.

We have studied this issue as you have & are always open to discussing our
approaches to maximizing efficiency.  Now if I could just get KM to send me
a working unit with a damaged case for shipping fees, a few supplies &
being such a pleasant fellow ;>) I might actually get the 2000 shellac &
vinyl discs I've yet to clean into new sleeves & jackets before I forget
why I bought them.  

Cheers,

Duane Goldman

At 05:11 PM 6/14/00 -0400, Graham Newton wrote:
>Esther Gillie forwarded:
>Georgia Music Hall of Fame
>Laura Botts originally wrote...
>
>> Now we are looking into record cleaning machines as well.
>
>And I said...
>The only cleaning system that approaches what the Monks machine is
>capable of, is the manual system supplied by the Disc Doctor, which
>unfortunately is too labor intensive for anything other than casual use.
>
>Before Duane Goldman (the Disc Doctor) gets his shirt in a knot over my
>comments (he and I have had many conversations about this and other related
>things in the past) I'll expand a little on the Disc Doctor's cleaning
system.
>
>The brushes he supplies are excellent and the specialized chemistry,
likewise,
>is properly designed and works superbly well.
>
>It is, however, a manual system requiring a significant amount of labor per
>disc cleaned.  If you have a source of free "grunt labor" (yourself as a
>collector or students maybe?) to apply to the process, this is by far the
>cheapest way to get almost surgically clean records.  If the applied labor
>costs hard money, then you will recoup the initial expense rapidly with the
>Monks machine as well as speeding up the through-put substantially.
>
>Where the record collection is a large one (a lot more than a few hundreds),
>this labor requirement may preclude using a manual system.  The Disc Doctor's
>chemistry can certainly be very effectively used with the Keith Monks
Cleaning
>Machine, and nothing should be read into my previous message to imply that it
>couldn't be used... in fact, I recommend it, and have recommended it for some
>time, along with a few other things which I have used very successfully as
>accessory items to the Monks machine. The Monks "Archivist" machine is the
>first dual-chemistry machine for the purpose, and is ideally suited to this
>process.
>
>Specifically, I believe that one very significant advantage of the Monks
>machine is the minimizing of the "wet" cycle of the cleaning process, and
this
>should be clearly obvious to anyone involved with archival storage and
>restoration of phonograph records.
>
>Again, if you want more information, please email me off-list or call me at 
>(416) 444-3444
>
>
>... Graham Newton
>
>-- 
>Audio Restoration by Graham Newton, http://www.audio-restoration.com
>World class professional services applied to phonograph and tape
>recordings for consumers and re-releases, featuring CEDAR processes.
>
>
-- 
h. duane goldman, ph.d.   |   P.O. Box 37066   St. Louis, MO  63141
lagniappe chem. ltd.            |   (314) 205 1388 voice/fax/modem 
"for the sound you thought you bought"       |   http://discdoc.com