1. Home
  2. analog
  3. 198425-183416

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.

jrcotner
antinn
481 posts
 

@richardbrand, 

I've got another million dollar question.  Does the mere act of playing a record create new electrostatic charges?

The triboelectric effect creates electrostatic charges when dissimilar insulators are rubbed together.  Diamond and vinyl are dissimilar insulators.

Do these charges create any audible noises?  Or do they attract charged dust mites which in turn act as audible obstacle courses for the stylus?

The answer to your first question was answered many years ago - Phonograph Reproduction 1978, James H. Kogen, Audio Magazine May 1978 Audio-1978-05.pdf.  However, simple carbon fiber brushes unless connected to a ground will not dissipate static from the record.  If there is a static charge, the record will have a negative charge, and particles are mostly positive charge, so they attract to the record.  Absent a static charge particles should not drop on the record since the air current will draw air down and then across but above the record - Laminar Flow Over a Spinning Disk | Ansys Innovation Courses.  Additionally, particles deposit/drop from the air at different rates depending on the particle-size - CACR25_FINAL_LR.pdf.

lewm
14,669 posts
 

Antinn, thank you for citing that 1978 issue of Audio magazine, in which in the section on ES charge, it is clearly stated that friction between stylus and vinyl does not cause significant ES charge to accumulate on the LP surface. Maybe that will finally satisfy RB.

richardbrand's avatar
richardbrand
1,385 posts
 

@lewm 

Maybe that will finally satisfy RB

That's wishful thinking!

Compared with a 10-kV needle, significant becomes insignificant!

Shure themselves seemed surprised that they did not find significant charge from diamond rubbing in the groove, but they were comparing with other causes of static like friction with liners.

But it was lovely to go back all those years and see adverts for stuff I still have.

richardbrand's avatar
richardbrand
1,385 posts
 

@antinn 

Thanks for that magazine.  It took me ages to get to the Shure article because of all the other great content!  Those were the days ...

I think you are agreeing that electrostatic charges on records attract positively charged dust particles.  We probably disagree on how hard these are to dislodge when they are micron size!

I am getting quite a lint buildup especially with new records.  Is there a chance some of this lint could be vinyl worn from the groove?

lewm
14,669 posts
 

"Compared with a 10-kV needle, significant becomes insignificant!"

What does that mean, or what do you mean by that?

More to discover