I have read most of the posts on this topic but may have missed one or two.
If anyone already recommended the Keith Monks Cleaning Machine as the
summit of current disc cleaning technology, perhaps I missed it. Otherwise,
nothing cleans shellac, vinyl and lacquer more thoroughly. It's like the
motto on the pizza box: "You've tried the rest, now try the best."

DDR

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 8:11 AM, Steve Smolian <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Not offhand.  Are the ARSC printed programs on line?
>
> Steve
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom Fine
> Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 7:17 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Cleaning stylus
>
> Hi Steve:
>
> Could you cite the presentation, preferably a link to the conference page?
> I would like to study that presentation, see what their methodology was.
> LOC has resources where we may have the microscope photos and the like. I
> also hope they addressed the issues of every day cleaning of regular
> records, not just fragile problem cases.
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve Smolian" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 9:59 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Cleaning stylus
>
>
> The results of the Library of Congress' rigorous testing of record
> cleaning products were presented
> by them at a recent ARSC Conference- last year of that of the previous one.
>
> Though not named, the product that best the others, and by a considerable
> margin, was Disc Doctor.
> There are legal reasons such Government testing does not identify products
> going back to NSIT's
> earlier days.  The presentation was made in such way, however, that it was
> murkily clear that Disc
> Doctor prevailed, and this was confirmed to me privately elsewhere.
>
> Steven Smolian
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Tom Fine
> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 9:19 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Cleaning stylus
>
> Hi Duane,
>
> Personal attacks won't prove your point. But they do say a lot about you,
> and how secure you feel
> about your arguments.
>
> To keep it on a professional level, it would be helpful to the craft, and
> to your customers, to
> offer some scientific proof that wiping with a cloth will clean out a
> groove as well as vacuuming.
> And, for that matter, it would be interesting to compare imagery of actual
> grooves before and after
> with the different fluids. You put a lot of stake in an advertising
> position that your fluid is
> superior to all others, but as yet you have not shown any sort of
> side-by-side scientific proof of
> your ad claims. I'm not saying any of your claims are wrong, I'm just
> saying they are unproven. Why
> not spare the personal vitriol and concentrate on proving your claims? And
> by the way, if you did
> provide scientific proof, that would be the best advertising in the world,
> bar none. And it would
> make for a heck an ARSC Journal article!
>
> I don't think cleaning effectiveness is a matter of opinion or subjective
> "listening tests" or
> customer testimonials. It's simple -- make detailed images of dirty
> records, then maybe clean one
> side your way and one side with a vacuum machine, take images of cleaned
> records, see which one has
> less dirt left over (maybe they both clean up the same, the proof will be
> there in black and white).
> Same with fluids, images before and after, perhaps use different fluids on
> different sides of the
> same dirty record. Also test for removing mold, mud, etc, perhaps come up
> with a protocol to make a
> throw-away record worst-case filthy for testing. As long as you're willing
> to spare the personal
> attacks, I'm happy to work with you to come up with a testing regime and
> see if we can enlist the
> help of someone with proper imaging machinery. As a user of grooved disks,
> I'm really interested in
> the outcome of scientific testing.
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "H D Goldman" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 8:45 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Cleaning stylus
>
>
> Tom,
>
> And just what correlations exist to compare such images?  Even if you had
> such correlations, how
> many images would be required & at what cost?  You welcome to continue to
> take shots at products you’re
> only willing to try if someone gives them to you.  I stopped doing that
> nearly 20 years ago.
>
> Archives, major collections & 1,000s of individuals have all been fooled.
> Somehow I’d bet you’d be
> the 1st person with a decent mid-fi system or better that could not hear
> the merits of this level of
> cleaning.  I’ll make no more remarks on this thread.
>
> Regards,
>
> Duane Goldman
>
> H D Goldman Lagniappe Chemicals Ltd.
> PO Box 37066 St. Louis, MO 63141 USA
> v/f 314 205 1388  [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 14, 2016, at 7:24 PM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > Duane, can you back that up with some science? Scanning microscope
> photos of the grooves? With all
> > due respect, "repeatedly demonstrated by users" isn't scientific proof.
> I just don't believe that
> > you can "manually" remove the fluid and grime as well as vacuuming. That
> said, I do not have a
> > scanning microscope to prove my point.
> >
> > -- Tom Fine
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "H D Goldman" <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 8:07 PM
> > Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Cleaning stylus
> >
> >
> > Tom,
> >
> > It has been repeatedly demonstrated by users over the past 25 years,
> that with adequately designed
> > applicators, carefully formulated cleaning solutions, & useful
> instructions that there is not
> > difference in the playback of a properly cleaning phonograph record
> regardless of whether manual &
> > vacuum-assisted fluid removal was employed.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Duane Goldman
> >
> > H D Goldman Lagniappe Chemicals Ltd.
> > PO Box 37066 St. Louis, MO 63141 USA
> > v/f 314 205 1388  [log in to unmask]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Jan 14, 2016, at 6:19 PM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> By the way, I am NOT a fan of the Discwasher or similar "record
> cleaning brushes." They just
> >> don't clean out the grooves, in my experience. Only a wet cleaner with
> vacuum finish like a VPI
> >> or similar really cleans out the grooves. There is now an ultrasonic
> wet cleaning machine that
> >> the audiophile mags have raved about. I'd want to see some science (ie
> scanning microscope
> >> photos) to prove that it really cleans out a groove better than a VPI.
> The exception might be
> >> caked on grime, it's very possible that ultrasonic would blast out the
> grime whereas a brush and
> >> vacuum wouldn't. But this is not something typically found in cleaning
> LPs, I say that having
> >> cleaned thousands of LPs over the years.
> >>
> >> -- Tom Fine
>



-- 
1006 Langer Way
Delray Beach, FL 33483
212.874.9626