Record Cleaning Techniques -- Objectivist Comparison Protocol or Audiophool's Folly?

[Jake's Dad]

Dear Friends,

For those who are interested playing LP's and/or testing protocols, I am seeking your thoughts on a protocol to compare record cleaning techniques or machines.

Background

In the few last decades, there has been a plethora of hardware released to clean LP's. There is really no question that most of these approaches work, sometimes quite effectively, but the range in cost of the "legitmate" contenders is characteristically astonishing. On the low end, a vintage Discwasher brush can be had for $20 and a new SpinClean bath costs about $70. At the high end, some ultrasonic and mechanical cleaners by the likes of Clearaudio, Audio Desk Systeme and KL Audio, to name a few, cost many thousands of dollars. Regardless of the cost, the reviews of the equipment have been, to my knowledge, invariably subjective. Comments tend to be along the lines of, you guessed it, "a veil has been lifted," or frequently something more prosaic like "sounds much better/cleaner/clearer." It's hard to find a review where the writer will even go out on a tiny limb and say "Product X cleans better than Product Y." So, most reviews sound like just shilling for the product made by the reviewer's esteemed advertiser.

The Technical Problems

Like a lot of AXB testing, it's really, really hard to compare record cleaning. No two dirty records are alike. And, so far as I can imagine, you can't really clean just one side of an LP, leaving the other unmolested to be cleaned by another system for comparison purposes. So, just coming up with an "apple" to compare with another "apple" is tough.

Another set of problems arises from the measurement methodology. Do we use electronics, optics, or something else to measure the results? And what are the metrics? THD? Dust specks per square inch? Other?

The Challenge

Help the forum design a test protocol that makes sense! It seems to me there are a least two categories of winners. First, the winner in the most elaborate, Rube Goldberg-ian testing protocol category, involving many thousands (millions?) of dollars in equipment. Extra points awarded if you can either (a) do this in any garage/basement/man cave, or (b) at your employer's, in the dead of night, with your employer's very expensive gear. Extra-extra points awarded if the solution involves a scanning electron microscope or the SETI array at Arecibo. The other category would be for the simplest and cheapest techniques easily implemented by forum members to compare results. Suggestions for additional categories are most welcome!

My Goal

I really would like to see if the collective wisdom of the forum can come up with something useful. But, I'm also hoping that the members will have some fun with this challenge and enjoy the blissful, technical chaos and back and forth that could ensue, if we're lucky!

Cheers,

Alex

 

[RayDunzl]

Help the forum design a test protocol that makes sense!

Clean half the record.

You get an instant comparison on each revolution.

 

[Jake's Dad]

Clever, Ray, but the vast majority of cleaning systems rely on repeated rotation of the LP'S to clean. I don't see that it's practical to clean just half. Also, that method might possibly address "before and after" on a single LP, but it couldn't compare two different cleaning systems if I understand you correctly.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Forget the DiscWasher. It always was fairly useless, like the Watts Dust Bug before it.

I have not spun LPs for what may be approaching decades. Before CD, but steadily decreasing thereafter, I was heavily into LP and I still have thousands of them gathering dust. So, my advice is as old as the hills.

I had really great success with LencoClean wet playing. It had some inconveniences, but I was very, very happy with it. The fluid became hard to get, so I shifted gears. I do not know of any wet playing systems still available today.

I got a VPI vacuum machine, the cheapest one, using someone's stock formula fluid by the gallon. That solved the cleaning problem nicely, although the machine lacked elegance and was noisy. I still have it. Do I believe there might be sonic differences as a result of different fluids, different machines, etc. Good luck trying to prove that, except to the gullible. But, vacuum cleaning works quite well.

The other major problem is static electricity. Vacuum cleaning fixes that only temporarily. The LencoClean fixed it with each play. I never tried a Zerostat. But, I began applying Last preservative, which has an anti static property that really worked. That, after the vacuum cleaning, and a carbon fiber brush with each play meant many LPs remained fairly pristine for many plays without the need for a more laborious vacuum cleaning or more Last preservative. Last still seems to be sold, but at ridiculous prices, like about $50 for 2 oz.

Those were very good solutions for me, but the LencoClean wet system was still best. I don't know what is better today. But, in the la la land of retro vinyl, expect a lot of BS.

 

[dc655321]

I have access to a particle accelerator.
It probably won't clean your records, but it would be interesting to poke holes in the LP with a 400 kW beam

Seriously, I think @RayDunzl was on to something.
Maybe don't clean 1/2 of the same side, just clean one side and leave the other as control.

 

[Jake's Dad]

@dc655321, I think I already poked a pretty good hole in Ray's approach <joke>.

A particle accelerator. Really?! That's what I'm talkin' about. Surely we can put that bad boy to good use somehow!

 

[stunta]

1. Play dirty record -> ADC -> digital file A
2. Clean record
3. Play clean record -> ADC -> digital file B
4. Compare A & B.

Use a measured ADC. What am I missing?

 

[Jake's Dad]

@stunta, that strikes me as a very good way to compare a record before and after cleaning with "method A". ADC's are easy enough to get and at reasonable prices.

How, though, do we compare method A to method B?

 

[Blumlein 88]

I don't think you can beat the wood glue method. So that and the ADC of before and after combined with the scanning electron microscope to look at the grooves before and after. Broadcast the result on the hydrogen times pi frequency and wait at Aericibo for more advanced intelligent life to corroborate the results.

Leaving out lots of details like immersing the ADC in liquid hydrogen to lower the thermal noise floor.

https://www.apartmenttherapy.com/why-wood-glue-is-the-best-way-155894

You can listen to results of wood glue here.

 

[stunta]

@stunta, that strikes me as a very good way to compare a record before and after cleaning with "method A". ADC's are easy enough to get and at reasonable prices.

How, though, do we compare method A to method B?

I see. How about this:

1. Play dirty record -> ADC -> digital file A
2. Clean record with Method 1
3. Play clean record -> ADC -> digital file B
4. Clean record again with Method 2
5. Play clean(er?) record - ADC -> digital file C

Repeat 1-5 with another record but swap steps 2 & 4. Compare (C-B) with (C'-B').

There is likely to be variation in how dirty the first and second records are, but then the cleaning process is unlikely to be deterministic anyway. The analog domain can be frustrating like this.

 

[Jake's Dad]

@Blumlein88 Yep, definitely extra points for working Arecibo into the solution! You know, I've known about the wood glue trick for a long time, but never tried it because the drying time takes it out of the realm of instant gratification. But on second thought, what's the big rush. I think I'll give it a whirl. Like a lot of audiophiles, I have enough OCD tendencies for the peeling part to be gratifying.

@stunta, I think you may be onto something. I wonder if one could improve the accuracy of the test by picking records that visually have similar levels of dirt/dust. Also, one could run the test several times (with different records, of course) and compile the results.

Is there a statistician in the house who could opine on how many tests would be required for a reasonable level of reliability?

Thanks!

Alex

 

[TBone]

Dear Friends,

For those who are interested playing LP's and/or testing protocols, I am seeking your thoughts on a protocol to compare record cleaning techniques or machines.

If time allows, I'll post my - rather aggressive - technique(s) (no machine, but a modified vacuum).

The Technical Problems

Like a lot of AXB testing, it's really, really hard to compare record cleaning. No two dirty records are alike. And, so far as I can imagine, you can't really clean just one side of an LP, leaving the other unmolested to be cleaned by another system for comparison purposes. So, just coming up with an "apple" to compare with another "apple" is tough.

ABX testing LPs ... for cleanliness? Why bother?

Simply: A well cleaned LP offers a lower noise floor and less ticks & pops ... by removing all types of crud from within the grooves. In doing so, the stylus has a much clearer path to navigate, meaning less overall drag, and less potential wear and damage to the stylus.

I've ripped many dirty records, then the same record cleaned. Several times!!! Past the obvious decrease in noise levels and improved fidelity, you'll notice a reduction (sometimes major) in arm resonant subsonic energy - when measured.

 

[TBone]

But, I began applying Last preservative, which has an anti static property that really worked. That, after the vacuum cleaning, and a carbon fiber brush with each play meant many LPs remained fairly pristine for many plays without the need for a more laborious vacuum cleaning or more Last preservative. Last still seems to be sold, but at ridiculous prices, like about $50 for 2 oz.

I'd once used LAST rec.preserve, but no longer (although I still have some).

When I see that little round LAST sticker on a used album for purchase, it gives me pause. I have some LAST records that play quite nicely, hundreds of plays later, without much change sonically. However, some are so filled with noise, no further amount of cleaning helps. Also, I've had some funky cleaning adventures with used LAST LPs. On some vinyl, a day or two after vacuum cleaning, on closer inspection, it appears as if an oily substance leaked from the grooves. Many of those required aggressive cleaning in order to achieve useable results.

Applying LAST properly, requires it be applied post a very thorough vacuum clean. Otherwise, the noise may LAST the lifetime of LP.

 

[sergeauckland]

I use a Moth vacuum RCM, and have cleaned all my LPs over the years. Although I haven't done any controlled tests, I'm happy that apart from reducing the snap,crackle,pop of LPs, which is hard to quantify, the main benefit is that my stylus stays clean after each listening session. Before the RCM, I would have to clean the visible dust off the stylus if not after every side, certainly after a few LPs. It became standard just to run a small brush over the stylus after every side just to be sure.

Now, with my current 'clean' LPs, I still clean the stylus after an evening's listening, but there's seldom anything to clean off, the stylus looks clean using a magnifying lens, I just do it out of Good Practice. I'm sufficiently convinced of the value of an RCM that I won't play any LP unless I clean it first.

I have stylus illumination on both of my turntables, and even after cleaning, there's still a sparkling of dust particles visible on the record surface, which I normally ignore unless I can see a hair amongst the dust, in which case my carbon-fibre brush gets it off.

I've tried an ultrasonic cleaner on a couple of my 'Bad' (i.e. noisy) LPs, in the hope that it might make those quieter, but failed to detect any improvement. Ideally, I suppose, using an ultrasonic cleaner first, then a vacuum RCM to dry the LP might be the ultimate way of cleaning a record, but I don't have any evidence that it'll be better than just the vacuum RCM alone.

S.

 

[sergeauckland]

Just a thought on the Lenco wet-playing method. This gets the dirt in the groove into a muddy suspension, which theoretically, the stylus should be able to play through. It should also have the benefit of cooling the stylus which should therefore wear the LP less, but I question the wear on the stylus of playing through what is effectively an abrasive liquid.

Also, once an LP has been played wet, the mud will dry into the groove, so once played wet, that LP will always have to be played wet, or at least until given a very good clean with a vacuum RCM to remove the mud.

I'm just not convinced that wet-playing is a Good Idea.

S.

 

[TBone]

I'm just not convinced that wet-playing is a Good Idea.

Me neither.

I still clean the stylus after an evening's listening, but there's seldom anything to clean off, the stylus looks clean using a magnifying lens,

Grunge buildup on a stylus can often depend on stylus profile. As an example, the most aggressive stylus I've used (Replicant/ FG-S) required more constant cleaning than typical elliptical cuts.

 

[sergeauckland]

Me neither.



Grunge buildup on a stylus can often depend on stylus profile. As an example, the most aggressive stylus I've used (Replicant/ FG-S) required more constant cleaning than typical elliptical cuts.

I can understand the theory of that, a Fritz Geiger or indeed any line-contact stylus will have sharper 'edges' than an elliptical, but whether that needs more cleaning depends on how much dirt there is to pick up.

My two turntables currently both have line-contact stylii, (AT33ML and EMT TSD15 VdH) and neither of them picks up much dirt as there is little for them to pick up.

If your Replicant stylus picks up dirt, perhaps you need cleaner records?

S.

 

[TBone]

Don't use the Replicant anymore, nor the FG-S. I do however, still use a "Line contact" type, which stays very clean during play.

Line-contact is just a phrase, most offer very different radius profiles. Jonathan Carr's (Lyra) views on stylus profiles is very educational.

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Just a thought on the Lenco wet-playing method. This gets the dirt in the groove into a muddy suspension, which theoretically, the stylus should be able to play through. It should also have the benefit of cooling the stylus which should therefore wear the LP less, but I question the wear on the stylus of playing through what is effectively an abrasive liquid.

Also, once an LP has been played wet, the mud will dry into the groove, so once played wet, that LP will always have to be played wet, or at least until given a very good clean with a vacuum RCM to remove the mud.

I'm just not convinced that wet-playing is a Good Idea.

S.

Better to have the mud in liquid suspension frictionlessly than stuck on the grooves. In one case, the stylus easily pushes it aside. In the other, it has to navigate the stuck-on mud deposits. Sorry, but the latter would seem to have higher wear, noise, etc. But, I did not play muddy LPs of uncertain provenance with it. Just my own new purchases which were in pristine shape. And, playback was consistently the most noiseless I ever heard. And, it was cheap, except for the ongoing fluid replenishment.

Yes, it left a deposit on the groves after drying. But, the next wet play easily lifted those again with no problem, no trace. A dry playing thereafter sounded horrible. But, when later I shifted to a vacuum cleaner and fluid bath, the LencoClean deposits easily disappeared with no special effort. These were mostly my go to LPs in frequent playing rotation. I heard no harm from the LencoClean.

Yes, wet playing had some modest number of fans for awhile, though many were suspicious like you. I still say it was best for me, and I had no downsides.

 

[Wombat]

http://www.instructables.com/id/Power-Wash-Your-Vinyl-Records/