 |
 |
Boy, my e-mail server doesn't like anything with the subject line "lubricants"; �they all get sent to my Spam folder. db >________________________________ > From: Milan P Milovanovic <[log in to unmask]> >To: [log in to unmask] >Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 9:44:39 PM >Subject: [ARSCLIST] Lubricants? > >Dear all, > >Speaking of lubricants, I often hear opinion about applying some oil (I've been told paraffin oil or some other oil) to record surface before playing it to mask scratches and crackles. I think that someone said it is "especially effective" on lacquers. I don't have any unimportant 78 rpm (even 45 or 33 rpm either) to try this method. Someone tried it? Are results of such treatment of any worth? > >Thanks, > >Milan > > >----- Original Message ----- From: "H D Goldman" <[log in to unmask]> >To: <[log in to unmask]> >Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 4:57 AM >Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] victor record conservation > > >Hi Mike, > >Please pardon this much delayed reply but family matters got in the way. Reminds me of the Neil Young tune "man needs a maid". >-------� ------� ------- > >My apology for the confusion.� My brain momentarily left the planet & I listed surfaces that can be safely cleaned with our original cleaning solution instead of only those which are pressed. > >Generally speaking, quality pressing/molding of thermoplastics such as the lac exude & polyvinyl chloride usually requires the use a mould-release agent to allow the stamper/mould to cleanly separate from the formed surfaces.� The release agent(s) can be applied to the mould/press or, as is the case with pressed phonograph discs, compounded into the matrix.� These materials migrate to the disc surface during pressing & can act as a thermal barrier protecting the disc surface from the intense heat of the stamper. The end result of the latter is a microscopically fine film on the surface of the pressed disc. > >I've seen references to early shellac pressings using salts of fatty acids, such as stearic acid as a release agent & EMI was using carnuba wax by 1908. Vinyl pressings have used a variety of waxes & oils compounded into the matrix.� EMI used RCA's vinyl formula which also used stearic acid salts as release agents. replacing the hazardous lead salts of the 78 era with low toxicity barium & magnesium salts. > >During the oil embargoes of the 60's & 70's, vinyl formulations varied from what had been the standard blend used for record production & in some cases the release agents changed as a result.� For what it's worth, I've heard claims from 3 different sources that� silicone-based release agents were added to the vinyl formulations during these embargoes. > >Generally these various release agents are not chemically bound to the shellac/vinyl matrix, rather they are entrained within it; physically trapped and also held there by weak electrostatic interaction with other components of the matrix. > >When I first heard about "lubricants" on the surface of vinyl pressings, my thought was "great!", it's going to reduce wear.� More critical consideration says otherwise.� In fact, nothing should interface the groove & stylus surfaces.� Traces of these materials affect the overall quality of playback just as the residues left from household cleaning products do. Furthermore, most of these residuals can support biological growth.� Simply put, thorough cleaning permits more accurate groove tracing & a longer life for the recording. > >Feedback over the years has shown that these differences can usually be heard with a properly set up mid-fi system.� Using a turntable with better speed control & isolation makes it easier to hear the changes. > >Most importantly with more accurate groove tracing comes a higher standard for recorded sound. > >Regards, > >Duane Goldman > > >On Jun 12, 2012, at 2:00 AM, Michael Biel wrote: > >> From: H D Goldman <[log in to unmask]> >> >>> The common contaminant to all pressed disc recordings & >>> the most difficult to safely remove is the mold release wax. >> >> What is mold release wax?� Is it something that is part of the mix of >> the material of the record?� You include it in discussing all materials >> "[lacquer, acetate, Diamond Disc & vinyl]" which include discs which are >> not pressed.� I have visited pressing plants using vinyl and styrene, >> and have seen films of many different eras of shellac and early vinyl >> pressing, and never once have I seen any hint of an application of any >> surface material in the record press other than inserting or injecting >> the record compound.� The stampers are never coated with anything >> between pressings.� The records all come off the press without any >> problem whatsoever, and often they are immediately sleeved. >> >>> It is also the most difficult material to safely & thoroughly >>> remove from the surface of a new phonograph record. >> >> So, what is mold release wax?� Since there is no evidence that the >> stampers are coated, if it is part of the chemical makeup of the record, >> how could this be a removable surface coating? >> >> Mike Biel� [log in to unmask] >> >> >> >>> This wax is poorly soluble in the pure, water-soluble, simple alcohols [methanol, ethanol, isopropanol & n-propanol]; less so when diluted with water. Bugs love this wax & while it is difficult for thoroughly cleaned disc surfaces [lacquer, acetate, Diamond Disc & vinyl] to support mold growth, once infestation is established by feeding on the mold release wax, all of these disc surfaces can be permanently damaged. For used discs a variety of contaminants including fingerprints & the micro dust from old sleeves increase the chance for mold growth. >> >> Generically speaking record cleaning is performed by sufficiently >> agitating a solution within the groove to safely & effectively wash the >> walls. >> >> We've demonstrated for over 25 yrs. that it is possible to safely & >> thoroughly clean all of these surfaces with a blend of highly rinsable, >> broad-based surfactants that includes a small but critical amount of >> analytical reagent grade n-propanol. There is an audible difference when >> the alcohol is excluded. >> >> With regards to use on Diamond Discs, Richard Warren, Curator of Yale's >> Historical Sound Recordings Collection has been using our standard >> product for years. He volunteered remarks at the ARSC meeting years ago >> in Nashville, that he obtained superior cleaning of Diamond Discs with >> our fluids & applicator, even with pressings from a period known for >> poor surfaces. >> >> All the discs used for the award winning "Lost Sounds" collection from >> the crew at Archeophone were cleaned with our system. >> >> As many of us like to make up our own cleaning concoctions, please note >> that household cleaning products rarely rinse clean from disc phonograph >> recordings; & I did say a small amount of a specific reagent grade >> alcohol. Methanol & isopropyl alcohol are not recommended, nor is >> denatured ethanol or your favorite vodka. While wetting agents can >> improve the ability of water to penetrate the groove, they do not >> inherently offer superior cleaning. Nonetheless, pairing wetting agents >> with highly focused vacuum -based fluid removal [i.e. Keith >> Monks/Loricraft] can improve performance. This same limitation was >> recently observed in comparing manual surfactant based cleaning to the >> use of a wetting solution in a well built device employing an ultrasonic >> bath. >> >> Lastly, with respect to the re-birth of the Spin Clean device, I'm >> puzzled by one observation. Most of us don't reuse the water we bathe >> in, use to brush our teeth, wash dishes or clothes in, so why is it such >> a good idea for phonograph records? The record may be cleaner than it >> was but it is exposed to all the contaminants accumulating in the bath. >> The supplied cleaning fluid is less than thorough no matter how it's >> used, although a quick pass with a Keith Monks/Loricraft would be quite >> helpful. ; >) >> >> Unfortunately both the Spin Clean & the sonicator [more than 40X the >> price of the former] were reviewed by the same person & both given >> positive recommendation. In keeping with this sort of evaluation, I'm >> often reminded that a warm solution of urea & uric acid also gives >> reasonable results when applied to most disc recording. >> >> I mean no criticism of the preferences of others as our goals may >> differ. A properly setup mid-fi system can reveal the differences >> between clean & thoroughly cleaned discs. The enhanced resolution >> increases listening pleasure, makes it easier to evaluate recordings & >> equipment as well as setting a reference point for digital playback. >> We're currently evaluating alternate methods for cleaning fresh lacquers >> prior to plating with the aim of improved resolution & quieter >> background. >> >> Regards, >> >> Duane Goldman >> >> >> On Jun 10, 2012, at 2:48 PM, Tom Fine wrote: >> >>> Mike, agree that arguments always arise, but it's important to mention NO ALCOHOL in whatever solution you use for shellac, right? Just in case someone doesn't know ... >>> >>> BTW, now to wade into the inevitable argument ... I haven't tried it but it looks to me like the Spin-Clean would be a good low-cost solution for 78's >>> http://www.spincleanrecordwasher.com/ >>> >>> THAT SAID, if I were buying it, I would contact the company and ask them point-blank if they guarantee their solution is alcohol-free and safe for shellac before using it on your 78's. >>> >>> The reason I like this machine is that it keeps the label dry but thoroughly soaks the groove area, and it's less sloppy than a slop-sink and sponge. >>> >>> -- Tom Fine >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Biel" <[log in to unmask]> >>> To: <[log in to unmask]> >>> Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2012 3:42 PM >>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] victor record conservation >>> >>> >>> From: Patrick Sumner <[log in to unmask]> >>>> To whom it may concern: wondering if someone knows how to clean vintage >>>> "Victor" records-a few have a green mold, most are just stored vertically in >>>> the area below the player. Also, would there be anyone in the Louisville, >>>> Ky area able to "check-out" the functions.many thanks, patrick >>> >>> The "functions" of what???? >>> >>> There's very little in shellac records for mold to grow on. The problem >>> possibly is with the sleeves, and especially the cardboard of any >>> albums. It will probably clean off by cleaning them the usual way >>> (arguments always arise when record cleaning is mentioned) but the >>> sleeves and album covers will reinfect the cleaned records if they are >>> the problem. And the wood and varnish of the player might also be a >>> problem. The insides of the player need to be dried out, aired out, and >>> possibly sealed. You don't mention the vintage of either the player or >>> the records. Is it a wind-up and these are acoustical records, or is it >>> a modern console? Stored in a damp basement? >>> >>> Mike Biel [log in to unmask] >>> >> >> H D Goldman Lagniappe Chemicals Ltd. >> PO Box 37066 St. Louis, MO 63141 USA >> v/f 314 205 1388 [log in to unmask] >> >> > >H D Goldman Lagniappe Chemicals Ltd. >PO Box 37066 St. Louis, MO 63141 USA >v/f 314 205 1388 [log in to unmask] > >