From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad
Well barked, David, I absolutely concur! I have a reference to the fact that
wet replay (the "Lenco" system) caused record groove surfaces to become noisy
so that they had to be played wet ever after. However, the first wet replay
was fabulous, and I seem to remember that the rest were o.k.
> First of all, I don't work for the Library of Congress so I wasn't aware of
> any conflicts that you have with their preservation lab. Second, I wasn't
> criticizing your products, only pointing out that all products, whether made
> by a commercial company or developed in a conservation lab needs to be
> evaluated by a chemist to ensure that they "do no harm." I welcome any product
> that meets this standard that helps us do our jobs better.
> And yes, I do wait for somebody else's approval on conservation treatments for
> recordings because I am neither a chemist nor a conservator. I can't tell a
> potential donor that we clean our discs with Ivory liquid. They would
> understandably have a hard time taking our program very seriously if I did.
> David Seubert
> At 05:13 PM 5/18/2004 -0500, you wrote:
> >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
> >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
> >>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
> >>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
> >>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.
> >>>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
> >>>>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
> >>>>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?
> >>>>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