Print

Print


I believe that H.Duane Goldman IS a chemist and holds a Doctorate in
more than disks.

Rod Stephens
Family Theater Productions

[log in to unmask] wrote:

>>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
>>>
>>>
>
>
>