I'm wondering if anyone could give me some advice about using a VPI
16.5 record cleaner I just acquired. I've been using it as
directed--the VPI brush, the VPI fluid, etc.--and I've noticed improved
clarity and detail like people have described, but so far I've noticed
nothing like the remarkable reduction in pops, etc on the vinyl that
people have described. Perhaps I'm using it incorrectly? Thanks in
advance for any advice,

JB Coleman

In article .com,
"JBColeman" wrote:

I'm wondering if anyone could give me some advice about using a VPI
16.5 record cleaner I just acquired. I've been using it as
directed--the VPI brush, the VPI fluid, etc.--and I've noticed improved
clarity and detail like people have described, but so far I've noticed
nothing like the remarkable reduction in pops, etc on the vinyl that
people have described. Perhaps I'm using it incorrectly? Thanks in
advance for any advice,

Record cleaners are better for preventing new pops than removing old
ones. Quieter is good, but for pops you might look at something like
Fremer's cleaning regimen that starts with an Orbitrac.

Take a look at this:

http://www.furious.com/perfect/vinyl8.html

Carbon-fiber brush, mmm.

Stephen

"JBColeman" wrote in message
oups.com...
I'm wondering if anyone could give me some advice about using a VPI
16.5 record cleaner I just acquired. I've been using it as
directed--the VPI brush, the VPI fluid, etc.--and I've noticed improved
clarity and detail like people have described, but so far I've noticed
nothing like the remarkable reduction in pops, etc on the vinyl that
people have described. Perhaps I'm using it incorrectly? Thanks in
advance for any advice,

JB Coleman

Once something becomes fused into the vinyl, no cleaner will ever remove it.
The idea is to keep the LP's clean and prevent things from becoming fused in
the first place. Units like your VPI will do that as good or better than
just about any other method.

You might want to research some software that can illiminate the clicks and
pops, but then you have to burn them to CD or some other digital media. The
CD will sound like the LP it was taken from so you'll still get all teh
things that people like about vinyl sound.

Thanks, I'll look into it--

JB Coleman


MINe 109 wrote:
In article .com,
"JBColeman" wrote:

I'm wondering if anyone could give me some advice about using a VPI
16.5 record cleaner I just acquired. I've been using it as
directed--the VPI brush, the VPI fluid, etc.--and I've noticed improved
clarity and detail like people have described, but so far I've noticed
nothing like the remarkable reduction in pops, etc on the vinyl that
people have described. Perhaps I'm using it incorrectly? Thanks in
advance for any advice,

Record cleaners are better for preventing new pops than removing old
ones. Quieter is good, but for pops you might look at something like
Fremer's cleaning regimen that starts with an Orbitrac.

Take a look at this:

http://www.furious.com/perfect/vinyl8.html

Carbon-fiber brush, mmm.

Stephen

What I've been told--and partly what persuaded me to give the VPI a
try--is that much of the audible distortion to be heard on vinyl is
caused by contaminants in the groove, and these can be mostly removed
by proper cleaning. That's not true? Thanks,

JB Coleman

MINe 109 wrote:
In article .com,
"JBColeman" wrote:

I'm wondering if anyone could give me some advice about using a VPI
16.5 record cleaner I just acquired. I've been using it as
directed--the VPI brush, the VPI fluid, etc.--and I've noticed improved
clarity and detail like people have described, but so far I've noticed
nothing like the remarkable reduction in pops, etc on the vinyl that
people have described. Perhaps I'm using it incorrectly? Thanks in
advance for any advice,

Record cleaners are better for preventing new pops than removing old
ones. Quieter is good, but for pops you might look at something like
Fremer's cleaning regimen that starts with an Orbitrac.

Take a look at this:

http://www.furious.com/perfect/vinyl8.html
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I just read this. Geez, is anyone dumb enough to believe that how a
platter is driven affects the audibility of clicks and pops??? Who is
the dope that wrote this???

Carbon-fiber brush, mmm.

Stephen

In article .com,
wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:
In article .com,
"JBColeman" wrote:

I'm wondering if anyone could give me some advice about using a VPI
16.5 record cleaner I just acquired. I've been using it as
directed--the VPI brush, the VPI fluid, etc.--and I've noticed improved
clarity and detail like people have described, but so far I've noticed
nothing like the remarkable reduction in pops, etc on the vinyl that
people have described. Perhaps I'm using it incorrectly? Thanks in
advance for any advice,

Record cleaners are better for preventing new pops than removing old
ones. Quieter is good, but for pops you might look at something like
Fremer's cleaning regimen that starts with an Orbitrac.

Take a look at this:

http://www.furious.com/perfect/vinyl8.html
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I just read this. Geez, is anyone dumb enough to believe that how a
platter is driven affects the audibility of clicks and pops??? Who is
the dope that wrote this???

Stick to the parts that speak to your question and make sense to you.
Unless you plan to change how your table is driven, you needn't worry
about such things.

Stephen

In article ,
MINe 109 wrote:

In article .com,
wrote:

http://www.furious.com/perfect/vinyl8.html
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I just read this. Geez, is anyone dumb enough to believe that how a
platter is driven affects the audibility of clicks and pops??? Who is
the dope that wrote this???

Stick to the parts that speak to your question and make sense to you.
Unless you plan to change how your table is driven, you needn't worry
about such things.

Never mind. You're not the Original Poster. And different tables, arms
and carts do show pops and clicks differently.

Stephen

MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
MINe 109 wrote:

In article .com,
wrote:

http://www.furious.com/perfect/vinyl8.html
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I just read this. Geez, is anyone dumb enough to believe that how a
platter is driven affects the audibility of clicks and pops??? Who is
the dope that wrote this???

Stick to the parts that speak to your question and make sense to you.
Unless you plan to change how your table is driven, you needn't worry
about such things.

Never mind. You're not the Original Poster.

Really? Are you sure?

And different tables, arms
and carts do show pops and clicks differently.

Not cuzza the way the platter is driven, babycakes. You're not the dope
who wrote the article, are ya?

Stephen

In article .com,
wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
MINe 109 wrote:

In article .com,
wrote:

http://www.furious.com/perfect/vinyl8.html
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I just read this. Geez, is anyone dumb enough to believe that how a
platter is driven affects the audibility of clicks and pops??? Who is
the dope that wrote this???

Stick to the parts that speak to your question and make sense to you.
Unless you plan to change how your table is driven, you needn't worry
about such things.

Never mind. You're not the Original Poster.

Really? Are you sure?

Good point. Never mind anyway.

And different tables, arms
and carts do show pops and clicks differently.

Not cuzza the way the platter is driven, babycakes. You're not the dope
who wrote the article, are ya?

Bye.

François Yves Le Gal wrote:
On 10 Nov 2005 14:36:08 -0800, "JBColeman" wrote:

so far I've noticed
nothing like the remarkable reduction in pops, etc on the vinyl that
people have described.

The VPI - or any record cleaning machine - won't remove clicks and pops.

I may be completely wrong but with years of vinyl experience I
came to the conclusion that the records that have an intolerable level
of clicks have got this way in pressing. Consequently nothing will
change the really bad ones. Off and on I used the expensive English
washing machines with no improvemenmt. I saw that with LPS fresh out
of the sleeve and I had used bargain records sounding immaculate. At
one time Canadian copies pressed in Canada were particularly bad.
Philips LPs by and large don't seem to suffer from it. As I said I'm
quite prepared to stand corrected- in fact would welcome the
information straight from the horse's mouth- ie. someone withe the
pressing factory.experience.
On the other hand a properly set up arm such as SME IV made some of my
intolerable records listenable- but not nuisance free. So good
equipment helps.
Ludovic Mirabel

wrote in message
oups.com...
MINe 109 wrote:
In article .com,
"JBColeman" wrote:

I'm wondering if anyone could give me some advice about using a VPI
16.5 record cleaner I just acquired. I've been using it as
directed--the VPI brush, the VPI fluid, etc.--and I've noticed improved
clarity and detail like people have described, but so far I've noticed
nothing like the remarkable reduction in pops, etc on the vinyl that
people have described. Perhaps I'm using it incorrectly? Thanks in
advance for any advice,

Record cleaners are better for preventing new pops than removing old
ones. Quieter is good, but for pops you might look at something like
Fremer's cleaning regimen that starts with an Orbitrac.

Take a look at this:

http://www.furious.com/perfect/vinyl8.html
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I just read this. Geez, is anyone dumb enough to believe that how a
platter is driven affects the audibility of clicks and pops??? Who is
the dope that wrote this???

Carbon-fiber brush, mmm.

Stephen

You don't know about Michael "Tin Ear" Fremer? He's one of the dolts who
writes for Stereophile and in reviewing the 300K WAVAC amp, didn't appear to
notice the thing was generating distortion practically of the charts.

To his credit he at least go it right about the Click & Pop machine, they
were not well thought of by anybody as I recall.

As to the way a platter is driven having anything to do with clicks and pops
what do you expect from that frnge element of audio that thinks the state of
the art for turntables is to turn the platter with a rubber band?

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 07:45:12 GMT, wrote:


wrote in message
roups.com...
MINe 109 wrote:
In article .com,
"JBColeman" wrote:

I'm wondering if anyone could give me some advice about using a VPI
16.5 record cleaner I just acquired. I've been using it as
directed--the VPI brush, the VPI fluid, etc.--and I've noticed improved
clarity and detail like people have described, but so far I've noticed
nothing like the remarkable reduction in pops, etc on the vinyl that
people have described. Perhaps I'm using it incorrectly? Thanks in
advance for any advice,

Record cleaners are better for preventing new pops than removing old
ones. Quieter is good, but for pops you might look at something like
Fremer's cleaning regimen that starts with an Orbitrac.

Take a look at this:

http://www.furious.com/perfect/vinyl8.html
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I just read this. Geez, is anyone dumb enough to believe that how a
platter is driven affects the audibility of clicks and pops??? Who is
the dope that wrote this???

Carbon-fiber brush, mmm.

Stephen

You don't know about Michael "Tin Ear" Fremer? He's one of the dolts who
writes for Stereophile and in reviewing the 300K WAVAC amp, didn't appear to
notice the thing was generating distortion practically of the charts.

To his credit he at least go it right about the Click & Pop machine, they
were not well thought of by anybody as I recall.

As to the way a platter is driven having anything to do with clicks and pops
what do you expect from that frnge element of audio that thinks the state of
the art for turntables is to turn the platter with a rubber band?

But turntables really get me excited and horny !

You see an erection of the penis occurs when engorgement of venous
blood in
two tubular structures at the bottom of the penis, the corpora
cavernosa,
results from a variety of stimuli. The corpus spongiosum is a single
tubular structure located just above the corpora carvernonosa, and
contains the male urethra, through which urine and semen pass during
urination and ejaculation, respectively. This may also become slightly
engorged with blood, but less so than the corpora cavernosa. Penile
erection usually results from sexual stimulation and/or arousal, but
can also occur by such causes as a full urinary bladder or
spontaneously, most commonly during erotic or wet dreams. An erection
results in swelling and enlargement of the penis or the swelling of
the
female counterpart to the penis, clitoris. Erection enables sexual
intercourse and other sexual activities, though it is not essential
for
all sexual activities.

In addition to sexual arousal, erection in males can be caused by
mechanical stimulation, or by the pressure of the filled urinary
bladder. Erections when waking up are common, most likely due to a
full
bladder. They sometimes already occur in infant boys, and in utero.

Physiologically, an erection is achieved by two mechanisms that play
together: increased inflow of blood into the vessels of erectile
tissue, and decreased outflow. The vessel system involved is known as
the corpara cavernosa and the corpus spongiosum. Muscles in the region
relax, allowing more blood to enter these sponge-like tissues.
Contraction of other muscles reduce the outflow. The enlarged
structure
then exerts pressures on the exit veins, further reducing the outflow.

As blood flows in, the penis stiffens, its girth and length increases,
and it rises to an angle that can vary from below horizontal to almost
vertical.

Certain conditions (e.g. diabetes mellitus) result in erectile
dysfunction, a problem where penile erection is insufficient to
achieve
normal sexual intercourse. In recent years, several drugs have been
developed for treatment of this condition.

If present, the foreskin normally retracts and exposes the glans. The
skin of the scrotum tightens, pulling the testicles in towards the
base
of the penis.

Erection is caused by signals from the parasympathetic nervous system;
it is countered by the sympathetic nervous system which is mainly
responsible for the "fight-or-flight" response. This explains why
under
stressful conditions, an erection is often difficult or impossible to
achieve, and sudden onset of stress can deprive one of erection. The
sympathetic nervous system is also responsible for causing
ejaculation,
which explains why most males lose their erection after ejaculation.

Erections may occur even after death, if the pressure within the penis
increases for some reason, for example due to sinking fluids or the
formation of gases of putrefaction. See google for "death erection".

wrote in message
oups.com
MINe 109 wrote:
In article
.com,
"JBColeman" wrote:

I'm wondering if anyone could give me some advice about
using a VPI
16.5 record cleaner I just acquired. I've been using
it as directed--the VPI brush, the VPI fluid, etc.--and
I've noticed improved clarity and detail like people
have described, but so far I've noticed nothing like
the remarkable reduction in pops, etc on the vinyl that
people have described. Perhaps I'm using it
incorrectly? Thanks in advance for any advice,

Record cleaners are better for preventing new pops than
removing old ones. Quieter is good, but for pops you
might look at something like Fremer's cleaning regimen
that starts with an Orbitrac.

Take a look at this:

http://www.furious.com/perfect/vinyl8.html
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I just read this. Geez, is anyone dumb enough to believe
that how a platter is driven affects the audibility of
clicks and pops???

Yep the author of that article, a bozo who used to impose
himself on RAO.

Who is the dope that wrote this???

A really arrogant idiot, friend of Middius who posted under
the name of Marc Phillips.

Carbon-fiber brush, mmm.

You can't squeeze blood out of a rock, and old dirty records
can't rendered pop-free by either magic scrubbers and
suckers or esoteric turntable platters.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Carbon-fiber brush, mmm.

You can't squeeze blood out of a rock, and old dirty records
can't rendered pop-free by either magic scrubbers and
suckers or esoteric turntable platters.

Didn't say that. However, old dirty records can be transformed into old
clean records with only the pops and clicks pressed into them at
manufacture.

Stephen

wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
MINe 109 wrote:
In article .com,
"JBColeman" wrote:

I'm wondering if anyone could give me some advice about using a VPI
16.5 record cleaner I just acquired. I've been using it as
directed--the VPI brush, the VPI fluid, etc.--and I've noticed improved
clarity and detail like people have described, but so far I've noticed
nothing like the remarkable reduction in pops, etc on the vinyl that
people have described. Perhaps I'm using it incorrectly? Thanks in
advance for any advice,

Record cleaners are better for preventing new pops than removing old
ones. Quieter is good, but for pops you might look at something like
Fremer's cleaning regimen that starts with an Orbitrac.

Take a look at this:

http://www.furious.com/perfect/vinyl8.html
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I just read this. Geez, is anyone dumb enough to believe that how a
platter is driven affects the audibility of clicks and pops??? Who is
the dope that wrote this???

Carbon-fiber brush, mmm.

Stephen

You don't know about Michael "Tin Ear" Fremer? He's one of the dolts who
writes for Stereophile and in reviewing the 300K WAVAC amp, didn't appear to
notice the thing was generating distortion practically of the charts.

Yes, I know of Fremer. A deaf idiot with a wild imagination. But this
click and pop drivel was apparently written by a different idiot, one I
am not familiar with.

To his credit he at least go it right about the Click & Pop machine, they
were not well thought of by anybody as I recall.

As to the way a platter is driven having anything to do with clicks and pops
what do you expect from that frnge element of audio that thinks the state of
the art for turntables is to turn the platter with a rubber band?

The same fringe that thinks dragging a rock through a plastic groove
"sounds better".

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com
MINe 109 wrote:
In article
.com,
"JBColeman" wrote:

I'm wondering if anyone could give me some advice about
using a VPI
16.5 record cleaner I just acquired. I've been using
it as directed--the VPI brush, the VPI fluid, etc.--and
I've noticed improved clarity and detail like people
have described, but so far I've noticed nothing like
the remarkable reduction in pops, etc on the vinyl that
people have described. Perhaps I'm using it
incorrectly? Thanks in advance for any advice,

Record cleaners are better for preventing new pops than
removing old ones. Quieter is good, but for pops you
might look at something like Fremer's cleaning regimen
that starts with an Orbitrac.

Take a look at this:

http://www.furious.com/perfect/vinyl8.html
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I just read this. Geez, is anyone dumb enough to believe
that how a platter is driven affects the audibility of
clicks and pops???

Yep the author of that article, a bozo who used to impose
himself on RAO.


Hard to believe anyone can be that stupid! How on earth could the
platter drive affect the audibility of clicks and pops?


Who is the dope that wrote this???

A really arrogant idiot, friend of Middius who posted under
the name of Marc Phillips.

Carbon-fiber brush, mmm.

You can't squeeze blood out of a rock, and old dirty records
can't rendered pop-free by either magic scrubbers and
suckers or esoteric turntable platters.

MINe 109 wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
MINe 109 wrote:

In article .com,
wrote:

http://www.furious.com/perfect/vinyl8.html
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I just read this. Geez, is anyone dumb enough to believe that how a
platter is driven affects the audibility of clicks and pops??? Who is
the dope that wrote this???

Stick to the parts that speak to your question and make sense to you.
Unless you plan to change how your table is driven, you needn't worry
about such things.

Never mind. You're not the Original Poster.

Really? Are you sure?

Good point. Never mind anyway.

And different tables, arms
and carts do show pops and clicks differently.

Not cuzza the way the platter is driven, babycakes. You're not the dope
who wrote the article, are ya?

Bye.

Ohhhh, no more bad advice from you? Tragic!

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Carbon-fiber brush, mmm.

You can't squeeze blood out of a rock, and old dirty
records can't rendered pop-free by either magic
scrubbers and suckers or esoteric turntable platters.

Didn't say that.

No, but you recommended an article

http://www.furious.com/perfect/vinyl8.html

that suggested about as much with careful wordings.

RAO regulars with brains and a modicum of objectivity know
that Marc Phillips had a monstrous blind spot when it came
to the audible flaws in vinyl. Something about keeping his
brains where the sun shines not.

However, old dirty records can be
transformed into old clean records with only the pops and
clicks pressed into them at manufacture.

Is that the good news or bad news? :-(

Agreed however that cleaning records well can be a big
improvement. Been there done that as recently as a few weeks
ago. I was doing the pure alcohol and water with a tiny bit
of wetting agent rub-a-dub-dub in my bathroom sink. It
improved an overly-loved record from unplayable to tolerable
if you were simultaneously overwhelmed with sentiment.

I've had several friends who had the magic machines and
magic fluids and demoed the same to me. I still heard more
enough tic-tic-tic to obscure any potential for sonic
pleasure, let alone comparison with digital.

wrote in message
ups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com
MINe 109 wrote:
In article

.com,
"JBColeman" wrote:

I'm wondering if anyone could give me some advice
about using a VPI
16.5 record cleaner I just acquired. I've been using
it as directed--the VPI brush, the VPI fluid,
etc.--and I've noticed improved clarity and detail
like people have described, but so far I've noticed
nothing like the remarkable reduction in pops, etc on
the vinyl that people have described. Perhaps I'm
using it incorrectly? Thanks in advance for any
advice,

Record cleaners are better for preventing new pops than
removing old ones. Quieter is good, but for pops you
might look at something like Fremer's cleaning regimen
that starts with an Orbitrac.

Take a look at this:

http://www.furious.com/perfect/vinyl8.html
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I just read this. Geez, is anyone dumb enough to believe
that how a platter is driven affects the audibility of
clicks and pops???

Yep the author of that article, a bozo who used to impose
himself on RAO.


Hard to believe anyone can be that stupid! How on earth
could the platter drive affect the audibility of clicks
and pops?

I think the logic (such as it is - remember entering the
world of vinyl involves checking your brain at the door) is
that if your old turntable had a platter that rang like the
Liberty bell being struck by an 250 pound construction
worker weilding an 8 pound sledge, the ringing would amplify
record tics and pops.

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 09:46:22 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Agreed however that cleaning records well can be a big
improvement. Been there done that as recently as a few weeks
ago. I was doing the pure alcohol and water with a tiny bit
of wetting agent

Arnold can't bring himself to say "dishwashing liquid" or "soap".

What a pompous ass!

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Yep the author of that article, a bozo who used to impose himself on RAO.


Seems to me that he merely gave you a taste of your own medicine. The
funniest episode was when Marc announced that he was coming to see you and
have a little "chat" with you. You panicked big time and practically went
into hiding. LOL! Too bad I missed it when it was happening but even after
the fact it is positively hilarious.


Who is the dope that wrote this???

A really arrogant idiot, friend of Middius who posted under the name of
Marc Phillips.

The big mouth is going at it again. Hopefully Marc is lurking somewhere out
there ready to discuss your latest comments face to face... :-) That would
be the perfect RAO Xmas present.


Carbon-fiber brush, mmm.

You can't squeeze blood out of a rock, and old dirty records can't
rendered pop-free by either magic scrubbers and suckers or esoteric
turntable platters.


But it seems easy to squeeze a chicken out of a Krueger. It lies just
beneath the surface...

Kudos to Mark for humiliating you in public.

Cheers,

Margaret

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Carbon-fiber brush, mmm.

You can't squeeze blood out of a rock, and old dirty
records can't rendered pop-free by either magic
scrubbers and suckers or esoteric turntable platters.

Didn't say that.

No, but you recommended an article

http://www.furious.com/perfect/vinyl8.html

Thanks for repeating it. I hope his traffic increases a bit.

that suggested about as much with careful wordings.

Belt-drive tables "do a surprisingly good job of relegating pops and
ticks more to the backround where they are not quite so infuriating"
compared to direct drives?

Better tables exhibit this. It's probably just that most direct-drives
were cheap junk, leading to an over-generalization.

RAO regulars with brains and a modicum of objectivity know
that Marc Phillips had a monstrous blind spot when it came
to the audible flaws in vinyl. Something about keeping his
brains where the sun shines not.

He's saying the right things about record cleaners. The OP already has a
'table, so he can ignore Marc's opinion on drive technology.

However, old dirty records can be
transformed into old clean records with only the pops and
clicks pressed into them at manufacture.

Is that the good news or bad news? :-(

Good news. Better than new, arguably, if you think that pressing goo
(such as anti-mold compound) degrades playback.

Agreed however that cleaning records well can be a big
improvement. Been there done that as recently as a few weeks
ago. I was doing the pure alcohol and water with a tiny bit
of wetting agent rub-a-dub-dub in my bathroom sink. It
improved an overly-loved record from unplayable to tolerable
if you were simultaneously overwhelmed with sentiment.

Not isopropyl alcohol I trust.

I've had several friends who had the magic machines and
magic fluids and demoed the same to me. I still heard more
enough tic-tic-tic to obscure any potential for sonic
pleasure, let alone comparison with digital.

Some people are more sensitive to this problem than others.

Note to Fremer-phobes: the link is to someone else's article on Mike's
website.

http://musicangle.com/feat.php?id=54

"François Yves Le Gal" wrote in
message
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 09:13:52 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

I was doing the pure alcohol and water with a tiny bit
of wetting agent

Arnold can't bring himself to say "dishwashing liquid"
or "soap".

Nope. A wetting agent isn't a cleaning agent. Anyway,
yyou shouldn't use consumer grade dishwashing liquid, as
it contains numerous additives. industrial grade stuff
such as Teepol is fine. Soap is basically made of fat and
will leave some greasy residue.

Agreed. I can't believe that Weil doesn't know the
difference. But, he's desperate to troll me - he'll say the
dumbest things in a vain attempt to get a direct response
out of me.

Wetting agents should be neutral. Kodak Photoflo is
excellent.

Photoflo is exactly what I favor.

I learned about the difference between Photoflo and soap
when I started developing my own film and prints in grade
school. I used to be able to run down to the corner drug
store and pick up a tri-chem-pak and some paper and do the
deed in the basement kitchen with kraft paper over the
windows. Had a little brown bottle of Photoflow with the
eyedropper top.

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 12:16:11 -0500, "Arny Krueger" and "François Yves
Le Gal" wrote:

Nope. A wetting agent isn't a cleaning agent. Anyway,
yyou shouldn't use consumer grade dishwashing liquid, as
it contains numerous additives. industrial grade stuff
such as Teepol is fine. Soap is basically made of fat and
will leave some greasy residue.

Agreed. I can't believe that Weil doesn't know the
difference. But, he's desperate to troll me - he'll say the
dumbest things in a vain attempt to get a direct response
out of me.

Sorry, but you both are wrong. Both of the above are certainly
technically "wetting agents" i.e surfactants. That's how they WORK.
And did I qualify "commercial grade" when it came to dishwashing
liquid anyway? Nope.

Nor, can I be expected to project that Arnold isn't dumb enough to use
a "contaminated" product. In fact, I would expect him to use just
that, since he's on record as thinking that vinyl is so inferior
anyway.

François, does it feel good to be Arnold's stooge and medium?

dave weil wrote:
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 12:16:11 -0500, "Arny Krueger" and "François Yves
Le Gal" wrote:

Nope. A wetting agent isn't a cleaning agent. Anyway,
yyou shouldn't use consumer grade dishwashing liquid, as
it contains numerous additives. industrial grade stuff
such as Teepol is fine. Soap is basically made of fat and
will leave some greasy residue.

Agreed. I can't believe that Weil doesn't know the
difference. But, he's desperate to troll me - he'll say the
dumbest things in a vain attempt to get a direct response
out of me.

Sorry, but you both are wrong. Both of the above are certainly
technically "wetting agents" i.e surfactants. That's how they WORK.
And did I qualify "commercial grade" when it came to dishwashing
liquid anyway? Nope.

Nor, can I be expected to project that Arnold isn't dumb enough to use
a "contaminated" product.

Why not? You project everything else including superior punctuation
on yourself.

FWIW
Main Entry: 1soap
Pronunciation: 'sOp
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English sope, from Old English sApe; akin to Old High
German seifa soap
1 a : a cleansing and emulsifying agent made usually by action of
alkali on fat or fatty acids and consisting essentially of sodium or
potassium salts of such acids b : a salt of a fatty acid and a metal

or if you like detergent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detergent

Clearly you can see (well everybody but Dave can see that) both are
not exclusively surfactants (wetting agents) and there is much more to
how they work and what they work on than wetting.

ScottW

On 11 Nov 2005 12:21:13 -0800, "ScottW" wrote:


dave weil wrote:
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 12:16:11 -0500, "Arny Krueger" and "François Yves
Le Gal" wrote:

Nope. A wetting agent isn't a cleaning agent. Anyway,
yyou shouldn't use consumer grade dishwashing liquid, as
it contains numerous additives. industrial grade stuff
such as Teepol is fine. Soap is basically made of fat and
will leave some greasy residue.

Agreed. I can't believe that Weil doesn't know the
difference. But, he's desperate to troll me - he'll say the
dumbest things in a vain attempt to get a direct response
out of me.

Sorry, but you both are wrong. Both of the above are certainly
technically "wetting agents" i.e surfactants. That's how they WORK.
And did I qualify "commercial grade" when it came to dishwashing
liquid anyway? Nope.

Nor, can I be expected to project that Arnold isn't dumb enough to use
a "contaminated" product.

Why not? You project everything else including superior punctuation
on yourself.

FWIW
Main Entry: 1soap
Pronunciation: 'sOp
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English sope, from Old English sApe; akin to Old High
German seifa soap
1 a : a cleansing and emulsifying agent made usually by action of
alkali on fat or fatty acids and consisting essentially of sodium or
potassium salts of such acids b : a salt of a fatty acid and a metal

or if you like detergent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detergent

Clearly you can see (well everybody but Dave can see that) both are
not exclusively surfactants (wetting agents) and there is much more to
how they work and what they work on than wetting.

Note that they don't EXCLUDE the "wetting agent" properties. Nay, in
fact they specify them.

You lose.

Again.

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 12:16:11 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

I was doing the pure alcohol and water with a tiny bit
of wetting agent

Hell, as far as WE know, he used Lake Michigan water straight from the
shore, or perhaps some of his check-infused toilet water.

dave weil wrote:
On 11 Nov 2005 12:21:13 -0800, "ScottW" wrote:


dave weil wrote:
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 12:16:11 -0500, "Arny Krueger" and "François Yves
Le Gal" wrote:

Nope. A wetting agent isn't a cleaning agent. Anyway,
yyou shouldn't use consumer grade dishwashing liquid, as
it contains numerous additives. industrial grade stuff
such as Teepol is fine. Soap is basically made of fat and
will leave some greasy residue.

Agreed. I can't believe that Weil doesn't know the
difference. But, he's desperate to troll me - he'll say the
dumbest things in a vain attempt to get a direct response
out of me.

Sorry, but you both are wrong. Both of the above are certainly
technically "wetting agents" i.e surfactants. That's how they WORK.
And did I qualify "commercial grade" when it came to dishwashing
liquid anyway? Nope.

Nor, can I be expected to project that Arnold isn't dumb enough to use
a "contaminated" product.

Why not? You project everything else including superior punctuation
on yourself.

FWIW
Main Entry: 1soap
Pronunciation: 'sOp
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English sope, from Old English sApe; akin to Old High
German seifa soap
1 a : a cleansing and emulsifying agent made usually by action of
alkali on fat or fatty acids and consisting essentially of sodium or
potassium salts of such acids b : a salt of a fatty acid and a metal

or if you like detergent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detergent

Clearly you can see (well everybody but Dave can see that) both are
not exclusively surfactants (wetting agents) and there is much more to
how they work and what they work on than wetting.

Note that they don't EXCLUDE the "wetting agent" properties. Nay, in
fact they specify them.

Only Dave, in his blinding zeal for RAO points, could fail to see the
difference in
the following statements.

"Both of the above are certainly
technically "wetting agents" i.e surfactants. That's how they WORK."

"Note that they don't EXCLUDE the "wetting agent" properties."


You lose.

Again.

Keep repeating that to yourself Dave.... In fact I'll grant you two
RAO points for every time you say this. After the weekend, you can
probably rack up 100 points. Now go girl, go.

ScottW

"François Yves Le Gal" wrote in
message
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 13:46:51 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

Sorry, but you both are wrong. Both of the above are
certainly technically "wetting agents" i.e surfactants.
That's how they WORK.

Nope, a cleaning agent isn't a wetting agent, even if
most consumer or industrial cleaners - or detergents -
contain wetting agents.

The amazing thing about Weil is that he thinks he knows more
about a product than the product's manufacturer, even when
the product has been on the market for more than 50 years
and the manufacturer is no less than Kodak!

Here's what Kodak says about Photoflo:

http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acro...688/ti0688.pdf

"Description: Concentrated wetting agent used as a final
step in processing to inhibit the formation of water spots
or streaks on films and plates."

Four words: Weil, what a maroon!

On 11 Nov 2005 13:33:43 -0800, "ScottW" wrote:

Now go girl, go.

ScottW

Quit flirting with me.

On 11 Nov 2005 13:33:43 -0800, "ScottW" wrote:

Clearly you can see (well everybody but Dave can see that) both are
not exclusively surfactants (wetting agents) and there is much more to
how they work and what they work on than wetting.

Note that they don't EXCLUDE the "wetting agent" properties. Nay, in
fact they specify them.

Only Dave, in his blinding zeal for RAO points, could fail to see the
difference in
the following statements.

Clearly you're not smart enough to understand that I didn't say that
being wetting agents were their only property. However, they are
*wetting agents*, of that there is no doubt (look at your own
definition). As I said, that's how they do their job. Without this
basic property, they become pretty ineffective regardless of how the
other ingredients do their jobs.

Oh, just one word for you - Nissan.

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 17:37:19 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"François Yves Le Gal" wrote in
message
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 13:46:51 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

Sorry, but you both are wrong. Both of the above are
certainly technically "wetting agents" i.e surfactants.
That's how they WORK.

Nope, a cleaning agent isn't a wetting agent, even if
most consumer or industrial cleaners - or detergents -
contain wetting agents.

The amazing thing about Weil is that he thinks he knows more
about a product than the product's manufacturer, even when
the product has been on the market for more than 50 years
and the manufacturer is no less than Kodak!

Here's what Kodak says about Photoflo:

http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acro...688/ti0688.pdf

"Description: Concentrated wetting agent used as a final
step in processing to inhibit the formation of water spots
or streaks on films and plates."

Four words: Weil, what a maroon!

The maroon is someone saying that I said ANYTHING about Photoflo being
or not being a wetting agent.

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 20:00:48 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

On 11 Nov 2005 13:33:43 -0800, "ScottW" wrote:

Clearly you can see (well everybody but Dave can see that) both are
not exclusively surfactants (wetting agents) and there is much more to
how they work and what they work on than wetting.

Note that they don't EXCLUDE the "wetting agent" properties. Nay, in
fact they specify them.

Only Dave, in his blinding zeal for RAO points, could fail to see the
difference in
the following statements.

Clearly you're not smart enough to understand that I didn't say that
being wetting agents were their only property. However, they are
*wetting agents*, of that there is no doubt (look at your own
definition). As I said, that's how they do their job. Without this
basic property, they become pretty ineffective regardless of how the
other ingredients do their jobs.

Yes indeed wetting agents are a very important part of record
cleaning.
In fact wetting agents are a very important part of life.

Which brings me to a rather long, but important topic.
An erection of the penis occurs when engorgement of venous blood in
two tubular structures at the bottom of the penis, the corpora
cavernosa, results from a variety of stimuli. The corpus spongiosum is
a single tubular structure located just above the corpora
carvernonosa, and contains the male urethra, through which urine and
semen pass during urination and ejaculation, respectively. This may
also become slightly engorged with blood, but less so than the corpora
cavernosa.
Penile erection usually results from sexual stimulation and/or
arousal, but can also occur by such causes as owing an inflatable doll
with a vibrator to stick up your anus (which works for myself), or a
full urinary bladder or spontaneously, most commonly during erotic or
wet dreams. An erection results in swelling and enlargement of the
penis or the swelling of the female counterpart to the penis,
clitoris. Erection enables sexual intercourse and other sexual
activities, though it is not essential for all sexual activities.
In addition to sexual arousal, erection in males can be caused by
mechanical stimulation, or by the pressure of the filled urinary
bladder. Erections when waking up are common, most likely due to a
full bladder. They sometimes already occur in infant boys, and in
utero.

Physiologically, an erection is achieved by two mechanisms that play
together: increased inflow of blood into the vessels of erectile
tissue, and decreased outflow. The vessel system involved is known as
the corpara cavernosa and the corpus spongiosum. Muscles in the region
relax, allowing more blood to enter these sponge-like tissues.
Contraction of other muscles reduce the outflow. The enlarged
structure
then exerts pressures on the exit veins, further reducing the outflow.

As blood flows in, the penis stiffens, its girth and length increases,
and it rises to an angle that can vary from below horizontal to almost
vertical.

Certain conditions (e.g. diabetes mellitus) result in erectile
dysfunction, a problem where penile erection is insufficient to
achieve
normal sexual intercourse. In recent years, several drugs have been
developed for treatment of this condition.

If present, the foreskin normally retracts and exposes the glans. The
skin of the scrotum tightens, pulling the testicles in towards the
base
of the penis.

Erection is caused by signals from the parasympathetic nervous system;
it is countered by the sympathetic nervous system which is mainly
responsible for the "fight-or-flight" response. This explains why
under
stressful conditions, an erection is often difficult or impossible to
achieve, and sudden onset of stress can deprive one of erection. The
sympathetic nervous system is also responsible for causing
ejaculation,
which explains why most males lose their erection after ejaculation.

Erections may occur even after death, if the pressure within the penis
increases for some reason, for example due to sinking fluids or the
formation of gases of putrefaction. See google for "death erection".

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 09:46:22 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Agreed however that cleaning records well can be a big
improvement. Been there done that as recently as a few weeks
ago. I was doing the pure alcohol and water with a tiny bit
of wetting agent

Arnold can't bring himself to say "dishwashing liquid" or "soap".

What a pompous ass!


Says the obsessive nit picker.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 12:16:11 -0500, "Arny Krueger" and "François Yves
Le Gal" wrote:

Nope. A wetting agent isn't a cleaning agent. Anyway,
yyou shouldn't use consumer grade dishwashing liquid, as
it contains numerous additives. industrial grade stuff
such as Teepol is fine. Soap is basically made of fat and
will leave some greasy residue.

Agreed. I can't believe that Weil doesn't know the
difference. But, he's desperate to troll me - he'll say the
dumbest things in a vain attempt to get a direct response
out of me.

Sorry, but you both are wrong. Both of the above are certainly
technically "wetting agents" i.e surfactants. That's how they WORK.
And did I qualify "commercial grade" when it came to dishwashing
liquid anyway? Nope.

Nor, can I be expected to project that Arnold isn't dumb enough to use
a "contaminated" product.

Of course not, that would make you appear smarter.

In fact, I would expect him to use just
that, since he's on record as thinking that vinyl is so inferior
anyway.

Even people who understand that vinyl is ****, still have LP's that they
place some value on, so it would not be expected that they use something
known to contaminate.

François, does it feel good to be Arnold's stooge and medium?

Does it feel good to be an obsessive compulsive?

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Carbon-fiber brush, mmm.

You can't squeeze blood out of a rock, and old dirty
records can't rendered pop-free by either magic
scrubbers and suckers or esoteric turntable platters.

Didn't say that.

No, but you recommended an article

http://www.furious.com/perfect/vinyl8.html

Thanks for repeating it. I hope his traffic increases a bit.

that suggested about as much with careful wordings.

Belt-drive tables "do a surprisingly good job of relegating pops and
ticks more to the backround where they are not quite so infuriating"
compared to direct drives?

Better tables exhibit this. It's probably just that most direct-drives
were cheap junk, leading to an over-generalization.


Most turntables sold were cheap junk. Direct drive is a far better way to
move a platter, therefore audiophiles use rubber bands.

On 10 Nov 2005 21:18:08 -0800, wrote:


Fran=E7ois Yves Le Gal wrote:
On 10 Nov 2005 14:36:08 -0800, "JBColeman" wrote:

so far I've noticed
nothing like the remarkable reduction in pops, etc on the vinyl that
people have described.

The VPI - or any record cleaning machine - won't remove clicks and pops.

I may be completely wrong

You're not.

but with years of vinyl experience I
came to the conclusion that the records that have an intolerable level
of clicks have got this way in pressing. Consequently nothing will
change the really bad ones.

At last someone agrees with me. I've been saying this on aus.hi-fi for
months and getting slapped down. But it's true, damn it!

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 09:46:22 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

It improved an overly-loved record from unplayable to tolerable
if you were simultaneously overwhelmed with sentiment.

Please explain.

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 19:56:23 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

On 11 Nov 2005 13:33:43 -0800, "ScottW" wrote:

Now go girl, go.

ScottW

Quit flirting with me.

Boys!...boys!...