Print

Print


Duane
If this is your level of remarks then by all means leave and as far as I am
concerned don't bother to return. I find your attack on Tom ill mannered
and unprovoked. I like this forum because it has many different views. You
do not have to like all of them, I certainly don't, but you have to respect
others on this list. You like your product, you think it is a great one?
Okay, be prepared to back your claims with facts. I like my brush because I
see the dirt it pulls out of the stylus. If someone else has a better
gizmo, AFAIC great, better knowledge to spread around.
Okay, turning off the heat and back to our normal program already in
session.

Cheers
Shai Drori
Expert digitization services for Audio Video
Hi Res scanning for film 8mm-35mm
www.audiovideofilm.com
[log in to unmask]

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 3:45 AM, H D Goldman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Tom,
>
> And just what correlations exist to compare such images?  Even if you had
> such correlations, how many images would be required & at what cost?  You
> welcome to continue to take shots at products you’re only willing to try if
> someone gives them to you.  I stopped doing that nearly 20 years ago.
>
> Archives, major collections & 1,000s of individuals have all been fooled.
> Somehow I’d bet you’d be the 1st person with a decent mid-fi system or
> better that could not hear the merits of this level of cleaning.  I’ll make
> no more remarks on this thread.
>
> 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 14, 2016, at 7:24 PM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > Duane, can you back that up with some science? Scanning microscope
> photos of the grooves? With all due respect, "repeatedly demonstrated by
> users" isn't scientific proof. I just don't believe that you can "manually"
> remove the fluid and grime as well as vacuuming. That said, I do not have a
> scanning microscope to prove my point.
> >
> > -- Tom Fine
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "H D Goldman" <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 8:07 PM
> > Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Cleaning stylus
> >
> >
> > Tom,
> >
> > It has been repeatedly demonstrated by users over the past 25 years,
> that with adequately designed applicators, carefully formulated cleaning
> solutions, & useful instructions that there is not difference in the
> playback of a properly cleaning phonograph record regardless of whether
> manual & vacuum-assisted fluid removal was employed.
> >
> > 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 14, 2016, at 6:19 PM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> By the way, I am NOT a fan of the Discwasher or similar "record
> cleaning brushes." They just don't clean out the grooves, in my experience.
> Only a wet cleaner with vacuum finish like a VPI or similar really cleans
> out the grooves. There is now an ultrasonic wet cleaning machine that the
> audiophile mags have raved about. I'd want to see some science (ie scanning
> microscope photos) to prove that it really cleans out a groove better than
> a VPI. The exception might be caked on grime, it's very possible that
> ultrasonic would blast out the grime whereas a brush and vacuum wouldn't.
> But this is not something typically found in cleaning LPs, I say that
> having cleaned thousands of LPs over the years.
> >>
> >> -- Tom Fine
>