LP maintenance on the cheap!

[cjfrbw]

Don't really have a philosophy of record cleaning, because I don't do it that much. If it were a philosophy, I suppose it would be "necessary force, but no more than necessary."

If a thrift record looks like it has stuff on it, but plays with fidelity and little discernible noise, I leave it alone. If it looks like it has stuff on it, and plays with more noise than I like, it is a candidate for cleaning. Once cleaned, they seem to stay clean on subsequent examination, excepting usual dust that can be brushed off. I can't imagine that new gunk has actually gotten into the grooves unless the record sleeve is full of gunk.

I can't really say I have heard any difference in the ones that already played well, the really dirty ones do get better after cleaning.

I do think that cleaning them is risky, the risk needs to be justified, and I would rather just listen to them. They are very tough, but I am not sure they are tough enough for multiple cleanings.

Most of the people who have heard my main big rig have listened to records from the thrift stores that have never been cleaned by me. No comments on noise or lack of fidelity.

On the second system with the Sony PS X70 turntable, I actually don't hear any more noise than I do on the main system.

[Lee]

A good way to look at records is with one of those inexpensive blue LED battery powered lights. These LED's seems to expose every grunge that can be seen on the record surface.

I haven't been able to see much on the records I have already cleaned in subsequent perusals, the LED is clamped the the turntable as a general purpose turntable light.

Reading about the machines, there seems to be endless complaints about mold in lines, failing vacuum motors, expensive fluids, clogged nozzles, dirty brushes that have to be replaced, motors that go bad etc.etc, and cleaning and maintaining the machines that do the cleaning also seems to be another chore.

Even the very expensive machines have complaints.

My basic assumption is that cleaning is a necessary evil to be done once, more than that is a risk.

In the spirit of cheapskatedness, the stuff I use are things around the house that are already there for other purposes.

I do have an ultrasonic bath that I could employ from my old office if I thought it needed it, but standard hand cleaning with steam seems to do the trick.

This does not match my experience. I have a VPI 16.5 and no problems at all for several years. A friend of mine has had one for nearly twenty years. Now a friend who had a Nitty Gritty machine has had spindles break on him but that is easily fixed.

I would also add that manual cleaning does not clean as well as a vacuum cleaning in my experience.

[cjfrbw]

Whether to clean or not to clean, what method, and what it actually accomplishes tend to be in the ultimate "subjective subjective" zone, so I suppose, do whatever makes one feel best about the condition of one's records. Cleaning is also in the realm of tweaks, and bloody religious wars are fought over tweaks. Everybody dies, nobody wins. There are already multiple pages of bizarre controversies over record cleanings on the various blogs.

I clean by hand when I do with economical materials, which is kind of what the topic was about, it is quick, cheap and I am happy with it.

[Lee]

Hey that's cool if you have a method you are happy with. I'm just observing that vacuum cleaners can be had for $350-500 and seem to work better in my experience.

[cjfrbw]

Well, to enter the fray a bit on the technical side, I would have to say that I am skeptical of vacuum devices. Barring some kind of fairly rigorous proof, I would tend to believe that no vacuum device can remove all liquid from the surface of a record, surface tension is just too high.

If my assumption about vacuums is correct, using one of the vacuuum machines would mean that taking a record from a machine that uses cleaning fluids without a rinse cycle and just a vacuum and putting it right on the turntable would mean a record that is being played with a modified "wet play" with the wet part consisting of cleaning fluid and whatever they dissolved from the record. Wet play of any kind might sound better at first, but after the drying, it might actually sound worse, with the traces of cleaning fluid and dissolved stuff just drying back on the record.

Maybe that is why the machine encourages multiple clean cycles, because they might sound nominally better after "cleaning", but need "cleaning" again to sound OK.

If one were to devise a machine, it would require a separate wash cycle, a separate rinse cycle (preferably two) with a drying method that actually can challenge the surface tension i.e. another form of surface tension that is stronger.

If the VPI machine has a good rinse cycle with air drying, that would probably be OK, but don't those machines just deposit cleaning fluid on the record surface and then vacuum it off?

Some of the machines use ultrasonics, rinse and then spin dry, but I would still think that air drying or drying with a lintless cloth or fiber would be preferable for before playback.

The hand cleaning method actually rinses and cleans the entire surface with cleaning fluid(albeit cheap stuff), brush or guaze can be used, rinses the surface twice, once with steam, then once with tap water, then drys with surface tension i.e. terrycloth and then fiber.

Again, all the alternatives seem costly, a machine that would satisfy my skepticism and behave reliably would probably cost bohoo dough. The hand method really produces a clean looking record, it is pretty impressive.

[Lee]

There are a couple of mitigants to your concerns...

1. The multiple cycles have cleaning value in terms of enzyme cleaner for fingerprints, regular wash for all else, final rinse to remove any residual chemicals.

2. The record is in fact very dry after cleaning. The vacuum wand creates powerful suction.

3. Ultrasonics are really limited to the nearly $4K Systemdek but it works really well as a friend had one for a while but sold it to raise cash.

4. The vacuum machines coat the entire surface minus the label so you do get complete "coverage".

Now if you want to save money, a couple of my friends report that the Spin Clean works pretty well.

[bblue]

Yes, every time. I told you it takes me under two minutes to clean a record. When I first bought my VPI 16.5 and was using the dreadful cleaning fluid from VPI, I actually thought records sounded worse after cleaning them and I felt I was doing them more harm than good and I basically quit cleaning records until I bought the MF cleaning fluid. I also quit using the cleaning brush that VPI provides with the machine as I didn't like that brush either. Once I started using the MF cleaning fluid, I felt every record I cleaned sounded better and they sure look pristine when you are finished.

I don't know about you, but every time I pull a record from the sleeve I see some type of mung laying on the surface of the LP. Can you clean a record too much/too often and cause damage? I don't think so or at least I haven't experienced it yet. So, if you clean your brush every time and clean the felt pads every time before you clean the record, I don't see any issues. I bought a soft toothbrush to clean both and that is folded into the two minutes it takes me to clean a side of an LP. I don't even think about it being some type of a chore. It's quick and easy.

If you pull a record from the sleeve and see junk on it that wasn't there when you last put it in the sleeve, it's time to throw those paper sleeves away and use something like the MoFi original master sleeves. They have a rice paper inner lining and never contribute anything to the surface of the disk.

If the turntable platter is clean when you place the record on it, it should be reasonably clean when you remove it (barring static electricity problems, which you can deal with). Occasional dust from the air can be removed for each playing with a carbon fiber brush. The same record can be played a multitude of times with a CF brush pass before each play (and a stylus clean) with no degradation. I guess complete cleaning on each play won't hurt anything, but what an inconvenience and waste of time.

FWIW I just purchased the Audiodesk cleaner (ultrasonic), and am very pleased with it. It does a remarkable job on everything I've thrown at it, including records treated earlier with some less-than-stellar processes (like Premier and others that leave a coating, but NOT Last). You don't have to watch it, just pop the record in place (12" only), start and come back in a few minutes. Very nice. I used to use a VPI 16.5 with Disc Doctor cleaner (excellent) and got to dread 'cleaning sessions' which took multiple hours to do many disks. I no longer have to carve out time to clean records, though the results were usually quite good.

--Bill

[bblue]

2. The record is in fact very dry after cleaning. The vacuum wand creates powerful suction.

Actually not as much as you might think. Most cleaning solution manufacturers recommend 5 minutes or more of air drying after vacuum drying (at least in a VPI). This is necessary because they also don't want you to spin the disk more than 1 to 1.5 times in dry vacuum mode, citing static electricity build up as the primary reason. It should be used just enough to get the majority of liquid off, and air dry the rest of the way.

--Bill

[whart]

I originally cleaned a record using the VPI 16.5 and then made sure it went into a high quality aftermarket sleeve and didn't clean it on next play. The problem I've found is that stray dust particles are still attracted to the record simply by the sleeving action. And using an anti-static brush creates a charge. So, unless the record looks very clean under my turntable light, I now run it through the RCM before each play. I still use the VPI- pretty cheap and quick- with Walker's 3 fluid regime (he now has 4 fluids). First time clean will include the enzyme cleaner, then the cleaning fluid, then two pure water cleanings. After the record has been cleaned once that way, I usually use just the cleaning fluid and pure water cleanings (skipping the enzyme as the first step). I have stopped using brushes because they just don't work. And, although I've owned ZeroStat 'guns' for years (and have a newish one now), I have never been good at using that device effectively. Although the Walker multiple fluid steps process sounds like a fair amount of work, it goes pretty quickly. The biggest thing I hate about the VPI is: a) the noise- it is an ear buster and b) it requires you to put a dirty side down on the mat to clean the top side. So I have to be pretty scrupulous about the mat as well, but that's never been an issue. I may migrate to one of those new fangled electronic cleaners at some point, after i have relocated and the new room is done. I'm trying to be budget conscious these days, in my new semi-retired status, at least until i get ramped up in my new life in Austin.

[bblue]

I have a constant problem with very fine cat hair floating around in the air and sticking to clothes. A couple of weeks ago when more than I thought was stuck on my shirt, every time I did anything with a record on my turntable, it immediately had a number of hairs float over to the surface, drawn there by static electricity.

I finally realized the source (me) and also noted there was an obvious potential between me walking up and handling the record which is what drew the hair to the record. My turntable and all associated hardware is grounded, except the platter. But it does have an electro-static path to ground.

Here's the trick. When you walk up to your turntable, put your hand on a ground point, either the turntable chassis, the edge of the turntable -- something -- and hold it there for a few seconds. That discharges YOU electrostatically and eliminates the potential between you and the disc. Then go ahead and remove or place the disc. Now, only when I forget to do this, do I have static problems.

When you use a zerostat, the record must NOT be on the platter and YOU should be grounded to the turntable. Otherwise placing the discharged disc on the platter will still produce static electricity. I never use a zerostat any more, but just make sure I'm grounded when handling the records to/from the platter.

I suppose it might help to use a fabric software or de-static spray on your carpeting around the turntable stand/rack would help, but I haven't tried that yet.

A carbon fiber brush will work well if you are grounded to the table when you use it. If there's an electrostatic charge between you holding the brush and the turntable, all bets are off.

--Bill