[mikeg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif Do you think the Esoteric is just a Burwen in a different box? See ya Steve

I don't know. The outside case of the Burwen is larger. The left knob of the Burwen is called "Sensitivity", while that of the Esoteric is called "Distortion Limiting". The LEDs associated with these controls also work slightly differently. The Burwen left knob is to be rotated clockwise until the brightness of the LED somewhat dims, and this adjustment is to be made during an LP segment that contains no music, or solely base music. That of the Esoteric is to be rotated clockwise during a loud music passage, and until the LED just lights. Actually, both of these left controls end up at about the same setting. As for the right control, although they are called different names (i.e., "Threshold" on the Burwen, and "Noise Rejection" on the Esoteric) they are adjusted the same way (i.e., after first setting the left control), and seem to end up at about the same setting. Significant distortion also becomes evident at about the same point of adjustment when the right controls of both units are turned to about the same clockwise setting. Besides size, another difference between these units is that the Burwen has a "Tape" selector button, while the Esoteric does not. As for performance, they seem to be essentially identical, and these two units are valuable additions to my two vinyl systems. BTW, my next tests will address the use of vinegar with my 16.5 RCM. But first, I need to establish how well velvet brushes, etc., stand up to somewhat prolonged exposure to undiluted vinegar. Hopefully vinegar can replace the gamut of magical elixers that are so ardently promoted by so many.

 

[bigshot]

Does the Esoteric say in the manual that it uses digital noise reduction?

There are recipes for disk washing fluids using distilled water a few drops of PhotoFlo and a tiny bit of alcohol. You might try these too.

See ya
Steve

 

[mikeg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif Does the Esoteric say in the manual that it uses digital noise reduction? There are recipes for disk washing fluids using distilled water a few drops of PhotoFlo and a tiny bit of alcohol. You might try these too. See ya Steve

The three page manual doesn't mention digital noise reduction. As for fluids, where can I buy PhotoFlo? In a photography shop?

 

[yotacowboy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikeg /img/forum/go_quote.gif The three page manual doesn't mention digital noise reduction. As for fluids, where can I buy PhotoFlo? In a photography shop?

Careful with the PhotoFlo. What you're looking for is a wetting agent - also known as a surfactant. Some are harmless, some will not play nicely with vinyl... you're also not looking to use more than a 1/4 of a teaspoon with a gallon of solution. You'll likely find that most photo chemistry supplies are pretty pricey, and only available in larger quantities.

fwiw, i use a 4 to 1, distilled water and 99% isopropyl alcohol with a drop or two of plain jane Dawn liquid dishwashing detergent. seems to work pretty well. This is reported to be exactly the same recipe as good 'ol Discwasher fluid.

 

[mikeg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by yotacowboy /img/forum/go_quote.gif Careful with the PhotoFlo. What you're looking for is a wetting agent - also known as a surfactant. Some are harmless, some will not play nicely with vinyl... you're also not looking to use more than a 1/4 of a teaspoon with a gallon of solution. You'll likely find that most photo chemistry supplies are pretty pricey, and only available in larger quantities. fwiw, i use a 4 to 1, distilled water and 99% isopropyl alcohol with a drop or two of plain jane Dawn liquid dishwashing detergent. seems to work pretty well. This is reported to be exactly the same recipe as good 'ol Discwasher fluid.

Thanks, yotacowboy, for your advice. I'll follow-up.

 

[bigshot]

PhotoFlo works fine with vinyl. It's designed to work with acetate film stock, which is for all intents and purposes the same as vinyl. PhotoFlo basically just very clean soap that causes dirt to dislodge and water to bead off cleanly without water spots. You only use a tiny amount, so cost isn't an issue. You can get PhotoFlo in small bottles for a couple of dollars at any photography shop. A few drops of dishwashing liquid would do basically the same thing as PhotoFlo. But dishwashing liquid isn't manufactured to the same standards as PhotoFlo.

See ya
Steve

 

[memepool]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikeg /img/forum/go_quote.gif My experience, so far, suggests that these settings remain unchanged for the vast majority of music, and only requires very occasional and temporary correction. As for memepool's observation regarding high frequency roll-0ff (posting #5), and Todd R's comment regarding "odd breathing effect" (posting #9), I did not hear these effects. In fact, I could not hear any difference in the sound quality, or sound stage, produced when signal was processed through these units, in comparison to that obtained when they were bypassed, or used in their pass-through setting.

The distortion or " odd breathing effect" Todd R described it probably has to do with the fact that I tested the Burwen mostly with electronic music, which is more akin to a barrage of test tones than anything acoustically recorded. I expect it's exactly the same effect you experienced on the sopranos, jus tmore pronounced because the source material is more taxing.

I wonder how you connected the Burwen. When you say 'in line' do you mean you had a phono pre-amp with two outputs, one feeding the device and the other feeding directly into a passive pre-amp to facilitate A/B switching? I couldn't hear any audible difference just pushing the bypass button on the unit. Rather I could hear a difference between the unit connected to a tape return, as they prescribe, A/Bing between the tape and phono source switches directly. I tried this on two different integrated amps and got similar results. I didn't try it 'in-line' because I don't have a dedicated phono pre-amp with twin outputs....

 

[yotacowboy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif PhotoFlo works fine with vinyl. It's designed to work with acetate film stock, which is for all intents and purposes the same as vinyl. PhotoFlo basically just very clean soap that causes dirt to dislodge and water to bead off cleanly without water spots. You only use a tiny amount, so cost isn't an issue. You can get PhotoFlo in small bottles for a couple of dollars at any photography shop. A few drops of dishwashing liquid would do basically the same thing as PhotoFlo. But dishwashing liquid isn't manufactured to the same standards as PhotoFlo. See ya Steve

Steve, PhotoFlo is basically ethylene glycol (antifreeze) and some fancy alcohol (actually the alcohol part is the surfactant, and can be purchased on it's own as Triton X) - a bit different from a detergent. Also, vinyl (PVC) and acetate are two different kinds of plastics - not quite the same even for our purposes, as you incorrectly state. (BTW, cellulose acetate has largely been replaced by PET in camera film, anyway.) Some PVC manufacturers even go so far as to specifically recommend against using ethylene glycol or propylene glycol solutions in PVC piped refrigerant/thermal exchange systems, too.

 

[derekbmn]

ALL of this talk...and not a single mention of the cartridge Mike is using and its stylus profile....strange.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by memepool /img/forum/go_quote.gif The distortion or " odd breathing effect" Todd R described it probably has to do with the fact that I tested the Burwen mostly with electronic music, which is more akin to a barrage of test tones than anything acoustically recorded.

"Breathing" is an artifact of broadband dynamic filters, not transient noise gates. The Burwen DNF1201A creates that sort of thing, not the TNE7000A. The TNE doesn't apply the filter for longer than a tiny fraction of a second. There's no time to breathe. The artifacting on the TNE sounds like clusters of tiny pops. If anyone is hearing breathing as an artifact, they are using a different model of noise reduction unit than the one we are discussing.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by yotacowboy /img/forum/go_quote.gif Steve, PhotoFlo is basically ethylene glycol (antifreeze) and some fancy alcohol (actually the alcohol part is the surfactant, and can be purchased on it's own as Triton X) - a bit different from a detergent.

It's *propylene* glycol, which is used to deice windshields, in deodorant, and as a moisturizer in cosmetics. They even put it in food. It isn't the same thing that's in your car's radiator or used in plastics manufacture. The alcohol is a very tiny amount, and it is primarily a preservative. Diluted, PhotoFlo has a tendency for the alcohol to evaporate out and grow algae. The alcohol is just to keep it fresh in the bottle.

Dish soap would work too, but it contains fragrances and other things that might leave more of a residue than PhotoFlo.

See ya
Steve

 

[TimJo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by yotacowboy /img/forum/go_quote.gif Steve, PhotoFlo is basically ethylene glycol (antifreeze) and some fancy alcohol (actually the alcohol part is the surfactant, and can be purchased on it's own as Triton X) - a bit different from a detergent. Also, vinyl (PVC) and acetate are two different kinds of plastics - not quite the same even for our purposes, as you incorrectly state. (BTW, cellulose acetate has largely been replaced by PET in camera film, anyway.) Some PVC manufacturers even go so far as to specifically recommend against using ethylene glycol or propylene glycol solutions in PVC piped refrigerant/thermal exchange systems, too.

I have read of warnings against using PhotoFlo on vinyl as well. Not so much because of it's reactivity with the PVC (we are talking small amounts here), but more because it leaves behind a residue that is audible. I think using Triton X instead is likely a better choice.

 

[yotacowboy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's *propylene* glycol, which is used to deice windshields, in deodorant, and as a moisturizer in cosmetics. They even put it in food. It isn't the same thing that's in your car's radiator or used in plastics manufacture. The alcohol is a very tiny amount, and it is primarily a preservative. Diluted, PhotoFlo has a tendency for the alcohol to evaporate out and grow algae. The alcohol is just to keep it fresh in the bottle. Dish soap would work too, but it contains fragrances and other things that might leave more of a residue than PhotoFlo. See ya Steve

http://web.grcc.cc.mi.us/Pr/msds/vis...20Solution.pdf

200 is propylene glycol + Triton X.

600 is ethylene glycol + Triton X.

Both are wetting agents + surfactants. Not really a "soap".

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif PhotoFlo basically just very clean soap See ya Steve

uh, nope.

 

[bigshot]

Propylene glycol along with sodium stearate forms the base for many soaps and hand lotions. There appears to be a lot of misinformation about the safety of propylene glycol online. People mistake it for *ethylene* glycol which is a totally different chemical. I'm talking about PhotoFlo 200 here, and used in the proper amount (20 drops or so per quart), it won't leave any residue or hurt vinyl a bit.

Triton X is a preservative. It isn't the active ingredient in PhotoFlo. It's there to keep it from rotting.

See ya
Steve

 

[mikeg]

bigshot - Do you prefer to use vinegar, or a mix of isopropyl alcohol & water containing a bit of photoflo, for cleaning vinyl records?

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif PhotoFlo works fine with vinyl. It's designed to work with acetate film stock, which is for all intents and purposes the same as vinyl. PhotoFlo basically just very clean soap that causes dirt to dislodge and water to bead off cleanly without water spots. You only use a tiny amount, so cost isn't an issue. You can get PhotoFlo in small bottles for a couple of dollars at any photography shop. A few drops of dishwashing liquid would do basically the same thing as PhotoFlo. But dishwashing liquid isn't manufactured to the same standards as PhotoFlo. See ya Steve