[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ARSCLIST] Highly unorthodox cleaning methods for LP's...
I, too use Duane's product often. There are times, however, when other
products do as well and take less studio time.
In some 78 rpm instances, particularly dirty records, I use a combination
sequentially, starting with the Ivory liquid, then a playing with frequent
stops to let the neeedle operate as a shovel, cleaning it off as required in
the course of the side, further treating it Duanely if it seems required.
What is often taken for dirt can be either groove damage or a tranformation
of the original material due to ageing, among other additional factors. A
balance of products and procedures is required. One size does not fit all-
that's why Expert keeps its jewels to the grindstone.
And choice of the proper size and shape stylus can be surprising- it wasn't
dirt at all, only the wrong groove fit.
Steve Smolian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rod Stephens" <savecal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 7:21 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Highly unorthodox cleaning methods for LP's...
> Dear ARSC members,
>
> It pains me that our Disk Doctor (a member, too) has been driven to
> madness over the greater madness of the current discussion which is a
> rehash of many such discussions of the past (round and round like our
> disks). Those of us who have used his materials with success (who
> couldn't?) are aghast at the rechewing ad infinitum of this subject.
> Let it suffice to say that Dr. Goldman's solution (pun) has been used by
> many with thankful hearts and clean disks.
>
> As a happy user, I say to Duane,
>
> Peace and Thanks,
>
> Rod Stephens
> Family Theater Productions
>
> P.S. It's still a free country, so if you don't want the best, do what
> you feel is best for you.
>
> h. Duane Goldman wrote:
>
> > Hi David,
> >
> > Our ingredients, within proprietary constraints, are listed on the
> > bottles.
> > After more than 20 years of evaluation & use most of you still
> > question the
> > safety & thoroughness of a system that has cleaned 10s of 1000s of
vinyl,
> > shellac, lacquer, acetate & Edison Diamond Disc recording & has received
> > wide positive review & most of you have never personally evaluated. The
> > LOC solution is a "do no harm" solution incapable of thoroughly cleaning
> > phonograph recordings based upon chemistry not jive. We provided, on
> > numerous occasions, full disclosure of our products & nothing but
excuses
> > have prevailed.
> >
> > Furthermore the LOC preservation unit has had multiple samples of these
> > materials for over 12 years & managed to loose them & never evaluate
> > them. It's outrageous that they would now offer such an inferior
> > solution
> > of their own concoction with little or no long term evaluation. Somehow
> > chemistry doesn't matter.
> >
> > No one can fault the safety of our formulation based upon the
> > chemistry of
> > the solution with respect to the substrates being cleaned, at least not
> > anyone with a minor amount of appropriate background. And the end
> > result,
> > that is listening to the discs will make you acutely aware of the
> > value of
> > such cleaning not to mention the total lack of negative remarks about
> > materials that have been in the international market since 1992.
> >
> > Somehow none of this matters to most of you as you wait for someone
> > else's
> > approval. Hide behind whatever documents you wish but in the long run
> > you
> > neither preserve recordings by leaving biological feed stocks in the
> > groove
> > than you can appreciate the real quality of the recording by listening
to
> > it in its original dirty condition.
> >
> > As a group you're offended by the presence of a commercial enterprise
but
> > with out our efforts how would you be any wiser. In all candor, I'm
> > disgusted by the waste of time & effort spent in our efforts to preserve
> > recorded sound. An effort that has kept me from cleaning much &
> > listening
> > to much of my own collection for decades. It's obvious that I've
> > wasted my
> > time & efforts.
> >
> > Many of you hear digital recordings as equals of the best that analog
has
> > to offer. BULL!! If you can hear then you don't care but that's not
the
> > measure of a reference point.
> >
> > The LOC speaks & everyone follows, speak no evil, hear no evil!!
> > Shame on
> > you. It's to bad most of you do not appreciate the one consistent
> > feature
> > of the history of recorded sound - the sound didn't matter, only that
> > there
> > was a new product to sell.
> >
> > Happy listening as the bugs eat away at your prized collections.
> >
> > Duane Goldman
> >
> > PS wait til you hear the results of thorough cleaning of lacquers
prior
> > to plating for a realization that we've yet to hear all analog recording
> > has to offer.
> >
> > At 01:25 PM 5/18/2004 -0700, you wrote:
> >
> >> I agree with Duane that we are beyond the use of household chemicals
for
> >> cleaning discs. Every time I see the topic of cleaning discs raised on
> >> ARSClist, I am reminded that as archivists, when we clean discs, we are
> >> performing conservation treatments, regardless of our training.
> >> According
> >> to article VI of the "Code of Ethics of the American Institute for
> >> Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works"
> >> (http://aic.stanford.edu/pubs/ethics.html):
> >>
> >> "The conservation professional must strive to select methods and
> >> materials
> >> that, to the best of current knowledge, do not adversely affect
cultural
> >> property or its future examination, scientific investigation,
> >> treatment, or
> >> function."
> >>
> >> We should abide by these principles, even (especially) if we aren't
> >> conservators. I would argue that archivists have the same
responsibility
> >> not to use household chemicals without having them tested first. With
> >> all
> >> due respect to collectors (who have rescued many recordings when the
> >> archival profession wasn't paying attention) household dishwashing
> >> detergent is not an acceptable way to clean recordings, especially when
> >> there are other, better options. Dawn and Ivory liquid probably contain
> >> harmless ingredients, but without assurances and testing, we
> >> shouldn't use
> >> them.
> >>
> >> I can't speak for Duane's products, but any manufacturer that sells
> >> products to the archival community should provide full disclosure on
> >> what
> >> active and inactive ingredients are in the product and what testing has
> >> been done to ensure that these products will "not adversely affect
> >> cultural
> >> property."
> >>
> >> As I have pointed out on this list before, the Library of Congress has
> >> created a recipe for a wonderful cleaning product that has been
> >> tested by
> >> their conservation scientists:
> >> http://www.loc.gov/preserv/care/record.html.
> >> Some archival supply firm should make this and sell it, since the main
> >> ingredient is difficult to obtain in small quantities.
> >>
> >> David Seubert
> >> UCSB
> >>
> >> At 01:09 PM 5/18/2004 -0500, you wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Aaron,
> >>>
> >>> We've come a long way from the limited cleaning & residues left by
> >>> using
> >>> household detergents to clean phonograph records. We invite you to
> >>> hear
> >>> the difference safe & thorough cleaning affords.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>>
> >>> Duane Goldman
> >>>
> >>> At 10:22 AM 5/18/2004 -0400, you wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I have been a collector for many years and have had some records
> >>>> that I have encountered that are visually perfect and still with
> >>>> successive
> >>>> cleanings, both manually and with a machine, the sound remains
> >>>> distorted
> >>>> and gritty sounding. This conditions persists with every alcohol
based
> >>>> product
> >>>> I have encountered.
> >>>>
> >>>> I took a copy of a record which suffers from this disease,
NRISSTB,(no
> >>>> reason it should sound this bad) and I cleaned it with one tiny
> >>>> drop of
> >>>> dishwashing soap. I made sure to add ample water to it and cleaned it
> >>>> till no
> >>>> visible residue was on the disc. I then cleaned the surface again
with
> >>>> a record cloth to remove any late arriving airborne residue. The
> >>>> results
> >>>> have been really amazing. These records now sound infinitely better
> >>>> than
> >>>> the ever did with alcohol based cleaners.
> >>>>
> >>>> These dish products are designed to "cut grease" and as I
> >>>> understand it,
> >>>> a thin layer of oil can exist on LP's as a result of the stamping
> >>>> process
> >>>> itself. It is my belief that this oil coagulates with time and sits
in
> >>>> the grooves
> >>>> attracting all kinds of contaminants and grit and particulate
> >>>> matter in
> >>>> general.
> >>>>
> >>>> When the old lemon joy gets in there it seems to dissolve the oily
> >>>> residue
> >>>> and in the process let go of a lot of tiny noisy particles that have
> >>>> been resting
> >>>> there for decades...I have done this in the presence of other
> >>>> collectors who were
> >>>> horrified and then amazed by the procedure and the results.
> >>>>
> >>>> Obviously, I suggest trying this first on a valueless, noisy record
to
> >>>> see if what
> >>>> I am saying is true.
> >>>>
> >>>> Has anyone else out there tried weird counter-intuitive "solutions"
to
> >>>> record cleaning and if so what have been your results?
> >>>>
> >>>> I am sure many ARSC people and all polymer chemists will tell me I am
> >>>> doing more harm than good in the long run but the immediate results
> >>>> are
> >>>> in some cases nothing less than dazzling in my experience.
> >>>>
> >>>> BTW, this seems them most effective on records from the mid-60's and
> >>>> earlier, did the vinyl manufacturing process change after a certain
> >>>> point, thus using less oil or something like that when making LP's?
> >>>>
> >>>> Sincerely,
> >>>>
> >>>> Aaron (Don't try this at home kids) Levinson
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ------
> >>> h. duane goldman, ph.d. | P.O. Box 37066 St. Louis, MO 63141
> >>> lagniappe chem. ltd. | (314) 205 1388 voice/fax
> >>> "for the sound you thought you bought" | http://discdoc.com
> >>
> >
> > ------
> > h. duane goldman, ph.d. | P.O. Box 37066 St. Louis, MO 63141
> > lagniappe chem. ltd. | (314) 205 1388 voice/fax
> > "for the sound you thought you bought" | http://discdoc.com
> >
>