First of all, I don't work for the Library of Congress so I wasn't aware of
any conflicts that you have with their preservation lab. Second, I wasn't
criticizing your products, only pointing out that all products, whether
made by a commercial company or developed in a conservation lab needs to be
evaluated by a chemist to ensure that they "do no harm." I welcome any
product that meets this standard that helps us do our jobs better.

And yes, I do wait for somebody else's approval on conservation treatments
for recordings because I am neither a chemist nor a conservator. I can't
tell a potential donor that we clean our discs with Ivory liquid. They
would understandably have a hard time taking our program very seriously if
I did.

David Seubert

At 05:13 PM 5/18/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>Hi David,
>Our ingredients, within proprietary constraints, are listed on the bottles.
>After more than 20 years of evaluation & use most of you still question the
>safety & thoroughness of a system that has cleaned 10s of 1000s of vinyl,
>shellac, lacquer, acetate & Edison Diamond Disc recording & has received
>wide positive review & most of you have never personally evaluated.  The
>LOC solution is a "do no harm" solution incapable of thoroughly cleaning
>phonograph recordings based upon chemistry not jive.  We provided, on
>numerous occasions, full disclosure of our products & nothing but excuses
>have prevailed.
>Furthermore the LOC preservation unit has had multiple samples of these
>materials for over 12 years & managed to loose them & never evaluate
>them.  It's outrageous that they would now offer such an inferior solution
>of their own concoction with little or no long term evaluation.  Somehow
>chemistry doesn't matter.
>No one can fault the safety of our formulation based upon the chemistry of
>the solution with respect to the substrates being cleaned, at least not
>anyone with a minor amount of appropriate background.  And the end result,
>that is listening to the discs will make you acutely aware of the value of
>such cleaning not to mention the total lack of negative remarks about
>materials that have been in the international market since 1992.
>Somehow none of this matters to most of you as you wait for someone else's
>approval.  Hide behind whatever documents you wish but in the long run you
>neither preserve recordings by leaving biological feed stocks in the groove
>than you can appreciate the real quality of the recording by listening to
>it in its original dirty condition.
>As a group you're offended by the presence of a commercial enterprise but
>with out our efforts how would you be any wiser.  In all candor, I'm
>disgusted by the waste of time & effort spent in our efforts to preserve
>recorded sound.  An effort that has kept me from cleaning much & listening
>to much of my own collection for decades.  It's obvious that I've wasted my
>time & efforts.
>Many of you hear digital recordings as equals of the best that analog has
>to offer.  BULL!!  If you can hear then you don't care but that's not the
>measure of a reference point.
>The LOC speaks & everyone follows, speak no evil, hear no evil!!  Shame on
>you.  It's to bad most of you do not appreciate the one consistent feature
>of the history of recorded sound - the sound didn't matter, only that there
>was a new product to sell.
>Happy listening as the bugs eat away at your prized collections.
>Duane Goldman
>PS   wait til you hear the results of thorough cleaning of lacquers prior
>to plating for a realization that we've yet to hear all analog recording
>has to offer.
>At 01:25 PM 5/18/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>>I agree with Duane that we are beyond the use of household chemicals for
>>cleaning discs. Every time I see the topic of cleaning discs raised on
>>ARSClist, I am reminded that as archivists, when we clean discs, we are
>>performing conservation treatments, regardless of our training. According
>>to article VI of the "Code of Ethics of the American Institute for
>>Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works"
>>"The conservation professional must strive to select methods and materials
>>that, to the best of current knowledge, do not adversely affect cultural
>>property or its future examination, scientific investigation, treatment, or
>>We should abide by these principles, even (especially) if we aren't
>>conservators. I would argue that archivists have the same responsibility
>>not to use household chemicals without having them tested first. With all
>>due respect to collectors (who have rescued many recordings when the
>>archival profession wasn't paying attention) household dishwashing
>>detergent is not an acceptable way to clean recordings, especially when
>>there are other, better options. Dawn and Ivory liquid probably contain
>>harmless ingredients, but without assurances and testing, we shouldn't use
>>I can't speak for Duane's products, but any manufacturer that sells
>>products to the archival community should provide full disclosure on what
>>active and inactive ingredients are in the product and what testing has
>>been done to ensure that these products will "not adversely affect cultural
>>As I have pointed out on this list before, the Library of Congress has
>>created a recipe for a wonderful cleaning product that has been tested by
>>their conservation scientists:
>>Some archival supply firm should make this and sell it, since the main
>>ingredient is difficult to obtain in small quantities.
>>David Seubert
>>At 01:09 PM 5/18/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>>>Hi Aaron,
>>>We've come a long way from the limited cleaning & residues left by using
>>>household detergents to clean phonograph records.  We invite you to hear
>>>the difference safe & thorough cleaning affords.
>>>Duane Goldman
>>>At 10:22 AM 5/18/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>>>>I have been a collector for many years and have had some records
>>>>that I have encountered that are visually perfect and still with
>>>>cleanings, both manually and with a machine, the sound remains distorted
>>>>and gritty sounding. This conditions persists with every alcohol based
>>>>I have encountered.
>>>>I took a copy of a record which suffers from this disease, NRISSTB,(no
>>>>reason it should sound this bad) and I cleaned it with one tiny drop of
>>>>dishwashing soap. I made sure to add ample water to it and cleaned it
>>>>till no
>>>>visible residue was on the disc. I then cleaned the surface again with
>>>>a record cloth to remove any late arriving airborne residue. The results
>>>>have been really amazing. These records now sound infinitely better than
>>>>the ever did with alcohol based cleaners.
>>>>These dish products are designed to "cut grease" and as I understand it,
>>>>a thin layer of oil can exist on  LP's as a result of the stamping
>>>>itself. It is my belief that this oil coagulates with time and sits in
>>>>the grooves
>>>>attracting all kinds of contaminants and grit and particulate matter in
>>>>When the old lemon joy gets in there it seems to dissolve the oily
>>>>and in the process let go of a lot of tiny noisy particles that have
>>>>been resting
>>>>there for decades...I have done this in the presence of other
>>>>collectors who were
>>>>horrified and then amazed by the procedure and the results.
>>>>Obviously, I suggest trying this first on a valueless, noisy record to
>>>>see if what
>>>>I am saying is true.
>>>>Has anyone else out there tried weird counter-intuitive "solutions" to
>>>>record cleaning and if so what have been your results?
>>>>I am sure many ARSC people and all polymer chemists will tell me I am
>>>>doing more harm than good in the long run but the immediate results are
>>>>in some cases nothing less than dazzling in my experience.
>>>>BTW, this seems them most effective on records from the mid-60's and
>>>>earlier, did the vinyl manufacturing process change after a certain
>>>>point, thus using less oil or something like that when making LP's?
>>>>Aaron (Don't try this at home kids) Levinson
>>>      ------
>>>h. duane goldman, ph.d.   |   P.O. Box 37066   St. Louis, MO  63141
>>>lagniappe chem. ltd.            |   (314) 205 1388 voice/fax
>>>"for the sound you thought you bought"       |
>      ------
>h. duane goldman, ph.d.   |   P.O. Box 37066   St. Louis, MO  63141
>lagniappe chem. ltd.            |   (314) 205 1388 voice/fax
>"for the sound you thought you bought"       |