Vinyl Care

I was in a similar situation, having hardly played records after CDs came out.

Thanks to this forum, I discovered the bible on how to clean records.  It is PACVR-3rd-Edition - Precision Aqueous Cleaning of: Vinyl Records.

Like the bible, at 192 pages it is pretty lengthy.  But unlike the bible, the author Neil Antin is still alive and is active on this forum!

What I have distilled from this is that

1. newer line contact stylus profiles read information from parts of the groove walls that have not been 'worn out' by older stylus shapes
2. ultrasonic cleaning is the best way to dig contaminants from deep in the groove
3. most contamination is far too small to see with visible light and most people do not have access to electron microscopes

So I bought a Chinese ultrasonic record cleaner for less than A$300 and use it once on all my records, old or new.  Polysorbate 20 is the 'detergent' and I use water passed through a Brita ion-exchange filter.  Then I rinse the records using a very dilute mix of Ilfoton photographic wetting agent and let them air dry on the rack that came with the machine.

I replace the inner sleeves with Japanese Nagaoka anti-static sleeves.

Before playing any side, I use an AudioQuest carbon fibre anti-static record brush just in case there is any dust.

After switching to this regime, my stylus stays clean far longer.  When it needs cleaning, I use Audio Technica stylus cleaning fluid brushed from the rear (my main cartridge is an Audio Technica with a Micro-line stylus).  I follow up by lowering the stylus a couple of times into a gel pad which is a purpose built alternative to clay - the DS Audio ST-50 stylus cleaner.

The bottom line is that most of the old pops and crackles have audibly disappeared though nothing can remove scratches.  I believe static electricity is the biggest cause of surface noise and water is an excellent way of discharging static.  I also think static charges are created in the groove when it is rubbed by a diamond stylus.  Charged particles of dust are attracted and stick incredibly firmly - the inverse square law of attraction applies. 

I sometimes use the carbon fibre brush after playing a side, especially if I see any dust.  And I do use a dust cover while playing.

for cleaning tips I do come here. As for humor.....

I just got a humminguru Nova and I love it. Not sure what your budget is, but you should check out humminguru.

@richardbrand,

ultrasonic cleaning is the best way to dig contaminants from deep in the groove

UT cleaning is but one way to clean a record.  As the book says Chapter XII about the manual-sink process that uses 3 chemicals with one being a weak acid, The incorporation of the acid chemistry does manually what ultrasonics can do with power; their convenience notwithstanding.  But the book in the Forward also states:  All cleaning procedures specified herein are presented as only “a” way to clean a record. No claim is made there is only one way to approach the process. In the final analysis, the best cleaning process is the one that is best for you.

I also think static charges are created in the groove when it is rubbed by a diamond stylus. 

In the book (Chapter VI) it states:  The article Phonograph Reproduction 1978, James H. Kogen, Audio Magazine May 1978 (Audio-1978-05.pdf) goes into some detail on static; what causes it and what does not – the needle in the groove was not a source of static. The article indicates that static is not uniform, but exists as islands on a record. Additionally, once the static gets high enough to discharge to the cartridge it only reduces to about 4200 volts. A static charge on the record of 4200 volts will not create noise by itself, but it can by electrostatic attractive forces cause a transient increase in cartridge VTF as much as 0.375 grams leading to distortion and premature wear. So, managing static has many benefits.

The book also addresses the shortcomings of anti-static brushes such as carbon fiber and Thunderon, as follows:  How effective are conductive brushes in removing static – only partially effective. In the paper SealezeTM SSG515AT2D Static Dissipation Brush Performance in an Operational Environment (Microsoft Word - SEALEZE_WHITE_PAPER_Final dam.doc) Thunderon™ bristles in a grounded metal frame were only able to reduce the static charge developed during a plastic film manufacture to about 4000 volts whereas the brush with an ionizing device was able to reduce the static charge to less than 300 volts. As previously stated, reducing the static to 4000 volts will be sufficient to prevent static inducted noise, but not enough to prevent affecting the VTF.

richardbrand

Thank you for the very detailed explanation.

I will come back here and re-read it when get started with the process.