LAST is Amazing, Wonderful, A Miracle!!
- Thread starter Karma16
- Start date
Arkay
Lunatic Member
Very interesting thread. A bit of apparent speculation, cult-like belief, and 'blind leading the blind' in spots, it seems.
Disclaimer: I don't have/use LAST yet, but plan to. I do have some records that were treated with it, and have compared them with untreated ones. They do seem quieter, without any loss of detail or other negative effect. On the contrary, they tend to sound a bit better, but I assume that lower noise = greater impression of clarity, rather than any actual improvement in detail. The other possible explanation is less wear on the record, making it sound "newer". Either way, it's a good thing.
LAST is a fundamentally different approach from things like Gruv-glide (sp?). According to the claims made for it, it causes a permanent chemical (atomic/molecular) change in the outer layers of the vinyl itself. It doesn't ADD a layer of anything; it ALTERS the top layer(s) of vinyl, including the surface that the stylus contacts. You can (and probably should) thoroughly re-clean your LP a while after applying the LAST, removing any excess traces of it, and the change in the vinyl should remain, and should be virtually permanent after one application, even through repeated cleanings.
The other products ADD a layer of something, to act as a lubricant, making them much less desirable or effective, IMO.
What I have reservations about is the Stylast. It seems to me more like the other products; after all, it doesn't alter a diamond; it just adds a coating. Yes, perhaps it lubricates, but won't it also attract every bit of dust not only from the groove, but also from the air, etc...?
So I can see the benefit of LAST, but Stylast? I'm not quite convinced enough to try it, although I don't doubt the word of those who have used it. The idea of having visible stuff build up on the stylus so fast, requiring more frequent cleanings, bothers me. But LAST for the vinyl itself? The stuff is good, I'm convinced.
Disclaimer: I don't have/use LAST yet, but plan to. I do have some records that were treated with it, and have compared them with untreated ones. They do seem quieter, without any loss of detail or other negative effect. On the contrary, they tend to sound a bit better, but I assume that lower noise = greater impression of clarity, rather than any actual improvement in detail. The other possible explanation is less wear on the record, making it sound "newer". Either way, it's a good thing.
LAST is a fundamentally different approach from things like Gruv-glide (sp?). According to the claims made for it, it causes a permanent chemical (atomic/molecular) change in the outer layers of the vinyl itself. It doesn't ADD a layer of anything; it ALTERS the top layer(s) of vinyl, including the surface that the stylus contacts. You can (and probably should) thoroughly re-clean your LP a while after applying the LAST, removing any excess traces of it, and the change in the vinyl should remain, and should be virtually permanent after one application, even through repeated cleanings.
The other products ADD a layer of something, to act as a lubricant, making them much less desirable or effective, IMO.
What I have reservations about is the Stylast. It seems to me more like the other products; after all, it doesn't alter a diamond; it just adds a coating. Yes, perhaps it lubricates, but won't it also attract every bit of dust not only from the groove, but also from the air, etc...?
So I can see the benefit of LAST, but Stylast? I'm not quite convinced enough to try it, although I don't doubt the word of those who have used it. The idea of having visible stuff build up on the stylus so fast, requiring more frequent cleanings, bothers me. But LAST for the vinyl itself? The stuff is good, I'm convinced.
Hi Arkay,
I won't get into the psychology of your scepticism about Stylast. Don't you have any things in your life that have proven so good, so creative, so functional, that you would be willing to invest your faith in their creator? If you don't, I feel sorry for you.
Last is one of those product lines. Every item in the line is aimed at the preservation of your analog system, be it records or styli. They work. I'm willing to trust what they say.
As for the accumulation of dust on the stylus, it is not a problem if you are into record maintenance on the level that is required. You should dust off your stylus before every side whether Stylast is applied or not. To be truthful, I'm not exactly sure how Stylast works. I do know that the Last factory suggests its use. That's good enough for me. As a system, Last Record Preservative and Stylast is a working system. Why would you protest against Stylast when it is so cheap and easy to use? I don't get it.
Sparky
I won't get into the psychology of your scepticism about Stylast. Don't you have any things in your life that have proven so good, so creative, so functional, that you would be willing to invest your faith in their creator? If you don't, I feel sorry for you.
Last is one of those product lines. Every item in the line is aimed at the preservation of your analog system, be it records or styli. They work. I'm willing to trust what they say.
As for the accumulation of dust on the stylus, it is not a problem if you are into record maintenance on the level that is required. You should dust off your stylus before every side whether Stylast is applied or not. To be truthful, I'm not exactly sure how Stylast works. I do know that the Last factory suggests its use. That's good enough for me. As a system, Last Record Preservative and Stylast is a working system. Why would you protest against Stylast when it is so cheap and easy to use? I don't get it.
Sparky
Yeah, maybe I need to quit huffin' inhalants....
But seriously, I also will agree that the effects have not changed one iota....
markd51
Nyuk Nyuk
I will say, as a past user of LAST Record Preservative, that it is an unusually unique, one of a kind product, and certainly doesn't fit the mold of products that contains lubricants, that perhaps lessen groove noise, at the cost of dynamics, and fidelity.
So, with that being said, I'm not bucking Karma's recommendation, or endorsement of this product.
I've used it, and just might again, to test, as my analog front end has gotten multitudes better over the past few years.
As for Stylast. Well this one is an enigma to me, as I don't so much question the ability of it perhaps protecting the Stylus for a "period" of time, but the question begs, how long can it "last" on the Stylus' sides, and protect?
My questions, and wonderment is, if it should be something that adheres so well, and coats the Stylus with such a permanent coating, will it now be a detriment to fidelity? Will it cause other problems, such as debris-residue adherence? I have logically thought, and conclude, that the coating cannot last more than about a 1/2 revolution, at best.
How the two supposedly work together I am skeptical about, but Karma is a believer, as well as many others.
Again, I can only suggest, if you have interest, try it? I have, but as of late, I'm more interested in trying to get my records as clean as they possibly can be. This I feel is an important step in at least getting the best fidelity from whatever quality records you have. As I've previously said, it makes little sense to me, to use such a product over a poorly cleaned record. Mark
So, with that being said, I'm not bucking Karma's recommendation, or endorsement of this product.
I've used it, and just might again, to test, as my analog front end has gotten multitudes better over the past few years.
As for Stylast. Well this one is an enigma to me, as I don't so much question the ability of it perhaps protecting the Stylus for a "period" of time, but the question begs, how long can it "last" on the Stylus' sides, and protect?
My questions, and wonderment is, if it should be something that adheres so well, and coats the Stylus with such a permanent coating, will it now be a detriment to fidelity? Will it cause other problems, such as debris-residue adherence? I have logically thought, and conclude, that the coating cannot last more than about a 1/2 revolution, at best.
How the two supposedly work together I am skeptical about, but Karma is a believer, as well as many others.
Again, I can only suggest, if you have interest, try it? I have, but as of late, I'm more interested in trying to get my records as clean as they possibly can be. This I feel is an important step in at least getting the best fidelity from whatever quality records you have. As I've previously said, it makes little sense to me, to use such a product over a poorly cleaned record. Mark
nailer
audionerd
I couldn't have "said" it better.
nailer
audionerd
Regarding Last - if science is a cult then you're right.
Been using Stylast since it came out and it definitley works. Have never experienced it as a dust gatherer. In fact it's effect decreases by the end of the record.
HI nailer,
Since I have never used Stylast by itself (that is, without the Preservative) could you explain exactly what you hear and experience when it is used solo?
Thanks, Sparky
Arkay
Lunatic Member
I think you completely misunderstood what I was referring to; I have no problems whatsoever with the science ... but dog-tired at after 3:00 a.m. here, I'm not going to explain it right now.
twitch54
Super Member
say Sparky.....what is the 'preservitive' you speak of ??
my stylus treament procedure consists of ....first application of LAST stylus cleaner followed by application of Stylast.
HI Dave,
Yes, good to talk to you again. I check into the ML Club quite often. Seems it is hard to kill the CLS's, huh? The forum is well administered. Good job. I am a bit taken aback that most ML folks seem to be into HT rather than 2 channel. What a waste of great speakers. Nothing against HT. I have a 5.1 bedroom system myself. But my CLS's are devoted to 2 channel in my main listening room.
As for Last Record Preservative, it is a record treatment system that has amazing properties. First, you should read this entire thread which you have obviously not done. Then you should go to the Last web site and educate yourself. Then, after being amazed, and probably a bit sceptical, you should pose your questions here. I will try to answer.
Suffice it to say that a record lover should use this stuff. Unlike ALL other record treatments, Last works as claimed and has no negative side effects. I say this in spite of what some of the nay sayers scream. Pay them no attention. They know not what they say.
Sparky
Yes, good to talk to you again. I check into the ML Club quite often. Seems it is hard to kill the CLS's, huh? The forum is well administered. Good job. I am a bit taken aback that most ML folks seem to be into HT rather than 2 channel. What a waste of great speakers. Nothing against HT. I have a 5.1 bedroom system myself. But my CLS's are devoted to 2 channel in my main listening room.
As for Last Record Preservative, it is a record treatment system that has amazing properties. First, you should read this entire thread which you have obviously not done. Then you should go to the Last web site and educate yourself. Then, after being amazed, and probably a bit sceptical, you should pose your questions here. I will try to answer.
Suffice it to say that a record lover should use this stuff. Unlike ALL other record treatments, Last works as claimed and has no negative side effects. I say this in spite of what some of the nay sayers scream. Pay them no attention. They know not what they say.
Sparky
Last edited:
markd51
Nyuk Nyuk
Earlier this afternoon, I decided to do a little searching about LAST Record Preservative on another forum, Audiogon.
I probably read these threads there before, but my memory has gotten blurry about the particular posts, and info shared there.
Seems again, there are proponents, and naysayers of the product, some swear by it, religiously using it, yet others talk about avoiding it like the plague.
Some had noticed like I did on occasion, and noticed some build up of gunk on the Stylus after its use.
Even though many times I used the product on brand new fresh out of the jacket Vinyl, which was mostly 180g Mo-Fi Records, I reckon being new, doesn't necessarily mean "clean", and there could be some truth that this product will loosen, or seperate gunk, and the mold release films present on the surface? I just don't know one way, or another to truthfully confirm, but it would be interesting to talk with somebody at LAST about that, as I'm sure they have done the research to know the reasons.
I'd like trying this again someday soon, as I have the product on hand, but now with the use of a VPI 16.5 at my disposal, and good cleaning products, I might get better results.
In the past, when I used LAST Preservative, I was typically using either LAST, or Disc Doctor Cleaning Products, but only with manual cleaning-rinsing methods.
There also seems to be some highly technical data listed as well, and it does appear that the chemical carrier was banned, and changed, somwhere around 2001-2002 due to government regulations. The information in the posts were a little above my head technically. It appeared 3M was the manufacturer of the volatile carrier agent, which I can barely pronounce, or remember here. It sounded like at one time, this chemical was some pretty human unfriendly stuff.
As I mentioned earlier in this thread, this is a product that may have high merit to some, and not so much to others, again, the only recommendation I can give, is try it, you might like it?! Mark
I probably read these threads there before, but my memory has gotten blurry about the particular posts, and info shared there.
Seems again, there are proponents, and naysayers of the product, some swear by it, religiously using it, yet others talk about avoiding it like the plague.
Some had noticed like I did on occasion, and noticed some build up of gunk on the Stylus after its use.
Even though many times I used the product on brand new fresh out of the jacket Vinyl, which was mostly 180g Mo-Fi Records, I reckon being new, doesn't necessarily mean "clean", and there could be some truth that this product will loosen, or seperate gunk, and the mold release films present on the surface? I just don't know one way, or another to truthfully confirm, but it would be interesting to talk with somebody at LAST about that, as I'm sure they have done the research to know the reasons.
I'd like trying this again someday soon, as I have the product on hand, but now with the use of a VPI 16.5 at my disposal, and good cleaning products, I might get better results.
In the past, when I used LAST Preservative, I was typically using either LAST, or Disc Doctor Cleaning Products, but only with manual cleaning-rinsing methods.
There also seems to be some highly technical data listed as well, and it does appear that the chemical carrier was banned, and changed, somwhere around 2001-2002 due to government regulations. The information in the posts were a little above my head technically. It appeared 3M was the manufacturer of the volatile carrier agent, which I can barely pronounce, or remember here. It sounded like at one time, this chemical was some pretty human unfriendly stuff.
As I mentioned earlier in this thread, this is a product that may have high merit to some, and not so much to others, again, the only recommendation I can give, is try it, you might like it?! Mark
Last edited:
d to the g
New Member
I'm reading this thread with some interest. Would anyone be willing to send me some small samples?
What I'd need is you to take a unplayable records. Clean and apply last to one side only, and just clean the other side.
I work in a very highly equipped nanomechanical test facility. I'll test for hardness elastic modulus, and for friction coefficient. Rather than using a sub 50 nm tip, I'll dig up an old 250 or 500nm spherical to test as it will be more comparable to the average stylus. We can even do the whole thing blind on my part.
edit: in 2001 3M stopped the mfg of fluorinated hydrocarbons: aka teflon. dupont continues to manufacture them, but not nearly as effectively as 3M had.
What I'd need is you to take a unplayable records. Clean and apply last to one side only, and just clean the other side.
I work in a very highly equipped nanomechanical test facility. I'll test for hardness elastic modulus, and for friction coefficient. Rather than using a sub 50 nm tip, I'll dig up an old 250 or 500nm spherical to test as it will be more comparable to the average stylus. We can even do the whole thing blind on my part.
edit: in 2001 3M stopped the mfg of fluorinated hydrocarbons: aka teflon. dupont continues to manufacture them, but not nearly as effectively as 3M had.
markd51
Nyuk Nyuk
This wasn't LAST's design goals when they made this product, that it can somehow miraculously restore unplayable, or poor condition records for the reasons listed below.
No product can rectify groove damage, scratches, permanent damage caused by contaminants or improve a poor recording that was botched in the Studio.
The purpose of the product was to lessen wear from occuring in the first place, on pristine groove walls, by lessening friction. By lowering friction (with PTFE as I understand it), damaging heat at the Stylus-Groove interface was as well said to be lowered.
LAST states they have done the research, and I don't disbelieve that thier products don't do as they say they do. But the issues at hand that many vinylphiles are concerned about, is the possible trade offs, placing any product on the record, and the microcscopic groove modulations, that could possibly lessen optimum state of the art high fidelity playback.
It is claimed to be not a coating, but a literal conversion of the PVC surface itself.
Tests were assumed to be done in a highly controlled enviornment, and then after a number of plays, the surfaces are examined for wear.
We would assume, and hope that no long term detrimental effects were caused for the initial short term benefits, by resulting in surface damage, such as micro-fracturing, etc from PTFE application.
As I close, of course nothing can protect the vinyl, due to user error, incorrect VTF, future contaminants, improper storage, etc. Mark
No product can rectify groove damage, scratches, permanent damage caused by contaminants or improve a poor recording that was botched in the Studio.
The purpose of the product was to lessen wear from occuring in the first place, on pristine groove walls, by lessening friction. By lowering friction (with PTFE as I understand it), damaging heat at the Stylus-Groove interface was as well said to be lowered.
LAST states they have done the research, and I don't disbelieve that thier products don't do as they say they do. But the issues at hand that many vinylphiles are concerned about, is the possible trade offs, placing any product on the record, and the microcscopic groove modulations, that could possibly lessen optimum state of the art high fidelity playback.
It is claimed to be not a coating, but a literal conversion of the PVC surface itself.
Tests were assumed to be done in a highly controlled enviornment, and then after a number of plays, the surfaces are examined for wear.
We would assume, and hope that no long term detrimental effects were caused for the initial short term benefits, by resulting in surface damage, such as micro-fracturing, etc from PTFE application.
As I close, of course nothing can protect the vinyl, due to user error, incorrect VTF, future contaminants, improper storage, etc. Mark
Last edited:
freddyfender
Uma ma-ma
I've been using the LAST preservative for years, and yay or nay, they need to come up with a better application method. The eye-dropper thing drives me crazy!
Hi,
To be clear, if it's not already clear, Last will maintain the condition of records as they were when Last was applied. If the record is new, then its new condition is retained. If used or damaged, that too will be retained.
But Last does more. Because the groove responds differently with Last, the signal is less distorted because the vinyl has been chemically reinfored. Understand, when the stylus traces the groove, the vinyl responds by flexing slightly. This shows up as a slightly distorted signal as it comes out of the cartridge. Last reduces this while, at the same time, reduces the wear that is a result of the flexing. The record is not improved per se, but the vinyl is stronger thus resisting heat buildup and friction wear during playback.
Sparky
Edited to remove a serious mistake and remove confusion. For those who have already seen the unedited version, refer to post #47 below for an explanation. Major screwup, I'm afraid.
To be clear, if it's not already clear, Last will maintain the condition of records as they were when Last was applied. If the record is new, then its new condition is retained. If used or damaged, that too will be retained.
But Last does more. Because the groove responds differently with Last, the signal is less distorted because the vinyl has been chemically reinfored. Understand, when the stylus traces the groove, the vinyl responds by flexing slightly. This shows up as a slightly distorted signal as it comes out of the cartridge. Last reduces this while, at the same time, reduces the wear that is a result of the flexing. The record is not improved per se, but the vinyl is stronger thus resisting heat buildup and friction wear during playback.
Sparky
Edited to remove a serious mistake and remove confusion. For those who have already seen the unedited version, refer to post #47 below for an explanation. Major screwup, I'm afraid.
Last edited: