Re: RE: [AV Media Matters] Prove that polishing optical discsworks!

[lanyap@inlink.com]

After six years of trying to get the Library of Congress to run their own
evaluations on our record cleaning system, and having spent time & money to
send multiple samples, answer request for information on chemical
composition, send a modified formula for dealing with heavily encrusted
acetates & lacquers and in the end having nothing done and materials
unaccounted for, it's quite a revelation to read of Mr. Gibson's added
"Bravo" to Ed Zwaneveld's remarks.

There are to date no well defined correlations between measurements of
analog recording/playback parameters & subjective listening evaluations.
We have watched numerous supposedly responsible individuals fall back to a
position of "prove it" or go away, rather than make an effort to
independently evaluate materials to their own criteria that were
specifically developed to afford safe & thorough cleaning of a variety of
recorded surfaces.  We approached this process by studying the chemistry of
the various media & considering the chemistry of the impurities most
commonly found on their surfaces.  From this information we developed a
water-based formulation of ionic surfactants & modifiers with well
established cleaning characteristics and are known to be highly rinseable.
Chemical analysis of the cleaning & rinse solutions demonstrated the
efficiency of the cleaning and lack of attack on the media itself.
Extensive listening evaluations over an 8 year period revealed no
ill-effects from the cleaning & afforded improved performance on playback.
Mold & mildew grow were removed and long term storage in contaminated
sleeves demonstrated the protection afforded by thoroughly removing the
materials capable of supporting biological growth.

These efforts were not performed with a commercial effort in mind.  As more
people became aware of our efforts, we were asked to make the fluid
available for sale but felt that we could not begin to satisfy these
requests until a proper applicator was available to replace the homemade
devices we had originally put together.  After several years of additional
efforts, a brush with replaceable working surfaces was produced & this
system began to be offered for sale.

These products have & continue to be used by thousands of individuals,
professional collectors, dealers, recording engineers, a few institutions,
high-end audio manufacturers and have received numerous supportive reviews
in audio publications.  Nevertheless, for all of the 100s of 1000s of
vinyl, shellac & Diamond Discs cleaned to customer satisfaction, and a
complete lack of any confirmed case of harm, little has come of our efforts
to enlist institution support through their independent evaluation.
Gerald Gibson hand carried materials to his counter part in Austria some 4
or 5 years ago with the intent of having the materials evaluated using
their established accelerated aging protocol.  No one ever acknowledged
receipt of the goods, or answered letter or email inquiries from us.  In
spite of our repeated efforts & courteous conversations with Mr. Gibson
over the past 6 years, the L of C has never, to our knowledge, given any
consideration to the materials we've supplied to them nor has any other
federal institution with interest or responsibilities for audio
preservation.

There is not enough profit to be made selling such materials to support a
small company having independent evaluations for thoroughness & safety
developed, validated & performed on a large enough scale to satisfy the
apparent demands of institutions & conservation authorities, especially
when in the end they appear to have no path established for dealing with
critical subjective issues.  Whether you agree or not with our limitations,
all this simply makes me very sad.

The same can be said for CD cleaning and primary treatment (polishing) to
improve the optical quality of the discs.  The lack of correlation, to
date, between measurement of data recovery & subjective audio or video
output makes it almost impossible to satisfy the "prove it" mentality.
We're not speaking of significantly damaged surfaces, for in these cases
crude correlations are more likely.  We're taking about cleaning &
maintaining a clean surface & improving the optical path by refining
irregularities present on newly manufactured & properly handled discs.
Once again it is cost prohibitive for a small business to support the type
of evaluations both long & short term that appear to be demanded by the
very people who would well benefit for properly designed inexpensive
materials.

The chemistry of polycarbonate extrusions & injection molded parts is
reasonably well known and from this it is expected that the cleaning
solution we've developed for this purpose should not be harmful to the disc
surface.  We've tested CDs for over 5 years for safety through repeated as
well as long term contact with this fluid & are sufficiently satisfied to
warranty the product against damage when used as directed.  Our customer
sample is small, approx. 1500, but no one has reported anything but
satisfaction.   From this position we hoped conservation & preservation
authorities would show an interest in independently satisfying themselves
using their methods of choice that our claims are valid.  The polishing
issue brings us back to the problem of correlating data recovery
measurements with subjective audio & video output.  Since we're not
claiming to repair scratches at this time, it should be a straight forward
process for those with access to the appropriate equipment to determine if
harm has been done.  From our side we have simply taken a solution we
believe to be a suitable cleaner & used it as a wetting agent in
conjunction with an adequate applicator employing an optical quality
synthetic cloth.  Various grades of this cloth were specifically developed
for polishing such surfaces and while the lack of an abrasive interface can
offer further improvements, use of the cleaning fluid affords a very wide
margin of safety and audible benefit (subjective evaluations on high-end CD
& SACD audio equipment).

Regards,

H. Duane Goldman

At 08:13 AM 8/11/00 -0700, you wrote:
>To Ed Zwaneveld (my apologies to all others here):
>
>Bravo!
>
>Gerry Gibson
>
>>>> <e.ha.zwaneveld@nfb.ca> 08/10 5:56 PM >>>
>
>Greetings,
>
>Once upon a time, a manufacturer or service provider would consider
>it
>enough to pacify nervous but trusting customers with a confident
>smile,
>saying:"I know that it works, I know that no harm is done'. The
>humble
>customer would be awed by such confidence and assumed competence and
>consider any failure of the snake oil to cure him as his own fault.
>That
>philosophy is currently demonstrated by a manufacturer of car tires
>that
>bust on the freeway and kills or maims the passengers. Nothing is
>wrong they
>say, but 'if users load their car up' or 'drive on tires that are
>not
>perfectly inflated' than they can go bust in 'hot climates'. Right?
>And by
>manufacturers of cigarettes who knew they killed people, and still
>swore an
>oath before Congress that it did not do any harm. Subsequently when
>the
>facts came out, all of a sudden the oaths were forgotten and the huge
>bills
>appear to pay the piper, paid for by the suckers who continue to buy
>the
>poison sticks. Great!
>
>Recently I asked a manufacturer of removable CD labels who
>confidently
>declared that they can be peeled off without damaging the lacquer, to
>show
>that they had tested this claim. He was also confident, and
>emphasized that
>if you put adhesive tape on a painted wall, then it will only peel
>the paint
>off if the adhesion of the tape is stronger than that of the paint to
>the
>wall. He added that they have been making labels for years and are
>one of
>the biggest companies around. So? We often have announcements hung on
>the
>painted walls near our elevators, prompting the paint to tear off
>when the
>poster is taken down. We must have strong tape, right? These
>manufacturers
>all seem to prey on the ignorance and laziness of the people who buy
>the
>stuff, without insisting to know whether it meets the requirements of
>their
>use and who are intimidated by the advertising hype and confidence of
>the
>smiling advocate.
>
>This was my reaction to the manufacturer or service provider of CD
>polishing
>technology who earlier stated:
>
>		"...that is both safe & efficient for cleaning
>shellac,
>vinyl, acetate, lacquer &
>		Diamond Discs with the water-based cleaning fluid we
>developed some 20 yrs.
>	ago & have marketed for the past 7 years."
>
>		"We well know what the audio & video results are
>subjective(ly) & know that long-term harm (d) 	is not done by the
>solution
>& it would be useful to all to know if current techniques can
>		measure these observations.  Application to high-end
>audio
>equipment & new
>		SACD's also demonstrated an improved presentation."
>
>This confident purveyor of a CD polishing solution, asked for a
>definition
>of the most common parameters used to measure damage on CDs, it was
>evidently news to him. The outcome was not good. But he meanwhile
>insists
>that 'his' product has never caused a problem, how can he know? My
>conclusion is that he had better come up with measurable and
>repeatable
>results, rather than to tell us how long he has been selling this
>technology. If we are asked to spend money we need to know whether we
>are
>buying value or snake-oil that makes for shiny CD surfaces, but in
>43% of
>the cases makes the problem worse, in 33% showed no improvement, and
>in only
>24% (one in four cases) showed an improvement. The figures of how
>much harm
>was done were given by our colleagues at the Canadian Conservation
>Institute. It is now up to the proponent of polishing to make his
>case.
>
>If my public service comments and the findings of my equally neutral
>associates at the Canadian Conservation Institute sound unkind, they
>are not
>intended to be, they are kind to CD, DVD and SACD content that may
>be
>otherwise be subjected to such unproven treatment. And their
>well-being
>needs to be spoken for. That is why Mr Seuber
>first place, because he cared to know more.  Meanwhile I also know
>that
>manufacturers benefit greatly from critical evaluation of their
>products
>because they are prompted to do a better job or to communicate more
>effectively.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Ed H. Zwaneveld,
>Technological Research and Development,
>National Film Board of Canada, and
>Chair AMIA Preservation Committee
>August 10, 2000
>
>
--
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