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  January 2016

ARSCLIST January 2016

Subject:

Re: Cleaning stylus

From:

H D Goldman <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Sat, 16 Jan 2016 14:46:43 -0600

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (126 lines)

Hi Eric,

As you may know, we have also modified our Miracle Record Cleaner to improve performance when dealing with “heavy” palmitic acid residues.  This is accomplished by using a carefully selected , high-purity buffer to deal with pH change caused by the larger deposits.

To my understanding, the LOC has found this a useful product.  Our own instructions offer a simple, effective approach to dealing with any “dust” left after rinsing & air drying.  It’s the same instruction one gives for handling disc media before & after playback:
Apply a carbon fiber brush to vinyl surfaces before & after playback & use an appropriately configured crushed velvet duster for shellac, acetate, lacquer & Edison Diamond surfaces.

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 1:32 PM, Eric Jacobs <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> The benefit of a Keith Monks RCM is that it uses minimal contact as it removes the fluid and contaminants. The thread is used to maintain a gap between the suction head and the grooves - the thread doesn't actually clean the grooves.  The thread spool is on a slow continuous gear motor, so new clean thread is continuously in contact with the disc surface. The thread is fine, synthetic, and lintless.
> 
> I mention all this because it might be conceivably possible to achieve similar results to the Keith Monks with a manual method, but efficiency, proficiency, and consistency would all be challenges with any manual technique. For example, removing excess fluid without leaving any dust or lint behind would be a challenge without using a vacuum of some kind. If a cloth is involved, discipline and careful technique would be needed to dry the disc with anything but clean, dust-free and lint-free cloth.
> 
> For any volume work, manual techniques may not be practical. Again, automated cleaning tends to be far more consistent.
> 
> After testing a variety of archival cleaning solutions and recommended formulations, we've chosen to use Disc Doctor cleaning solution AND cleaning brushes.  The Disc Doctor brushes, in our experience, outperform the vaunted Keith Monks brush when proper technique is used.
> 
> To remove palmitic and stearic acid deposits from electric transcription discs, we modify the Disc Doctor solution slightly for more efficient cleaning (resulting in less mechanical scrubbing and shorter fluid contact times) based on much research on our side. If you search my past ARSC list postings, you'll find all the details (ca 2005).
> 
> ~ Eric Jacobs
> 
> The Audio Archive
> Tel:408-221-2128
> mailto:[log in to unmask]
> 
> 
> On Jan 16, 2016, at 10:42 AM, 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

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

December 2020
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