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  December 2014

ARSCLIST December 2014

Subject:

Re: VINYL AND STYLUS AT 1000X MAGNIFI CATION

From:

Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 18 Dec 2014 11:10:36 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (257 lines)

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
>>>
>>
>
> 

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

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