[brunk]

  I use the following:
 
-KAB EV-1 (www.kabusa.com/ev1). EVERY RECORD, including new, goes through it before it ever goes on my turntable. Then it goes into a Mobile Fidelity sleeve. Hook it up to a powerful vacuum, and it'll clean just as well as the VPI machine. I rarely have to clean the same record again within six months. I would recommend this over the Spin Clean any day.
 
-Hunt EDA carbon fiber brush before every play. This gets rid of the inevitable light surface dust. If I never let the record get dirty, I won't need to wet-clean it. It also helps reduce the static buildup.
 
-For the stylus, I use a simple brush. I probably should use a liquid cleaner from time to time, but I don't. Then again, see my first point. 

Now that KAB EV-1 is brilliant. I like the idea of using a device we all have in our homes, and adapting it to vinyl. Thanks for pointing this device out to me, I will probably purchase this. I don't care about it being quiet, that doesn't clean my records! 

 

 

[dosley01]

  Now that KAB EV-1 is brilliant. I like the idea of using a device we all have in our homes, and adapting it to vinyl. Thanks for pointing this device out to me, I will probably purchase this. I don't care about it being quiet, that doesn't clean my records! 

 

Why not spend the few dollars more and get the Record Doctor?  It's the same cleaning mechanism but you don't have to drag out a vacuum cleaner every time you want to clean a record.

 

[brunk]

 
Why not spend the few dollars more and get the Record Doctor?  It's the same cleaning mechanism but you don't have to drag out a vacuum cleaner every time you want to clean a record.

Well, for me here's the main thing to take into consideration. First, a household vacuum cleaner is much more robust, less chance of failure. If it does fail, you're buying a vacuum for the house, not a specialized one with a single purpose. When I clean my records, I spend a good chunk of time to clean many as possible in one event, most of these little vacuums simply can't keep up with that demand over time.

 

[dosley01]

  Well, for me here's the main thing to take into consideration. First, a household vacuum cleaner is much more robust, less chance of failure. If it does fail, you're buying a vacuum for the house, not a specialized one with a single purpose. When I clean my records, I spend a good chunk of time to clean many as possible in one event, most of these little vacuums simply can't keep up with that demand over time.

Good reasoning, especially if you are going to do many records at a time, you would probably smoke the vacuum in the Record Doctor.  Myself, I usually only clean them when I go to play and see that they need it so I find I am only doing one or two at a time.

 

[JamieMcC]

I have been taking a look at the scales for measuring tone arm stylus weight. I nearly fell of my chair when I saw how much they wanted for a digital scale with a hole in it or a bit of rubber to drop the stylus on. I thought I might try a inexpensive pocket scale  (200g/0.01g for £4.95 batteries and delivery included) and use a piece of the magic erase on top to place the stylus on, then every time I clean the stylus I can also check the tracking force at the same time. Saving a few pounds to put towards the record cleaner.
 

 
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/331006333467?ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1497.l2649

 

[analogsurviver]

  I have been taking a look at the scales for measuring tone arm stylus weight. I nearly fell of my chair when I saw how much they wanted for a digital scale with a hole in it or a bit of rubber to drop the stylus on. I thought I might try a inexpensive pocket scale  (200g/0.01g for £4.95 batteries and delivery included) and use a piece of the magic erase on top to place the stylus on, then every time I clean the stylus I can also check the tracking force at the same time. Saving a few pounds to put towards the record cleaner.
 

 
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/331006333467?ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1497.l2649

There is a Catch 22. Most inexpensive scales, the one above included - are simply too thick. Eyeballing it is about 5 mm minimum - which is 3 mm more than the surface of an average record. It can be accurate to 0.00000...............01 gram - it measures at the wrong position.
 
I use Transcriptors Stylus Scales, an entirely mechanical device, capable of 0.01 gram resolution. It IS thin and does measure at the same height as the record surface :
 

This is the best photo I could find online showing the extremely thin profile - but is upside down.
 

Here my very own in action - from the Sleeping Beauty posts
 
It was pricey then and sure it is now - but is the best tool for the job. Michell made a very similar one, as well did Supex ( also rebadged as Nakamichi ).  
 
For most users Shure SFG2 should suffice and I prefer it over cheapo electronic scales that simply can not measure at the correct height.

 

[JamieMcC]

Interesting advice and thank you for your explanation. I will give it a go and see if it is to high or not. If it is I might be ok by removing the platter and shimming to gain the correct height or just off the platter side. I can see now from your advice a bit of improvisation will be necessary.
 

You must measure at the correct height.

 

[johnman1116]

  I use the following:
 
-KAB EV-1 (www.kabusa.com/ev1). EVERY RECORD, including new, goes through it before it ever goes on my turntable. Then it goes into a Mobile Fidelity sleeve. Hook it up to a powerful vacuum, and it'll clean just as well as the VPI machine. I rarely have to clean the same record again within six months. I would recommend this over the Spin Clean any day.
 
-Hunt EDA carbon fiber brush before every play. This gets rid of the inevitable light surface dust. If I never let the record get dirty, I won't need to wet-clean it. It also helps reduce the static buildup.
 
-For the stylus, I use a simple brush. I probably should use a liquid cleaner from time to time, but I don't. Then again, see my first point. 

Pretty cool. Like a cheaper Record Doctor. I wonder if they have sell just an attachment for a vacuum hose that's like the record cleaning suction thing that RCMs use~ 
i really like the Spin Clean method of cleaning, need to do some research and see if its the superior method to the normal method, but vacuums seems like the way to go fro drying. Decisions, decision...
 

  I have been taking a look at the scales for measuring tone arm stylus weight. I nearly fell of my chair when I saw how much they wanted for a digital scale with a hole in it or a bit of rubber to drop the stylus on. I thought I might try a inexpensive pocket scale  (200g/0.01g for £4.95 batteries and delivery included) and use a piece of the magic erase on top to place the stylus on, then every time I clean the stylus I can also check the tracking force at the same time. Saving a few pounds to put towards the record cleaner.
 

 
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/331006333467?ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1497.l2649

 
like Analogsurviver said, I think most people can use the Shure SFG. 

 

[analogsurviver]

How to defend the analog fort: http://www.head-fi.org/t/298015/vinyl-rip-vs-cd/150#post_9966211 post # 159

 

[Mrtn77]

Not a turntable setup question in any way, but I have a record that's behaving strangely, and I'd be very curious to understand why. Maybe the knowledgeable people here can give me an explanation.
I have a 1980 reissue of Charles Mingus' Charles Mingus Presents Charles Mingus on the American Jazz-Man label, "manufactured and distributed by First American Records". The sleeve says"this LP is mastered from an analogic stereophonic tape recording". It sounds fine (MUCH better than the lousy Candid-branded CD release I bought about fifteen years ago), but there's a very strange anti-echo throughout. What do I mean by anti-echo ? I can faintly hear an echo of the music before it's actually being played. Strange, no ? I can't hear anything like this on the CD, but then it sounds so bad, I doubt I could ! 

 

[Arsis]

That may be "print thru" from the analog tape. If it was recorded hot, its possible for the signal to effectively bleed thru the tape and imprint on the layer next to it while stored on the spool.

 

[bbophead]

That may be "print thru" from the analog tape. If it was recorded hot, its possible for the signal to effectively bleed thru the tape and imprint on the layer next to it while stored on the spool.

Yup, and it causes that "pre-echo" you're hearing.  I don't know if more care would have eliminated it.  It would surprise me if they had access to the master tape.

 

[Delirious Lab]

Yup, in the days cassette tapes were notorious for pre-echo.  I, too, was surprised to hear it from my Szell/Eroica record.  I drop the needle and hear the first two chords but very faintly, so I turn up the volume... the house nearly exploded.

 

[calipilot227]

The most notorious case of print-through/pre-echo occurs on Led Zeppelin's "Whole Lotta Love." ("_{waaaaayyyyyyy down ins-}WAAAAAAYYYYYYYY DOWN INSIDE.......")
 

 

[bbophead]

  The most notorious case of print-through/pre-echo occurs on Led Zeppelin's "Whole Lotta Love." ("_{waaaaayyyyyyy down ins-}WAAAAAAYYYYYYYY DOWN INSIDE.......")
 

Hell, I always thought that was some kind of echo-plex, on purpose.