Entering the fray here, I have for years and years used Disc Doctor fluids
and tools on a variety of LPs and 78s, supplemented with a VPI vacuum
machine, and found them to be the best of the lot I've tried. (Although
Record Research was no slouch.) Qu'est-ce que c'est "best"? you ask. I have
only judged by ear -- both the sound and the noise. One caveat: I used only
already fairly clean discs, not any from Goodwill or the like.

With the VPI I always employed separate applicators and suction tubes for
wash and rinse to avoid cross-contamination.

While I understand some people's need for data tables. I myself am a former
optical engineer/physicist who worked on space camera projects, the results
from which were always evaluated by eye, albeit by professionals. Hence I
learned the value of observational evidence, although in our case it's by
ear. (He observed.)

clark

On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 3:18 PM, David Crosthwait <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hello Duane,
>
> I have learned a lot from your intelligent posts about this subject and I
> appreciate your insight, gained from years of experience. Keep up the good
> work!
>
> Ignore the unfortunate remarks from the "expert". Contrary to his
> suggestion to leave, continue unabated to contribute.
>
> Regards,
>
> David Crosthwait
> DC Video
> Transferring NTSC, PAL & SECAM Two Inch Quad and Helical Source Tapes (and
> More)!
>
> [log in to unmask]
> www.dcvideo.com
>
> Follow DC Video on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/dcvideo
> Follow DC Video on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/dcvideoonline
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 14, 2016, at 8:25 PM, Shai Drori wrote:
>
> > Duane
> > If this is your level of remarks then by all means leave and as far as I
> am
> > concerned don't bother to return. I find your attack on Tom ill mannered
> > and unprovoked. I like this forum because it has many different views.
> You
> > do not have to like all of them, I certainly don't, but you have to
> respect
> > others on this list. You like your product, you think it is a great one?
> > Okay, be prepared to back your claims with facts. I like my brush
> because I
> > see the dirt it pulls out of the stylus. If someone else has a better
> > gizmo, AFAIC great, better knowledge to spread around.
> > Okay, turning off the heat and back to our normal program already in
> > session.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Shai Drori
> > Expert digitization services for Audio Video
> > Hi Res scanning for film 8mm-35mm
> > www.audiovideofilm.com
> > [log in to unmask]
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 3:45 AM, H D Goldman <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> 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
> >>
>