Hi David,

Yes sir.  Our approach was to develop materials & protocols to clean, if possible, all main disc substrates [lacquer, shellac, acetate, vinyl & Edison Diamond Disc] & be able to perform as well regardless of whether fluids were removed manually or with the aid of a vacuum source.  And this approach has satisfied amateurs & professionals for a quarter century.  Some users don’t want to work with the rag approach & others don’t want to spend the money on a vacuum-based approach ….. it a matter of users choice.

The most critical requirement, aside from doing no harm, was the need to thoroughly & safely remove the mold-release waxes from the groove & keep them in solution.  If you accomplish this using potent, highly water soluble surfactants of sufficient purity, the fluid can be readily removed using high density pure cotton, small loop terry cloth quite effectively.  

A rinse is still required regardless of how the fluids are removed.  If you go around 1 time & a finger width on a vacuum-wand based machine or take ~ 2 sec to pass a 7” section of cloth, loop side down, around a 12” disc, you end up with a very lightly damn surface containing a trace of the surfactants.

This small residue of the surfactants is sufficient to act as a wetting agent & permit the rinse water to penetrate the groove for an effective rinse.  

And just a comment.  I don’t like having to repeat these comments …. I’ve never joined a list to simply promote a product.  I’ve spend years around acoustic machines & have fully reconditioned both a Columbia BMWN open-horn machine and a Victor Credenza.  I’ve re-built & listened to most of Victor's & Columbia’s sound boxes and identified & use a number of modern lubricants to improve motor & sound performance.  All because I wanted to understand what people were listening to in the day & to push the overall performance.

It’s all about the beauty & enjoyment of fine sound reproduction.  

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 16, 2016, at 12:42 PM, Dave Burnham <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> Mr.Goldman
> 
> Surely you're not suggesting that any manual drying with any kind of cloth or brush is as thorough as a thread connected to a powerful vacuum that lifts the cleaning fluid residue and whatever else remains at the bottom of a groove out and removes it completely. 
> 
> db 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Jan 16, 2016, at 1:19 PM, H D Goldman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Frank,
>> 
>> I’d suggest that the first the evaluation of a cleaning approach is thru listening before & then again after the cleaned disc has been played several times.  The safety of the chemicals involved can be evaluated readily from their known chemical properties & simple testing.  Further validation comes from long term study of treated surfaces under environmental challenge.  Ultimately it comes down to the perceived value of the cleaning itself. 
>> 
>> Finally you run larger studies of the approach involving varied substrates & end user methods.
>> 
>> Electron micrographs & vibrational correlations are a wonderful idea but they won’t change the real-time data that has already been accumulated by tens of thousands of users over 25+ years.
>> 
>> 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]
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> n Jan 16, 2016, at 11:20 AM, Frank Strauss <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I have viewed this subject on the ARSCLIST several times over the past
>>> ​ ​
>>> several​ years, often with a fair bit of
>>> ​flame​
>>> attached​​​, and I think Tom is right.  Someone needs to study the effects
>>> of different cleaning regimens
>>> ​scentifically.  Anybody can say their system is the best, but until
>>> someone actually examines the whole groove before and after cleaning, there
>>> is no way of knowing for sure.  How to examine the whole groove before and
>>> after cleaning is a grand question.  Can you do it with an optical device?
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> Date:    Fri, 15 Jan 2016 07:16:30 -0500
>>>>> From:    Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> Subject: Re: 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Frank B Strauss, DMD