MRA : Myth or Menace?
As mentioned earlier, John Coltrane's "Blue Train" 180g now in circulation from "Jazz on 33 &1/3". £9-99 in total. (I've got mine and it looks every bit as good as the Miles Davis) Price comparison :- SNVinyl = £49-99 Elusivedisc.com = $59-99 Amazon = £16-16 (free postage) marketplace £12 min (incl postage) Grab them while they're hot in your local supermarket. ;^) |
Time for a top-up. I’m only publishing this due to a sense of elation at nabbing a bargain.;^) My wife pointed out the bargain in our local “Walmart” (Asda) when she spotted Miles Davis “Kind of Blue” in 180g for only £4-99! It only took me all of a millisecond to grab a copy. It’s part of a series called “Jazz On 33 & 1/3” which features a magazine plus LP. The next in the series will be one of Miles’s stablemates John Coltrane offered at the still bargain price of £9-99. I don’t own brand new vinyl issues of any of these classics so for me it was something of a no-brainer. Even if the album turned out to be a dud and it had to be replaced or refunded at least I’d have the comfort of knowing the LP wouldn’t be re-shrink wrapped and put on display again as they are in some dedicated music shops. (Which might account for some of the claims of dirt & fingerprints so often lamented…?) So what did I get for my 4-99 loss-leader and how does it add to the tally of non-problematic discs? Well it featured a fairly thin single cardboard sleeve but the inner sleeve was superior : thick paper, poly lined. There were no dents or scarring of the external packaging because it was pretty well packed in a bumper “envelope” but I inspected the disc for them just in case. The LP itself was examined under a filament lamp and revealed no dirt, dust, fingerprints, dents or scratches at all. Pristine(!), contrary to the common complaint of poor handling. The only comment I would make is that there was what I would call an “MRA stain” covering about 20% of the playing surface. In practice this proved to be completely inaudible. One of the helpful things about jazz albums like this is that the high frequency percussives are a constant and clearly audible at all times. I detected no change in their behaviour throughout the stained portion. As with the other successes SQ was beyond reproach for new vinyl. Silent backgrounds accompanied by clear transients & peak-level tracking from beginning to end. The instruments on this recording have considerable peak-level “bite” and often fast rise-times so if there is going to be a problem it will eventually be revealed. What surprised me was that given a store’s lack of consideration for storage and display, the LP was commendably ruler flat. I won’t mention the spindle hole drilling concentricity because that showed the same problem as every other LP in existence but the drill hole and LP edges were perfectly clean and burr-free. It was a quality product. The Miles inner sleeve quality was starkly contrasted by a Lana Del Rey double album my daughter speculatively bought me for Christmas. Considering that she paid top-dollar for it, the manufacturer supplied only drilled paper sleeves which tend to cause scuffing of the disc. Not that this necessarily has an adverse effect on noise levels but it’s possible it could aggravate certain styli. (BTW, Lana was played during the same session and the LPs were as perfect those described above). I’m afraid Lana is perhaps too “pop-music” oriented for my tastes but her music coming from a turntable was still too good to ignore. Fact is I’ll listen to anything apart from Opera and Reggae but a turntable can even make these genres attractive ;^) As someone who, like many of my contemporaries on A’gon, has been buying LPs for over 45 years, one can’t help feeling that vinyl replay is as complicated as we want it to be, especially given the unproblematic nature of the previous reviews. When it comes to playing new LPs, due diligence is as much as they’re going to get from me, although I accept that “due diligence” may take a more severe form for other people…. ;^) |
The curse of the Twilight Zone has struck again....JTA wrote a response (Post no 56) which I thought was rather good and now it's disappeared..... :( Even though it is no longer visible I will briefly reach into that alternate Dimension and formulate an answer. ;^) Post no 57 : Exactly, couldn't have put it better! I fully subscribe to the "Ellington Axiom" i.e. if it sounds good it is good. :) All the best and a Merry Christmas to all (...and please try not to think too much about MRA as it only causes indigestion ;^) |
| Post removed |
Dear Timothy, Many thanks for that extremely enlightening contribution. I guess, to an extent, I’ve been trying to establish a relationship between low “quiescent” noise and the acceptable cleanliness/playability of the groove. Also at the opposite end of the scale, establish MRAs effects on trackability, since the stylus is more likely to disconnect altogether during the more “energetic” sections of the programme if there is harmful interference. One would think that if you “aced” both of these it would be Happy Hour(!) however, summarising what we’ve seen so far, Doug has cautioned that celebrating low noise performance may be a naïve view with his assertion that noise is lowered progressively with less imperfect cleaning that rears its ugly head again at the “quantum” level when one has achieved a cleaning regime with the highest possible degree of perfection. For those who see cleaning as a “non-negotiable” option, we seem to have adopted the mindset or perception that MRA is “alien” to the vinyl and should be removed at all costs (and that “once it’s gone it’s gone”) even though we’ve firmly established it as a component which (most likely) makes an appearance whenever the vinyl is heated i.e. I’ve been inviting conjecture as to whether this could also apply to the effect of the stylus itself when it melts the groove during the playback process. No one has responded to that prospect yet ;^).
Let’s theorise for a moment and assume that Occam’s Razor isn’t as straightforward as it appears (extreme cleaning = fresh low-level noise =end of story). Suppose the vinyl is not melting and reforming during replay but the MRA itself is and this MRA acts as a thermal interface and a thermal barrier to the vinyl. Therefore it’s possible Doug has succeeded in ultimately cleaning the groove only to find that the groove goes through a partial regeneration of MRA on the first play – because this time the stylus is in contact with the vinyl and not the MRA, which creates noise as a by-product from more “intimate” clean groove contact rather than the LP “enjoying” existing MRA as an interface and not feeling the need to create much additional MRA… But what happens then? Doug puts the album back on the shelf content in the knowledge that the first play was satisfactory (but slightly noisy) until the second play finds the MRA partially restored to its former glory….? I’ve never cleaned new records to the depth that Doug has so I can’t say how that second replay would pan out.... ;^)
Of course this is an aside to the rumoured possibility that MRA is continuously exuded for years afterwards! (But did they consider that the stylus temperature might be the reason if MRA isn’t as much of a barrier as I’ve just suggested???)
So, in the end, it’s not so much the inevitability of MRA existing but whether cleaning can help in situations where there is, perish the thought, too much of it or the chemistry of the LP is flawed i.e. to the extent that such material interferes with peak level tracking? My suspicion is that there can occasionally be too much of it (bad chemistry) and the answer to that may be yes but I’m not hearing any examples in the current batches as yet. Enter your text ... |
The information here is a result of my own research done for a review of Audio Intelligent cleaning products a few years back. I am not a scientist. My understanding is that the ingredients in record vinyl have changed multiple times over the years. When we talk about what's in or on a record, we're talking about a moving target across time. Furthermore, there are no standards or practices followed by all pressing plants. However, there are not that many customized vinyl pellet offerings at any given time. Part of the changes in formulation have come from efforts to avoid actual or purportedly hazardous chemicals. At various times in the history of vinyl records, dibasic lead stearate or cadmium or other esters of stearic acid have made up as much as 2 percent of the vinyl compound. These additives provide thermal buffering for the vinyl during pressing, prevent oxidation on the newly minted record, and for some purposes, aid the platter’s release from the mold. Once these so-called mold-release agents have served their function and to the extent they are on the vinyl surface, they are (or turn into) foreign substances between stylus and groove, where they remain and attract dirt. Depending on what is put into the vinyl, these compounds may maintain their percentage as part of the vinyl formulation or they may continually work their way to the record's surface over time or they may reside primarily on the vinyl surface. I have read that chemical analyses of 50-year-old used records reveal such agents still in the groove. So I don't think there is a "once and for all" settlement of the question posed by the OP. It depends on the record you have in your hand. My practice is that no uncleaned record goes on my 'table for play and that includes new records. That seems to work okay for me. |
"..Wanna see somethin' really scary....?" I don't mind straying off-subject in this instance. Does anyone else find John's azimuth research mildly alarming? http://db.audioasylum.com/mhtml/m.html?forum=vinyl&n=974192&highlight=&search_url= Not that I'm advocating that folk should stop setting azimuth "by ear" to obtain a satisfactory result. It does cast measured readings in a different light, however... |
| Post removed |
Dear Doug, I think I've stepped into a parallel universe. I'm responding to a comment that was never published ;^)
We are currently looking at v1 (version1) of post no 48 rather than v2. V2 existed for at least 24, possibly 48 hrs before disappearing completely. It did not include the final paragraph about Azimuth as I realised immediately that this was open to misinterpretation! In fact I was one step ahead of you so V1 existed for only a couple of minutes!!! V2 was published before 5 or 6am (US time) so, realistically, no one ever saw V1…
Somehow the Administrator revamped the system and managed to pull back a legacy or archived copy of the post i.e. v1, instead of the “final draft”. For V2 I may have added other comments but I can't recall what I said so unless Admin can restore it we're stuck with the poorly written v1 :( In the short term just take the last para as a compliment and everything will be fine. ;^) |
My comment was merely to point out that the trend of increased cleaning efficiency points towards progressive noise reduction?As it should. Progressive noise reduction is the appropriate goal for and effect of ~95% of all record cleaning efforts, including mine. As MF (for example) is writing for a broad audience, including many newbies and wannabees, it makes sense for him to focus on this aspect. This audience lacks sufficient experience to assess anything more. It's only the last ~5% of cleaning (particularly rinsing and pinpoint vacuuming) that brings a small increase in noise along with noticeable improvements in low level detail and micro-dynamics. It's for a certain lunatic fringe. ;-) Getting close to the degree of fine detail that you describe requires the ultimate attention to detail in terms of setup & cleaning even on a per disc instance basis (VTA/Azimuth etc).Very true, except that, when going from LP to LP:
|
Dear Doug, Many thanks for responding. I found your reply equally interesting. It got me thinking after your reference to the nature of the film on the stylus, that rather than (my) assumption that it was simply molten vinyl (i.e. prompted by folks commenting that their Zerodusts, Magic Erasers etc, by no mean coincidence, remove "black" stuff from the stylus) perhaps the stylus is, additionally, mimicking the conditions under which "MRA" type contaminants are released...? If such were indeed the case then cleaning "MRA" could become an exercise in futility(!) ;^) Not that I necessarily believe this to be the case ;^) As to the other content, yes, I appreciate your feelings on the nature of noise. My comment was merely to point out that the trend of increased cleaning efficiency points towards progressive noise reduction? For many others adopting or living with the vinyl medium, noise could be something of a deal-breaker? If noise were above a certain threshold and occurred at inopportune times e.g. peak noise was greater than a low level signal during a classical piece, then I could understand some listeners getting "itchy feet" and resenting the format. So for me, it's a blessing if noise is well suppressed and it is something I would expect/demand from a turntable design. Getting close to the degree of fine detail that you describe requires the ultimate attention to detail in terms of setup & cleaning even on a per disc instance basis (VTA/Azimuth etc). Not many will do this (I know that you are meticulous to that degree and have reaped the rewards) Best regards, |
MRA = Mold Release Agent. Though in observing the vinyl stamping process, there appears to be nothing used as a mold release agent to help the record easily separate from the stamper, some feel that there are some additives present in the raw vinyl mix used in the stamping process that might act as a MRA. The question is whether that must be removed, if it's even present, during the record cleaning process. Also, whether it changes the sound or creates a build-up on the cartridge stylus. |
| Post removed |
Moonglum, Thanks for your thoughtful and thought-provoking followup. Yes, thoroughly cleaned records are in fact noisier than *almost* clean records, for just the reason I explained. That's not a prediction, a theory or based on anyone's white paper. Its a statement of findings based on my own listening experience while cleaning, rinsing, re-cleaning and re-rinsing thousands of LP sides. If others tout the efficacy of methods or machines based on totally silent surfaces, well, that's their privilege. I can only say that I've re-cleaned many such records for friends. In every case, bar none, the improvement in micro-dynamics and fine detail was audible, sometimes stunning. Also in every case, there was an increase in low level groove noise. The fact that MF touted quietness as his standard is merely an appeal to authority, which does not interest me. My standard is set by my ears. Truly clean records sound different that "almost clean" records and the ultimate yardstick is not silent backgrounds, it is the presence of the lowest level of musical detail and nuance. I listen to vinyl for the music, not for lack of noise. Your points regarding an interference layer are well taken. While I've never heard such, the evidence for it exists in the gradual dis-coloring of a stylus that is not properly cleaned after each side. Some of that contamination must, of course, remain in the groove. This should cause me to re-think the "clean once and forever" strategy, though the law of diminishing returns must come into play at some point. It takes me 20 minutes/side to clean an LP now, longer if it was noticeably dirty to begin. I would hope followup cleanings could be quicker, but I've not taken it to that degree... yet. ARGH! |
Thanks, Moon. I think -- and base this only on rough knowledge, not my pseudo-scientific background-- that outgassing is more common when plasticizers are involved. I'm not sure there is much in a vinyl record, since it is meant to be stiff, not pliable. The problem encountered with those heavy PVC type outer jacket protectors reacting to vinyl records is due, I think, to the plasticizers in the record jacket protector (which is soft and pliable due to plasticizers), leaching or chemically interacting with the record (potentially, even through the cardboard jacket). I don't know that records themselves are really out-gassing, but I'll defer to somebody who has plastics/science background. In the meantime, maybe more questions than answers, but you (and others here) stimulated my thinking; this is one of several issues I've been casually looking into- trying to get answers is a whole other thing, so I'm open to other views. Glad to contribute where I can. Good holiday, if you celebrate. |
Dear Whart, That was possibly the most thought provoking post I've read on the subject. I can almost feel myself veering back towards cleaning new vinyl. I suppose we must remember that vinyl is, broadly speaking, a piece of plastic material. Different forms of plastic material are notorious for "out-gassing" even at room temperature. Vinyl doesn't seem to be as "chemical-smelling" as bin liners, cables etc so I guess we should be thankful that we're not inhaling cyanide on a day-to-day basis ;^) The results were undeniable though, and the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Perhaps the conclusion should be "clean if required" and leave it to individual choice. |
Based on some of my reading, which is by no means definitive, we may be speaking at cross-purposes. From what I gather, various fatty acids are used in the PVC compound used to make vinyl records. These serve to help control the mixture and the point at which the ingredients melt, i.e. thermal stability. In this, they are sometimes referred to as "lubricants" but not in the sense that we might commonly think of a lubricant. At the same time, to add to the confusion, these materials can also be used as a 'release agent' in molding. Such materials, which include stearic acid, can apparently migrate to the surface- this is, I think, what people are referring to when they talk about the need to clean off "mold release agent." So, there may in fact be artifacts from manufacture that need to be cleaned off of the surface of a new record. And, if you read some of the messaging from the cleaning fluid folks, they talk about removing the bad stuff, but not doing damage to plastics or their properties; in this sense I think the term "lubricant" is used in a more common form. But, is that stuff really there to "lubricate" the surface or as part of the chemical composition of the compound to make manufacture more consistent? (And, to what degree is there any consideration given to the ease with which the just pressed record can be removed from the stampers?). Perhaps I'm just restating the question, but you see how these terms can be used, e.g. "lubricant" in different contexts. I'm not sure if you asked a materials scientist if he or she is including a "mold release agent" in the vinyl compound, they would consider this the primary purpose of adding this material to the mix. So, the folks selling fluids may be correct, and the folks involved in making the vinyl compound and pressing the records may also be correct. I'm not a plastics scientist, I am just reading papers, patents and trying to work my way through a practical understanding of how all this adds up. That's my reading at this point in time, which could change, based on further information. But, it is consistent with everything I've learned, and somewhat conveniently, also reconciles the different views on the subject. Glad to be corrected. |
What I don't understand is the lack of belief when those in the record pressing business say there is no release agent in their processes. We just continue with "yes, but". Additional disbelief on my part towards those that swear MRA must be cleaned off and then apply Last to their newly cleaned records! This is not to say I believe one should not clean new records but I believe I am not removing MRA |
Back when I had my special ed. Maplenoll air bearing everything with 500 feet (count 'em!) of air tubing, two air buffers, sub hertz isoaltion stand for the Mapleshade, and naked Quad 57s I used the water lubrication system for playing vinyl records, you know with that little red roller do dad from Audio Technica. There really is NO substitute for playing records wet. Thus, I don't understand why anyone would not favor a bit of lubrication. Now, whether or not MRC would actually act as a lubricant who knows. Apparently we don't even know if MRC is involved at this point. |
Dear Geoff, That was one of the 2 classic arguments when record cleaning initially became a subject of debate. People were torn as to whether it was a good idea to clean the MRA/MRC off, by facilitating the passage of the stylus through the groove ("lubrication"), despite the claims that MRA renewed itself i.e. the vinyl "sweated"/exuded MRA for years after manufacture (or at least it did so to a reducing degree?). Unfortunately we're still no closer to knowing, for sure, whether MRC actually exists in vinyl manufacture. (Whart's commendable research says no.) If that's the case we should have a reasonably clean groove after manufacture provided the Alchemists didn't make it on a Friday. ;^) |
Dear Doug, You offer an interesting alternative viewpoint on the outcome of record cleaning by saying that cleaning will make records noisier(?) Let me throw in a few wildcards : - Countless RCM owners will have waxed lyrical in their assessments about how quiet LPs are after thorough cleaning. - Check out MF's review of the ADS (scroll down to "so how well does it work?"). Quietness, post-cleaning, is the first comment. http://www.analogplanet.com/content/worlds-best-record-cleaning-machine#g7I3uVfs2AWgERKf.97 - The stylus, almost as soon as it makes contact, develops a film, an "interference layer" if you will, which may negate those results as playing progresses? - As above, because the stylus causes the groove to melt and reflow behind it, it throws into question whether a clean groove should be "noisier" or not, given that the most intimate thermal contact is obtainable when clean? I'm not being critical of you, Doug, as I'm certain your routines are far more thorough than is possible from any automatic RCM. Anyone who dedicates themselves to that level of perfection deserves cleaner records than everyone else ;^) |
I have a decent pile of old white papers that were published by the AES; you can access them cheapest by paying a one time fee for a year of access or pay a tariff per download. Among the things I found were various papers on the subject of wear, static and the like, along with various patents that are part of the public record (you need no AES access to obtain these) addressing surface noise, and again, static. I found very little to no discussion of "mold release" compound or agent as such. One paper, by S.K. Khanna, from RCA circa 1977 did address vinyl compounds in some depth, including the chemistry of PVC, polymerization processes, general characteristics of PVC resin as used for records, and then contained a discussion of various formulation variables, including the resins themselves, stabilizers (for heat and lubrication during compounding), colorant (which the author noted was used to "hide" plate out problems); fillers to change the visco-elastic properties of the compound and to reduce noise. Khanna also made note of certain "special additives" including lubricants, modifiers, plasticizers and anti-static agents, all of which have an impact on "flow". The author observed that the compounding process was complex, more "art than science' and at that time- during the height of vinyl as a medium, urged that basic research needed to be conducted into materials science to address the needs of "quality-conscious" persons. What this tells me is that even during the "golden age" the medium didn't follow one practice. A couple other things to note: remember the oil crisis? It led to a lot of shoddy vinyl. I don't think that's when recycling started, but it probably become more widespread; Albert P noted in another thread that he has found debris embedded into vinyl; i have, as I'm sure others have too. One last thought- again speculation on my part. If the mix is made up of different (recycled) materials, each with their own chemical and heat/flow/etc characteristics, this could make manufacture far more problematic. I don't know, but I suspect one advantage of "virgin" vinyl, isn't that it is "pure" but it is probably more consistent. I offer this for what it is worth, not as an answer. As Miller said in Repo Man, I think about this stuff on the bus. |
I fail to see how MRC could be deleterious to the sound of vinyl since it would presumably act as a lubricant.Why assume that a lubricant is necessary or beneficial? Neither is consistent with my experience. Any substance on the vinyl surface isolates the stylus from the smallest modulations, which reduces audible micro-dynamics and HF extension. If the goal is to reproduce everything that's cut into the groovewall, then by definition (and to my ears) anything that mediates stylus-groovewall contact (including "lubricants") must impair ideal reproduction. |
I believe Mike Fremer has written about the subject on numerous occasions over the past thirty or so years, but can't provide any specific TAS, Sterophile, or Tracking Angle issues in which he has done so. I also think Walter Davies has included the subject in his technical/white papers for the Last products. |
I can certainly see where Mold Release Compound might be a problem for CDs, what with the transparency of the "clear layer" being an issue (assuming some of the MRC is absorbed by the polycarbonate) but I fail to see how MRC could be deleterious to the sound of vinyl since it would presumably act as a lubricant. In any case, having the cartridge geometry off just a smidgen would override any such effect MRC might have. |
BP- I can contribute a little. Someone above (apologies, I didn't go back to see who) mentioned a patent that described one such process. Here is a link: http://www.google.com/patents/US3960790 As you will see, this was at attempt to deal with the challenges of 4 channel audio on vinyl. My recollection is that the old Mo-Fi "Super Vinyl" was similarly developed for discrete 4 channel vinyl records. The patent suggests that an excess of the agent can leave a deposit on the surface of the record. Other, older papers I've read about vinyl compounds talk about lubricants- which presumably aid flow of the molten compound, but don't seem to address "mold release" as such. One of the difficulties in getting to the bottom of this seems to be that the exact composition of vinyl compounds currently being used is probably proprietary- in discussions I had with someone knowledgeable in that field, he claimed that the whole concept of mold release was foreign to him, but I cannot quote or provide any external reference. The other source of information is likely the pressing plants themselves; I doubt they add anything to the compound, but who knows? I've been trying to get to the bottom of this myself. The makers of commercial fluids- some of whom I respect, seem to believe that mold release agents are a problem. But, I have yet to be convinced that any compound being supplied to pressing plants causes some adverse effect in the pressing of a record that requires cleaning. Whether other variables, like the temperature/duration of heat, cooling, operation of the press, stampers, etc. contribute to the problem, beyond the compound itself, one can only guess. I've certainly had badly manufactured records that suffered from no-fill, stitching or the like (all symptoms of a failure to properly impress the information onto the plastic), but those defects cannot be remedied by cleaning. Hardly the last word, but at least gives a little more insight? |
The mold is not the same as the stamper. That's why the very term is misleading. If you scroll down a ways here you'll see how the stamper fits into the mold block. http://www.fabbeatlesaddict.com/article-making-a-beatles-vinyl-record/ |
Low- re your question about pinch warps, I think (and admit this is speculation on my part) it is the way the record has been stored over the years; i've read some anecdotal stuff suggesting that the record was pulled off the press too soon, but I question that for at least two reasons- I don't remember those kind of warp problems back in the late '60s and '70s when those records were new, and even if you are skeptical of record plant QC, I would hope not all of them made it out the door that way. I am very reluctant to buy a 'sealed' pressing of an old record for precisely the reason that you cannot get the seller to verify condition; one of the key questions I ask is whether the record is flat when spinning on a turntable. I am ready to buy a serious flattener at this point, the warps seem common, even on brand new stuff (not the MoFi or Chad stuff- I buy very little of that- more standard pressing current issue) that I suspect is warped due to storage in non-climates controlled warehouses. I think Amazon US has cleaned up its act, not so sure about Amazon from EU. |
I like Mo-FI clean all records now. I did a test to see what sounded better. I first played some new records without cleaning them then again after they were cleaned. I found the cleaned records were quieter and more of the nuances through out the records came through. I also just did this with between a friends Amused to Death cleaned and mine that was not. The Q effects were much clearer and easier to locate. The dog barking was more there with the clean record. |
Indeed, BDP24, it is possible that retailers recycle returned goods back onto the shelves (not necessarily with the shrink-wrap attached - as a friend of mine recently testified). It's not something I've done more than two or 3 times in my lifetime although there's the rare "roller-coaster" warped disc that I probably could have returned had it not been 35 yrs ago ;^) The retailer is long since gone, sadly. :( Pinchwarps are the ones I find most annoying (i.e. with the wrong cartridge). Is there any evidence that online retailers are guilty of the same thing? |
WARNING! Having worked at Tower Records when they were still selling LP's (late 80's), I can tell you authoritatively that an LP in "still"-sealed shrink-wrap is NOT necessarily new. Huh? Tower (and I'm assuming other retailers) stores had a shrink-wrap machine in their back room; when an LP was returned to the store by a customer (for various reasons, sometimes only because the customer didn't like the music) it was put on a backroom shelf awaiting the store's monthly return. Record retailers have to pay a penalty to send product back to the distributors for credit (a little more than a buck a disc back then, which they would obviously prefer not pay), so one of the shipping/receiving clerk's responsibilities was to inspect each customer-returned LP and determine if it could be sold again. The attitude was, some consumers were more picky about surface noise, warps, etc., than others, and that a returned LP might be perfectly acceptable to another customer. Plus, as I said, some were returned for a reason other than a defect. So, if the clerk found the LP to look fine (and believe me, they didn't have audiophile standards or sensibilities, being normal "civilians"!), he would put the LP (in it's jacket of course) into a length of the plastic film that was on a roll at one end of the shrink-wrap machine, seal the open end (the film was a "tube", open only at the two ends, so one side would need sealing---the other open end of the tube being already sealed from the last LP that had been done, if you can envision that) with a heated electric "press" (which created a rough edge in the seal, with tiny "beads" of melted plastic), the LP/jacket then run through the small heating oven (warps anyone?!) at the far end of the machine until the wrap had shrunk tightly on the jacket. Overly tight, if left in the oven too long. The way to identify such a resealed LP it to look for the two "rough" seams running along two of the four edges of the jacket. Unfortunately, some seals didn't produce the rough edge, looking just like some factory seals. Great, SOMETHING else to worry about! |
I have had several RCMs. Loricraft, clearaudio just to mention two. I would clean, clean, clean. I used/tried steam, mult different cleaners and self made cleaners. Four years or so ago we(my wife and I) decided to move. So I decided to sell my entire system, then rebuild once settled in. It was a 20 or so component setup. It was a huge undertaking but would make the move much easier. The only retained items were my realitvily large record collection and my music server. I mostly buy new vinyl now a days. I had already purchase any and everything I wanted from 60's through 2010 or so. While my system has less moving parts then before, I believe it is as good as the best I have ever owned and that is saying something. The only component not replaced is the RCM. As I said I own and buy vinyl. Lots of vinyl. To much vinyl. I do not miss nor do I intend on replacing my RCM anytime in the near future. I clean the vinyl and my cart tip with the appropriate brush. No snap, pop or clicks. Just dead quiet background. This has been my process for the last 4 years. This is my finding. Don't agree no issue. I'm just say'in 🖖✌️ |
Is MRA a myth or just a myth? Just to be sure, I researched the process of stamping out vinyl records. NOWHERE in the description of the process is ANY mention of any kind of mold release or special mix of vinyl with a mold release added. There isn't any support for the myth. I think the entire concept of mold release in the vinyl record production process is just another excuse to create and sell another record cleaning product. |
Dear Mo-Fi, I think I got off lightly there ;^) After repeating Linn's original philosophy I expected to see, "Well, it seems nothing has changed these days then!". :) I would have walked right into that one. ;^) As you've probably guessed, this was never intended as an assault on the right to clean. Just to say that if buyers do opt to play them straight out of the bag, they won't die. ;^) Whart, I think you've summed up the situation extremely well. Second-hand records, different proposition. Like you said, you've no idea of the history of these things, so it makes sense to always clean. For me, cigarette tar would be the main worry. The 2 bosses : Boss No1 and Boss no2 (wife & daughter) know better than to cook while the 'Stats are charged up ;^) I am not inconsiderate, however. I'll power down if they want to cook :) |
Moon- I buy mostly old copies, so whether to clean isn't a question for me. As to new records, and I buy some, my experience varies- some copies, often the ones that aren't from the fancy reissue houses, are pretty dirty right out of the sleeve. Visible sleeve lint, the occasional fingerprint or smear from handling, etc. The reason I clean new vinyl is that in playing for the first time, I don't want to grind that stuff into the grooves. Then there's the stuff you can't see.... Perhaps it is out of an excess of caution in those cases, but my cleaning processes aren't harming the record, and are adjusted to meet the apparent issues of a given record. I'm not dogmatic about any of this- do what you think is appropriate- i have records I cleaned and resleeved back in the '80s that I've pulled out and played for the first time in decades and they were fine. As to mold release, I think the issue is overblown. The first proper cleaning machine I saw was a Monks, at Opus One in Pittsburgh in the early '70s. RCMs really didn't become common until VPI and Nitty Gritty (at least in the States, dunno about elsewhere) started marketing machines that were more reasonably priced. And there was very little choice for fluids- that market seemed to really explode after the Death of Vinyl (tm), I got my first RCM (a VPI) in the early '80s. But my attention to methods and results really didn't snap into focus until far more recently, when I started to seriously collect good pressings (used for the most part) and cull through the thousands and thousands of records that I had accumulated with a vengeance starting in the mid-'80s. Once I started to explore this more seriously, I realized that a casual run through a machine did not necessarily = a clean record. This became more apparent with old records from the late '60s and early '70s that I bought in the last several years. Whether it was bad past cleaning (which left water, cleaning fluid or other contaminants bonded to the surface), cigarette smoke or cooking fumes, or just handling from 40 plus years, some of these records really needed more than a fast once over in an RCM. That's when I started to look at this more closely, to try and figure out what methods worked most effectively. Answer: it depends. :) |
