What is the latest dirt on the LAST record coating? Has it always been a bad idea, or are problems emerging more recently?
James
-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom Fine
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 11:11 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] VINYL AND STYLUS AT 1000X MAGNIFI CATION
Hi Eric:
Do you think ultrasonic cleaning could successfully remove LAST fluid coating from an LP record? I don't know of any other safe method.
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Jacobs" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 10:46 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] VINYL AND STYLUS AT 1000X MAGNIFI CATION
> My apologies for being a bit late to this discussion.
>
> Although I do not have experience with ultrasonic disc cleaning, I would
> think it would be fine for vinyl and possibly shellac discs, but would be
> reluctant to use it on transcription discs (aka lacquers or acetates).
>
> Ultrasonic cleaning works on the principal of mechanical vibration to
> detach contaminants from a surface. I would expect the vibration to not
> discriminate between contaminates and laminates. In other words, if
> there was even the slightest compromise in the laminate - a crack or
> exposed
> substrate edge, for example - the vibration could also detach the laminate
> from the substrate.
>
> Iım also curious what sort of impact ultrasonic cleaning has on the disc
> labels, if the disc is fully submerged in the ultrasonic cleaner.
>
> Again, my comments are nothing more than hypotheses. It would be very
> interesting to hear from the National Film and Sound Archive in Canberra,
> Australia, about their experience with ultrasonic cleaning on disc media
> and under what circumstances they deploy ultrasonic cleaning:
>
> - what types of disc media?
> - what types of contaminates?
> - pre- and post-ultrasonic processes?
>
> Iıd also be curious if they follow up the ultrasonic cleaning with a
> secondary rinsing process to remove or neutralize any remaining
> Cetrimide on the disc and to remove any contaminates that were dislodged
> but might still remain loosely on the surface of the disc. In general,
> disc cleaning is a two-step process, where rinsing is just as critical
> as the cleaning for best results. I cannot emphasize enough the
> importance of proper rinsing to the final results of audio playback.
>
> The Cetrimide (CTR) is an interesting compound. A quick search online
> indicates that it is an antimicrobial. An ultrasonic cleaner with CTR
> could be an interesting way to handle moldy media to minimize airborne
> mold spores.
>
> It also appears that Cetrimide in aqueous form is a weak base (pH < 7)
> and a surfactant. As a weak base, it might be useful for dissolving
> acids (like palmitic and stearic acid formations on transcription discs).
> As a surfactant, it helps dislodge dirt and grease and then suspends the
> contaminants on the surface of the liquid.
>
> I provisionally disagree with the comment:
>
> "that with the Monks machine some buildup may look like it is cleared
> but can reappear in time. The sonic disc cleaner does a find job of
> permanently removing the buildup."
>
> If the buildup is palmitic and stearic acid deposits, these are formed by
> the exuding of plasticizer from the laminate. After cleaning, there will
> still be plasticizer in the laminate. Plasticizers are, for the most part
> a good thing, because they keep the laminate ³plastic² (i.e. not brittle)
> and as plasticizer is lost (exuded), the laminate shrinks (which causes
> long-term delimitation from the substrate). In any case, cleaning cannot,
> and should not, remove all the plasticizer from the laminate. And any
> remaining plasticizer in the laminate will eventually leach out over time,
> then hydrolize and reform as new palmitic and stearic acid deposits.
>
> So whether a disc is cleaned ultrasonically or with a conventional record
> cleaning machine like the Keith Monks, palmitic and stearic acid deposits
> (aka ³buildup²) will reform as the plasticizer continues to exude from
> the laminate over time.
>
> And whether a disc is cleaned ultrasonically or conventionally, the
> cleaning process, such as rinsing, and the chemistry used are equally
> important as the cleaning device.
>
> Eric
>
> _________________________
>
> Eric Jacobs
> Principal
> The Audio Archive, Inc.
> 1325 Howard Ave, #906
> Burlingame, CA 94010
>
> tel: 408-221-2128
> [log in to unmask]
>
> Disc and Tape Audio Transfer Services and Preservation Consulting
>
> Please consider the environment before printing this email.
>
>
>
>
> On 11/18/14, 7:25 PM, "Rebecca Feynberg" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>I visited the National Film and Sound Archive in Canberra, Australia this
>>summer. They use an ultrasonic disc cleaner. It is quite mesmerizing to
>>watch the mold and residue lift from the grooves into the water dissolving
>>into a cloud.
>>
>>Here is a link to the company the makes the sonic disc cleaners. They are
>>not made specifically for discs but the cleaning process works well for
>>them. Elma is the company that makes the machines.
>>
>>http://www.elma-ultrasonic.com/en/products/ultrasonic-units.html
>>
>>They use a solvent in the water, called Cetrimide.
>>
>>I have heard that with the Monks machine some buildup may look like it is
>>cleared but can reappear in time. The sonic disc cleaner does a fine job
>>of
>>permanently removing the buildup.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Rebecca
>>
>>On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 9:51 PM, [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Has anyone used the current generation of ultrasonic record cleaners for
>>> professional or home use? Very pricey in the $4500+ range.
>>>
>>> Eric Nagamine
>>>
>>> ----- Reply message -----
>>> From: "Dennis Rooney" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Subject: [ARSCLIST] VINYL AND STYLUS AT 1000X MAGNIFICATION
>>> Date: Mon, Nov 17, 2014 9:17 AM
>>>
>>>
>>> I note in this thread that no one has mentioned the device that cleans
>>> discs better than any other, viz. the Keith Monks machine. Forty years
>>>of
>>> use on vinyl, lacquers and shellac confirms it.
>>>
>>> DDR
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > I have looked with an optical microscope at records before and after
>>>VPI
>>> > cleaning. Chunky dust as shown in those photographs can be greatly
>>> reduced
>>> > by wet-brush cleaning and vacuum-drying as is done by the VPI and
>>>several
>>> > other brand machines. I also looked at records cleaned with DiscWasher
>>> > (original brush and fluid) and the new velvet brush and fluid sold
>>>under
>>> > the "stanton" brand. Both left clumps of dust, wherever the brush was
>>> > rolled backward and taken off the record. I also looked at a record
>>> cleaned
>>> > with Sleeve City's spray-on fluid and their "shammy" type cloth. Not
>>>only
>>> > was dust left, there were visible small scratches caused by the
>>>cloth. My
>>> > conclusion was, I only want to use the VPI machine.
>>> >
>>> > Also, regarding syluses, I'm a big believer in that relatively new
>>> > Japanese thing that's basically a blob of tacky gel. You lower the
>>>stylus
>>> > onto the gel blob and let it sit a few seconds, then use the lifter
>>>arm
>>> to
>>> > take it up. Dust on the stylus stays on the block of gel. The gel is
>>> > water-washable and I recommend washing it regularly. Stylus
>>>dry-brushes
>>> of
>>> > the type that come included with some cartridges work OK but don't
>>> dislodge
>>> > all dust. I still have some old LAST fluid and brush from the 80s and
>>>it
>>> > does a nice job of cleaning crud off the stylus and cantilever. I use
>>> that
>>> > after every couple dozen sides.
>>> >
>>> > -- Tom Fine
>>> >
>>> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steven Smolian"
>>><[log in to unmask]>
>>> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>> > Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 3:05 PM
>>> > Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] VINYL AND STYLUS AT 1000X MAGNIFICATION
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Victor Campos wrote an article, "Gunk in the Grooves," that was in an
>>> >> American Record Guide in the 1960s. He published a group of
>>>photographs
>>> >> with it that were groove close-ups of great quality (on coated
>>>paper),
>>> >> showed all kinds of dirt problems and discussed their solutions (if
>>> that's
>>> >> the proper word.) This is well before Disc Doctor came to the
>>>rescue, of
>>> >> course.
>>> >>
>>> >> Steve Smolian
>>> >>
>>> >> -----Original Message-----
>>> >> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
>>> >> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Don Cox
>>> >> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 2:22 PM
>>> >> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> >> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] VINYL AND STYLUS AT 1000X MAGNIFICATION
>>> >>
>>> >> On 11/11/2014, Carl Pultz wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Pretty neat images. Makes it that much more amazing that records
>>>work
>>> >>> at all.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>>http://dangerousminds.net/comments/vinyl_and_stylus_at_1000x_magnifica
>>> >>> tion
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Not sure about the first two, but the third picture is a scanning
>>> >> electron
>>> >> microscope image that has been around for decades.
>>> >>
>>> >> Certainly worth pointing out for those who haven't seen them.
>>> >>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Carl
>>> >>>
>>> >> Regards
>>> >> --
>>> >> Don Cox
>>> >> [log in to unmask]
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 1006 Langer Way
>>> Delray Beach, FL 33483
>>> 212.874.9626
>>>
>>
>
>
|