According to the RCA vinyl record patent 1498409551006799538-03960790- the PVCa copolymer equals 96.2%. The remaining ingredients are varied in purpose and specified with reasons for each additive and its concentration. The heat stabilizer is described as follows:
One-and-six-tenths percent of an organotin salt (resin stabilizer) is included in the compound to neutralize the generation of hydrogen chloride gas (which is produced by partial decomposition of the polyvinyl chloride resin) when the compound is pressed into a record at the normal pressing temperature. The presence of hydrogen chloride gas creates blisters and voids under the record surface and in the record surface, which cause noise when the record is played.
|
@lewn,
Regarding the composition of vinyl records; vinyl records are not a stable polymer of just carbon and hydrogen. Vinyl records contain a significant amount of chlorine and oxygen and a variety of additives. The thermoplastic resin used to produce vinyl phonograph records consist of copolymers of vinyl chloride (PVC) and vinyl acetate (PVAc). The ratio of PVAc to PVC varies depending on the particular formulation. The total PVAc/PVC copolymer can be 75-96% of the record weight. The other 4%-25% are additives that are critical to the performance, and stability of the vinyl record. These additives are not covalently bonded to the copolymer matrix but are merely incorporated within the copolymer matrix and therefore can be leeched out. The stabilizers are typically metal salts of fatty acids or similar organometallic compounds. The metals are typically lead, tin, barium and cadmium. Other stabilizers include phenolic antioxidants such as butylated hydroxytolune (BHT)
PVC is not a stable polymer without the addition of these heat and UV stabilizers. Without proper stabilizers, PVC will readily degrade via a dehydrochlorination reaction which liberates HCl and is an autocatylic reaction. Even with stabilizers, PVC can degrade over time but the degradation process is reduced with stabilizers.
|
@dogberry
What a fascinating and personal connection to the history of Loricraft and Garrard! Terry O’Sullivan’s work clearly left a lasting legacy, both in preserving the Garrard name and in creating innovative products like the Loricraft cleaners. It’s wonderful that you had the chance to interact with him!
IMHO, SME done a fine job in restoring and honoring that tradition of quality and craftsmanship with both brands albeit at a cost that is simply out of reach for many. Who would be willing to pay $30K for SME Garrard 301 Classic :-)
|
Great idea!! So someone else can then throw them in the trash, and I don’t have to be made to feel guilty. The phrase "throw them in the trash" was a euphemism. Here in Montgomery County, MD, you would have to bring useless LPs to the town dump for controlled disposal, but, call me a cynic, even then they end up in the environment. I throw away about 3 LPs in the average year, so I am hardly a major polluter. Also, can you say what chemicals you fear? So far as I know, LPs are made of vinyl, a very stable polymer that is mostly carbon and hydrogen atoms in covalent linkage. That is why LPs can last a hundred years at least, if properly stored. Nevertheless, I do take my junk LPs to the county dump.
|
“I throw in the trash” 😳
Consider taking unwanted records to a thrift shop or donation center near you. Old records are like other plastics: they leach chemicals into the environment if they end up in landfills.
|
Keep in mind that in some cases, there is no amount of cleaning that will eliminate ticks, pops, and all around poor audio quality that one gets from some LPs bought second hand. There is such a thing as a worn out LP. Those I throw in the trash.
|
BTW, @lalitk , do you know of the connection between Loricraft and Garrard (apart from current ownership)?
Terry O'Sullivan founded Loricraft Audio to manufacture plinths for Garrards, but later bought Percy Wilson's designs for a point-source vacuum cleaner and started making them as well. Later still he bought the rights to Garrard turntables after they went out of business in Swindon. He was based in Baydon, just a few miles from where I was born and grew up in Chiseldon, Wiltshire. A very helpful man and a delight to chat to. I hope SME keep up the standards.
|
Thank you all for thoughtful responses. It appears no one machine is capable of attaining desired results as some records will require extra steps to get the stubborn crud out. For that, I will continue to use my VC-S2.
@dogberry
It sounds like you have a highly effective cleaning process in place with both the Degritter and Loricraft working together. I do like your practical approach, understanding the limitations of cleaning and being prepared to rely on either machine if needed.
Loricraft RCM are indeed top notch but they are out of my budget. I am gravitating towards Degritter Mark II as it does supports rinsing records with clean water during washing cycles with the help of a separate water tank (2nd optional water tank needed).
@cleeds I echo your point, best record cleaning protocol is the one you'll actually follow. I thoroughly wash and clean all my new purchases before putting them on the TT.
|
@lewm: The HW-16.5 does NOT have a bidirectional motor, the HW-17 does. The 16.5 is roughly square in shape (width and depth being about equal), the 17 rectangular (the width considerably greater than the depth). Assuming you have the 17, you can find the model number on the back of the machine.
|
I bought a first generation Nitty Gritty back in the late '70s. It's a very effective machine, but rather noisy and messy in operation. It still works, although I only use it on the rare occasion that I need to play a dirty used record.
I bought a Klaudio US machine about 7 years ago, and it does pretty much everything I need of a record cleaner. It washes, it dries, and it does it with one-button convenience. It is amazingly effective and so easy to use that there's just no excuse for ever playing an unclean record.
Most new records are not truly clean, btw, and there's no way to get the best from an LP if you're relying solely on dry brushes to remove dust.
Whatever you choose, I think the best record cleaning protocol is the one you'll actually follow.
|
Dogberry, so far as I have been able to learn by reading the many threads on US RCMs, you are correct not to use a surfactant or detergent with your US machine. As far as I can determine, most manufacturers of US RCMs don't recommend adding anything but water to the bath, except maybe Kirmuss with all its pre-cleaning rituals. But I think that using detergents/surfactants, as I do in my lowly VPI 16.5 or 17 (not sure what I have; the platter rotates in both directions, and it has a stainless steel waste tank) is a decided advantage in favor of the vacuum type cleaner. My neighbor had a Loricraft for a while, but he kept having problems with the string thing.
|
|
It's a question of how clean, isn't it? I use a cleaning solution with surfactant on the Loricraft, followed by a DW rinse. Then the Degritter with just DW, relying on cavitation for any further cleaning. Since Degritter recommends changing water every 20-30 disks, I'd rather remove the majority of crud with the vacuum machine and not contaminate the Degritter's tank with any more of it than necessary. If I changed the water after every disk, which might seem the counsel of perfection, I'd be running my water distiller every day to provide enough. Just a matter of finding a trade-off that one can be comfortable with.
|
If the water bath in a US machine stays “clean”, doesn’t that suggest it’s not removing detritus from LPs, which is its purpose?
|
My experience- it is not a "vs" but an "and"- the two different processes, manual cleaning with vacuum and US are complementary. Sometimes, you really have to work a record in the manual cleaning phase; I always use a rinse step and since I don't use chemistry in my KL US the bath water stays cleaner as well.
When I got my first US machine- an Audio Desk- some years ago, I found certain records remained noisy. That's what led me to go back to manual cleaning and vacuum. (I buy mostly older pressings).
If your collection is largely pristine audiophile quality pressings, you may be able to get away with US only, but with used records, I found the combination to be much more effective. I never used the Project; I had a VPI from the early '80s that was still working fine when I gave it to a friend in 2017; I use a Monks Omni (traditional point nozzle with thread). Like @dogberry that's one machine I would not give up.
|
I would try to find someone locally with an ultrasound machine that will charge to clean records (I have someone here in the west suburbs of Chicago and actually dropped off a batch yesterday). Bring your problem records, have them cleaned, and then decide for yourself if there is an improvement. If so, then you can decide if you want to shell out for one or just pay a la carte
|
I'd say the Degritter provides the icing on the cake, with a Loricraft getting things nearly fully clean. If one of them fails (and we know which is more likely to—I've had the Loricraft for 12 years and I have worked it hard, whereas U/S machines don't tend to last that long), I'll be happy to use just the survivor. If a record is noisy after I've cleaned it I know it isn't dirt, and the fact is not all will become silent.
But if full automation is your goal, then U/S is the way to go.
|
