I didn't know that there was a "24hr rule" with record's! I had (before watching this) would play a record, and if I got disturbed or something wasn't right, I'd stop the record and replay it from the beginning! Now I find that's a no, 👎 no! I've learned a helluva lot from this seminar!
So the stylus friction is welding the dust into the release agent and not the vinyl itself? Does that mean that the vinyl itself does not melt? That seems rather convenient. Would like to know more but Charles spends 99% of the time talking about the problems with other systems and only 1% explaining how his works. So I don’t understand why his is better.
“Buy 3 copies of ‘Dark Side of The Moon’, and listen to them back to back”? Sure, if this guy wants to pay for them. Certain pressings sound better than others anyway, and I’m always gonna listen to my best sounding copy. Jeez, this guy has both piqued my curiosity and somewhat irritated me too. If I were to adopt his method, i feel I’d be cleaning my records for endless hours rather than listening to them. I’ll gladly accept the occasional pop or click over obsessive cleaning. My vacuum based system has worked for me for many years, and I don’t see that changing. All that being said, I can’t help but be appreciative for Kirmuss’ want and need to keep vinyl records both archived and around in the future to be listened to and enjoyed for many years and generations to come.
The old Shure chart he shows at 38:44, item 5a, shows superior cleaning by that dread alcohol! And 5b, that surfactant (enhancer) puts down it's own layer. Frankly, I kind of doubt that. Photoflo is used at the rate of 1:200, so I doubt the drop that might be within whatever's used to clean one record could leave a film. The comments cover a lot of things I take issue with, too. Vinyl being a superior media.....why can't we just admit it's fun and we like the physicality of it...........non-water soluable isopropyl?.......say wha'?...........things like that. I use 50% rubbing alcohol with 6 or 7ml of Photoflo in a quart, and a tablespoon of household sudsing ammonia. Before you freak, read the chemical compatibility chart he suggests. Ammoniom Hydroxide is OK. It supplies the detergent (the sudsing part) and bumps the pH which increases cleaning ability. My Frequently Cynical handle sure fits this video.
The needle doesn't ride on the bottom of the record it rides on the of the groves, there should be a gap between the tip of the stylist and the bottom of the grove. What you're hearing with pops is dirt touching the styli. Contact lens cleaner should work well
Don’t play a record more than twice within 24 hrs? Are you kidding me? I’ve never had any type of problem playing a record many times in 1 day. Ever. This guy must just clean and worry about his records rather than actually listen to them.
>Complains about misconceptions about vinyl at the start of the talk >Asserts that analogue formats are better than digital formats because of the endlessly debunked 'smooth analogue wave, stairstepped digital wave' argument >Also clearly doesn't know what 'bits' mean Oh dear...
"90%+ alcohol isn't water-soluble but 70% is" How does he think 70% alcohol is made? Does someone click their fingers and magic it out of thin air? Does someone mutter a spell over pure alcohol that lets it sit nicely with a bit of water, just enough to dilute it to 70% purity? Or do alcohols hydrogen-bond to water molecules via their hydroxyl groups, which actually makes an iota of sense and is backed up by basic high-school-level chemistry?
"Photo-Flo is made to repel water. You're not trying to repel water, you're trying to get it in the grooves" It's a surfactant. It aids the drying of water in photo development and helps avoid spotting by reducing surface tension, all non-ionic surfactants do this. That's why you see 'non-ionic surfactant' on the ingredients labels of floor cleaners, window cleaners and so on, since drying without spotting is important in those applications too. Oddly enough, reducing surface tension means that the solution won't bead up and it'll penetrate the grooves, which is the opposite of what he's claiming here.
"Alcohol isn't a cleaner" Yes, it's a cleaner. Higher molecular weight alcohols (such as isopropyl alcohol) are useful for dissolving oils (eg fingerprints).
This is leaving aside the strange assertion that water beads up on the surface of vinyl because of 'positive charges' rather than the fact that water has surface tension and PVC is hydrophobic.
This is quite hilarious. The presenter completely ignores the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem when declaring that vinyl records are better than CD audio (let alone even higher sampling rates, topic for another discussion), and then proceeds to go into great detail about how susceptible records are to dirt, static charges, dust, etc. Uh, guess what? Digital files don't require all that expense, time, and fuss to sound their best. LOL! There really is a good reason that CD's were a fundamental revolution in music reproduction, and it isn't due to a grand conspiracy or general ignorance of the masses.
It's even more amazing when you consider the sacrifices that often have to be made to the master to get the audio cut to vinyl, such as low-pass filters at ~16 kHz and mixing-down of bass to mono lol
@@UberPilot Let's compare, shall we? *Dynamic range:* Reel-to-reel (30 ips): 77 dB at most Vinyl: 70 dB at most at the outer grooves, decreasing to around 50-60 dB at the inner grooves Cassette: 60-70 dB CD: 85-96 dB undithered, >100 dB dithered *Frequency response:* 16/44.1 digital has ruler-flat frequency response across the entire human audible frequency range. The same cannot be said of analogue formats. *Stereo separation:* CD: Equivalent to dynamic range Vinyl: Around 30 dB *Speed variation:* CD: Not measurable Vinyl, reel-to-reel, cassette, etc: Easily measurable as wow and flutter And so on and so forth...
@@UberPilot "NOT EVERYTHING CAN BE MEASURED" is a fallacious attempt to cope with the fact that your preferred formats are inferior in almost every metric to digital. Your ears aren't as accurate as lab-grade measurement gear, however much you'd like to think otherwise. Said measurement gear also isn't subject to the placebo effect, which appears to be rife in the "analogue is superior to digital" community.
@@UberPilot It's kind of fascinating how whenever 'audiophiles' are proven wrong, they always leap to esoteric twaddle as a supposed 'gotcha'. Take the common "we are analogue creatures, we hear in analogue, see in analogue, hear in analogue, our soul is in analogue" soppy crap, or (as is the case here) the people who base their buying decisions on, instead of independent measurements, the words of industry mouthpieces and bought-for 'reviewers' trying to sell an inferior product for a premium price telling other people that "they have their eyes closed".
I didn't know that there was a "24hr rule" with record's! I had (before watching this) would play a record, and if I got disturbed or something wasn't right, I'd stop the record and replay it from the beginning! Now I find that's a no, 👎 no! I've learned a helluva lot from this seminar!
So the stylus friction is welding the dust into the release agent and not the vinyl itself? Does that mean that the vinyl itself does not melt? That seems rather convenient. Would like to know more but Charles spends 99% of the time talking about the problems with other systems and only 1% explaining how his works. So I don’t understand why his is better.
“I’m not a scientist; I’m just dangerous.”
“Buy 3 copies of ‘Dark Side of The Moon’, and listen to them back to back”? Sure, if this guy wants to pay for them. Certain pressings sound better than others anyway, and I’m always gonna listen to my best sounding copy.
Jeez, this guy has both piqued my curiosity and somewhat irritated me too. If I were to adopt his method, i feel I’d be cleaning my records for endless hours rather than listening to them. I’ll gladly accept the occasional pop or click over obsessive cleaning. My vacuum based system has worked for me for many years, and I don’t see that changing.
All that being said, I can’t help but be appreciative for Kirmuss’ want and need to keep vinyl records both archived and around in the future to be listened to and enjoyed for many years and generations to come.
Where can I get my records restored by your method??
The old Shure chart he shows at 38:44, item 5a, shows superior cleaning by that dread alcohol! And 5b, that surfactant (enhancer) puts down it's own layer. Frankly, I kind of doubt that. Photoflo is used at the rate of 1:200, so I doubt the drop that might be within whatever's used to clean one record could leave a film.
The comments cover a lot of things I take issue with, too. Vinyl being a superior media.....why can't we just admit it's fun and we like the physicality of it...........non-water soluable isopropyl?.......say wha'?...........things like that.
I use 50% rubbing alcohol with 6 or 7ml of Photoflo in a quart, and a tablespoon of household sudsing ammonia. Before you freak, read the chemical compatibility chart he suggests. Ammoniom Hydroxide is OK. It supplies the detergent (the sudsing part) and bumps the pH which increases cleaning ability.
My Frequently Cynical handle sure fits this video.
Thank you. A lot of new information. It is a though-provoking presentation.
I wonder what he thinks of people using pva glue
Lost audio of Charles and video @17:27 mark. Resumes 18:36 mark. I’m assuming his mic went off, and the guy in red fixed it
The needle doesn't ride on the bottom of the record it rides on the of the groves, there should be a gap between the tip of the stylist and the bottom of the grove. What you're hearing with pops is dirt touching the styli.
Contact lens cleaner should work well
If this guy says “needle” one more time I’m going to lose my shit.
Don’t play a record more than twice within 24 hrs? Are you kidding me? I’ve never had any type of problem playing a record many times in 1 day. Ever.
This guy must just clean and worry about his records rather than actually listen to them.
>Complains about misconceptions about vinyl at the start of the talk
>Asserts that analogue formats are better than digital formats because of the endlessly debunked 'smooth analogue wave, stairstepped digital wave' argument
>Also clearly doesn't know what 'bits' mean
Oh dear...
"90%+ alcohol isn't water-soluble but 70% is"
How does he think 70% alcohol is made? Does someone click their fingers and magic it out of thin air? Does someone mutter a spell over pure alcohol that lets it sit nicely with a bit of water, just enough to dilute it to 70% purity? Or do alcohols hydrogen-bond to water molecules via their hydroxyl groups, which actually makes an iota of sense and is backed up by basic high-school-level chemistry?
"Photo-Flo is made to repel water. You're not trying to repel water, you're trying to get it in the grooves"
It's a surfactant. It aids the drying of water in photo development and helps avoid spotting by reducing surface tension, all non-ionic surfactants do this. That's why you see 'non-ionic surfactant' on the ingredients labels of floor cleaners, window cleaners and so on, since drying without spotting is important in those applications too. Oddly enough, reducing surface tension means that the solution won't bead up and it'll penetrate the grooves, which is the opposite of what he's claiming here.
"Alcohol isn't a cleaner"
Yes, it's a cleaner. Higher molecular weight alcohols (such as isopropyl alcohol) are useful for dissolving oils (eg fingerprints).
This is leaving aside the strange assertion that water beads up on the surface of vinyl because of 'positive charges' rather than the fact that water has surface tension and PVC is hydrophobic.
Snake oil , charmer !!
The way he says timbre is cringe
This is quite hilarious. The presenter completely ignores the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem when declaring that vinyl records are better than CD audio (let alone even higher sampling rates, topic for another discussion), and then proceeds to go into great detail about how susceptible records are to dirt, static charges, dust, etc. Uh, guess what? Digital files don't require all that expense, time, and fuss to sound their best. LOL! There really is a good reason that CD's were a fundamental revolution in music reproduction, and it isn't due to a grand conspiracy or general ignorance of the masses.
It's even more amazing when you consider the sacrifices that often have to be made to the master to get the audio cut to vinyl, such as low-pass filters at ~16 kHz and mixing-down of bass to mono lol
Also a reason why vinyl is back. We prefer the sound.
@@UberPilot Let's compare, shall we?
*Dynamic range:*
Reel-to-reel (30 ips): 77 dB at most
Vinyl: 70 dB at most at the outer grooves, decreasing to around 50-60 dB at the inner grooves
Cassette: 60-70 dB
CD: 85-96 dB undithered, >100 dB dithered
*Frequency response:*
16/44.1 digital has ruler-flat frequency response across the entire human audible frequency range. The same cannot be said of analogue formats.
*Stereo separation:*
CD: Equivalent to dynamic range
Vinyl: Around 30 dB
*Speed variation:*
CD: Not measurable
Vinyl, reel-to-reel, cassette, etc: Easily measurable as wow and flutter
And so on and so forth...
@@UberPilot "NOT EVERYTHING CAN BE MEASURED" is a fallacious attempt to cope with the fact that your preferred formats are inferior in almost every metric to digital. Your ears aren't as accurate as lab-grade measurement gear, however much you'd like to think otherwise. Said measurement gear also isn't subject to the placebo effect, which appears to be rife in the "analogue is superior to digital" community.
@@UberPilot It's kind of fascinating how whenever 'audiophiles' are proven wrong, they always leap to esoteric twaddle as a supposed 'gotcha'. Take the common "we are analogue creatures, we hear in analogue, see in analogue, hear in analogue, our soul is in analogue" soppy crap, or (as is the case here) the people who base their buying decisions on, instead of independent measurements, the words of industry mouthpieces and bought-for 'reviewers' trying to sell an inferior product for a premium price telling other people that "they have their eyes closed".