KentTeffeteller
Gimpus Stereophilus!
This is my common workflow for cleaning 45 RPM discs which did time on jukeboxes. Especially since they tended to need extensive cleaning. Works well.
Record Cleaning - Soap and Water - test results
- Thread starter Snade
- Start date
tnmike1
AK Member
That's interesting. I use Mofi sleeves for all my records yet keep the original sleeves inside the jacket. Some of those old sleeves are quite interesting but for record storage prefer the Mofi antistatic sleeves for my classical LPs
There is a cheaper ultrasonic cleaner out there...
http://www.ultrasonicrecords.com/how-to-purchase.html
$1495... However, I know someone who modified a jewelry cleaner ultrasonic tank and uses it to clean 45s ($30 and some ingunity)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbQNwDfh76U
http://www.ultrasonicrecords.com/how-to-purchase.html
$1495... However, I know someone who modified a jewelry cleaner ultrasonic tank and uses it to clean 45s ($30 and some ingunity)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbQNwDfh76U
hi*ball
Records & Coffee
I was trying to figure out why this guy was wearing his wife's shirt... :scratch2:
All my records after being cleaned on a VPI RCM go in new MoFi sleeves, I also keep the original printed sleeves, the record jacket gets new outer poly sleeves. With the price of a ultrasonic cleaner at $1500 I can see these ultrasonic record cleaners getting a lot more popular.
@ 1500 bucks, I'd be saving up.
Wigwam Jones
Caesar non supra grammati
The kind of comparisons we have had to date are subjective. That is, a person tries both cleaning in the sink, and then tries an RCM of one type of another, and states what their opinions and conclusion happen to be.
Of those who have stated a preference after trying both, I have to say I think most have stated that they prefer the RCM, either from the point of view of convenience or the point of view of sonic superiority.
I believe a fewer number have stated the opposite, and an even smaller group have stated that they find no difference in terms of sound quality.
However, although people are entitled to their opinions, and they might be right, it's not a 'true comparison' as you ask. It's a subjective statement of opinion. Quite acceptable for discussion purposes, quite valid for the person who has tested the options and holds the opinion, but unfortunately, it proves nothing one way or the other.
There are many reasons that such opinions don't, pardon the expression, hold water.
The first is that one does not know to what extent the tester is or is not biased towards one or the other solution. They may state they have no preconceived notions going in, and they may believe that, but that doesn't mean they do not have a bias they might not even be aware of. This is a constant concern in any kind of scientific testing, and it's why double-blind testing is the rule rather than the exception.
The second is that one does not know what exact protocol is being use by the person doing the testing.
Third, one does not know if one record being tested by, say, sink cleaning, is identical to the one being cleaned by an RCM. Even when attempts are made to level the playing field in a very rigorous and legitimate way, one would have a difficult time finding two 'identical' used records to clean. It would impossible, as far as I know, to clean half the record with one method and half with the other, given the nature of cleaning in the sink (i.e., both sides get wet).
I could propose a set of protocols and a testing regimen that would resolve most or all of these issues (any scientist here could do the same), but it would involve time, labor, and effort, not to mention involving the use of expensive equipment (for measuring actual results) and unbiased third-party testers.
I doubt many would go for it. And for that matter, given the notable refusal of some in the audio hobby to believe the results of such testing anyway if it doesn't favor their preference, I doubt there would be much point to it. In other words, it doesn't matter what unbiased scientific testing would reveal; those with an emotional (or financial) interest in the outcome would refuse to accept any answer that they didn't care for.
We are audiophiles. We are passionate. We are believers. And we don't like anything science has to say about our hobby unless we approve of the finding in a very personal way. Anything else is rejected out of hand. In other words, we're about the magic; science offends us.
If one wanted to do one's own testing for one's own edification, I can think of a couple of valid ways to do a relatively unbiased test.
To remove the problem of using different records with different beginning dirt levels, one could clean a record using method A, then play and digitize it. Clean it again with method B, then play and digitize it again. Note rigorously any difference. Then take another record, but use B first, then A. Not differences.
Even though records will be different, by doing this enough times, a trend should emerge, or the results will show a 50/50 distribution. In other words, if method A is sink cleaning, and method B is RCM, and A->B shows an improvement in pop and click removal over time, then it could be legitimately presumed that your RCM regimen is more effective than your sink-cleaning regimen. If B first and then A shows more improvement in A, then the opposite. A random distribution centered around 50% would show no practical difference.
The assumption going in would be that if B is more effective than A, then the records cleaned by first A and then B would show a consistent improvement.
I won't make any assumptions about what one's results might be. I've always been willing to concede that RCMs may well do a better job at cleaning records than cleaning by hand in the sink. And if that turned out to be true, I would not be surprised, and I would not be afraid to admit it.
However, for me, the issue is not which is better. The issue is whether or not the results from sink-cleaning are sufficient for my needs. My method is indeed effective enough to meet my requirements, so I'm done.
In other words, yes, there are better SUVs than mine, but mine goes well enough in the snow that I do not look for a better one, even though I presume better SUVs exist. Make sense?
bobins08
Celebrating Life
I seem to recall someone posting USB microscope photos of record grooves before and after using an RCM and other methods. The results showed the RCM lifts the most debris out of the groove.
That still does not prove anything since the records were all different and the other manual methods really depend on the deligence of the person.
I looked for the thread but no luck.
Like Wigwam says, if a particular method works for you then it is "good enough".
Spinning "Miles Smiles" right now after cleaning it up last night. It is all about the music
That still does not prove anything since the records were all different and the other manual methods really depend on the deligence of the person.
I looked for the thread but no luck.
Like Wigwam says, if a particular method works for you then it is "good enough".
Spinning "Miles Smiles" right now after cleaning it up last night. It is all about the music
dodog
Addicted Member
Couldn't agree with this statement more. Sadly, most threads on AK that touch on ANYTHING that someone deems subjective turns into a bunch of posts where, rather than admit what you've just written, people take their "good enough" stance as absolute truth, then set off to ridicule and name call (audiophool, snake-oil, etc.) those that may wish to see if there are improvements above the (usually) cheapest, easiest method. I always wondered why someone gives a **** about what someone else does with their time or what they spend their money on. A large (and vocal) sample of AK members make it their mission to make others miserable about their own personal choices. I wish more could see it from your angle.
At 4000.00, not a chance in hell.
Final words are seldom cheap.
Maybe if 40 of us go in together on it???
Trekmaster
Analog man living in a digital world!
Thanks for this man I have been trying every solution on the net to clean my LP'S. I have the label protector gizmo on order and I tried your method and man what a difference no more crackles and the sound just came back to life. Only difference is i'm using a paint pad that I saw used in another example. :thmbsp:
I know that paper unless it is archival quality, is not ph balanced It is acidic which over the course of a long time can do damage to other paper like the labels on the vinly and they claim it also can damage the vinyl. The question is just how long, and I don't know the answer to that. Most likely you will be dead and gone prior to that happening. But it is interesting to realize that it is collectors that will be the foundation of preserving so much of these fine treasures (vinyl records) and that those of us who do our part of protecting our LP's with the best practices will only help to preserve more of them for future generations. Most likely the vast majority of us don't realize that will be the case, we just collect them thinking we want to preserve them for our use, but that is how future generations possibly 200 years down the line will benefit, because we like ours so much we protected them. I can tell you without a doubt the old paper sleeves inside the old LP's were not archival quality paper. Same goes for the ones with plastic inner sleeves. I have already notice a number of the old ones that I have purchased the plastic is degrading. I collect other things where this also occurs mainly in old stamps, in the 60's and 70's a company made crystal clear plastic mounts to mount the old stamps inside the albums with, well that plastic was not archival and over the years it has started to melt to the stamps, which is a very large concern to collectors. Also the old albums were not archival and those paper pages are becoming a problem now as well. I see that the inner sleeves that sleeve city sells are archival quality.
