Thanks! As I noted, My chemistry was/is used to handle basket-case records before placing them in new sleeves and covers. My goal was a one shot deep clean allowing future cleans to need only distilled/IPA. I have a second US system as a rinsing second stage, and for mild subsequent re-cleans when necessary. I use HepaStat 256 for its broad antimicrobial capabilities. My listening room has humidity control so static hasn't been a major issue. But the lighter is an interesting plasma application. And I am extremely familiar with gas plasma, although typically in vacuum supplication. Back in the 80's I designed and applied conventional and ECR plasma ion sources. Initially for semiconductor and other thin film applications, and later as dense ion sources for Reagan's Star Wars initiative.
I've read pretty much this exact statement many times and I can't for the life of me understand how it's possible. I'm not a chemist but I did study vibration some. If it is even possible to "over damp" a record then any other condition is allowing record vibration to affect the music. I think this is called noise. Maybe the mat is doing something else but I would want no "vibration" other than the stylus following the grooves. I don't want to derail the Degritter discussion but I thought I'd throw this out as a balance to the comment. (I think mats have an effect but I use a Herbies because the record actually sticks to it -- using a center clamp and peripheral ring.)
Apropos of the Degritter discussion, I'm thinking there's quite some potential for recording all of these tweaks we use and then blind testing them to find the ones that really do make a difference. In other words, bringing some objectivity into our pursuit of better sound. Just this afternoon I measured, variously, a 1 to 3dB reduction in noise floor from using a Nitty Gritty enzyme soak. This sort of information could be really useful in putting together a comprehensive cleaning routine, for instance.
I received the Tergitol 15-S-9 and with a bath of 3 drops Tergitol and 2.5% IPA in DW I'm getting good sheeting on the record and just a little foam at start up -- maybe the same as with 1 1/2 ml Degritter cleaner in DW. That's all I know so far. I have about a million cleans worth of Tergitol! lol BTW, if anyone is a big fan of the Degritter cleaner, I have a new bottle and a close to full bottle I'll make you a good deal on.
That's an additional 1 to 3 dB? Have you measured the reduction just from the Degritter alone? I know it's something but 3 dB would be awesome.
I wonder if this makes sense, as a test, if you're hearing a veil with the fluid: Degritter with whatever fluid you like, but with no drying cycle (or just a very short one to get off the drips) then Quick Spinclean rinse. Couple of rotations in plain distilled water to flush the residue. No need to use the pads, in this case, as it's just being used for an easy way to rinse the album. then Back to the Degritter to dry. Really wouldn't take too much longer, but does require intervention.
Remember that as far as the stylus is concerned, at the pressures it exerts, the record is elastic. The stylus as it is tracing the groove is vibrating up/down and side-to-side. If the surface below the record (the mat) gives too much; it effectively changes the damping factor for the cartridge - stylus/cantilever/suspension system. So you want the surface below the record to damp vibrations that may be coming from the platter (and whatever affects it) so so they do not effect the stylus, and damp the vibrations caused by the stylus in the groove. Otherwise, there is the long thread over at Audiogon TONEARM DAMPING : DAMPED OR NOT ? ? USELESS ? ? WELCOMED ? ? | Audiogon Discussion Forum with all its nuances. There are nuances to the argument - unintended vibrations cause distortion - noise; and I do not dispute that. But failure of the stylus to accurately trace the groove with all its variations can also yield no distortion just inability to accurately reproduce the full signal amplitude - some frequencies are attenuated. FWIW - You may find this article of interest - The article “Do Turntable Mats Work? You Bet!” in Audio Magazine June 1979 (download here - https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-A ... 1979-06.pd ) goes into a good summary on the topic of mats; static and damping. Otherwise, if you read back, I indicated I use a DIY mat that provides both anti-static and damping (but is not soft).
I am currently updating my paper Precision Aqueous Cleaning of Vinyl Records - The Vinyl Press, to the Second Edition and right now I am revising Section XIII which discusses ultrasonic cleaning. I am 'trying' to capture/summarize as much of the discussion we are having here as possible (as well as many other lessons learned). The original paper was 85 pages, it now stands at 114 pages and is still growing. But, I am trying to summarize the processes into simple step-by-step. But, hopefully you can appreciate by this thread alone, the complexities and nuances of cleaning. Otherwise, for someone who not very long ago said you were not too much into the sciencey stuff, you doing pretty well
Yeah, I did plasma-gas/vacuum testing with air, argon, N2 and O2 for precision cleaning in the 1990's. Some interesting results, but for what we were trying to do on an industrial scale, not practical. But you know what they say, all that goes around, comes around.
I'm not sure how much the record is moving into the mat due to the stylus tracking but as a thought experiment, what if the record were infinitely thick, would that provide the best playback? I may be arguing the use of terms. How can something "over-damp" something else unless that something else is intended to move somewhat? I am of the opinion that when people prefer a certain tonearm, for instance, it's because they like what the arm harmonics does to color the music. I would think that a tonearm with "no harmonics" would be the truest. Like I said, (as I go ahead and do it) I don't want to distract from this thread but I suspect we treat our playback equipment as if it were the musical instrument -- which necessarily has to vibrate. All this gets way beyond the ability to properly analyze but back in the post where you mentioned the mat, I had the thought that what you said about deposits in the grooves affecting the frequency playback depends a lot on the stylus profile. A fat elliptical stylus might not be sensitive to the deposits since it misses so much already. I trust that r.Din has a very revealing system to be hearing what he hears.
What you say about tonearm harmonics is spot-on. When people talk about vibration, they generally discuss the system with a single resonant frequency. That's not true. Any time something is vibrating, there can be many smaller resonance frequencies - excite any one, and that frequency is amplified. However, there will also be certain frequencies that are attenuated. Mechanical vibration testing is generally limited to lower frequencies. My perspective is mechanical systems, and when I was with the Navy we would structureborne (vibration) test rotating equipment with very sensitive 3-axis accelerometers out past 10kHz; and complex hardware has peaks and valleys all over the place. So, your "tonearm with "no harmonics" would be the truest" is spot-on; but not sure anyone has done it yet. The elliptical stylus is an interesting point. Ellipticals tend to exert higher pressure because the contact path is less; so they may be able to plow through the residue film - but I would need to think about the side wall ridge valleys. Otherwise, one of the many benefits of the Shibata and their equal is that the pressure they exert is less because of the larger contact area. But, with a greater contact area and less contact pressure, it "should" become more sensitive, easier to be deflect by a fluid film.
You would be surprised at the effect damping can yield. Years ago there was a comparison (I can't remember the author) between turntables and the suspensions of automobiles. Some drivers preferred a suspension that let them feel every bump in the road. Think most any nimble sports car. Some drivers preferred blocking as much of the road feel as possible. Think larger Lincolns and Cadillacs from decades ago. Both types of cars drove you down the road, but they were totally different driving experiences. With playing records we want the sports car experience. We want the stylus to "feel" every nook and cranny in the grooves. Unfortunately, optimizing this experience on a turntable enhances the potential for external extraneous vibration to also be added. If you go back in time, you'll see a lot of over-the-top attempts to isolate the turntable from the rest of the world, while also keeping the tonearm and platter rigid relative to one another. The cheap original AR-XA became legendary as a starting point using this philosophy. In the 1980's I remember hanging my high-end turntable like a hammock, sitting on a partially inflated auto tire inner tube. A good mat provides a firm, non-slipping surface for a record to rest on. Damping is best implemented anywhere else.
As always, you bring up points I didn't think of. I was thinking it's be the opposite about the stylus profiles. Things move fast in those grooves so maybe liquids are more like solids and solids are plastic? Trial and error seems to be the best investigative tool sometimes. As for vibration, I go for isolation when I can. I had a brief exposure to designing for the Space Shuttle launch environment and that frequency spectrum basically went from 0 to infinity! lol
I disagree. Damping implies that vibration, hence distortion, has already had some deleterious effects. Isolation cuts it off at the knees. All of my equipment sits on sprung isolation platforms that I built. I can literally pound on the counter top that my TT sits on and there is no transfer to the stylus. I remember the days of tip-toeing around so I wouldn't make the needle jump!
I am describing external isolation as extremely efficient damping. I don't disagree with your statement in the least.
Oh, my mistake. I was being technical I guess in that there are two things involved in vibration mitigation, damping and isolation.
Just an update on the Tergitol. 3 drops is giving more foaming as cleaning cycles have gone on. I get more foam when the water is cold and at the beginning of the cycle but some foam is still present at the end of a Heavy cycle. I don't see any residue from the foam. I am playing a record and checking the stylus. I'll report on how that goes later. I'll reduce the Tergitol to 2 drops for the next tank. When I started with one drop I wasn't getting good wetting of the record.
Yeah, I am not sure that launch was a vibration event - how about a controlled explosion-major shock event . For the Navy , we had to qualify (sometimes by explosive testing) equipment for weapons-effect hi-shock; and that is a whole different beast. Otherwise, I gave our conversation some further thought, I realize that there is the terminology consensus that any deviation from what is in the groove is categorized as distortion. However, for me, I am always trying to essentially divide and conquer/differentiate so I can assess the best method/process to solve the problem; I am not a big fan of trial and error - its inherently time consuming and often very expensive; but that is just me. So, when I analyzed the mat issue, I saw it as the frequency was being reproduced but the amplitude was decreased; i.e. a 10kHz piece of music that was suppose to have an amplitude of say 10dB was only reproduced at 7 dB. So in my mind, my perspective I saw that as damping. But, under the bigger umbrella I can see where many would call it distortion. In some ways its what makes analog playback frustrating; but in many ways its also liberating - just think, each of us can view it through our own eyes and our perspective and have our place so to say at the table.
I'm just going to throw out there that Spotify is a lot easier. Keep up the good work, gents. Meanwhile, now I kind of want that US stylus cleaner....sigh...
For some info, 3-drops is going to, yield about {[(3-drops)/(15-drops/mL)]/(1400 mL)}(100) = 0.0143% = 143 ppm. One drop is {[(1-drop)/(15-drops/mL)]/(1400 mL)}(100) = 0.0048% = 48 ppm - not enough. 2-drops will be about 96 ppm and that should wet the record. If you have a problem at 2-drops, ditch the IPA. The IPA will drop the fluid boiling point (and raise the fluid vapor pressure) a little bit and that can make pump cavitation that much easier. I am pretty sure its the pump cavitation during pump-down and when it primes during startup that is creating the agitation that is causing the foam.
I agree that it's the pump. I remember you said that the water and IPA evaporate at the same rate (I think) but I sure can smell the IPA! The sheeting action on the record is fantastic though.
That's an additional 1-3dB (record dependant). I'm just experimenting with some of my available products. I haven't measured the Degritter specifically, but I have plenty of uncleaned vs Degritter samples now so I can take a look. I also need to be certain this isn't just a normal "washing" effect versus enzyme effect, however one of the 3dB reductions came *after* a full Kirmuss/Degritter wash, so the record was already pretty clean at that point.
One of the problems with hi-fi is that the more revealing a system is, the more problems it can uncover which need addressing. For clarity, my current recording chain is: Brinkmann Bardo -> Kuzma 4Point 11 -> Rega Apheta 3 (a weak point being addressed) -> Rega Aura Phono -> RME ADI-2 Pro FS ADC -> Computer For blind tests: Computer (using Lacinato ABX) -> Chord Hugo TT2 -> Sennheiser HD800 -> My Ears That I'm scoring 100% on a number of these blind tests suggests that my system is sufficiently revealing. Could it be more revealing, almost certainly. But this doesn't mean more modest setups are immune - we are listening to a veiling effect due to residue, which has the effect of attenuating high frequencies and diminishing soundstage due to obscured information. That is likely audible on any system to some degree.
