LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  May 2004

ARSCLIST May 2004

Subject:

Re: Highly unorthodox cleaning methods for LP's...

From:

"h. Duane Goldman" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 18 May 2004 17:13:16 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (168 lines)

Hi David,

Our ingredients, within proprietary constraints, are listed on the bottles.
After more than 20 years of evaluation & use most of you still question the
safety & thoroughness of a system that has cleaned 10s of 1000s of vinyl,
shellac, lacquer, acetate & Edison Diamond Disc recording & has received
wide positive review & most of you have never personally evaluated.  The
LOC solution is a "do no harm" solution incapable of thoroughly cleaning
phonograph recordings based upon chemistry not jive.  We provided, on
numerous occasions, full disclosure of our products & nothing but excuses
have prevailed.

Furthermore the LOC preservation unit has had multiple samples of these
materials for over 12 years & managed to loose them & never evaluate
them.  It's outrageous that they would now offer such an inferior solution
of their own concoction with little or no long term evaluation.  Somehow
chemistry doesn't matter.

No one can fault the safety of our formulation based upon the chemistry of
the solution with respect to the substrates being cleaned, at least not
anyone with a minor amount of appropriate background.  And the end result,
that is listening to the discs will make you acutely aware of the value of
such cleaning not to mention the total lack of negative remarks about
materials that have been in the international market since 1992.

Somehow none of this matters to most of you as you wait for someone else's
approval.  Hide behind whatever documents you wish but in the long run you
neither preserve recordings by leaving biological feed stocks in the groove
than you can appreciate the real quality of the recording by listening to
it in its original dirty condition.

As a group you're offended by the presence of a commercial enterprise but
with out our efforts how would you be any wiser.  In all candor, I'm
disgusted by the waste of time & effort spent in our efforts to preserve
recorded sound.  An effort that has kept me from cleaning much & listening
to much of my own collection for decades.  It's obvious that I've wasted my
time & efforts.

Many of you hear digital recordings as equals of the best that analog has
to offer.  BULL!!  If you can hear then you don't care but that's not the
measure of a reference point.

The LOC speaks & everyone follows, speak no evil, hear no evil!!  Shame on
you.  It's to bad most of you do not appreciate the one consistent feature
of the history of recorded sound - the sound didn't matter, only that there
was a new product to sell.

Happy listening as the bugs eat away at your prized collections.

Duane Goldman

PS   wait til you hear the results of thorough cleaning of lacquers prior
to plating for a realization that we've yet to hear all analog recording
has to offer.

At 01:25 PM 5/18/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>I agree with Duane that we are beyond the use of household chemicals for
>cleaning discs. Every time I see the topic of cleaning discs raised on
>ARSClist, I am reminded that as archivists, when we clean discs, we are
>performing conservation treatments, regardless of our training. According
>to article VI of the "Code of Ethics of the American Institute for
>Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works"
>(http://aic.stanford.edu/pubs/ethics.html):
>
>"The conservation professional must strive to select methods and materials
>that, to the best of current knowledge, do not adversely affect cultural
>property or its future examination, scientific investigation, treatment, or
>function."
>
>We should abide by these principles, even (especially) if we aren't
>conservators. I would argue that archivists have the same responsibility
>not to use household chemicals without having them tested first. With all
>due respect to collectors (who have rescued many recordings when the
>archival profession wasn't paying attention) household dishwashing
>detergent is not an acceptable way to clean recordings, especially when
>there are other, better options. Dawn and Ivory liquid probably contain
>harmless ingredients, but without assurances and testing, we shouldn't use
>them.
>
>I can't speak for Duane's products, but any manufacturer that sells
>products to the archival community should provide full disclosure on what
>active and inactive ingredients are in the product and what testing has
>been done to ensure that these products will "not adversely affect cultural
>property."
>
>As I have pointed out on this list before, the Library of Congress has
>created a recipe for a wonderful cleaning product that has been tested by
>their conservation scientists: http://www.loc.gov/preserv/care/record.html.
>Some archival supply firm should make this and sell it, since the main
>ingredient is difficult to obtain in small quantities.
>
>David Seubert
>UCSB
>
>At 01:09 PM 5/18/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>>Hi Aaron,
>>
>>We've come a long way from the limited cleaning & residues left by using
>>household detergents to clean phonograph records.  We invite you to hear
>>the difference safe & thorough cleaning affords.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Duane Goldman
>>
>>At 10:22 AM 5/18/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>>>I have been a collector for many years and have had some records
>>>that I have encountered that are visually perfect and still with
>>>successive
>>>cleanings, both manually and with a machine, the sound remains distorted
>>>and gritty sounding. This conditions persists with every alcohol based
>>>product
>>>I have encountered.
>>>
>>>I took a copy of a record which suffers from this disease, NRISSTB,(no
>>>reason it should sound this bad) and I cleaned it with one tiny drop of
>>>dishwashing soap. I made sure to add ample water to it and cleaned it
>>>till no
>>>visible residue was on the disc. I then cleaned the surface again with
>>>a record cloth to remove any late arriving airborne residue. The results
>>>have been really amazing. These records now sound infinitely better than
>>>the ever did with alcohol based cleaners.
>>>
>>>These dish products are designed to "cut grease" and as I understand it,
>>>a thin layer of oil can exist on  LP's as a result of the stamping
>>>process
>>>itself. It is my belief that this oil coagulates with time and sits in
>>>the grooves
>>>attracting all kinds of contaminants and grit and particulate matter in
>>>general.
>>>
>>>When the old lemon joy gets in there it seems to dissolve the oily
>>>residue
>>>and in the process let go of a lot of tiny noisy particles that have
>>>been resting
>>>there for decades...I have done this in the presence of other
>>>collectors who were
>>>horrified and then amazed by the procedure and the results.
>>>
>>>Obviously, I suggest trying this first on a valueless, noisy record to
>>>see if what
>>>I am saying is true.
>>>
>>>Has anyone else out there tried weird counter-intuitive "solutions" to
>>>record cleaning and if so what have been your results?
>>>
>>>I am sure many ARSC people and all polymer chemists will tell me I am
>>>doing more harm than good in the long run but the immediate results are
>>>in some cases nothing less than dazzling in my experience.
>>>
>>>BTW, this seems them most effective on records from the mid-60's and
>>>earlier, did the vinyl manufacturing process change after a certain
>>>point, thus using less oil or something like that when making LP's?
>>>
>>>Sincerely,
>>>
>>>Aaron (Don't try this at home kids) Levinson
>>
>>      ------
>>h. duane goldman, ph.d.   |   P.O. Box 37066   St. Louis, MO  63141
>>lagniappe chem. ltd.            |   (314) 205 1388 voice/fax
>>"for the sound you thought you bought"       |   http://discdoc.com

      ------
h. duane goldman, ph.d.   |   P.O. Box 37066   St. Louis, MO  63141
lagniappe chem. ltd.            |   (314) 205 1388 voice/fax
"for the sound you thought you bought"       |   http://discdoc.com

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager