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  June 2012

ARSCLIST June 2012

Subject:

Re: victor record conservation

From:

Malcolm Rockwell <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Tue, 12 Jun 2012 06:55:14 -1000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (159 lines)

I believe he is talking about that waxy substance that seems to exude 
from early plastic pressings (I say plastic because I do not know the 
composition of the physical matrix nor any changes in formulation that 
occurred over time) in the 1950s. It's the same goop (now there's a 
highly technical term) that I believe is responsible for the transfer of 
some inks from printed record sleeves to the surface of the record 
itself (which I have found to be non-removable).
It is possible that the goop is heat and/or pressure specific, or 
possibly time related if it is found to be caused by the packaging 
process and the amount of cool-down the record went through between 
pressing, sleeving and boxing. The substance may actually be pressing 
facility specific, as well.
I've cleaned many 78s of this substance and "waxy" is the best 
description I've heard to date. Cleaning with a  couple of drops of Dawn 
dish detergent in a quart of distilled water and then thorough rinsing 
and drying does the trick for me. I have not done controlled experiments 
to see if the process of leaching reoccurs after one cleaning or not. I 
suspect it does not; that once the substance is removed from the record 
it has been exhausted from the substrate already and no longer a 
problem. But, as I say, this aspect still requires investigation.
Malcolm Rockwell

*******

On 6/11/2012 9:00 PM, Michael Biel wrote:
> From: H D Goldman<[log in to unmask]>
>
>> The common contaminant to all pressed disc recordings&
>> the most difficult to safely remove is the mold release wax.
> What is mold release wax?  Is it something that is part of the mix of
> the material of the record?  You include it in discussing all materials
> "[lacquer, acetate, Diamond Disc&  vinyl]" which include discs which are
> not pressed.  I have visited pressing plants using vinyl and styrene,
> and have seen films of many different eras of shellac and early vinyl
> pressing, and never once have I seen any hint of an application of any
> surface material in the record press other than inserting or injecting
> the record compound.  The stampers are never coated with anything
> between pressings.  The records all come off the press without any
> problem whatsoever, and often they are immediately sleeved.
>
>> It is also the most difficult material to safely&  thoroughly
>> remove from the surface of a new phonograph record.
> So, what is mold release wax?  Since there is no evidence that the
> stampers are coated, if it is part of the chemical makeup of the record,
> how could this be a removable surface coating?
>
> Mike Biel  [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>> This wax is poorly soluble in the pure, water-soluble, simple alcohols [methanol, ethanol, isopropanol&  n-propanol]; less so when diluted with water. Bugs love this wax&  while it is difficult for thoroughly cleaned disc surfaces [lacquer, acetate, Diamond Disc&  vinyl] to support mold growth, once infestation is established by feeding on the mold release wax, all of these disc surfaces can be permanently damaged. For used discs a variety of contaminants including fingerprints&  the micro dust from old sleeves increase the chance for mold growth.
> Generically speaking record cleaning is performed by sufficiently
> agitating a solution within the groove to safely&  effectively wash the
> walls.
>
> We've demonstrated for over 25 yrs. that it is possible to safely&
> thoroughly clean all of these surfaces with a blend of highly rinsable,
> broad-based surfactants that includes a small but critical amount of
> analytical reagent grade n-propanol. There is an audible difference when
> the alcohol is excluded.
>
> With regards to use on Diamond Discs, Richard Warren, Curator of Yale's
> Historical Sound Recordings Collection has been using our standard
> product for years. He volunteered remarks at the ARSC meeting years ago
> in Nashville, that he obtained superior cleaning of Diamond Discs with
> our fluids&  applicator, even with pressings from a period known for
> poor surfaces.
>
> All the discs used for the award winning "Lost Sounds" collection from
> the crew at Archeophone were cleaned with our system.
>
> As many of us like to make up our own cleaning concoctions, please note
> that household cleaning products rarely rinse clean from disc phonograph
> recordings;&  I did say a small amount of a specific reagent grade
> alcohol. Methanol&  isopropyl alcohol are not recommended, nor is
> denatured ethanol or your favorite vodka. While wetting agents can
> improve the ability of water to penetrate the groove, they do not
> inherently offer superior cleaning. Nonetheless, pairing wetting agents
> with highly focused vacuum -based fluid removal [i.e. Keith
> Monks/Loricraft] can improve performance. This same limitation was
> recently observed in comparing manual surfactant based cleaning to the
> use of a wetting solution in a well built device employing an ultrasonic
> bath.
>
> Lastly, with respect to the re-birth of the Spin Clean device, I'm
> puzzled by one observation. Most of us don't reuse the water we bathe
> in, use to brush our teeth, wash dishes or clothes in, so why is it such
> a good idea for phonograph records? The record may be cleaner than it
> was but it is exposed to all the contaminants accumulating in the bath.
> The supplied cleaning fluid is less than thorough no matter how it's
> used, although a quick pass with a Keith Monks/Loricraft would be quite
> helpful. ;>)
>
> Unfortunately both the Spin Clean&  the sonicator [more than 40X the
> price of the former] were reviewed by the same person&  both given
> positive recommendation. In keeping with this sort of evaluation, I'm
> often reminded that a warm solution of urea&  uric acid also gives
> reasonable results when applied to most disc recording.
>
> I mean no criticism of the preferences of others as our goals may
> differ. A properly setup mid-fi system can reveal the differences
> between clean&  thoroughly cleaned discs. The enhanced resolution
> increases listening pleasure, makes it easier to evaluate recordings&
> equipment as well as setting a reference point for digital playback.
> We're currently evaluating alternate methods for cleaning fresh lacquers
> prior to plating with the aim of improved resolution&  quieter
> background.
>
> Regards,
>
> Duane Goldman
>
>
> On Jun 10, 2012, at 2:48 PM, Tom Fine wrote:
>
>> Mike, agree that arguments always arise, but it's important to mention NO ALCOHOL in whatever solution you use for shellac, right? Just in case someone doesn't know ...
>>
>> BTW, now to wade into the inevitable argument ... I haven't tried it but it looks to me like the Spin-Clean would be a good low-cost solution for 78's
>> http://www.spincleanrecordwasher.com/
>>
>> THAT SAID, if I were buying it, I would contact the company and ask them point-blank if they guarantee their solution is alcohol-free and safe for shellac before using it on your 78's.
>>
>> The reason I like this machine is that it keeps the label dry but thoroughly soaks the groove area, and it's less sloppy than a slop-sink and sponge.
>>
>> -- Tom Fine
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Biel"<[log in to unmask]>
>> To:<[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2012 3:42 PM
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] victor record conservation
>>
>>
>> From: Patrick Sumner<[log in to unmask]>
>>> To whom it may concern: wondering if someone knows how to clean vintage
>>> "Victor" records-a few have a green mold, most are just stored vertically in
>>> the area below the player. Also, would there be anyone in the Louisville,
>>> Ky area able to "check-out" the functions.many thanks, patrick
>> The "functions" of what????
>>
>> There's very little in shellac records for mold to grow on. The problem
>> possibly is with the sleeves, and especially the cardboard of any
>> albums. It will probably clean off by cleaning them the usual way
>> (arguments always arise when record cleaning is mentioned) but the
>> sleeves and album covers will reinfect the cleaned records if they are
>> the problem. And the wood and varnish of the player might also be a
>> problem. The insides of the player need to be dried out, aired out, and
>> possibly sealed. You don't mention the vintage of either the player or
>> the records. Is it a wind-up and these are acoustical records, or is it
>> a modern console? Stored in a damp basement?
>>
>> Mike Biel [log in to unmask]
>>
> H D Goldman Lagniappe Chemicals Ltd.
> PO Box 37066 St. Louis, MO 63141 USA
> v/f 314 205 1388 [log in to unmask]
>
>

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