CLEANING VINYL - The AK compendium of fact, fiction and collective wisdom
- Thread starter onwardjames
- Start date
Spinning45s
Active Member
At the old recordcollectorsguild.org, one of the members who was a recording engineer recommended giving new records a wet cleaning for the reasons you stated.
For cleaning, I use a solution of two parts 91% isopropyl alcohol and eight parts distilled water so as to leave no residue. I wet the record, then go over it with a paint edger/paint pad. The fine bristles get down into the grooves. After this, the record is immediately wiped dry to soak up the muck that's been dislodged.
For some records with caked on crud, a soft toothbrush with the alcohol solution and/or a wooden tooth pick are helpful before doing the above.
hi*ball
Records & Coffee
This is absolutely my experience
Original / earlier pressings from the era of records being the medium of the day usually sound much better once cleaned up.
MY MAN!
Long time, no see. Hope all is well with ya, broham. While retired, I still got the prototype wand, and won't likely ever get rid of it.
hi*ball
Records & Coffee
Hey Tim! Glad to hear you've still got the original!
I think I made and sold about 200 of those.
Crazy to think how long it's been. I think I stopped making them about 10 years ago.
Spinning45s
Active Member
When records were the medium, extra care was taken in their manufacture, but when CD's were introduced, quality control was thrown out the window. I started noticing scuffs and scratches on new albums. On 45's, it seems a lot of recycled vinyl was used causing bits of paper to be embedded in the grooves.
I have bought a few new LP's that were either unobtainable or too costly to buy used. The quality varies, so I go for the original pressings.
I think it isn't quite so clear-cut. As usual, there are two sides to the story.
Some manufacturers may have lowered their standards in the eighties, in order to cut costs when a new, shinier star was born. But on the other hand, back then there were hundreds of them, catering to an enormous audience, 90% of which were playing their records on cheap, crappy turntables and couldn't have cared less about sound quality (as long as it was at least minimally better than AM radio, that is). The bar was quite low. Despite what our fading, selective memory is telling us, the quality of the pressings used to be all over the place, even though most people didn't notice at the time because they had nothing better to compare it with.
Actually, some people did notice. Many rushed to embrace the new medium, despite its initial flaws and higher cost, precisely to get rid of the bad sound of the LPs of the time.
Nowadays the LP market is aimed at a handful of hobbyists who know their stuff and use high quality gear. Consequently, the very few remaining manufacturers cannot afford to be as sloppy as they were in the past. They need to pay close attention to details, because what used to be acceptable in the seventies and eighties wouldn't cut the mustard today. Back then they used to press an awful lot of LPs from one master lacquer, to increase productivity and keep costs low. They don't do this anymore. They used to melt unsold records and recycle the vinyl. Today they use virgin vinyl, and of better quality to boot.
Leaving aside the mastering differences, which are mostly a matter of taste anyway, the sound quality has improved massively. The LPs pressed by Deutsche Grammophon today that I have in my collection sound way, way better than the ones from my childhood. Considering only the technical quality of the sound, the "roundness" of the sound, the harmonics, the fullness and cleanliness of the bass, the noise floor, the imaging, they are virtually indistinguishable from CDs, which is emphatically not the case with my older ones.
Sure, there is the odd defect here and there, like a scratch or a fingerprint, but this isn't a new phenomenon. Old LPs used to have them occasionally, too. It's just that back then they were perhaps less obvious because of the sheer volume. One defective record in ten thousand is less visible than one in a hundred. Back then you went to a music shop and picked one copy from a stack of ten. The chances of your picking the defective one were slim. Now there's only one copy in the store. If that happens to be defective, tough luck.
But I'm awfully off-topic. Sorry about that. Let's go back to cleaning.
... though when it comes to cleaning, there's only one thing to be said - ultrasonic rules. Period.
Some manufacturers may have lowered their standards in the eighties, in order to cut costs when a new, shinier star was born. But on the other hand, back then there were hundreds of them, catering to an enormous audience, 90% of which were playing their records on cheap, crappy turntables and couldn't have cared less about sound quality (as long as it was at least minimally better than AM radio, that is). The bar was quite low. Despite what our fading, selective memory is telling us, the quality of the pressings used to be all over the place, even though most people didn't notice at the time because they had nothing better to compare it with.
Actually, some people did notice. Many rushed to embrace the new medium, despite its initial flaws and higher cost, precisely to get rid of the bad sound of the LPs of the time.
Nowadays the LP market is aimed at a handful of hobbyists who know their stuff and use high quality gear. Consequently, the very few remaining manufacturers cannot afford to be as sloppy as they were in the past. They need to pay close attention to details, because what used to be acceptable in the seventies and eighties wouldn't cut the mustard today. Back then they used to press an awful lot of LPs from one master lacquer, to increase productivity and keep costs low. They don't do this anymore. They used to melt unsold records and recycle the vinyl. Today they use virgin vinyl, and of better quality to boot.
Leaving aside the mastering differences, which are mostly a matter of taste anyway, the sound quality has improved massively. The LPs pressed by Deutsche Grammophon today that I have in my collection sound way, way better than the ones from my childhood. Considering only the technical quality of the sound, the "roundness" of the sound, the harmonics, the fullness and cleanliness of the bass, the noise floor, the imaging, they are virtually indistinguishable from CDs, which is emphatically not the case with my older ones.
Sure, there is the odd defect here and there, like a scratch or a fingerprint, but this isn't a new phenomenon. Old LPs used to have them occasionally, too. It's just that back then they were perhaps less obvious because of the sheer volume. One defective record in ten thousand is less visible than one in a hundred. Back then you went to a music shop and picked one copy from a stack of ten. The chances of your picking the defective one were slim. Now there's only one copy in the store. If that happens to be defective, tough luck.
But I'm awfully off-topic. Sorry about that. Let's go back to cleaning.
... though when it comes to cleaning, there's only one thing to be said - ultrasonic rules. Period.
Last edited:
cwall99
Addicted Member
And I know it while I'm dropping the disk over the spindle!!
cwall99
Addicted Member
You sure about that? You might want to take a look at the number of record players they're selling over there.
Record players. Not turntables.
Factor in the artists like Taylor Swift who are making hay while the sun shines on this vinyl craze. She released 8 different vinyl versions of her album The Life of a Showgirl. They're all the same, but they're different colors. She knows a lot of her fans will buy all eight versions.
If you think this most recent vinyl craze is focused on audiophile listeners, take a walk through the electronics section in your local Wal-Mart.
I think you are correct in that many more titles are now available as audiophile reprints, but it's still the mass market that's making our hobby more affordable for us.
Back in the day, before the interwebs took over everything, massive amounts of junk mail going out everyday kept the price of a stamp to mail a letter was much lower than it would have been had it not been for that junk mail.
True. I exaggerated. But still, there was a major shift from a world where everybody and their grandmother were buying LPs because they had no other choice, to one where LPs are bought by people who really want them. Whether they want them because they're audiophiles, or because they're nostalgic for their youth, or because they consider them fashionable, is less important. What matters is that they want LPs, and manufacturers need to make sure they will continue to want them. They need to find what makes people buy them, and to keep offering it - be it sound quality for the audiophiles, or fancy colours for Taylor Swift fans. They can't afford to be sloppy and rely on the records selling themselves, like they did in the good old days.
And it shows. Even those coloured Taylor Swift records sound great from a purely technical point of view. The mastering, dynamic range, etc. is a different story; I'm not discussing that.
And it shows. Even those coloured Taylor Swift records sound great from a purely technical point of view. The mastering, dynamic range, etc. is a different story; I'm not discussing that.
I agree, up to a point. It may still be true, though to a much lesser degree than it was forty years ago. A new LP, pressed today, costs three to four times more than the exact same recording on CD, in the same shop. At least over here; I don't know about US. Not quite unaffordable for someone who's determined enough, but far from what you'd call cheap. Would it be even more expensive if there weren't a vinyl craze among teenagers? Yes, probably. But the days of true mass production are over nonetheless.
Last edited: