Your Thoughts And Experience With Last Record Preservative.

Good report. Thank you.

 

I don't even know what that means.

 

Discover Lasting friendships, find friends who use LAST.

 

Oww! I'm not sure whether I should Like that post or put you on Ignore. As I have to admit I wish I'd made that joke, I'll go for Like.

 

it's just .... bad

 

The LAST Preservative, just to be clear, does not coat! It is the only product related to record care that doesn't coat or lay as an extra chemical on the LP. This seemingly minor quibble only contributes to the total misunderstanding of what LAST is, so thank you for the opportunity to reinsert this important detail again at this stage in the thread!

How many is based on how much you use. Ten people following the same directions will not likely have the same amount of completed LP's but it should be in the vicinity of 90 give or take..

 

Yes, no residue on the stylus, just a very slippery groove.

 

First of all, you were "told" it was LAST, from someone who said it was applied over 30 years ago? You didn't use it, "someone else" says they did. No one has any idea if it was LAST or something else. Anything could be on that LP other than LAST. I find it incredulous that not a single other post of the dozens of folks who have used this for decades have never reported this, yet on hear say you discredit the product and others findings. There's no evidence that LAST is truly on these LP's nor is there any evidence anyone who has used LAST has drawn white material onto their stylus. This in itself says something missing is going on here. You're outnumbered by everyone who uses it. Whatever you have going on, it isn't LAST causing it. Stating so as if it's fact is in poor character. Stating that you wonder if such a circumstance could be the result of using LAST; that would be redeemable. And the answer would be "not a chance".

As far as the comment about selling my LPs online, I would proudly display and assert anything about my LP's history and care. I don't obfuscate anything or anyone but give full disclosure. People that know what's going on would be drawn to them. Skeptics would naturally be repelled, and that's perfectly fine with me. If I put LAST on an LP it wouldn't be because I planned to sell it anyway

I know, you'll quote that and say "good". Aww, beat you to it . .

 

Are you the dog from the bacon commercial? Please see below instructions:

Completely Prevent Record Wear
Industry-acclaimed treatment that prevents the development of annoying pops and clicks and maintains "as new"
condition for 200 plays or more.
LAST Record Preservative has been universally applauded by the super-critical reviewers and editors of audio publications.
New records treated
with LAST Record Preservative and kept clean can be played 100's of times without discernible wear--allowing them to be in
pristine condition
for future generations.
LAST Record Preservative chemically enhances the molecular stability, and therefore the cohesiveness of the groove surface
so that it completely resists the damaging effects of stylus shock waves.
The 30-second treatment affects the vinyl to a depth of about ten molecular layers and becomes part of the groove wall.
There are no surface residues that can be picked up by the stylus. In fact, overuse is harmless.

 

Hello,
Can anyone help me regarding how to apply the product on the provided brush without wasting product while ensuring there is enough to treat the record ?

 

I bought a bottle 2 or 3 years ago. I used it on about 25 of my LPs after washing with MoFi solutions. It did make some old ones with a lot of surface noise sound better. I examined my stylus under a microscope after 4 sides and could see no goo. I stopped using it because I found a better way to wash my LPs using a formula that includes Tergitol and Hepastat. This treatment seems to reduce surface noise even more and does a better job reducing static. I think the BEST treatment I ever used was Sound Guard. LPs I treated in the late seventies still sound and look great and rarely need to even be brushed before playing. I wish I could get some of that stuff again!
I have washed a few of my LAST treated LPs with the new formula and there seem to be no ill effects.

If you've ever tried to sell a "collectible" record, it's hard to get more than a few bucks for anything. I have an mint, autographed Al Hirt and a mis-pressed rarity for sale now and no takers for a month. I brought a brand new Jack White Lazaretto (the one with the dancing angel hologram) to the record store to sell. The stiff offered me $2, if I recall. So I don't worry about stickers. I put a small piece of a Avery label on the back corner of the LPs I clean with the date. Special LPs get an outer sleeve and the label goes on that. If I saw an LP with a LAST sticker in the used bin I'd consider it added value.

 

For me, on a used record, a Last sticker is a sign of a potentially careful owner. People who bought Last tended to be for me more likely to have made an effort to care for their collections.

 

EMITEX was a treated anti static cleaning cloth for records. Not applied when pressed. Used by record owners. Use EMITEX or Super EMITEX is common on EMI sleeves over many years. And not recommended for owners of high end light tracking tonearms, as those cloths were more dirt and trash ground into records.

 

Marketing slogan the company should have used, "Think LAST first..."

 

A reasonable experiment, and I commend the effort to do this with the help of your wife to check the results. One thing I believe is an important criteria that must be considered in a well-intended experiment you both conducted. I have duplicate LPs, in some cases multiple editions if the same LP with the idea of finding the best sounding version. In many cases any variation in sound quality can be attributed by the history of playback on each LP. To convolute it further, the mastering may very well be different on each LP.

Several years ago I was stunned when trying to establish which version of a Linda Ronstadt LP was in better condition than another I had. I was listening for pops, clicks, and low-level surface noise. Seemed to be easy enough; clean both well, listen and decide. Not so! I discovered there was another factor that I'd not considered.

The first track on side 2 of LR's "Get Closer" LP (I Think It's Gonna Work Out Fine) made it clear one LP was clearly more revealing of the attack and inner-detail in the overall sound and decay of the snare drum. I stopped listening for variances in noise artifacts because this new difference was startling. I may have overlooked this if it hadn't been for the direct A/B comparison of that short intro. When you discover something like this it changes the game of assuming one LP is the same as another, even if identical by all visual accounts. I came to find they were different in matrix numbers. I have five copies of Santana's "Welcome" LP for this reason, so I could discover not just the quietest, but best mastering! It's a game changer for sure.


That said, it must be stated that both LP's you used would need to be closely examined as sonically identical in noise, groove wear, and mastering prior to applying any treatment to one of them, or issues regarding differences between the copies could be noticed after the fact.


I think it's great that you did this experiment and I also like investigating what makes one thing better in playback than another. I just wanted to post how important conditions that may be outside the awareness radar can show themselves later when paying attention entirely to something else. It would be a great experiment if there were two identical LPs of the same mastering and sonic differences identified prior to treatment, both cleaned to the best degree and aurally examined. Once any differences have been noted, then apply LAST to the LP of choice and subtracting the sonic differences beyond which were already noted. If one comes out superior then there's a reasonably valid conclusion one could make for that specific test, though a larger sample base of a few pairs of LPs under the same conditions would provide more overall validity.


Also, LAST preservative should not have "a sound". It's designed to protect, not enhance in the sonic sense. What could be sonically improved would be the result of less stiction from the stylus tracing the groove by stabilizing the groove wall from tearing as the stylus passes.

 

I think that the author implied that he did the experiment with 2 identical lps with the same mastering when he said that he bought twice the same reissued album.

 

Yes, the product is rather expensive, so very likely the person would be more conscientious about record care. As mentioned in another post, all the thrift records I have found with a LAST sticker, all of them play perfectly, noise free and distortion free, no scratches, no spindle trails on the label. The forensic indication of a clean label strongly suggests careful handling (or unplayed) PLUS previous play probably on a higher quality single play turntable. The spindle trail indicates careless handling, (certainly not careful enough) label scoring by the sharp-edged slot on a stacker spindle, which does not rotate with the platter (causing spindle wear as the record plays) and the 'uncoordinated" user who dragged the label over the spindle "trying to find the hole". haha!

Spindle trails or scoring on the label is commensurate with groove scoring, the type of damage that produces distortion. The mass produced record changers with stacker spindles (cause of spindle trails) are also equipped with the common ceramic cartridge, which can be rough on the record. Records with a LAST sticker, as I have observed, do not have spindle trails, so very likely also these same records have not been previously played on a mass produced record changer.

 

I went back to refer as I don't want to misrepresent anyone! What I got was

I decided to do an experiment as I had accidentally bought a duplicate of two different newly issued records.

It isn't really clear if he bought the duplicate at the same time or it was later. Also it isn't clear if he bought both or either new or used. At the same time it was my intent to make certain points known that I thought could skew an otherwise noble attempt in such an experiment.

I have to be honest, I have cleaned and treated a few LPs that seemed to sound different afterwards, not necessarily worse but also not better. I can't explain that. And it should be just as much acknowledged that the only way to find out what you have in the end is to apply it or avoid it.

That said, I'm not trying to say anyone needs LAST, nor do I feel anyone needs to believe in it. The only sim is to do right by passing my experience with something I believe in, and protect it from haphazard testimonies that may wrongly blame it for something I know from vast experience has never happened. I do have records purchased new from the early '70's played initially on very modest "record players'. They do sound fine today. I'll be long gone in half the time that has gone by since then and I'm confident those untreated LPs will sound the same when that time comes. I use LAST today prior to recording as extra insurance that my LP is cleaner than a surgeons scalpel before I apply it, and therefore I'm allowing for the best surface that my stylus will ride on as I record those particular LPs. I may question whether some actually sound different or not, but my aim is reducing friction and providing the best conduit from groove wall through the stylus. In some cases it's not a pronounced affect yet in others it's undeniably beneficial. I've never found a strand of residual contaminant on any stylus in 30+ years of using it. Not a single dust particle. I only add this last portion of commentary to clarify my own testimony as well as debunk the idea that anything found on a stylus after using LAST Preservative is due to that product. I'm not doubting what has been found by anyone, only the idea that LAST is the reason why. There's something else going on that's either unknown by the user or being left out of the discussion.

Haha, that's going to cost a little fluid to get the right answer . I used to cover the entire half-circle applicator without it dripping off. Lately I've used a different syringe that LAST provided in one of the later kits that allows for more accurate dispersing rather than the dropper. Now I can apply accurately a good amount on the front half of the applicator, if that makes sense. If you can get it to the LP quick enough and truly get full coverage, that's the right amount. I've over-applied with no ill effect but it's wasteful. Still you don't want to short-change the application or that's wasteful as well. I recommend going with as much as needed to ensure coverage over the entire LP. Then you can possibly reduce the amount once you develop your technique. This is why I apply it on the VPI RCM (great torque over a turntable) and hold the applicator over the LP as I rotate the brush while the LP revolves underneath it. Wish I had done it that way many years ago. One rotation and you truly have treated the LP successfully (as long as you have sufficient fluid on the length of the applicator), and certainly more effectively and efficiently than trying to do so by hand. It's definitely a technique and you will use fluid as you train yourself, it's a right of passage if you will Don't get too hung up on a procedure for procedure's sake, just get the fluid evenly across all the LP grooves in one rotation and you have mastered the balance of effective and efficient treatment. You can't overdo it so let it rotate several times as you slowly turn the brush upwards, starting with the bristles towards the edge down then working them upwards as the LP rotates. Then put the cap back the bottle when you're done. If you ever knock the bottle over, cry a little then laugh because you won't be the only clutz to have ever done it

 

Ok so i started using LAST record preservative on my latest purchases i had laying and haven't had time to clean yet.

So i cleaned them and then applied LAST on them. I find the procedure to be quite simple with the included pump, they tell you the amount of liquid to put and give you the advice on how to pour it on the brush. Then when applying the brush you can easily see the trace (that immediately disappears) just after the brush has been swiped on it.

The bottle came with fluid level a little above the sticker, i treated both faces of 12 LPs and it now reaches the top of the sticker.
I would say i could treat up to 150 records with this procedure.

I listened to those LP's briefly after treatment, they sounded good and did not have pops (but they were new so surely nothing that is linked with the LAST product). Also i did not notice any white dust or anything on my stylus.

I decided to stick the stickers on the back cover of the records i treated, always near the barcode (when existing) so that it would fit nicely.

I believe in what LAST factory is selling, whether or not i will be able to proove the efficiency in the long-run.

 

I've never used it personally. Having said that, every record I have bought that has been treated with LAST has been wonderful. I am actually happy if I see a LAST record in the used bin.

 

I used to use Last decades ago. Not a lot, but I went through a few bottle of it. It did seem to make records a bit quiter. It never gunked up my stylus either, and I was fussy even then, checking the stylus at least every other LP play. My experience with it was good.
That being said, I do not reccommend spraying any sort of substance on a record espcially without knowing what it is. There is no substitute for a clean record, plain and unadorned. If there is a little 'surface' sound on the intro's and between tracks - so be it. I live with it or upgrade the record.

 

I have several records with "Sound Guard" stickers on them. I must admit they sound very good. Surface noise at extremely low levels. Like you, when I see a record with a Sound Guard sticker it gets added value.

 

Does anyone here remember a product called "Scratch Fixer" It actually left a dry lubricant on the surface of the record. It did help track over skips and would lower the noise floor on damaged or non fill albums. But if you treated a whole album, you needed to clean your stylus after each side for the first few playbacks!

 

I actually have a bottle of LAST tape preservative. I have been able to salvage a reel to reel that was unplayable by first cleaning it with alcohol and then applying this to it. The squeaks were gone.

 

I have been using LAST record preservative and Stylast for decades and I like the results. I tried the Sound Guard, it left gunk on the stylus, so I stoped using it. Anyone ever try Groove Glide? I may be wrong on it, I think it has the same thing that is in StaticGuard spray. I have actually used StaticGuard on some really noisy records, and it did make them a little quitter
But again, gunk on the stylus.