[mikeg]

I get my LPs (mostly classical) at a music archive that's part of our community library. Many of the LPs look like they've hardly ever been played, and I get them for 25 cents each. Imagine, for the price of one CD (e.g., $15) I get 60 LPs. And, the sound of the LPs is so wonderful that now I can hardly stand the sound of CDs, even the sound of highly rated SACDs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif There are so many records at the Pasadena City College swap meet at $2, I can't justify "record insurance". Vinyl is a buyer's market. I can't carry all the great deals I find. See ya Steve

 

[mikeg]

My brief experience with vinyl fully confirms this statement. But, to my amazement, the sound of vinyl is mostly way superior to that of CDs and SACDs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif Anyone who tells you that silent playback on an LP is possible is lying to you. Even brand new records have small manufacturing defects. You can reduce the amount of noise buy buying good pressings and taking good care of your records, but no amount of cleaning is going to make a thrift store record have silent surfaces. That depends on the condition and quality of the pressing, not how clean it is. That said, playing a dirty record can damage it though. Best to clean them- however you do that- if they get dirty, and maintain them with regular brushing. See ya Steve

 

[earwicker7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikeg /img/forum/go_quote.gif I recently got a VPI 16.5, and its operating principle is really simple. Why do you think that a much more expensive cleaning machine (e.g., Loricraft PRC4-Deluxe) that's based on the same principle, will do a better job? What do you get for the much higher cost (i.e., $500 versus $4,000+)?

They're not even close to the same principle... yes, they're both vacuum units, but otherwise they're as different as dynamics and electrostats

Read the info, it's interesting!

 

[memepool]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikeg /img/forum/go_quote.gif My brief experience with vinyl fully confirms this statement. But, to my amazement, the sound of vinyl is mostly way superior to that of CDs and SACDs.

Actually this is dependent not just on the records themselves but the quality of whole turntable system, what it's mounted on, how well it's set up, which alignment method is used, what kind of stylus profile...etc,etc.

The same records will sound much noisier on some systems than on others for this reason.

Generally the higher quality of mechanical engineering the quieter the whole set will run.

It's certainly possible to reduce the sound of the actual vinyl playback itself to below the noise of the tape master on an analogue recording.

On average even quite beat up classical 2nd hand records which I have cleaned up, there is a low level crackle, beneath the gentle hiss of the master and the reverb of the room the recording was made in, which close listening on headphones will reveal.

Playing via speakers though, this will be almost indecipherable from the rest of the background ambiance of the recording and certainly not intrusive.

My equipment is good quality vintage stuff like the Thorens TD125 certainly no longer state of the art.

 

[mikeg]

I'm familiar with both dynamics and electrostats (i.e., I've owned an R10 and an HE90), and each has inherent strengths and weaknesses. Thus, I assume that there are likewise some benefits and disadvantages that are inherent to each of these machines. It's actually hard for me to imagine how machines that simply rotate a wet LP under a brush (handheld or otherwise), and then suck up the liquid, can significantly differ in their effectiveness for cleaning LPs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by earwicker7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif They're not even close to the same principle... yes, they're both vacuum units, but otherwise they're as different as dynamics and electrostats Read the info, it's interesting!

 

[earwicker7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikeg /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm familiar with both dynamics and electrostats (i.e., I've owned an R10 and an HE90), and each has inherent strengths and weaknesses. Thus, I assume that there are likewise some benefits and disadvantages that are inherent to each of these machines. It's actually hard for me to imagine how machines that simply rotate a wet LP under a brush (handheld or otherwise), and then suck up the liquid, can significantly differ in their effectiveness for cleaning LPs.

Read, young padawan

http://www.smartdev.com/loricraft.html

Seriously, though... read the whole page and I think you'll understand the difference. This is not the same as comparing the VPI 16.5 to the VPI HW-27, where the principle is exactly the same, just more refined. The Loricraft operates under completely different principles.

 

[audiosceptic]

I buy alot of used records and always clean them with a VPI 16.5 that I bought used on Audiogon. The records always sound better than if I didn't clean them at all but I often buy records that are still unlistenable after repeated cleanings. An audio dealer in town used to have a Keith Monks record cleaner that you could clean records with at 50 cents a pop. Records cleaned on the Keith Monks always sounded great. The Loricraft works on the same principle as the Keith Monks and it's because of this I'm also interested in buying the Loricraft. If only it wasn't so expensive...

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by earwicker7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif To the paper towel/rag/cloth people... given how extremely thin the area between the grooves is, how is your cleaning tool getting all the way to the bottom of every groove?

That's the job of the surfectant, if you use dishwashing detergent. White vinegar is distilled acedic acid which brings all the gunk out of the grooves too. The advantage of vinegar is that it is distilled, so once you rinse it, nothing is left on the record.

I agree that records sound good. But only God is perfect. When someone tells you that your surface noise is due to you not owning one of the machines he's selling, it's a lie. Records have surface noise. Some sound very good, but they still have surface noise. Most surface noise on used records is due to groove damage. No amount of cleaning will fix that.

See ya
Steve

 

[earwicker7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's the job of the surfectant, if you use dishwashing detergent. White vinegar is distilled acedic acid which brings all the gunk out of the grooves too. The advantage of vinegar is that it is distilled, so once you rinse it, nothing is left on the record. I agree that records sound good. But only God is perfect. When someone tells you that your surface noise is due to you not owning one of the machines he's selling, it's a lie. Records have surface noise. Some sound very good, but they still have surface noise. Most surface noise on used records is due to groove damage. No amount of cleaning will fix that. See ya Steve

I'm assuming this is along the lines of "I haven't heard the cables, but I know they don't work"...

 

[mikeg]

My limited experience with cleaning LPs indicates that Steve's highlighted conclusion is correct.

I clean newly purchased old records as follows:

I begin by placing the record on a soft cloth, and using a DiscWasher handheld device (wetting with the VPI fluid that came with my VPI 16.5 cleaning machine) to wipe off all loose dust and dirt. I then briefly listen to the record, in order to see whether I want to keep it. I then wash it throughly using the VPI 16.5 machine, prior to listening to the entire record, for enjoyment.

What I've found is that there is little or no difference in the amount of surface noise that I hear after simply hand cleaning LPs with the DiscWasher device, versus the surface noise that I hear following their much more thorough cleaning with the VPI 16.5 machine. As far as I can tell, cleaning with the VPI machine yields no further benefit, versus the simpler manual cleaning with the DiscWasher device. Also, when I used the VPI machine to clean some noisy records over and over, there was no further apparent reduction in the surface noise.

My limited experience indicates that some of the used records that I buy have almost no surface noise, while others have substantial surface noise. And, that following cleaning, the noisy ones remain noisy, while the quiet ones remain quite.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's the job of the surfectant, if you use dishwashing detergent. White vinegar is distilled acedic acid which brings all the gunk out of the grooves too. The advantage of vinegar is that it is distilled, so once you rinse it, nothing is left on the record. I agree that records sound good. But only God is perfect. When someone tells you that your surface noise is due to you not owning one of the machines he's selling, it's a lie. Records have surface noise. Some sound very good, but they still have surface noise. Most surface noise on used records is due to groove damage. No amount of cleaning will fix that. See ya Steve

 

[stevenkelby]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif Most surface noise on used records is due to groove damage. No amount of cleaning will fix that. See ya Steve

Yes you're right there, but how about preventing that groove damage from occurring by ensuring the grooves are as clean as possible?

Obviously you think vinegar and paper towels achieves that, which maybe it does for all I know.

It seems logical to me that sucking everything out of the grooves will get them cleaner than smearing any remaining foreign matter into them. I could of course be wrong though and haven't any proof either way.

 

[earwicker7]

Maybe this is a good analogy...

When I first got out of college and couldn't find a job which paid the bills, I ended up working as a carpet cleaner for a couple of months. It was really hard work but paid more than you'd think... not doctor/lawyer salary, but more than I'd made at that young age, and definitely more than most "entry level white collar" jobs that were being offered.

Anyways, I spent a lot of time in houses that were well kept, often with full time housekeepers. However, they still called me before that big party because no matter how good the housekeeper and how powerful the cleaning products they used, there was just no way to get the carpet spotless without vacuuming it. Taking a rag to an area where you drop a sundae will certainly mop up 90% of the mess, but that other 10% gets pressed into the fibers and isn't coming out without being vacuumed.

 

[memepool]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikeg /img/forum/go_quote.gif What I've found is that there is little or no difference in the amount of surface noise that I hear after simply hand cleaning LPs with the DiscWasher device, versus the surface noise that I hear following their much more thorough cleaning with the VPI 16.5 machine.

That's certainly not been my experience. I am not familiar with the Discwasher but the difference between cleaning manually and with my Nitty Gritty machine is massive. Records which were completely unplayable, that I have tried cleaning many times with varying degrees of success, are almost completely restored after vacuum cleaning.

Admittedly vacuum cleaning can't remove scratches but it can make it easier for the stylus to track and avoid sounding so bad. As I mentioned it's only one element in a complex set up which includes the quality of the whole turntable system. It's not a magic bullet rather a step in achieving the optimum from the system you have.

Certainly vacuum reduces stylus wear which you can easily check by inspecting the amout of dirt on the tip.


It might be worth adding that different solutions also achieve different levels of noise and character of noise and are good for different types of record cleaning so it's worth experimenting with this as well.

Different machines clean in different ways. Minimising contamination from the machine itself, cleaning in both directions, as well as ease of use and the amount of noise made and time the machines can run for, are all factors in the different designs and cost thereof.

 

[Demonmnky]

Quote:

Originally Posted by earwicker7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Maybe this is a good analogy... When I first got out of college and couldn't find a job which paid the bills, I ended up working as a carpet cleaner for a couple of months. It was really hard work but paid more than you'd think... not doctor/lawyer salary, but more than I'd made at that young age, and definitely more than most "entry level white collar" jobs that were being offered. Anyways, I spent a lot of time in houses that were well kept, often with full time housekeepers. However, they still called me before that big party because no matter how good the housekeeper and how powerful the cleaning products they used, there was just no way to get the carpet spotless without vacuuming it. Taking a rag to an area where you drop a sundae will certainly mop up 90% of the mess, but that other 10% gets pressed into the fibers and isn't coming out without being vacuumed.

Can I get a record Roomba?

 

[DennyL]

Quote:

Originally Posted by memepool /img/forum/go_quote.gif Certainly vacuum reduces stylus wear which you can easily check by inspecting the amout of dirt on the tip.

I don't agree that the presence of dirt on the tip is a sign that the stylus is suffering accelerated wear due to dirt.