Analogue guys - Cheap tweak of the week!

[JBryan]

Analogman,

"I don't understand, isopropyl is "bad" but "lab grade isopropyl is a "fair compromise"?  Please explain."

Any alcohol will strip the oils from vinyl over time - isopropyl included. The "lab-grade" is more pure with fewer contaminates thus it wont leave as much residue in the grooves but it'll still harm the vinyl eventually. Still, its less damaging than grain or ethyl alcohol. Same goes for distilled water - fewer contaminates mean less stuff in the grooves to make noise.

"You recommend Triton X-115 over Kodak's Photo-Flo.  I invite you to elaborate with regards to X-115's superiority, or to the Kodak product's lack of suitability for this purpose."

Actually, its Triton X-114 (sorry) but there are other surfactants or wetting agents out there like Monolan 2000 that'll work just as well. Kodak's Photo-flo leaves a whole mess of chemicals behind - you can actually see it on the record. Once again, purity is the concern. I read that Kodak actually warns against using PF on vinyl.

"After the initial scrub/washing of dirty records with an alcohol containing solution I perform subsequent washings of "clean" records with straight distilled water.  Please elaborate regarding the "lot of damage" cleaning with alcohol will induce."

Distilled water (and surfactant) is used to suspend chemicals and particulates so they can be removed. Any remaining water should evaporate leaving little if anything behind. That of course, is the ideal but in practice there's always something left. (How many records have you spun that were pristinely quiet from beginning to end?)

Alcohol will slowly eat away at the oils in vinyl so its always recommended to follow the wash with a water rinse to remove as much as possible. Its a matter of degrees - some folks vacuum-clean their records before every use and double rinse with de-ionized distilled water. They wouldn't dream of using anything as harsh as alcohol. Then there's fellas who can't bother themselves with cleaning beyond a quick breath and wiping the record across their shirtsleeve.

As long as it works for 'em. Have fun -Bryan

[JBryan]

"I'd be concerned about scratching the record."

"Isn't a statically charged, household dust rag a bit like sandpaper once it's contaminated from the first wipe?"

Yeah - I wouldn't suggest scratching the record....

The Swifter or Grab-It is a soft, dry, chemical and fragrance-free cloth and won't scratch a record without considerable effort. The best way to use it is the same as with a carbon brush - lightly press it to the spinning record and pull it to the edge.

The benefit in my experience with the Swifter is that while a carbon brush tends to move the dust around and may take a few attempts to completely remove it, the Swifter usually lifts the dust with one quick pass and hangs onto it until you throw the cloth away or in my case, relegate it to furniture-dusting duty (I did say I was cheap).

I used a cloth on about 35-40 clean LPs before replacing it. I now use the cloth to remove dirt before applying the cleaner and when I run into dirty records, I use it in concert with the carbon brush. If you're cleaning really dirty records then you'll have to determine when to dispose of the cloth. At some point, I imagine that the cloth will start leaving dust behind - that would be a good indication.

Have fun -Bryan

[analogman]

----------------

On 1/19/2005 9:47:23 PM JBryan wrote:

Analogman,

"I don't understand, isopropyl is "bad" but "lab grade isopropyl is a "fair compromise"?  Please explain."

Any alcohol will strip the oils from vinyl over time - isopropyl included. The "lab-grade" is more pure with fewer contaminates thus it wont leave as much residue in the grooves but it'll still harm the vinyl eventually. Still, its less damaging than grain or ethyl alcohol. Same goes for distilled water - fewer contaminates mean less stuff in the grooves to make noise.

"You recommend Triton X-115 over Kodak's Photo-Flo.  I invite you to elaborate with regards to X-115's superiority, or to the Kodak product's lack of suitability for this purpose."

Actually, its Triton X-114 (sorry) but there are other surfactants or wetting agents out there like Monolan 2000 that'll work just as well. Kodak's Photo-flo leaves a whole mess of chemicals behind - you can actually see it on the record. Once again, purity is the concern. I read that Kodak actually warns against using PF on vinyl.

"After the initial scrub/washing of dirty records with an alcohol containing solution I perform subsequent washings of "clean" records with straight distilled water.  Please elaborate regarding the "lot of damage" cleaning with alcohol will induce."

Distilled water (and surfactant) is used to suspend chemicals and particulates so they can be removed. Any remaining water should evaporate leaving little if anything behind. That of course, is the ideal but in practice there's always something left. (How many records have you spun that were pristinely quiet from beginning to end?)

Alcohol will slowly eat away at the oils in vinyl so its always recommended to follow the wash with a water rinse to remove as much as possible. Its a matter of degrees - some folks vacuum-clean their records before every use and double rinse with de-ionized distilled water. They wouldn't dream of using anything as harsh as alcohol. Then there's fellas who can't bother themselves with cleaning beyond a quick breath and wiping the record across their shirtsleeve.

As long as it works for 'em. Have fun -Bryan

----------------

Please consider answering the question(s).

Do you think this makes sense? At all?

Any alcohol will strip the oils from vinyl over time - isopropyl included. The "lab-grade" is more pure with fewer contaminates thus it wont leave as much residue in the grooves but it'll still harm the vinyl eventually. Still, its less damaging than grain or ethyl alcohol. Same goes for distilled water - fewer contaminates mean less stuff in the grooves to make noise.

You should probably go back and re-read your sources, as these statements are obviously not based upon science or experience.

As always,

Analogman

[JBryan]

Analogman,

"You should probably go back and re-read your sources, as these statements are obviously not based upon science or experience."

You may very well be right. I'm just professing my experience and what works for me. I'm fine with my sources - thanks, but more importantly, if I read or hear something enough times I begin to give it some credibility (works like a charm for BUSH and the guys). While they aren't necessarily facts or science-based, others' opinions and advise eventually guide me to conclusions. If they provide some practical validity for me resulting in say, quieter LPs - that becomes my experience. It works for me.

Whatever works for you is fine too. I'd appreciate any suggestions or advise you can offer that will help me to clean records more effectively or conveniently .....like a Swifter.

Have fun, Bryan

[analogman]

----------------

On 1/20/2005 12:32:11 AM JBryan wrote:

Analogman,

"You should probably go back and re-read your sources, as these statements are obviously not based upon science or experience."

You may very well be right. I'm just professing my experience and what works for me. I'm fine with my sources - thanks, but more importantly, if I read or hear something enough times I begin to give it some credibility (works like a charm for BUSH and the guys). While they aren't necessarily facts or science-based, others' opinions and advise eventually guide me to conclusions. If they provide some practical validity for me resulting in say, quieter LPs - that becomes my experience. It works for me.

Whatever works for you is fine too. I'd appreciate any suggestions or advise you can offer that will help me to clean records more effectively or conveniently .....like a Swifter.

Have fun, Bryan

----------------

You have fun, too, Bryan

Regards,

Analogman

[artto]

----------------

On 1/19/2005 2:55:26 PM RAPTORMAN wrote:

Thanks Artto. Just to make sure about your suggestion--Smirnoff Silver plus 4 times distilled water--or straight out Smirnoff Silver. Any other suggestions??? I can always go to local TT dealer and buy the cleaning solvent they have, but they charge like 20.00/100ml.

----------------

Just Smirnoff Silver straight. 100 proof is 50% alchohol so the "water" is already in it, and has been distilled many times along with the vodka (unlike distilled water which still has many contaminants in it for our purposes).

After the disk is thoroughly dry, I treat it with GruvGlide. Do not use too much of this. A light coat will do better. It needs to be buffed onto the record surface with their supplied special pads, in both directions, including the label (to get the most benefits from its anti-static effect). If done right, it puts on a non-organic coating that, essentially leaves an anit-static lubricative, one molecule thick on the record surface. It has been well documented that it improves stylus trackability, lowers distortion and record/stylus wear. I have some multiple copies of the same recordings, some are very high quality audiophile pressings, that were used for testing and treated with GruvGlide over 20 years ago. The GruvGlide discs are still very quiet, noise free and sound better than the untreated versions.

I also clean the stylus tip with LAST Stylus Cleaner, and treat the stylus with LAST Stylus Treatment. LAST Stylus Treatment should be applied to the entire stylus, cantilever and grommet suspension (with the exception of Decca pickups in which case use it only on the stylus tip).

[analogman]

----------------

On 1/20/2005 1:22:23 PM artto wrote:

----------------

On 1/19/2005 2:55:26 PM RAPTORMAN wrote:

Thanks Artto. Just to make sure about your suggestion--Smirnoff Silver plus 4 times distilled water--or straight out Smirnoff Silver. Any other suggestions??? I can always go to local TT dealer and buy the cleaning solvent they have, but they charge like 20.00/100ml.

----------------

Just Smirnoff Silver straight. 100 proof is 50% alchohol so the "water" is already in it, and has been distilled many times along with the vodka (unlike distilled water which still has many contaminants in it for our purposes).

After the disk is thoroughly dry, I treat it with GruvGlide. Do not use too much of this. A light coat will do better. It needs to be buffed onto the record surface with their supplied special pads, in both directions, including the label (to get the most benefits from its anti-static effect). If done right, it puts on a non-organic coating that, essentially leaves an anit-static lubricative, one molecule thick on the record surface. It has been well documented that it improves stylus trackability, lowers distortion and record/stylus wear. I have some multiple copies of the same recordings, some are very high quality audiophile pressings, that were used for testing and treated with GruvGlide over 20 years ago. The GruvGlide discs are still very quiet, noise free and sound better than the untreated versions.

I also clean the stylus tip with LAST Stylus Cleaner, and treat the stylus with LAST Stylus Treatment. LAST Stylus Treatment should be applied to the entire stylus, cantilever and grommet suspension (with the exception of Decca pickups in which case use it only on the stylus tip).

----------------

Interesting,

Some I know also swear by Squalene, citing similar results as your GruvGlide. I have not yet tried either.

Are you not concerned with the migration of liquid up the cantilever, (or through it, if hollow) if you dampen more than your stylus brush? Please advise.

As always,

Analogman

[Parrot]

The Franklin Mint's records had anti-static chemicals (known as cationic surfactants) added into the vinyl during manufacture. That's the best method to cut down or eliminate static electricity.

The reason almost no normal record companies included these chemicals is because it added slightly to the cost of manufacturing. A penny saved times one million translates to $10,000, which is better spent on new carpeting for the execs than eliminating pops on records for a million consumers.

[artto]

----------------

On 1/20/2005 3:07:33 PM analogman wrote:

Interesting,

Some I know also swear by Squalene, citing similar results as your GruvGlide. I have not yet tried either.

Are you not concerned with the migration of liquid up the cantilever, (or through it, if hollow) if you dampen more than your stylus brush? Please advise.

As always,

Analogman

----------------

Actually, no I haven't been concerned with the migration of liquid up the cantilever, (or through it, if hollow) although you make a good point about "through it, if hollow". I guess it would depend on how the stylus is mounted on the cantilever. As far as the LAST Stylast treatment is concerned, having it migrate up the cantilever and onto the grommet suspension is actually recommended. It apparently helps to keep the grommet suspension resilient. It also an has anti-static effect on the whole stylus/cantilever/grommet suspension assembly. But as mentioned earlier, treat only the stylus tip of a Decca pickup otherwise you'll likely damage the tiny silk tie-back string, or one of the coils that the armature (what would otherwise be a cantilever in MM or MC pickups) passes through, very close to the record surface.