The Courteous Vinyl Playback Discussion

[Thomas_A]

Has anyone here ever bought a new record, given it a clean with a brush (say, a carbon fibre record cleaning brush), measured the audio, then wet cleaned it and measured it again, and observed a better high frequency response? Care to share?

Cheers

Just bought a new record at a live concert yesterday. (Fantastic concert by Laleh BTW...admire her strong songs*)could do the experiment recording a brand new record before and after US. Not that think it will differ though, but I have not done the experiment before.

*

 

[mike70]

Has anyone here ever bought a new record, given it a clean with a brush (say, a carbon fibre record cleaning brush), measured the audio, then wet cleaned it and measured it again, and observed a better high frequency response? Care to share?

Cheers

I don't think a carbon fiber brush can do that ... at all.
But it happened to me with a wet cleaning with tergikleen on used records, and many times.

 

[mike70]

Perl Acoustics had this comparison between MC and MM cartridges on their YouTube page, and they chaired the direct recorded files for download. Anyways, I found the MC version to sound obviously better out of the box, but when EQ matching the MM to the MC version, I could get it to sound pretty much the same. The main difference was an energy top in high frequency range, and a minor raise in the bass. The difference that was left was very minor, and I don't know if these are the general differences between MM and MC cartridges.

Well, that's what happened with the samples I sended. The question is ... maybe from a determined quality point the differences are "only" different EQs.

I had digitalized tracks with elliptical/conical styluses... and the differences are more than EQ (distortion / sibilances / ...) compared to fine line styluses.

In the samples I sended the 2 cartridges have a decent quality and microline stylus. The vm95ml is really a no brainier.

 

[undeakyetonde]

Why do I keep spelling things out and still get completely misunderstood? Apparently I need to write things out even more

If it is extremely easy to accidentally plot two different spectrograms of the same recording that demostrate the same difference as spectrograms of two different masterings (as I demonstrated and explained the mechanism behind it), then this specific difference you are observing between those two spectrograms is likely not due to mastering. Most basic scientific reasoning. Do better.

Unless, of course, you know of some mastering effect that makes bass notes to look wider on the spectrogram and looking exactly like setting a different window length - I'm all eager to discover.

You do realize that this points more to your SRC not being very good right?

How exactly does it point to my source not being very good? You yourself said it, so you must realize that very well, right? If so, maybe you could explain what is 'good' source and how it differs from a 'bad' source? Resampling must work differently on bad and good sources, and spectrogram plotting too! I don't know how that could happen, please explain

Here is what it looks like when I do the same:

44k:
...
48K:
...
96K:
...

Oh, you must be using the "auto adjustable STFT" setting. During my own iZotope use I found that zooming out and back can change frequency resolution, even though the time/frequency region the same - meaning that the algorithm is optimised for smooth interaction rather than for some ideal spectrogram plotting. And it is OK for an auto setting.

When developing such software, a user comparing two different spectrograms via this method is not a concern - people professionally comparing spectrograms (for whatever reason) likely know what they are doing and are aware of possible caveats. You evidently don't have enough knowledge of what is happening and aren't aware of caveats, since you did not look up your spectrogram settings even once to point out it is in auto mode. And you are actively resisting any explanations.

I'm sorry, but do you really know what a spectrogram is?

Those two spectrograms of two different masterings from the original post simply look as they were made using different DFT window lengths - and it doesn't matter if you set window length yourself, or some algorithm did that based on your mouse and keyboard input. I am confident enough in my knowledge to say this even when not having those two files with different masterings

I maintain that connecting a 'fatter note' on the spectrogram with it sounding 'sloppy' is utter nonsense. I find it really disturbing that a person with hundreds of posts on this 'audio science' forum posts this nonsense in an active thread and nobody steps in to say 'hey this logic isn't very sound'.

 

[MatrixS2000]

Why do I keep spelling things out and still get completely misunderstood?

Because you made the wrong initial assumption, not me.

Unless, of course, you know of some mastering effect that makes bass notes to look wider on the spectrogram and looking exactly like setting a different window length - I'm all eager to discover.

You’re asking me to deconstruct what could be the effects many, many, many plugins??? You go right ahead with that task, I will trust the measurements.

How exactly does it point to my source not being very good? You yourself said it, so you must realize that very well, right? If so, maybe you could explain what is 'good' source and how it differs from a 'bad' source?

SRC = Sample Rate Converter, not source.

Resampling must work differently on bad and good sources, and spectrogram plotting too! I don't know how that could happen, please explain

SRC comparisons - it has nothing to do with good or bad sources.

Oh, you must be using the "auto adjustable STFT" setting.

Ding ding ding, we finally have a winner!

During my own iZotope use I found that zooming out and back can change frequency resolution, even though the time/frequency region the same - meaning that the algorithm is optimised for smooth interaction rather than for some ideal spectrogram plotting.

You will need to provide proof of that beyond “during my own Izotope use” (but NOT in this thread).

since you did not look up your spectrogram settings even once to point out it is in auto mode.

Correct because I know I didn’t change them. Let me remind you that you assumed I changed them for the comparison. Would have been much easier and more in the spirit of this thread, if you just asked for my Spectrogram settings and I would have told you they are set to default other than freq. scale where I use extended log.

And you are actively resisting any explanations.

I already gave you the explanation, several times now, but you resist accepting it. The masters were different, you can dispute this I have no issue with that.

Those two spectrograms of two different masterings from the original post simply look as they were made using different DFT window lengths

You go between me not knowing what I am doing and to knowingly changing the window lengths for one capture. Please make up your mind.

 

[undeakyetonde]

My sample rate converter is SoX (-v -L). It's one of the best available non-commercially, as shown by the website you've linked. I'm sorry for assuming by SRC you meant source, but given quality of discussion that was the most obvious interpretation.

Given the above post I doubt: first, your ability to read technical things and actually comprehend what you've just read; second, your desire to have a good faith conversation - sniping individual sentences with snarky comments is not something I would like to respond to. So good luck with the sloppy wide notes and blurred details analysis, lol. Measurements are only as good as knowledge of the person interpreting them.


And I agree this went way off topic and would like to apologise

 

[Balle Clorin]

I do not care about spectrograms anyway, to blurry and fuzzy to quantify into any useful parameter or characteristic. Much easier to evaluate my own MR scan than any
spectrogram

 

[Thomas_A]

So I made an update of the HumminGuru mini review with measurements before and after ultrasonic cleaning of a new (sealed) record.

HumminGuru Ultrasonic vinyl cleaner mini review

Thank you for sharing your review of the HumminGuru. The number of cleaning cycles and time required to get somewhat clean results seems to match others experiences as well. If I am feeling lazy, I'll use vacuum cleaning or ultrasonic. But if I actually want to get a truly clean record, I'll...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[Newman]

Thanks. Based on that, wet cleaning has no effect on treble response.

 

[Thomas_A]

Thanks. Based on that, wet cleaning has no effect on treble response.

Based on this example with a new record no; I did not expect any difference either. I have only seen such an effect on used, old (dirty) records.

 

[Newman]

Based on this example with a new record no; I did not expect any difference either. I have only seen such an effect on used, old (dirty) records.

Sure, but the question is, what if you had cleaned that used old dirty record with a good carbon brush cleaner, and then measured frequency response. Maybe the same effect would have been achieved in the treble response.

 

[Thomas_A]

Sure, but the question is, what if you had cleaned that used old dirty record with a good carbon brush cleaner, and then measured frequency response. Maybe the same effect would have been achieved in the treble response.

Well I always clean my records with a carbon fiber brush before play. Except those that have been wet cleaned recently.

 

[Thomas_A]

After update. My test must be flawed and there is probably no benefit of cleaning new records with respect to noise reduction, other than it reduces static electricity that often is the case with new records.

 

[MatrixS2000]

My sample rate converter is SoX (-v -L). It's one of the best available non-commercially, as shown by the website you've linked. I'm sorry for assuming by SRC you meant source, but given quality of discussion that was the most obvious interpretation.

In a discussion about upsampling and you think that the processes involved in achieving that are not the most obvious interpretation?

Given the above post I doubt: first, your ability to read technical things and actually comprehend what you've just read; second, your desire to have a good faith conversation

Since your assumptions have been continually incorrect, I will just throw these two on the pile you’ve amassed.

I absolutely want to have a good faith conversation, but as I have already pointed out, personal attacks are against the spirit of this thread, the rules of the forum and ad hominem attacks are used by individuals who cannot argue the topic so resort to attacking the character, motive, or other attributes of the person making the argument rather than addressing the argument itself. You have done this continually and did it again right here. So which of us is not arguing in good faith?

And I agree this went way off topic and would like to apologise

We agree!

 

[MatrixS2000]

no benefit of cleaning new records with respect to noise reduction, other than it reduces static electricity that often is the case with new records.

I found this too. I also found that using a brush only to clean the record just moves whatever is on the record into the grooves.

 

[deweydm]

So I made an update of the HumminGuru mini review with measurements before and after ultrasonic cleaning of a new (sealed) record.

HumminGuru Ultrasonic vinyl cleaner mini review

Thank you for sharing your review of the HumminGuru. The number of cleaning cycles and time required to get somewhat clean results seems to match others experiences as well. If I am feeling lazy, I'll use vacuum cleaning or ultrasonic. But if I actually want to get a truly clean record, I'll...

www.audiosciencereview.com

I use a cheap spin clean, rinse with distilled water, then rack dry. New LPs with some crackle, and I’ve graded them, wet cleaned them this way, then graded again. Using the grade feature of a Parks Audio Puffin Phono DSP. Often see a half grade improvement. B- to B, C+ to B-, etc., after the wet clean.

Local store traded a customer some very valuable LPs for a very expensive ultrasonic cleaner. A Klaudio, I think. They were kind enough to clean some records for me, so I could see if it improved the grade over the spin clean. Didn’t. These could just be noisy pressings. So not really a valid test of the relative efficacy of the spin clean and expensive ultrasonic cleaner. Still curious about that.

 

[deweydm]

I use a cheap spin clean, rinse with distilled water, then rack dry. New LPs with some crackle, and I’ve graded them, wet cleaned them this way, then graded again. Using the grade feature of a Parks Audio Puffin Phono DSP. Often see a half grade improvement. B- to B, C+ to B-, etc., after the wet clean.

Local store traded a customer some very valuable LPs for a very expensive ultrasonic cleaner. A Klaudio, I think. They were kind enough to clean some records for me, so I could see if it improved the grade over the spin clean. Didn’t. These could just be noisy pressings. So not really a valid test of the relative efficacy of the spin clean and expensive ultrasonic cleaner. Still curious about that.

Should have added that I always use a carbon fiber brush before playing a side. Don’t think the grading with the Puffin was measuring a reduction in static electricity after the wet clean.

Correction. Not a carbon fiber brush. Brush using “acrylic fiber chemically bonded with copper sulfide”. Thunderon Conductive Record Brush.

 

[MattHooper]

Some of the conversation here reminds me of something I seem to experience with my ultrasonic record cleaner - the Degritter ultrasonicRecord Cleaner

When I first started using it I was surprised by what seemed like a change in tone to many records, especially brand new records that I also washed. I would listen to the records before cleaning, but after it struck me that the highs sounded a bit more darker, softer and rolled off, and leading edges of transient seemed a bit softened.

I was surprised because I certainly wasn’t expecting it and had never heard of anybody reporting that. But it seemed pretty consistent and started to bother me.
So I started to look on the net to see if anybody reported something, and I found some people saying the same thing especially the head of VPI who described precisely the issue I seemed to be hearing.

As I remember, he wondered whether the ultrasonic cleaning itself was smoothing off the grooves somewhat. But I think he ended up deciding it was more about this surfactant used.

In any case, I ended up going to a two wash scenario - one with surfactant, and then a next wash of clean water to get the surfactant off.

I can’t see for absolute sure whether this completely changed my perception, but in the end I just decided to not worry about it, and I just went on washing all my records.
I don’t really think about it anymore.

I can’t remember if anybody ever managed to do some measurements to try and detect any changes to the grooves from ultrasonic cleaning.

 

[Thomas_A]

Some of the conversation here reminds me of something I seem to experience with my ultrasonic record cleaner - the Degritter ultrasonicRecord Cleaner

When I first started using it I was surprised by what seemed like a change in tone to many records, especially brand new records that I also washed. I would listen to the records before cleaning, but after it struck me that the highs sounded a bit more darker, softer and rolled off, and leading edges of transient seemed a bit softened.

I was surprised because I certainly wasn’t expecting it and had never heard of anybody reporting that. But it seemed pretty consistent and started to bother me.
So I started to look on the net to see if anybody reported something, and I found some people saying the same thing especially the head of VPI who described precisely the issue I seemed to be hearing.

As I remember, he wondered whether the ultrasonic cleaning itself was smoothing off the grooves somewhat. But I think he ended up deciding it was more about this surfactant used.

In any case, I ended up going to a two wash scenario - one with surfactant, and then a next wash of clean water to get the surfactant off.

I can’t see for absolute sure whether this completely changed my perception, but in the end I just decided to not worry about it, and I just went on washing all my records.
I don’t really think about it anymore.

I can’t remember if anybody ever managed to do some measurements to try and detect any changes to the grooves from ultrasonic cleaning.

Recent measurements showed no change in frequency response when testing US on a new record. Used records however usually ends up with more clarity especially in the highs. But the effect is variable depending on how much grit and particles that are stuck. So I would not worry about the surfactant.

 

[mike70]

i don't think we can elaborate a "thesis" about cleaning ... because the "hypothesis" doesn't have a clear aspect: record status.

what i said (in my experience) i also saw it in the opinions here: used records improvements can be from low to exponential and brand new records usually are low, normally in noise.
I have used vacuum / cavitation ... and now i use manual cleaning (after reading the PAC book, Precision Aqueous Cleaning) with the same (at least) or better results.
I recommend to read that book and to experiment, here we got that the cheapest method is the better