Record-playing Rituals?

Linn doesn't believe in cleaning the stylus, rega doesn't even believe in cleaning the records. I use a stylus cleaner, but not a stylus preservative. Mr Shagano says it's a no-no. Any good stylus cleaner should completely evaporate before you play a record.

Detlof, I think Igor really brought it to everybodys attention with some Barnum % Baileyesqe promoting.But the first LP12 was little more then a refined AR. Realize at one time I had a full blown LP12..Ekos,lingo, but could never warm up to their cartridges. I got rid of the table..won't mention what I'm using now, not being flame proof.What's that Canadian guys name?...there was just a thread about his website. Anyway, he said the LP12 was the most overated product in the history of hifidum. In a post a couple months ago I said Linn was second to only Bose in marketing...I stand by that.

No I'm not kidding about the Putty. It really works! I've used it for years and will continue to do so.

For deep cleaning you can put a pea size on the platter and lower the arm/stylus onto it to sit for a minute.

Linn used to reccomend a super fine plastic emery type "paper". It was made of plastic and came in sheets.

The theory is that the gunk that builds on the stylus is hard to get off and won't come off with the super huge fibers of a brush.

Longplate, I'm with you on the Linn Issue. The fact that they have sold this line of BS through the years is an amazing marketing acomplishment. The only so-so construction and nightmarishly difficult adjustment setup, coupled with the lack of the 45RPM speed is unacceptable, in my view. The table is too lightweight in construction for the asking price. It's fundamental resonance ,if I recall, was too high at around 8 or 9 Hz.
Detlof, your point was also valid about the table sounding better than the mid 70s competition. I remember the shows where they would smoke all the competition (mostly japanese direct drive). It was only $525.00 back then.(They used Kieth Monks flip top tonearms for ease of comparison..marketing geniouses)
Ivor's philosophy has been a radically different one, but its more based on Religion than anything else IMO.........Frank

Life IS difficult and that of an audiophile often more!
Why you may ask? Well, thanks to the Albert's kindness I was happily testing the RR unctions and found them to be really convincing in giving a better soundstage both in width and depth and a beter clarity of the overall sound.... until, well, until I struck upon an old, old Louis Armstrong Stereo LP at a garage sale, eagerly took it home and played the first side, just after brushing it off a bit. I fell into a state of bliss, as I heard the old trumpet-genius's voice rasping away between the speakers, savouring the brilliance of the horns, the tapping of feet, the backstage murmurings. Then I gave side two the RR treatment and truly the magic was gone. The voice lost its bite, the contours of it were truly washed out ( pun intended), the soundstage though bigger, was much less precise in the delineation of instruments. A sad disappointment. So what is the explanation ? I don't know.
It may be, that side one and side two were mastered differently, though I doubt that. Perhaps its a question of the vinyl. As I said, it was a very early stereo LP. Has anybody got an explanation? Anyway, I generally have found, that cleaning Lps thoroughly before playing is beneficial to its rendering along several important parameters. This is the first time, that I was forced to realise, that this is obviously not always the case. Maybe those guys who maintain, that washing Lp's is detrimental to the sound, are not as tinnyeared of preculiar as I was tempted to assume.
Regards,