kap'n krunch
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
They are 11" by 9.5"...
Cleaning Vinyl LPs
- Thread starter J. PUPSTER
- Start date
Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:
I remember the aforementioned article about the stylus causing heat in the groove , back in the day. Some of the things stated in that article didn't make much sense to me at the time nor now. Especially the one about not playing records twice in a row because they need to cool off. If that were true the stylus would be hot and the adhesive bond between the stylus and the cantilever would fail. (I know sometimes its not adhesive)
Also when I bought my Wheels of Fire LP when it came out, I liked it so well , that I bought a second copy to use as an "archive copy" I have never felt the need to open that one and back in the day I played the first one a lot. It was my show off the stereo recording1970-71 along with the Fab Four. It still sounds great.
I think a lot of the development of LPs was cut and try rather than actual engineering, building on what they already knew about making 78s.
Also records and sleeves and jackets are great static charge holders which attracts dust very quickly unless you happen to live in a clean room.
There is certainly a great deal of lore surrounding LP cleaning. And I think almost as much snake oil as in other parts of audio. "Dr. Kermuss" states that the frequency of the overpriced ultra sonic cleaner (the one he would like to sell you) is the correct frequency for vinyl which "all those other ones , are not" . This is another bit of nonsense in my not humble opinion. (I started using ultrasonic cleaners in 1970, and I have had four of them) It ignores how they actually work and also banks on the idea the the consumer doesn't know how they work either. They are probably a very good way to clean a very dirty record. However I don't dust off one of my ultrasonics and use it on records. I have never found it necessary.
Everyone has their favorite cleaning solution. My opinion on this is , it doesn't matter very much. First off , it ain't th space shuttle it's just a record.
Vinyl is fairly rugged so if you want to clean it, some tap water first to wet it and knock off the surface dust, and then a solution with various detergents. Purists like to use Tergitol because supposedly the Liberry of Congress uses it. Probably they gave it to them and it didn't do any harm. (Which remember the Hippocratic "Primum non nocere" first do no harm) For my own use I find that Dawn detergent which is widely recommended in various literatures and lores by both scientists and mechanics works very well. So I don't spend $30 on a bottle of detergent. I also add about 3% each of ethanol and isopropanol. (and replace them in long sessions) Alcohol is a very detergent addition to water and evaporates away quickly. While this solution is on, you can brush or fill your ultrasonic with it. Then rinse good with hot tap water and flush twice with DI water. I have not noticed a sound difference between rinsing with grocery store purified water and fancy purified water (As pure as it is possible to make it 18.2 megohm-cm ) that I frequently bring home from work since we have multiple dispensers and it is good for them to be flushed. In the final flush it is good to use a vacuum to remove most of the water.
Results seem pretty variable. Sometimes an LP sounds brand new. Other times it sounds like you didn't do anything.
This seems also, a reasonable time to mention microfiber cloths. I never have actually used one on a record but expect too soon. I HAVE used them since shortly after they came out on my extensive optical gear (both at home and at work) I refer to them as one of the great inventions of Western Civilization (they were invented in Japan
) They are great for cleaning optical lenses and mirrors and I have used them on CDs. As midimagic pointed out you have to make sure that they don't have an oily dust grabbing compound on them (the ones labeled for optical use don't) They look to the nekkid eye like regular soft cloth. But they really grab stuff. And you can launder them.
Swiffers magic is they expose them to extremely high DC voltage fields while the polymers are at softenng point and this causes the fibers to expose charged portions which grab dust. Sort of like an electret condenser microphone element. Whether there is a dust collecting chemical could be determined by cleaning a piece of glass and then applying the swiffer (or any other thing) and looking for the residue which would be quite visible.
I can imagine that if one is rassling with the subject of playing back CD-4 recordings it is possible that some of these technique differences might make more difference than in regaler stereo. I don't think anyone has bothered with any/much actuall scientific research on the subject even though the market for LPs was once massive.
Also when I bought my Wheels of Fire LP when it came out, I liked it so well , that I bought a second copy to use as an "archive copy" I have never felt the need to open that one and back in the day I played the first one a lot. It was my show off the stereo recording1970-71 along with the Fab Four. It still sounds great.
I think a lot of the development of LPs was cut and try rather than actual engineering, building on what they already knew about making 78s.
Also records and sleeves and jackets are great static charge holders which attracts dust very quickly unless you happen to live in a clean room.
There is certainly a great deal of lore surrounding LP cleaning. And I think almost as much snake oil as in other parts of audio. "Dr. Kermuss" states that the frequency of the overpriced ultra sonic cleaner (the one he would like to sell you) is the correct frequency for vinyl which "all those other ones , are not" . This is another bit of nonsense in my not humble opinion. (I started using ultrasonic cleaners in 1970, and I have had four of them) It ignores how they actually work and also banks on the idea the the consumer doesn't know how they work either. They are probably a very good way to clean a very dirty record. However I don't dust off one of my ultrasonics and use it on records. I have never found it necessary.
Everyone has their favorite cleaning solution. My opinion on this is , it doesn't matter very much. First off , it ain't th space shuttle it's just a record.
Vinyl is fairly rugged so if you want to clean it, some tap water first to wet it and knock off the surface dust, and then a solution with various detergents. Purists like to use Tergitol because supposedly the Liberry of Congress uses it. Probably they gave it to them and it didn't do any harm. (Which remember the Hippocratic "Primum non nocere" first do no harm) For my own use I find that Dawn detergent which is widely recommended in various literatures and lores by both scientists and mechanics works very well. So I don't spend $30 on a bottle of detergent. I also add about 3% each of ethanol and isopropanol. (and replace them in long sessions) Alcohol is a very detergent addition to water and evaporates away quickly. While this solution is on, you can brush or fill your ultrasonic with it. Then rinse good with hot tap water and flush twice with DI water. I have not noticed a sound difference between rinsing with grocery store purified water and fancy purified water (As pure as it is possible to make it 18.2 megohm-cm ) that I frequently bring home from work since we have multiple dispensers and it is good for them to be flushed. In the final flush it is good to use a vacuum to remove most of the water.
Results seem pretty variable. Sometimes an LP sounds brand new. Other times it sounds like you didn't do anything.
This seems also, a reasonable time to mention microfiber cloths. I never have actually used one on a record but expect too soon. I HAVE used them since shortly after they came out on my extensive optical gear (both at home and at work) I refer to them as one of the great inventions of Western Civilization (they were invented in Japan
) They are great for cleaning optical lenses and mirrors and I have used them on CDs. As midimagic pointed out you have to make sure that they don't have an oily dust grabbing compound on them (the ones labeled for optical use don't) They look to the nekkid eye like regular soft cloth. But they really grab stuff. And you can launder them.Swiffers magic is they expose them to extremely high DC voltage fields while the polymers are at softenng point and this causes the fibers to expose charged portions which grab dust. Sort of like an electret condenser microphone element. Whether there is a dust collecting chemical could be determined by cleaning a piece of glass and then applying the swiffer (or any other thing) and looking for the residue which would be quite visible.
I can imagine that if one is rassling with the subject of playing back CD-4 recordings it is possible that some of these technique differences might make more difference than in regaler stereo. I don't think anyone has bothered with any/much actuall scientific research on the subject even though the market for LPs was once massive.
Last edited:
kap'n krunch
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
well, I personally don't think that it'd be anything too damaging to vinyl, especially since I immediately clean it with water and a bit alcohol afterwards...
In response to a few of @kap'n krunch's posts on another thread (probably a better place for them here maybe )
https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/fo...n-the-turntable-now.28188/page-87#post-648184
I did some work on an old 70's Japanese CD-4 I'd Demoded/ripped and ran a section through RX 8 De-Click and De-Crackle. If you read iZotope's preferred method for these; they recommend run De-Click first and then De-Crackle for a finisher. This will not typically get rid of all vinyl noise and some additional Noise Reduction may be warranted (I usually do some in Audacity afterwards.)
Here's my typical settings and some audio samples at the bottom (reduced to 44.1 x 16 wav to save space) outputting just the Clicks and Crackle from these settings.
De-click:
Algorithm- Multiband (random clicks)
Sensitivity- 3
Frequency Skew- 0
Click Widening ms- 0
De-crackle:
Quality- High
Strength- 5
Amplitude Skew- 0
*Exciting stuff Idn't ?
)https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/fo...n-the-turntable-now.28188/page-87#post-648184
I did some work on an old 70's Japanese CD-4 I'd Demoded/ripped and ran a section through RX 8 De-Click and De-Crackle. If you read iZotope's preferred method for these; they recommend run De-Click first and then De-Crackle for a finisher. This will not typically get rid of all vinyl noise and some additional Noise Reduction may be warranted (I usually do some in Audacity afterwards.)
Here's my typical settings and some audio samples at the bottom (reduced to 44.1 x 16 wav to save space) outputting just the Clicks and Crackle from these settings.
De-click:
Algorithm- Multiband (random clicks)
Sensitivity- 3
Frequency Skew- 0
Click Widening ms- 0
De-crackle:
Quality- High
Strength- 5
Amplitude Skew- 0
*Exciting stuff Idn't ?
Last edited:
kap'n krunch
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
you can also PREVIEW it and that's how you can hear the music being eaten cause the clicks will have the same rhythm as the musicIn response to a few of @kap'n krunch's posts on another thread (probably a better place for them here maybe
https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/fo...n-the-turntable-now.28188/page-87#post-648184
I did some work on an old 70's Japanese CD-4 I'd Demoded/ripped and ran a section through RX 8 De-Click and De-Crackle. If you read iZotope's preferred method for these; they recommend run De-Click first and then De-Crackle for a finisher. This will not typically get rid of all vinyl noise and some additional Noise Reduction may be warranted (I usually do some in Audacity afterwards.)
Here's my typical settings and some audio samples at the bottom (reduced to 44.1 x 16 wav to save space) outputting just the Clicks and Crackle from these settings.
De-click:
Algorithm- Multiband (random clicks)
Sensitivity- 3
Frequency Skew- 0
Click Widening ms- 0
De-crackle:
Quality- High
Strength- 5
Amplitude Skew- 0
*Exciting stuff Idn't ?
View attachment 83441
I would think it important to listen to what's being removed via Preview to make sure you aren't removing anything you don't want to. I have something called Click Repair (for Mac) and the gentleman who came up with the app advises just that thing as his app can remove some of the music if adjusted too aggressively. For me personally it works great and the very few minor things that get through I won't hear as most of my listening is not in a dead quiet environment - some I can just barely hear through phones.
I'm looking for a machine to clean my LPs (hopefully better than manually!), I've a lot 1000-1500 not sure how many! (sadly only a few Quad). I want to spend a reasonable amount, but not go nuts. I saw this vacuum based machine VC-S2 ALU from Pro-ject (who make some good TTs), amazon.co.uk has it for £359 which seems reasonable. Anybody got one? Are they any good?
The thing that did amuse me was the reference to Surround Sound Channel Configuration 2.0!
The thing that did amuse me was the reference to Surround Sound Channel Configuration 2.0!
the Pro-ject machines have a good reputation. Having tried many methods over 40 years, and having owned a Loricraft machine for the last 20+, I do believe vacuuming is a critical finishing piece. That said, I think materials and methods used make even more difference. I started with the US Library of Congress research a few years back. today, I think the most thorough and effective cleaning methods are outlined in this document: Precision Aqueous Cleaning of Vinyl Records, 3rd edition. The comments on vacuum cleaning raised points I hadn't thought about, especially filtering of air being drawn to the record while vacuuming. If you haven't read the publication linked above, you might want to do so before committing to any one machine or method. The thorough analysis is impressive - with 1500 records, I'm sure you'll want to do the absolute best job you can.I'm looking for a machine to clean my LPs (hopefully better than manually!), I've a lot 1000-1500 not sure how many! (sadly only a few Quad). I want to spend a reasonable amount, but not go nuts. I saw this vacuum based machine VC-S2 ALU from Pro-ject (who make some good TTs), amazon.co.uk has it for £359 which seems reasonable. Anybody got one? Are they any good?
The thing that did amuse me was the reference to Surround Sound Channel Configuration 2.0!
Last edited:
i have the old version of this Pro-Ject RCM and 6 or 7 years later its still working fine.I'm looking for a machine to clean my LPs (hopefully better than manually!), I've a lot 1000-1500 not sure how many! (sadly only a few Quad). I want to spend a reasonable amount, but not go nuts. I saw this vacuum based machine VC-S2 ALU from Pro-ject (who make some good TTs), amazon.co.uk has it for £359 which seems reasonable. Anybody got one? Are they any good?
View attachment 85452
The thing that did amuse me was the reference to Surround Sound Channel Configuration 2.0!
certain aspects of it could be improved, fit and finish mainly rather than performance, although its a noisy beast even when its not sucking!
for the money it beats my previous method of scrubbing my 12-inchers in the sink in my marigolds, upto my elbows in Fairy!
I own that version, VC-S2, and have been pleased with it. A lot of turning on an off with the vacuum switch and the rotate switch. Rather loud too but goes with the territory of vacuums. Be sure to get some extra pads somewhere that stick to the suction bar between the slit. Great cleaner for the price and fits in nice in a modern aesthetic.
Similar threads
