LAST is Amazing, Wonderful, A Miracle!!

[flavio81]

Flavio, I respect your contributions to the science of sound reproduction but I do take exception to your insisting I am a gullible fool.

I didn't mean to call you a fool. I apologize.

 

[Pio1980]

Apology accepted. Thank You for the gesture.

 

[JonL]

A couple of questions for the long-time Lasters here...

Do you use the record preservative on ALL your records? I have some records that I love despite their so-so condition. I don't know if I should "waste" the preservative on these or on records that I play very rarely. I don't know if I'd be compromising the effectiveness of the Stylast treatment by playing untreated records. Let's assume that I restricted the Last preservative treatment to ~75% of my records. Would playing ~25% untreated records reduce the life extension properties of the Stylast?

What's your stylus treatment method? Do you use the Last cleaner and then Stylast before every side? Do you look at the stylus and skip cleaning it for a side or two if it looks clean?

Thanks!

 

[markd51]

A couple of questions for the long-time Lasters here...

Do you use the record preservative on ALL your records? I have some records that I love despite their so-so condition. I don't know if I should "waste" the preservative on these or on records that I play very rarely. I don't know if I'd be compromising the effectiveness of the Stylast treatment by playing untreated records. Let's assume that I restricted the Last preservative treatment to ~75% of my records. Would playing ~25% untreated records reduce the life extension properties of the Stylast?

What's your stylus treatment method? Do you use the Last cleaner and then Stylast before every side? Do you look at the stylus and skip cleaning it for a side or two if it looks clean?

Thanks!

I would say Sparky (Karma16) is the biggest advocate of the LAST Products in this forum, and which we are speaking of.

I know he's more than once mentioned, that to achieve the greatest benefit of the LAST Record Preservative, and the LAST Stylast, that they should be both used together, and that less benefit would be achieved using these products singly. I can believe that.

Tough to tell you what to actually do, whether to treat your most played records, or your finest records that maybe only get played on a special occasion?

Let's take Sparky for example, who states (I believe) that he has a 4500+ record collection. Well even somebody with a smaller collection, such as myself, at about 800-850 records, that's a whole lot of LAST products that will be needed to treat that many records. I would guess that in record collections as large as his, it may be a huge monetary expenditure to treat them all, to reap the full benefits of such products.

I would take an educated guess, that it's claimed a LAST'ed Record is reputed to make the surface of the record "harder", thus staving off some record wear, but I also think, that since this product is supposed to be some form of a PTFE in a carrier solution, the greatest benefit to less Stylus wear may be realized with the record Treatment, versus the Stylast, if one has to choose between using one, or the other product.

As for less Stylus wear, I'm a firm believer that proper cleaning of a record, and keeping a Stylus clean will go as far, if not further to help getting the longest life from a Stylus, or a record for that matter.

I figure like this: A LAST'ed record that was somewhat dirty before treatment will not reap the full benefits of the product. That a LAST'ed dirty record will still be a greater detriment to both Record, and Stylus, versus a pristine clean non-LASTED record. Make sense?

And as well, a worn Stylus treated with Stylast no doubt will wear a record's groove just as fast a one that isn't treated.

Forgive my babbling, hope some of it makes some sense! lol Mark

 

[JonL]

Thanks Mark. What you say all makes sense. I hope Sparky will chime in with his thoughts as well.

I am pretty fastidious when it comes to record cleanliness. There's always room for improvement, but I think I have that part of it covered well enough. I've treated perhaps 20 records so far, and I haven't made that much of a dent in the $40 bottle. I'd estimate that the bottle could treat about 150 records. That's actually cheaper than the MoFi innersleeves I use after cleaning a disc. I've got about 1200 records I guess, probably ~100 get played often, 400 or so get played occasionally, 400 or so get played rarely and the rest get played never and should be passed along. Now that I've done the math on the cost per disc, I think I'll just treat everything except the ones that are already fairly worn AND don't get played very often. I'm curious what Sparky has to say....

 

[markd51]

Well Jon/All,
If you've read through this thread completely, I think all can recognize that Sparky is quite passionate about the use of some of the LAST products. Passionate enough to perhaps call them "miracle products".

But I think he'll agree, if he had to eliminate, or omit certain products from his list of "do's" in his care for Vinyl, I think he would list LAST products towards the end of his list, of products he would say he definitely has to have.

That, as an examle, if he had to choose between the use of LAST, or the use of his VPI 17 RCM, I'm sure he would say, take the LAST, but you ain't going nowhere with my VPI 17 RCM!

I myself sort of broke these rule years ago, that I used LAST religiously, but didn't have an RCM at the time. I would refer to my paragraph above if given a personal choice between the two.

That, there should be a method of priorities, of which tools, and products should come first as far as importance.

Things like good Sleeves, some form of adequate cleaning system are of high importance in my book. They should be priorities that are IMO addressed first.

With that said, and with those bases covered, I would then say to consider products such as the LAST products, and give them a try. Having used all of the LAST products, with the exception of their RCM Specific Cleaners, I have found no harm, or detriment done with their use.

Although I have never personally had any problems with the use of LAST Stylus Cleaner, or LAST Stylast, I currently do not use these products anymore, and have gotten quite adequate results with just the use of the Mr Clean Magic Eraser, and a LAST Stylus Brush used dry on my ZYX Airy 3X Cartridge. Just a personal choice, where I've concluded I wish to do as little as possible to maintain the cleanliness of the Stylus. Mark

 

[Karma16]

Thanks Mark. What you say all makes sense. I hope Sparky will chime in with his thoughts as well.

I am pretty fastidious when it comes to record cleanliness. There's always room for improvement, but I think I have that part of it covered well enough. I've treated perhaps 20 records so far, and I haven't made that much of a dent in the $40 bottle. I'd estimate that the bottle could treat about 150 records. That's actually cheaper than the MoFi innersleeves I use after cleaning a disc. I've got about 1200 records I guess, probably ~100 get played often, 400 or so get played occasionally, 400 or so get played rarely and the rest get played never and should be passed along. Now that I've done the math on the cost per disc, I think I'll just treat everything except the ones that are already fairly worn AND don't get played very often. I'm curious what Sparky has to say....

HI JonL,
Reread the very first post in this thread and if you still have questions I'll try to answer them.

Sparky

 

[JonL]

Thanks Sparky. I should've thought of that in the first place! Yes, the first post answered my questions.

 

[markd51]

Thanks Sparky. I should've thought of that in the first place! Yes, the first post answered my questions.

To add, as I have also went back to the beginning to read what was firstly written to refresh my memory of this thread, I'd again like to comment.

I hope my comments are not seen as argumentive, as I'm not intending them to be, and in fact, I believe these comments may strengthen what Sparky has initially said-claimed.

And this pertains to the longevity of Stylus Life.

Sparky has stated that he has placed some dedicated research into the effects of Stylus Wear, and that LAST products has clearly prooven to him that Stylus Life can be enhanced with the use of such products.

I believe in the grand scheme of things, that yes, such products can enhance Stylus Life.

But that there are also other contributing factors, and that one cannot claim with any degree of certainly, a given, set amount of time played as being something that is set in stone with a Diamond Stylus.

That any user, with any true Diamond Stylus may get 1000 hours, of play, may get 1500, and may indeed get well over 3000 or more, with little detriment in the usable condition of said Stylus.

That not only these Last Products will be an aid to achieving high mileage on a Stylus, but other factors as well. Such as care, and cleaning of vinyl, and the proper set up of Cartridge.

I don't have solid actual figures in front of me to pass on, but would take a good educated guess that the difference of an actual increase-decrease of VTF of as little as .5g, equates to many thousands of lbs per square inch of weight, added, or subtracted at the Stylus-Groove Interface.

LAST's claim, is that at this Stylus-Groove interface, that extreme pressures, and as well friction, and heat are present, and this is total fact, something that doesn't need to be debated. That indeed, temperatures at the Stylus can climb quite high, to the point that the heat generated is both a detriment to both Groove, and to Stylus. This is commonly evidenced, by flims, and deposits that are literally baked onto the Stylus' surface, and often can be a bear to remove.

It stands to reason, that if friction, and heat can be reduced from the use of such products, that not only an increase of wear resistance is created to the Vinyl Surface, but as well, by reducing friction, and heat, that also comes as a benefit to the health-life of a Stylus.

Thus, non of this sounds like "snake oil" to me, but just good, practical science. Mark

 

[Karma16]

HI Mark,
The friction and heat question is, I think, the key to Last and Stylast. You nailed it, Mark. I think folks have hard time realizing the incredibly hostile situation that exists at the groove to sylus interface. Remember, we are considering this at the microscopic level. The contact area of the stylus is extremely small. On this small area the entire set of forces that act on the stylus is concentrated.

It's not as if the entire stylus heats up. Rather the only the microscopically small contact area is subject to the extreme heat. I would be much like the cutting tool on a lathe. Only the sharpened edge gets really hot. Over time, this stylus heat causes the contact point on the stylus to erode away thus causing the wear facets we see with a stylus microscope.

Also understand that the vinyl is somewhat flexible under the extreme stylus pressure. This causes the the vinyl to flex and kind of wrap around the stylus contact point further increasing the friction and heat.

So, if a substance can be applied to decrese the vinyl flex and, thus, decrease the friction, the heat build up will be less. Less heat, less wear on both the vinyl and the diamond. This is how, I believe, Last works.

Of course, any goop that is applied to the vinyl to reduce friction should not add any side effects. The genius of Last is it does not have any negative side effects. It's all good.

Sparky

 

[Rybeam]

Take it from good authority, that I shared in an earlier post. "LAST" is chemically a snake oil, a simple placebo. It evaporates harmlessly into the air or at best leaves a coating on your record. I would say that would have a negative effect on the sound. As users have pointed it out, "it took the harshness away", meaning it dulled the sound by leaving a coating on the vinyl. Read about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytetrafluoroethylene

 

[Karma16]

Take it from good authority, that I shared in an earlier post. "LAST" is chemically a snake oil, a simple placebo. It evaporates harmlessly into the air or at best leaves a coating on your record. I would say that would have a negative effect on the sound. As users have pointed it out, "it took the harshness away", meaning it dulled the sound by leaving a coating on the vinyl. Read about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytetrafluoroethylene

HI Rybeam,
You know not what you say. But I'll let you languish in your ignorance. No loss to me.

Sparky

 

[se7enMMBsg]

"Take it from good authority", eh? Give me a break. Last products, and many other come to think of it, are *supposed* to evaporate after 10-20 seconds. That's part of the reason it works so well. What do you want to do, apply goop to a record that Doesn't evaporate properly and then play it? That "Snake Oil" has quite an amazing 36-37 - year history for something that's bullshit. Ah, well, takes all kinds. Opinions make the world go round and all that. But these blanket/B&W statements - even the one I've made - are just . . . err . . . silly and *generally* unhelpful. sort of like lumping LAST in with "Magic acousti-pebbles" and things of that ilk.

~Dave

 

[JonL]

Take it from good authority, that I shared in an earlier post. "LAST" is chemically a snake oil, a simple placebo. It evaporates harmlessly into the air or at best leaves a coating on your record. I would say that would have a negative effect on the sound. As users have pointed it out, "it took the harshness away", meaning it dulled the sound by leaving a coating on the vinyl. Read about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytetrafluoroethylene

As I recall, the authority you quoted was making the claim that "nothing" could form a molecular bond with the vinyl. That may or may not be true, and despite LAST's claims that the substance DOES bond with (or chemically "alter" the surface), perhaps the actual mechanism by which it functions is different from what your expert has debunked. Perhaps it does leave a microscopically thin lubricating coating on the record, as I hypothesized in an earlier post.

...or at best leaves a coating on your record. I would say that would have a negative effect on the sound.

Are you stating this authoritatively? Have you heard this negative effect yourself? I've been using LAST for all of a week now, but I cannot say that I hear a negative effect on the sound. I am not aware of any reviewers who have noted a negative effect on the sound. I can envision a mechanism by which a reduction in friction coefficient would actually improve the sound.

What's the relevance of the PTFE wiki? AFAIK, LAST claims their products do not contain PTFE.

 

[JonL]

I went back and looked at the patent again. LAST claims the use of a PFPE substance, not a PTFE substance. Fomblin is one trade name, referenced in the patent. From the Fomblin manufacturer's website:

Fomblin® Functionals PFPEs can react with conventional polymeric materials with the aim to impart to them the specific properties of the perfluoropolyether chain such as:

Chemical resistance
Low surface energy
Water and oil repellency
Anti-sticking properties
Low refractive index
Boundary lubrication

Seems to support LAST's claims, and poke some holes in the "snake oil" theory.

 

[markd51]

Take it from good authority, that I shared in an earlier post. "LAST" is chemically a snake oil, a simple placebo. It evaporates harmlessly into the air or at best leaves a coating on your record. I would say that would have a negative effect on the sound. As users have pointed it out, "it took the harshness away", meaning it dulled the sound by leaving a coating on the vinyl. Read about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytetrafluoroethylene

But have you used it? No I gather.

Many people call many things "snake oil". I believe Sparky himself once stated that professionally made cleaners, such as AIVS (which again, is probably a product not personally tried) were nothing more than high priced snake oil.

Not to cast stones, because we all have our personal opinions-beliefs about things in the audio world, myself included.

Let's take for instance, the $5200 Clearaudio Double Matrix RCM. Now yes, for $5200, sure, it's better built, prettier than a $540 VPI 16.5 RCM, offers more in the way of conveniences, and features, but if you told me that the Clearudio is vastly superior in cleaning records versus the VPI, I'd definitely question that claim.

That a large factor of the degree of record cleanliness is also directly tied to the quality-efficiency of fluids-rinses, and the techniques used. If the fluids cannot do their jobs, a $20,000 record cleaning machine isn't going to vacuum the contaminants off the record no matter how powerful the suction. Sure, the Clearaudio machine is superior in many ways, as it should be, that it costs $4700 more than the VPI RCM.

Getting back to LAST Record Preservative. Common sense, without going into much science, tells me, that a lubricant placed on the record's surface will no doubt have many of the effects that LAST claims its Preservative incorporates, lower friction, less wear, less groove damage caused.

And another side effect of a lubricant, could no doubt be lower groove noise.
At one time, it was claimed that products such as MFSL Super Vinyl Wash contained a Glycemic Lubricant in it, and that it did seem to quiet records a bit because of it. And as well, caused a slight loss-compromise of finest fidelity playback.

Could LAST Preservative also cause a loss of fidelity? Sure, I imagine it could, but from personal experience, I've found no apparent loss of fidelity.

But of course I haven't gone to the length of double blind testing with identical reference recordings, micro-analysis of the groove, or other highly technical laboratory type testing to determine pro, or con?

So, I wouldn't necessarily call-term the product snake oil, as it probably does exactly what it claims it does, decrease wear at the groove.

So, with all the mumbo jumbo I just rattled off, as I close, I can only say it will be a personal choice to use. Mark

 

[markd51]

I haven't heard that Last 5 or the record preservative 2 contains lubricant.

Call the Last Factory maybe that'll help.

Patent Composition for protecting vinyl records

Thank you Jfine for providing this link. I read through it, and while I'm no chemist, and much of it is entirely over my head, it appears to be proof as to a science behind such.

Using some common sense, and a hypothetical lab test, let's say we take two identical records from a pressing run. Let's say they are two MFSL pressings of bla bla bla symphony, and the numbers are consecutive, say #1122, amd #1123 coming off the stamper. I figure this is about as close one will come to identical copies of a particular pressing.

One record is treated, and the other isn't. In a comparison, the Preserved Record may indeed show a slight decrease in fidelity reproduction, let's say that one hears a slight difference in a Triangle, or a cymbal. Or a loss of attack of the leading edge of a Violin String being plucked.

Ok, we can perhaps confirm such occuring, and I could believe such. Some may hear these changes, and some others may not?

But, what about after 50 plays? After 100 plays?

It is then possible, that after time, and a good number of plays, the untreated Record may actually suffer a loss of fidelity greater than the treated Record?

I gather that this was the product designer's sole goal.

I might guess, a possible side benefit, that if a noise floor-SN Ratio of playback was lowered, with a lesser degree of groove noise, this could also appear to give an increase of fidelity, hearing more minute detail, by the lowering of a noise floor-S/N ratio, no?
Mark

 

[Scuzzer]

I have no idea if Last works or not but I did find it ironic that the functional ingredient is described by the manufacturer as a mold release compound.

"Fomblin® Functional perfluoropolyethers can react with conventional polymeric materials to impart to them the specific properties of the perfluoropolyether chain. They can be active ingredients of stable water-based microemulsions commonly used as surface treatment to convey mold release and anti-sticking properties."

I though mold release residue on records was a big problem.

After reading the literature it would appear that Fomblin Y25 is an interesting lubricant.

 

[JonL]

Frankly, I never really understood why "mold release" would be a problem on records unless it becomes sticky and attracts dirt.

Regardless... there are many types of mold release compounds used in various processes, silicone being a pretty basic one. We do not know if Fomblin is used in manufacturing records. I thought the most interesting property was "boundary lubrication," which was essentially the mechanism of operation I hypothesized back a page or two.

Scuzzer, I know you are skeptical of claims that have no supportable scientific basis. Reading your posts I'm not really sure what your opinion is on LAST. Given that Fomblin may impart friction reduction and boundary lubrication properties to polymers, and given that LAST makes similar claims for their product that apparently contains Fomblin, and given the various positive reviews for the product by AKers, Stereophile, and others, do you think it's a product that's worthy of an open mind, or would you dismiss it as snake oil? I do get the irony of the mold release comment, but let's look beyond that.

 

[Scuzzer]

Scuzzer, I know you are skeptical of claims that have no supportable scientific basis.

Yep.

Reading your posts I'm not really sure what your opinion is on LAST....do you think it's a product that's worthy of an open mind, or would you dismiss it as snake oil?

I think it might actually do something positive but I'm not sure I need what it does.

It sounds reasonable that reducing friction in the groove would be a good thing but sometimes reasonable sounding things in the macro world don't translate that well to the micro world. The whole heat argument is a non-starter for me since there's so little actual heat content in the miniscule stylus and if there were significant melting of the record groove then that would also imply permanent deformation that would be easily heard. I use an old heavy tracking GE mono stylus on records that were most likely initially used with even heavier tracking ceramic cartridges. I think if something was going to melt it would have and I'd hear it.

I also haven't used the snake oil term and I'd hesitate to use it on anything that isn't ridiculously beyond the scope of possibility (i.e. anything audio related described as having/utilizing quantum effects) so it wouldn't seem prudent to use it here. I also think people use the term open mind a little too freely when talking about audio stuff. There is a middle ground between the two extremes.

Lastly, it would seem to be easy to quantify the benefits of this product and I'm surprised that it hasn't been done. I know if I worked on it I would have been spinning records treated and untreated on identical turntables with identical cartridges and measuring the wear on the stylus and also the frequency response of the records. That type of info plays well with guys like me but doesn't seem to actually be a positive use of funds for most audio companies.

Sorry, I tried to trim my post to the pertinent bits but I still rambled a bit.

edit: I had to check but this is the first post I've ever made on AK using the term snake oil.

edit2: I missed it in my initial reading of the patent but they describe easy tests to find out if their product works. Unfortunately they didn't report their test results or they didn't do the testing.