How about some LP cleaning that sounds great.......

pdm4606

Super Member
I have been experimenting a long time. It seemed to me that....

LP's sound better when cleaned by....

1. Spinning my TT at a greater speed than printed on the LP. My old Sony LX-300H is at 49.5 RPM max. Checked with my iphone running the "RPM" app.

2. Using a stiff stylus like my Shure M7 D with a NEW conical diamond.

3. Tracking at the unheard force of 30 grams. I took the counterbalance weight off.

4. Only playing it once. No need to connect up to my amp as the setup was for cleaning only.

Then see what you got. I actually got sand and some other grit on some LP's.

It surprised the hell out of me.
My first ever LP I bought in 1960 sounds great now. I must have played it several hundred times.
 
You are not going to ruin your records. An old wives tale from long ago.
Right now I am playing a stones album from long ago titled 12X5. I have not been able to play it since I got it from GW maybe 10 years ago.
Always not easy to play. Now I can hear it for the first time. All the lyrics and instruments.
 
Actually I kinda experienced the same thing. I was using my New Okki Nokki RCM , it was like my third record. this one I wanted to hear right away.
So It looked dry and I put it on. After about 1 minutes in I heard massive distortion!!! I ran over to the TT and noticed a big ball of gunk on the stylus !!!

So I stopped playing it and waited for it to dry. I even ran it over the vacuum one more time to get it dry.

So after about 15 minutes I went to play it again. The first minute sounded great !!! but then I heard less quality. Guess what, the great sounding part was the grove area cleaned out by my stylus.
then when it got to where i stopped the record from playing it sounded not as good.

So maybe there is something to this, but Id wet the record use a reasonable tracking force , maybe like 4-5 gr and then gove it a once over with the RCM again with more scrubbing.
This of course for really dirty records.

nashou
 
Wash the record. It is the only way of getting gunk and grime out of those groves.
I got one some years back. If I pickup a dozen records from a record fair/shop and clean them, when I empty the fluid tank it is the colour of tea.
Your method sounds like scraping used dishes and putting back in the cupboard, cleaner, yes, but still got traces of gunk.
I also have been buying and cleaning records since 1964. The RCM is the best way. Second best is the manual rotating Disc Wash method in a purpose made trough.
 
I actually got sand and some other grit on some LP's.

WTF? I smell a troll. You're not cleaning worth a #%@& if it takes scraping with a stylus to remove "sand and some grit" from the grooves. You need a more aggressive cleaning solution that has emulsifiers that soften and loosen everything so that it can be removed easily. Just spraying it on and wiping it off won't work either. It may need to sit and soak for a bit before vacuuming it off the surface. Just smearing it around with a cleaning brush ain't going to do much good. There is no excuse for not having some kind of vacuum cleaning setup if you care anything for your treasured vinyl. You can cobble one together with parts easily available for the price of >$50.
 
Last edited:
You're not the first to observe that the stylus is a great record cleaner. Still not the best way IMO. Better to get the lead out first....

edit: swap lead for abrasive grit...
 
Last edited:
Actually I kinda experienced the same thing. I was using my New Okki Nokki RCM , it was like my third record. this one I wanted to hear right away.
So It looked dry and I put it on. After about 1 minutes in I heard massive distortion!!! I ran over to the TT and noticed a big ball of gunk on the stylus !!!

So I stopped playing it and waited for it to dry. I even ran it over the vacuum one more time to get it dry.

So after about 15 minutes I went to play it again. The first minute sounded great !!! but then I heard less quality. Guess what, the great sounding part was the grove area cleaned out by my stylus.
then when it got to where i stopped the record from playing it sounded not as good.

So maybe there is something to this, but Id wet the record use a reasonable tracking force , maybe like 4-5 gr and then gove it a once over with the RCM again with more scrubbing.
This of course for really dirty records.

nashou
Wet sanding the record grooves should be avoided.
 
You’re going to ruin your records.

Search “record cleaning” on AK and you will find many better options.

Where's @onwardjames !!!

OP, you need to check out the thread stated above by @bobins08, that's some serious knowledge. Don't think you will find any new methods that have not been covered. :)

Good luck with it! :)

Kind Regards,
John
 
30gms!!??
This stuff has been studied. A summary of the literature on tracking force and groove damage from a great post on another forum by Klaus R.:

"1. Barlow, Groove deformation in gramophone records, 1958

Limiting load for plastic deformation for a 1 mil tip in a 90 deg groove is
0.64 gr. A 0.5 mil tip presents a side contact area of 23.4 square microns (from Davies below).

2. Flom, The deformation of plastics with hard, spherical indenters, J. of Audio Eng. Soc. 1959, p.122

Plastic deformation on vinyl occurs for a 0.005 cm stylus at 5 grams static
load.

3. Walton, Gramophone record deformation, Wireless World 1961, July, p.353

Shows a graph with VTF vs stylus radius : plastic deformation is caused for spherical styli of 0.0003 inch at 2.1 gr deformation, 0.0004 inch 2.7 gr, 0.0005 inch 3.1 gr etc.

4. Anderson, Some aspects of wear and calibration of test records, J. of Audio Eng. Soc. 1961, p.111

Investigation concerning the wear occasioned by the initial playing of test
records at various needle forces.
Frequency response curves were taken to show high frequency wear. The first playing, especially at high VTF, accomplishes a large part of the wear observed after 20 plays. A first play at 9 grams had worn off 1.5 dB. For the same standard M3D cartridge at 9 gr a drop of 5 dB at 15 kHz occured, at 6 gr 2 dB, at 3 gr no drop , all drops indicated after 20 plays

Results : the first playing, especially at high tracking force, accomplishes
a large part of the wear observed after 20 plays.
Wear drops rapidly as tracking force is reduced. Measured was frequency
response; it turned out that the response dropped by up to 5 dB at 15 kHz, indicating high frequency wear.

5. Oakley, Inner groove distortion, Audio Magazine 1962, June, p.57
For 0.5 mil styli a VTF of more than 3 grams tends to erase high frequencies

6. Hunt, The rational design of phonograph pickups, J. of Audio Eng. Soc. 1962, p.274
One of the resonances present in the system is the stylus groove resonance which is difficult to suppress. It's maximum is especially in the intermediate portions of the stylus suspension. The transducing mechanism is sensing motion in that portions so that the resonance will appear in the electrical output of te cartridge as spurious response.

Solutions are either to locate such resonance above the audible range or to apply damping.
Damping is ordinarily chosen. This damping, however, leads to overdamping at frequencies other than the resonance frequency. An additional force is thus exerted on the stylus in the
mid frequency range. The increased force leads to increased frictional work and to increased wear.

7. Walton, Stylus mass and reproduction distortion, Wireless World 1963, April p.171

Pictures of stereo grooves played with pickup at 2.7 gr VTF (stylus mass 3
mg). Permanent indent depth = half modulation depth. After 5 playings, little further deformation is visible. Low effective tip mass is advantageous.

8. Kogen, The elliptical stylus, Audio Magazine 1964, May, p.33
VTF for 0.2 mil 0.9 mil elliptical stylus should be no greater than 1.5
grams.

Frequency response :

0.2 mil elliptical tip
no change at 1 gr VTF
slight change between 10 20 kHz at 1.5 gr after 100 plays
significant change between 10- 20 kHz at 3 gr

0.7 mil circular tip
slight change between 10-20 Khz at 3 gr after 100 plays

More wear because of smaller contact area for the elliptical tip.

A record played at 1.5 gr with 0.2 mil elliptical tip showed signs of wear
under microscope, but this wear was not detectable in the sound.

9. Barlow, Groove deformation in gramophone records, Wireless World 1964, p.160

Presents a 1 thou radius stylus under increasing static load : not
calculated but observed at 12 mg, fully elastic range
at 0.5 gr, plastic deformation just reaching the surface
at 2.5 gr, fully plastic range

10. Bastiaans, Factors effecting the stylus/groove relationship in
phonograph playback systems, J. of Audio Eng. Soc. 1967, p.389

Yield point of record plastics = 14,500 psi. He refers to older papers
saying that in the stylus/groove contact, sub surface yielding begins near a load of 0.150 gr and plastic yielding at 1 1.6 gr (for a 17.8 mil tip). Microscopic examination of a groove played with 2 gr VTF revealed a slight permanent indentation track on both groove walls.

11. Anderson, Phonograph reproduction Audio Magazine 1978, May, p.3 (pt.1), June, p.42 (pt. 2)

Tracing distortion relates to size and geometry of the stylus tip.
Distortion decreases and wear increases with decreasing tracing radius of
the tip. Record wear is related to tracking force and trackability. Minimum
distortion results from a tip of 5 microns. This demands a VTF of lower than 1.5 grams. By well designed shape of the tip the tracing radius gets small without having a too small contact area. The contact area is related to indentation and stress in the groove wall, thus influencing wear.
Tests were carried out with the version IV cart with biradial, hyperbolic
and hyperelliptical (25.4 x 38 microns) tips. As far as record wear is
concerned, no difference between the tips was found, when playing with 1.25 grams.

They further state that at that time, there was no measured evidence that
the use of a long contact area stylus (van den Hul, fine line, micro line, microridge = 3.8 x 76 microns ) allowed to play with more than 1.5 grams without affecting record life.

12. Pramanik, Understanding phono cartridges, Audio Magazine 1979, March, p.33

Record wear in UNMODULATED grooves starts at about 3 gr. Wear is not only directly attributed to VTF, but also on friction between the tip and the groove wall.
A correctly shaped and well polished tip does not cause wear.

The compliance is determined by stiffness of the elastomer cantilever
suspension and the cantilever length. Elastomer stiffness is not constant, but varies with frequency. With increasing frequency compliance decreases (becomes stiffer).
The suspension exerts a force attempting to restore the stylus assembly to its mean position (the optimum position for what the stylus was designed for). The stiffer the suspension (the lower the compliance) , the larger is that force. VTF must be at least as large as the restoring force in order to maintaining contact with the record.

Starting from the mean (design) position:
1. when the stylus attempts to move below the mean position, the cantilever restoring force tries to move it upwards. Here VTF comes into play to avoid that the tip loses contact.
If VTF is too low or smaller than the restoring force, the stylus will loose
contact and cause severe damage when bouncing back into the groove.
2. when the stylus attempts to move above the mean position, the total force on the record is the sum of restoring force and VTF.
If compliance is low and, as a consequence, VTF is rather high to maintain
contact with the record for the largest amplitudes to be found (low frequency trackability), the sum of forces can be so large as to result in stylus pressure that deforms the groove into the plastic region, causing permanent damage.

As far as effective tip mass (ETM) is concerned, it plays a role in the high
frequency region, where acceleration is high. VTF must be at least as large as the force defined by ETM (F=m x a) and the largest acceleration on the record.
If VTF is too low, the stylus again will loose contact.
Even when VTF is adequate, the pressure on the tip when on the bottom of the groove is due to the sum of forces required to accelerate ETM and the VTF, which is constant. The larger ETM, the higher the forces and the higher the pressure exerted on the groove which may be sufficient to cause plastic deformation.

So one has an interest to have a cartridge with low ETM and rather high
compliance to avoid high VTF.

13.Davies, Close up look of record wear, Audio Magazine 1980, Sept., p.38

Scanning electron microscope study for Shure's M91ED cartridge with 1 gr VTF and a not specified MC with 2.5 VTF (records were played 50 times) on high quality audiophile record.
Even the unplayed record showed signs of surface imperfections, e.g. holes.

Shure : photos show audible loss of quality. Pieces of vinyl have come off
the surface. Distinct wear lines can be seen parallel to the groove. The
type of damage caused is termed surface conchoidal fracture, resembling
broken of shattered glass. The groove surface reminds glass surfaces being chipped by fine sand.

Another record shows enormous damage after 50 plays, showing the same type of damage and many longitudinal wear lines.

MC : tearing and gouging wear is predominant (dust as grinding agent).

All styli present pressures of 30.000 to 69.000 psi with a VTF of 1 gr.
These high pressures have led people to assume that plastic or permanent deformation occurs, the yield point of the vinyl being 14.500 psi. Static indentations in the elastic range can be described by the equation of Hertz.
It appears that no solution exists for the plastic range, especially for
sliding indentation with friction.

The study found that the quality of the vinyl plays an important role as far
as sound quality is concerned. In particular the filler material used is of great importance, it seems that it has tendency to split off. Dust in the groove is pushed and pounded into the groove wall, scouring and gouging the wall."

So it's not just an "old wive's tale". I'm not saying you aren't cleaning out your grooves, I'm just suggesting you may want to present some measurements to support your claim of improved sound when it flies in the face of previous scientific work.
 
Last edited:
Well that is some serious reading and anyone who still uses huge weight to clean an LP is doing so at their own peril.
 
Wash the record. It is the only way of getting gunk and grime out of those groves.
I got one some years back. If I pickup a dozen records from a record fair/shop and clean them, when I empty the fluid tank it is the colour of tea.
Your method sounds like scraping used dishes and putting back in the cupboard, cleaner, yes, but still got traces of gunk.
I also have been buying and cleaning records since 1964. The RCM is the best way. Second best is the manual rotating Disc Wash method in a purpose made trough.
I would say Ultrasonic Cleaning Machine would be first followed by the rcm. I was blown away how much deeper the UCM cleaned out the grooves vs the RCM , use them together and you have near perfection imo.

Audiofreak71
 
I would say Ultrasonic Cleaning Machine would be first followed by the rcm.
I have heard similar comments on the Ultrasonic method.
I must investigate.
To be honest, on a really dirty record (i mean one that had something goooey spilt on it that has long dried) I sometimes have to give it a 2nd run through the RCM.
Do you have that with the Ultrasonic?
 
This is how I have got the best results. First an ultrasound bath cleaning with soap and then, instead of rinsing and drying, placing the LP on a turntable and cleaning it with a wand suction want that I have mounted on a beaten up TT. Then a rinse with de-ionized water with a few drops of wetting agent, spreading it with a clean brush, and repeating a pass with suction.
Not only does this remove all particles causing clicks and pops, it also removes whatever is there increasing surface by at least 10dB.

About the original questions, stylus choice has an effect on noise. If the record was worn by a conical stylus (rides high in the groove), cleaning and playing with a hyper eliptical stylus goes deeper and reads a better part of the groove. Or so I think.
 
I see this all the time. A .3x.7 elliptical does not go deeper in the groove than a .7 spherical. They both present .7 to the sides of the groove. A .6 like most AT spherical does, or a Sumiko .5. At points where the pinch effect rears its ugly head, an elliptical might go a little deeper, momentarily. You really don' want to go deeper, that's where the diamond grit is. An elliptical starts out as a conical that is shaped and polished but is still .7 wide. Shibata, micro ridge, SAS, etc are a different story but you still don't want your stylus deeper in the groove. Sorry, done now
 
I have heard similar comments on the Ultrasonic method.
I must investigate.
To be honest, on a really dirty record (i mean one that had something goooey spilt on it that has long dried) I sometimes have to give it a 2nd run through the RCM.
Do you have that with the Ultrasonic?
I haven’t jumped into the Ultra sonic cleaner game yet, but I have a friend who does and I have cleaned many of my records on it and after cleaned some on my VPI 16.5 and that combo is perfection . I will also say that just the UCM alone does a much better job than an RCM alone .

Audiofreak71
 
Back
Top Bottom