@mijostyn- I haven’t used an Ortofon since the mid-70s. I will use a bit of alcohol applied to a pad type stylus brush, e.g. the "brush" type Ortofon and many others sell, but I usually only do it sparingly, not regularly, and more in cases of extremis-- for example, I had purchased an old, somewhat valuable record that, despite deep cleaning on the Monks and on an ultrasonic machine (I forget which one, an Audio Desk or KL- I’ve had both), yielded this nasty yellow gunk from the grooves. I immediately cued up; the record was returned to the vendor but the stylus needed to be degunked. That was an extreme situation.
I have in the past periodically used Magic Eraser or the Blu-stuff that Soundsmith recommends, but again, don’t do that constantly- and am always mindful of the forces applied to the cantilever in doing so.
I guess the cautionary note about alcohol could be read as lawyer boilerplate, but for the uninitiated, I’m not sure I’d throw caution to the wind.
I don’t disagree with pressing run variations in quality. There can be considerable variability sometimes among copies of the "same" record with the same deadwax indicia.
On phono stage and cartridge interactions accentuating noise, yes, taken to an extreme, you could conclude that the phono stage isn’t doing its job if it is not handling record tics--that was precisely why I referenced Ralph’s @atmasphere ’s views on this. I do load cartridges for best sound by ear and sometimes it isn’t at 47k.
I was sent some samples of needle drops done on a Sugar Cube. They sounded pretty good. I actually own copies of the early pressings of the records from which they were drawn, so I guess when I have the time and inclination, I could make a comparison, but that might show more about the difference between my more elaborate vinyl front end and the modest digital front end than the effect of the needle dropping software.
For what that’s worth, I have heard archival restorations in studio of very old transcriptions and acetates and despite the effects of digital processing, the sound was vastly improved by the work done by the archivist- the original was a noisy, tinny sounding record ( in one case it was Les Paul acetates cut direct to disc before he got his hands on a tape machine and in another case it was the original transcription discs that Benny Goodman had paid someone to cut for his personal use of that famous Carnegie Hall show back in the ’30s). The digitally processed signal, with painstaking adjustments made by the archivist in tiny time increments yielded a dynamic, very open and vivid sound that was no longer masked in noise. Perhaps extreme cases.
One last note of interest beyond your post- after spending the better part of the day with the one archivist who had the Benny Goodman transcriptions, I returned home to a large dinner party. I mentioned the Benny Goodman concert and one of our guests-- a man of age-- had actually attended it! (He was a youngster and his older brother, who was a big band fiend, had dragged him to that historic show).
regards,
bill hart
