I have several re-issue LPs on reputable labels, like Classic Records for one example, that exhibit major distortions. Unfortunately for me, I waited too long after purchase to discover the problems and so cannot realistically expect any help from the manufacturer.
Vacuum Record Cleaner Rreplacement
I get most of my records from from garage sales and such, and they are typically pretty dirty. My record cleaning protocol is to run them through the vacuum record cleaner then the ultrasonic cleaner. If they have fingerprints or mold I’ll put them through the Neil Antin’s method. I’ve done it this way for years with good results.
Unfortunately, my venerable Music Hall WCS-2 needs a new cleaning wand and I’ve been told from numerous sources that the parts are no longer available. I started the hunt for a new vacuum cleaner and found a suitable replacement. Before I pull the trigger, I wanted to determine if I really need a vacuum cleaner if I’m using the ultrasonic. I’ve used both cleaners in succession more from habit than any practical reason, though I’ve convinced myself that the vacuum cleaner gets the big chunks off first and the ultrasonic does the fine, deep cleaning. I don’t know if this is true or not.
I’d like to know the thoughts of the group. I’m more than happy to buy another vacuum cleaner, but could always put that money toward something else if it is not needed.
Thanks in advance for your help.
- ...
- 85 posts total
It will be interesting if my second copies "whoosh".in similar places. They are Australian pressings and Aussie quality control is normally pretty laid back in a "she'll be right" sort of way. I have a feeling that whooshing is a vinyl consistency problem, but have no proof. There are stories of vinyl being recycled, labels and all, which could explain why you get similar whooshing on both sides. In Australia, the seller is held accountable for substandard goods, not the manufacturer, though the seller can in turn claim against the manufacturer. Not a good look for a small record store against the mighty Universal Music Group! Testing in general is a complex subject. Before software was engineered, the quip was that testing could only prove the presence of bugs, not their absense. Even today, most software is developed using debugging tools instead of engineering discipline Playing a record seems to be a bit like attending a live performance. You never know what might go wrong next |
That’s interesting. Under Australian consumer law, the clock starts ticking when the consumer first discovers the problem, and stops ticking three years later. Whether or not there is a problem depends on what a ’reasonable person’ would think. In theory. Regardless, I have never had a request for a refund or exchange knocked back by the supplier, though I feel very bad about having to ask for one |
RB, If you must know the ugly truth. This concerned (at least) one LP in a 5 record set of Miles Davis early quintet recordings, which were originally from Prestige. These all precede "Kind of Blue", chronologically. The set includes such classics as "Workin'", "Relaxin'", etc. As it turned out, I also have most of the original Prestige LPs as individual albums and so the set from Classic did not receive much play over the years until one day about 5 years ago when I decided to plow through them. I already knew that in the case of "Workin'", the original Prestige pressing was superior to the Classic LP equivalent. Anyway, when I played one of the more obscure recordings in that Miles Davis Quintet grouping, I noted an odd form of distortion. I pulled out my Prestige equivalent really to see whether the distortion might be on the master tape or something like that. This comparison showed that the Classic re-issue is grossly defective. One wonders whether the folks at Classic ever actually listened to it. Anyway, Classic Records existed between 1994 and 2010, when it was purchased by Analog Productions. So Classic as a brand was defunct for between 5 and 10 years before I discovered the problem. |
I was unable to find your linked paper, but it's common knowledge that higher temperature will improve cleaning Cavitation-dynamics-in-water-at-elevated-temperatures-and-in-liquid.pdf but the peak is about 60C (140F) with little change up to 40C (104F). As far as record cavitation cleaning is concerned, I do not see temperature as a valid impact. However, there is testing that also shows that the depth of water in the tank as multiples of 1/2 the wavelength can have a significant difference varying between 20 and 60% - (PDF) Cavitation intensity of water under practical ultrasonic cleaning conditions. Otherwise, for just basic ultrasonic cleaning, this article is excellent awad-reprint II, written by the VP of Crest Ultrasonics. Take care, Neil
|
. Adds to the sense of occasion ...- 85 posts total