Print

Print


Hi Dennis,

With all due respect, it has been repeatedly demonstrated for over 20 yrs., that with appropriately configured applicators & properly formulated water-based solutions, manual cleaning can be every bit as safe & thorough as machine-aided designs.

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 16, 2016, at 10:02 AM, Dennis Rooney <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> I have read most of the posts on this topic but may have missed one or two.
> If anyone already recommended the Keith Monks Cleaning Machine as the
> summit of current disc cleaning technology, perhaps I missed it. Otherwise,
> nothing cleans shellac, vinyl and lacquer more thoroughly. It's like the
> motto on the pizza box: "You've tried the rest, now try the best."
> 
> DDR
> 
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 8:11 AM, Steve Smolian <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>> Not offhand.  Are the ARSC printed programs on line?
>> 
>> Steve
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:
>> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom Fine
>> Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 7:17 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Cleaning stylus
>> 
>> Hi Steve:
>> 
>> Could you cite the presentation, preferably a link to the conference page?
>> I would like to study that presentation, see what their methodology was.
>> LOC has resources where we may have the microscope photos and the like. I
>> also hope they addressed the issues of every day cleaning of regular
>> records, not just fragile problem cases.
>> 
>> -- Tom Fine
>> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Steve Smolian" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 9:59 PM
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Cleaning stylus
>> 
>> 
>> The results of the Library of Congress' rigorous testing of record
>> cleaning products were presented
>> by them at a recent ARSC Conference- last year of that of the previous one.
>> 
>> Though not named, the product that best the others, and by a considerable
>> margin, was Disc Doctor.
>> There are legal reasons such Government testing does not identify products
>> going back to NSIT's
>> earlier days.  The presentation was made in such way, however, that it was
>> murkily clear that Disc
>> Doctor prevailed, and this was confirmed to me privately elsewhere.
>> 
>> Steven Smolian
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:
>> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>> Tom Fine
>> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 9:19 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Cleaning stylus
>> 
>> Hi Duane,
>> 
>> Personal attacks won't prove your point. But they do say a lot about you,
>> and how secure you feel
>> about your arguments.
>> 
>> To keep it on a professional level, it would be helpful to the craft, and
>> to your customers, to
>> offer some scientific proof that wiping with a cloth will clean out a
>> groove as well as vacuuming.
>> And, for that matter, it would be interesting to compare imagery of actual
>> grooves before and after
>> with the different fluids. You put a lot of stake in an advertising
>> position that your fluid is
>> superior to all others, but as yet you have not shown any sort of
>> side-by-side scientific proof of
>> your ad claims. I'm not saying any of your claims are wrong, I'm just
>> saying they are unproven. Why
>> not spare the personal vitriol and concentrate on proving your claims? And
>> by the way, if you did
>> provide scientific proof, that would be the best advertising in the world,
>> bar none. And it would
>> make for a heck an ARSC Journal article!
>> 
>> I don't think cleaning effectiveness is a matter of opinion or subjective
>> "listening tests" or
>> customer testimonials. It's simple -- make detailed images of dirty
>> records, then maybe clean one
>> side your way and one side with a vacuum machine, take images of cleaned
>> records, see which one has
>> less dirt left over (maybe they both clean up the same, the proof will be
>> there in black and white).
>> Same with fluids, images before and after, perhaps use different fluids on
>> different sides of the
>> same dirty record. Also test for removing mold, mud, etc, perhaps come up
>> with a protocol to make a
>> throw-away record worst-case filthy for testing. As long as you're willing
>> to spare the personal
>> attacks, I'm happy to work with you to come up with a testing regime and
>> see if we can enlist the
>> help of someone with proper imaging machinery. As a user of grooved disks,
>> I'm really interested in
>> the outcome of scientific testing.
>> 
>> -- Tom Fine
>> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "H D Goldman" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 8:45 PM
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Cleaning stylus
>> 
>> 
>> 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
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 1006 Langer Way
> Delray Beach, FL 33483
> 212.874.9626