Print

Print


> From: David Seubert <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 16:31:03 -0700
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Highly unorthodox cleaning methods for LP's...
>
> Duane,
>
> 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.
>
> Best,
> David Seubert
> UCSB
>
> 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"
>>> (http://aic.stanford.edu/pubs/ethics.html):
>>>
>>> "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
>>> function."
>>>
>>> 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
>>> them.
>>>
>>> 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
>>> property."
>>>
>>> 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: http://www.loc.gov/preserv/care/record.html.
>>> Some archival supply firm should make this and sell it, since the main
>>> ingredient is difficult to obtain in small quantities.
>>>
>>> David Seubert
>>> UCSB
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>> successive
>>>>> cleanings, both manually and with a machine, the sound remains distorted
>>>>> and gritty sounding. This conditions persists with every alcohol based
>>>>> product
>>>>> 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
>>>>> process
>>>>> 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
>>>>> general.
>>>>>
>>>>> When the old lemon joy gets in there it seems to dissolve the oily
>>>>> residue
>>>>> 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?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>
>>>>> 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"       |   http://discdoc.com
>>
>> ------
>> 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"       |   http://discdoc.com
>