Loose Dust vs. Embedded Dust

malden

malden

Addicted Member
I have three levels of cleaning records prior to playing them.

Level 1 is simply using a anti-static brush on records that are clean.

Level 2 is using a disc-washer with filtered distilled water for use when the record is clean but there is visible dust on the surface.

Level 3 is to scrub them with soap, vinegar or whatever else I have lying around mixed with distilled water and then rinsed with filtered distilled water. I repeat the process if the record is really dirty.

When a record is really dirty, I never play it before applying the Level 3 treatment so I don't really know if there is any improvement in how it sounds.

I recently found a collection of recordings from the 1950's and 60's. Some in great shape, others in terrible shape. After giving one of them the Level 3 treatment twice, the noise was just too overpowering so I took a look at the grooves with a 80x microscope and I could actually see the embedded dust particles. So before cleaning the next record, I took a look at the grooves under magnification and then cleaned half of the record side several times. Looking at it again, I could see no difference between the "cleaned" half and the uncleaned half.

This got me to thinking. If there is a way to remove those embedded dust particles, won't there be a "dimple" in the groove where the dust particle once was? And won't the "dimple" be just as noisy as the particle?
 
Register to hide this ad
I pretty much do what you do but use a vacuum wand I got from AK'er hiball. That does pretty well with most records, but I'm sure there is another level. Maybe ultrasonic followed by vacuum?
 
malden said:
I have three levels of cleaning records prior to playing them.

Level 1 is simply using a anti-static brush on records that are clean.

Level 2 is using a disc-washer with filtered distilled water for use when the record is clean but there is visible dust on the surface.

Level 3 is to scrub them with soap, vinegar or whatever else I have lying around mixed with distilled water and then rinsed with filtered distilled water. I repeat the process if the record is really dirty.

When a record is really dirty, I never play it before applying the Level 3 treatment so I don't really know if there is any improvement in how it sounds.

I recently found a collection of recordings from the 1950's and 60's. Some in great shape, others in terrible shape. After giving one of them the Level 3 treatment twice, the noise was just too overpowering so I took a look at the grooves with a 80x microscope and I could actually see the embedded dust particles. So before cleaning the next record, I took a look at the grooves under magnification and then cleaned half of the record side several times. Looking at it again, I could see no difference between the "cleaned" half and the uncleaned half.

This got me to thinking. If there is a way to remove those embedded dust particles, won't there be a "dimple" in the groove where the dust particle once was? And won't the "dimple" be just as noisy as the particle?
Click to expand...

I totally engage in your third step level when I clean records -- and I agree (and have thought about) that when washing a really dirty record before ever playing it, there's no way to know if there's been an improvement...still, I don't like putting my (albeit cheap) stylus through a river of fingerprints, crud, oil or whatever before cleaning the surface. Depending on the LP, this either quiets the surface down considerably or doesn't really do anything for surface crackle, et al.

I also just do your step one when casually playing clean or recently-cleaned records (just run a brush across the surface)...
 
Record out of inner-sleeve:
Image37_zpsfkqjvy7v.jpg




Record gone over with carbon fibre brush, washed, rinsed thoroughly with distilled water, and damp dried with micro-fibre cloth:
Image31_zpst1pjqvfj.jpg




Same record that was washed, rinsed with distilled water, dried with micro-fibre cloth, but now put through RCM (record cleaning machine) with vacuum:
Image39_zps58xtdikz.jpg



Can't beat the vacuum.


Furthermore and upper-most: :D

Finger print before RCM with vacuum:
fingerprint01_zps1xiojp3t.jpg


And after RCM with vacuum:
fingerprint02_zpszidtnzpw.jpg


You can probably get away with removing finger prints and some loose particles without the vacuum process, but for stuff that has fallen and gotten lodged in the grooves? Vacuum is your friend.

These are my pics which I took with a $70 USB microscope, and no, they are not photo-shopped. It's true. :)

There's a tremendous amount of pressure (and heat) at that tiny point where the stylus tip meets the vinyl, so I try and keep as clear path as possible for the stylus to slide on.

I'm a believer in the vacuum as the final step. It can only help.

Happy spinning. :music:
 
A couple of random-ish thoughts. First, I wonder how much of the worst "gunk" in old used records is tobacco-based, and/or residue from cooking. Simple dust should be easily plowed out of grooves by the stylus itself. I'm not a smoker and we don't cook much here, so I've found that records that start clean and quiet stay that way, even though they must be picking up some dust over repeated plays.

Sticky residues seem the stuff that's tough to deal with and it seems logical that solvents and vacuum are a great way to go to remove them. Maybe my ear isn't discerning enough, or maybe I've avoided coming across the worst of dirty LPs, but a simple spin-clean or even a quick clean in the sink, followed by micro-fiber wipe, has made me happy. I suppose that if I come across a record that won't become happily playable with my crude methods it will likely end up in the trash bin. I've only thrown a few records away and only because they were so badly scratched or warped that they appeared not worth trying to save.

Some of my used LPs that have a few clicks and pops bother me less over time. In fact, I have created the opposite bias in my mind, wherein an aspect of digital that I don't like is its lack of any noise, which sounds brittle and harsh to my ears now. Weird. My human ears crave what sounds "authentic", which actually means noise floor, a few clicks and pops, and a preference for being able to see that spinning object across the room.
 
For the final step,regardless of cleaning method,vacuum is the only effective means to actually remove the loosened debris.Everything else is just a waste of time and effort.
As for ''embedded'' particles,much has been written about the wood glue method.
 
You didn't mention what tool you use to wet clean the vinyl surface.
A horse hair paint brush, paint pad, shaving brush, etc.
Whatever it is, it needs to get deep in the groove and be softer than the vinyl.

Vacuuming also made the biggest difference for me. Can't recommend it enough!
 
arts said:
For the final step,regardless of cleaning method,vacuum is the only effective means to actually remove the loosened debris.Everything else is just a waste of time and effort.
As for ''embedded'' particles,much has been written about the wood glue method.
Click to expand...

I don't think wet washing without vacuuming is a waste of time, as you can get improvements, from mild to vast.

If you want to get the record AS CLEAN AS IT CAN GET, without spending big $$$, then vacuuming is the way to go.

I simply use my wet/dry shop vac with crevice tool covered with a soft micro-fibre cloth.
 
doctor fuse said:
I don't think wet washing without vacuuming is a waste of time, as you can get improvements, from mild to vast.

If you want to get the record AS CLEAN AS IT CAN GET, without spending big $$$, then vacuuming is the way to go.

I simply use my wet/dry shop vac with crevice tool covered with a soft micro-fibre cloth.
Click to expand...

I agree that at least giving a record a good wet washing (the dish soap method, for example, which I use) is not a waste of time even if a vacuum isn't involved; in my case, it HAS removed caked-on canine urine that had crystalized on some of my 12" singles when my vinyl was being stored at my parents' place for awhile (they had Malteses that would pee on everything in the house, don't ask). Giving these records good scrubbings with mild dish soap and water removed the crystalized urine and made them totally 100-percent playable without much surface noise, if at all. That was without vacuuming of any kind.
 
AnzacSonata said:
I agree that at least giving a record a good wet washing (the dish soap method, for example, which I use) is not a waste of time even if a vacuum isn't involved; in my case, it HAS removed caked-on canine urine that had crystalized on some of my 12" singles when my vinyl was being stored at my parents' place for awhile (they had Malteses that would pee on everything in the house, don't ask). Giving these records good scrubbings with mild dish soap and water removed the crystalized urine and made them totally 100-percent playable without much surface noise, if at all. That was without vacuuming of any kind.
Click to expand...

There is probably a market for crystal maltese uric acid, somewhere in the world! :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom