Record and stylus cleaners
Moderator: Staff
After being struck literally speechless for a while, I only want to confirm that my judgements are based on _musical_ reasoning only. The _music_ improves in every aspect by the washing procedure described. The related Monk recording is the best by far I made up to now (I made quite a few) , and it is his intricate play with time that makes his music that great. I also cannot find any confusion in the Mahler piece – I just hear more music and it makes definitely more sense. If you regard these samples as more Hifi, we just live musically in parallel universes. Obviously we do. This is as surprising as it is disappointing, but it is a positive result that we have arrived at such a conclusion instead of talking about different things with similar words. And indicates again, that everybody has to listen himself instead of following other peoples opinions – they may understand under the term music something completely different than you do.
Klaus, I'm certain it's not a question of living in parallel universes.
I think that if we met and did the comparisons in real life, we would quickly arrive at the same conclusions. I have done this over and over again in demonstrations and the most common result is that the participating listeners agree when judging quality in musical reproduction. Only rarely do I find that I have to agree to disagree.
I would really appreciate some other people's opinions of these clips. And apart from noting and commenting on the obvious sound differences, I beg everyone to please focus on the musical qualities:
What are the musicians expressing?
How good are they at what they do?
Which of the two (clip A or clip B) would you hire for a very important occasion?
Are all the instruments working together, helping to build the piece? Or are the musicians separated, not in connection with each other?
Even if the instrument shrinks in sound quality from a grand piano to a western bar piano, we are able to focus on what the musician is expressing - if he's performing better or worse. And even if we listen from far outside a building, we can instantly tell a great concert in there from a bad one. Therefore, qualities like detail, separation and soundstage have absolutely no correlation to musical qualities.
Forgive me for sounding like a teacher, telling people what to listen for, as if you don't already know. I'm writing this NOT because I think you can't do it, but because it IS VERY EASY, for ANYONE, to fall for the many "honey traps" of better sound. I know, because I do it all the time. On the many hundreds of evaluations I have done with Tundra (the power amp soon to be released), I have fallen again and again for high resolution, for clean treble, for solid bass, for precision, for deepness - even for a sudden sense of the music opening up, coming alive and being strongly convincing - only to discover that it was another trap. What appeared to be a big improvement was actually worse, musically.
In my opinion, the only way to progress and move forward is to always be ready to question the positions and beliefs we hold. I cherish the moments when I'm left speechless! Therefore I'd be delighted to discover I was wrong in this case. I actually want the cleaned records to be better performing than the uncleaned ones - after all, I started this thread due to some rather dirty vinyl I bought on ebay.
I think that if we met and did the comparisons in real life, we would quickly arrive at the same conclusions. I have done this over and over again in demonstrations and the most common result is that the participating listeners agree when judging quality in musical reproduction. Only rarely do I find that I have to agree to disagree.
I would really appreciate some other people's opinions of these clips. And apart from noting and commenting on the obvious sound differences, I beg everyone to please focus on the musical qualities:
What are the musicians expressing?
How good are they at what they do?
Which of the two (clip A or clip B) would you hire for a very important occasion?
Are all the instruments working together, helping to build the piece? Or are the musicians separated, not in connection with each other?
Even if the instrument shrinks in sound quality from a grand piano to a western bar piano, we are able to focus on what the musician is expressing - if he's performing better or worse. And even if we listen from far outside a building, we can instantly tell a great concert in there from a bad one. Therefore, qualities like detail, separation and soundstage have absolutely no correlation to musical qualities.
Forgive me for sounding like a teacher, telling people what to listen for, as if you don't already know. I'm writing this NOT because I think you can't do it, but because it IS VERY EASY, for ANYONE, to fall for the many "honey traps" of better sound. I know, because I do it all the time. On the many hundreds of evaluations I have done with Tundra (the power amp soon to be released), I have fallen again and again for high resolution, for clean treble, for solid bass, for precision, for deepness - even for a sudden sense of the music opening up, coming alive and being strongly convincing - only to discover that it was another trap. What appeared to be a big improvement was actually worse, musically.
In my opinion, the only way to progress and move forward is to always be ready to question the positions and beliefs we hold. I cherish the moments when I'm left speechless! Therefore I'd be delighted to discover I was wrong in this case. I actually want the cleaned records to be better performing than the uncleaned ones - after all, I started this thread due to some rather dirty vinyl I bought on ebay.
Well, I have finally been able to do the comparisons of six of the tracks posted here by Klaus (thanks again for taking the time to do all this research). It took me three days to finally get the large file to download properly - it kept on stopping half way through and having to be restarted. But this time I was able to play them on the system in the store. The system used is what we had set up in our larger demo room: ADS/1, KK/1/D, Solos (not Dynamiked yet) playing through Vienna Acoustics The Music speakers. All cabling Linn (power, interconnects, speaker) with Silvers for interconnects.
I listened to the Zeitlin first and found the unwashed record easier to follow on both the piano and bass with a better flow and more nuanced sound to the piano. The timing of the notes seemed more natural and it was somehow easier to listen to. Then I listened to the Beethoven and once again preferred the uncleaned record finding the playing of the piano more fluid and hearing more of the sound of fingers on keys. The whole orchestra sounded more of a piece and I wanted to keep listening whereas the ones cleaned with the AI fluid made me want to go back to the original ones (on both of these sets of tracks). On the Mahler I thought the track without the AI cleaning at the end sounded better than the one with it, more natural and easier to follow - even the applause sounded better. But after listening to the two previous comparisons there was still something that seemed not quite right with either version. It made me want to be able to listen to the Mahler without cleaning too!
I am going to definitely have to re-evaluate this whole record cleaning thing now. I have a way that I should be able to record some before and after clips so I should try that here with the VPI machine. In my previous tests I had to listen to a record, take about 10 minutes to clean a side with the three step process and then listen again. Hardly a true A/B comparison as allowed by Klaus samples. Of course one problem is that I will have to find some decently musical records that I don't care about (or have multiples of) so I don't risk damage to a well loved LP. Maybe Linn does have something about this not cleaning records thing! I have to say that, at least at this point, I feel fortunate that - mostly through laziness - most of my record collection has never been cleaned on an RCM. I have to wonder why the musical differences are the way they are and I have to assume that a change to the friction of the diamond in the groove is what is causing the effect but I still don't quite understand the physics of it all. I also now wonder if the record will eventually return to its unwashed sonics after some number of plays or some period of time - the high-res digital recording sample process could definitely shed some light here as well. I am certainly going to have to do more research before I feel I have gotten to the bottom of all this. But this thread has indeed given us a good start and some real food for thought!
I listened to the Zeitlin first and found the unwashed record easier to follow on both the piano and bass with a better flow and more nuanced sound to the piano. The timing of the notes seemed more natural and it was somehow easier to listen to. Then I listened to the Beethoven and once again preferred the uncleaned record finding the playing of the piano more fluid and hearing more of the sound of fingers on keys. The whole orchestra sounded more of a piece and I wanted to keep listening whereas the ones cleaned with the AI fluid made me want to go back to the original ones (on both of these sets of tracks). On the Mahler I thought the track without the AI cleaning at the end sounded better than the one with it, more natural and easier to follow - even the applause sounded better. But after listening to the two previous comparisons there was still something that seemed not quite right with either version. It made me want to be able to listen to the Mahler without cleaning too!
I am going to definitely have to re-evaluate this whole record cleaning thing now. I have a way that I should be able to record some before and after clips so I should try that here with the VPI machine. In my previous tests I had to listen to a record, take about 10 minutes to clean a side with the three step process and then listen again. Hardly a true A/B comparison as allowed by Klaus samples. Of course one problem is that I will have to find some decently musical records that I don't care about (or have multiples of) so I don't risk damage to a well loved LP. Maybe Linn does have something about this not cleaning records thing! I have to say that, at least at this point, I feel fortunate that - mostly through laziness - most of my record collection has never been cleaned on an RCM. I have to wonder why the musical differences are the way they are and I have to assume that a change to the friction of the diamond in the groove is what is causing the effect but I still don't quite understand the physics of it all. I also now wonder if the record will eventually return to its unwashed sonics after some number of plays or some period of time - the high-res digital recording sample process could definitely shed some light here as well. I am certainly going to have to do more research before I feel I have gotten to the bottom of all this. But this thread has indeed given us a good start and some real food for thought!
Hi I asked a person who runs a vinyl pressing plant here in Sweden (probably the only one in Sweden) about cleaning records and he said that you should avoid cleaning them if possible as you will scratch the surface anyhow with cleaning. But he said that he used methylated spirit to clean the matrises and then distilled water. With really dirty records he had got from ebay he just used detergent with a decent result.
My own comment now I'll guess that this small scratching of the surface may alter the friction of the record so it will become less musical and if that is the case the record won't come back to it's unwashed condition.
BTW I have not listened to the files as I don't have a DS-player
My own comment now I'll guess that this small scratching of the surface may alter the friction of the record so it will become less musical and if that is the case the record won't come back to it's unwashed condition.
BTW I have not listened to the files as I don't have a DS-player
Reading what I wrote last evening, I feel like I went on and on without really getting to the core of my thoughts.
One thing I was trying to say is that for me, when doing these kind of comparisons, I don't always perceive the differences as "sound versus music". It can also appear as one musical interpretation versus a slightly different one. Especially when the difference is very small. Like when changing direction of a cable (which can sometimes be tricky) or altering the value of a component one or two percent.
In order to detect a possible "honey trap", I often listen first inside the room and then from outside the room. Sometimes what I interpret as a more detailed and emotional presentation of the performance inside the room - with seemingly easier access to delicate nuances - can outside the room appear to have a musical weakness on a larger scale, on the whole of the message. Usually when I go back into the room, I keep hearing this weakness and the comparison then becomes much easier.
With high resolution recordings, a world of previously discouragingly complex comparisons are suddenly possible. Because not only are we erasing the time between the modifications, we can also send the files across the world for others to hear. Either as a demonstration of the results or as a tool in a joint effort to improve something. To me, Klaus' work on this (his files are very high quality) has opened up a new world of possibilities. Thank you!
One thing I was trying to say is that for me, when doing these kind of comparisons, I don't always perceive the differences as "sound versus music". It can also appear as one musical interpretation versus a slightly different one. Especially when the difference is very small. Like when changing direction of a cable (which can sometimes be tricky) or altering the value of a component one or two percent.
In order to detect a possible "honey trap", I often listen first inside the room and then from outside the room. Sometimes what I interpret as a more detailed and emotional presentation of the performance inside the room - with seemingly easier access to delicate nuances - can outside the room appear to have a musical weakness on a larger scale, on the whole of the message. Usually when I go back into the room, I keep hearing this weakness and the comparison then becomes much easier.
Yes, I was thinking that too! What happens after the record has been played ten times? And how much does the vinyl actually wear when being played?ThomasOK wrote:I also now wonder if the record will eventually return to its unwashed sonics after some number of plays or some period of time - the high-res digital recording sample process could definitely shed some light here as well.
With high resolution recordings, a world of previously discouragingly complex comparisons are suddenly possible. Because not only are we erasing the time between the modifications, we can also send the files across the world for others to hear. Either as a demonstration of the results or as a tool in a joint effort to improve something. To me, Klaus' work on this (his files are very high quality) has opened up a new world of possibilities. Thank you!
Maybe, maybe not, who knows. When I think it over, I find the funny thing is that I (and all people who hear it here) regard the improvement by ‘power brushing’ as substantial, leading to something like night and day differences, while it seems Fredrik is talking about subtle nuances dependent on the listener’s local position. This could perhaps be due to the total playback setting. Maybe, maybe not.lejonklou wrote:Klaus, I'm certain it's not a question of living in parallel universes.
My listening includes concentrated music sessions (some days ago we played Shostakovich’s Violin Sonata, Kremer playing – a overwhelmingly intense piece though not an optimistic one), playing during breakfast or cooking, as well as ‘analytic’ reviews using the headphone (Grado80i) directly from the FF800. Listening from the next room is standard. If the improvement is not apparent on all of these ‘channels’ it is not worth caring about it. It is also mandatory that the entire household agrees, as e.g. my wife listens a lot to music and cares about its quality (and knows much more about it than I do btw – and it’s her fault that I found access to composers like Monteverdi or Shostakovitch). This is told only to ensure you that my opinion on the improvement is quite firm.
Other reasons for differing in a judgment about those files could be different musical experiences. A person used to a more monofil pop oriented spectrum might not be enlighted to suddenly hear five of six voices in a multistranded more complex piece, even if the orchestra plays enlighted. This came to my mind when I regarded the comments on confusion in the orchestra (while the multitude of it’s voices cannot even be heard in the uncleaned version) or the supposedly easier to follow tune in the Zeitlin/Haden clip – even being only two players, their music is quite a bit multi-layered and their interaction is deteriorated in the uncleaned version. Finally I completely fail to understand how the cleaned Monk can be taken as worse and as less great in timing, even when using the most modest equipment thinkable of.
Of course, with a better reproduction the faults of a recording and of the record might be more apparent. My copy of the Bach WTC, Tureck playing, is not too well centered, for example, and this can be heard clearly when proceeding to the inner grooves. Monk is humming along to his tunes _all_ the time, and one might be irritated by that. Despite things like this I won’t give up cleaning, as the treasures unearthed by it overweigh such shortcomings by far.
I do not think that the record is damaged by cleaning. A brush fibre is about 0.1 mm in dia and does not reach deep into the grooves even if pressed on the record. And even if so, what pressure (force per area) can you apply with a wet brush fibre? The tremendous force per area acting on the vinyl by the stylus is what one should think about. It seems as if Swedish record producers comment as lightheartedly as American ones (think of steam). The Hannl guys clearly comment that the fibres don’t even have to touch the record surface – it is the turbulent flow that cleans the grooves. It seems obvious, however, that grunge is used when producing the record. It is my working hypothesis that taking this off is bringing us closer to the source, to the original signal – if you prefer it or not. To leave it in the grooves reminds me of folks preferring the pre-cirkus bearing and subchassis – for musical reasons. And I sincerely hope (and expect) that the pre-cleaned state of the records is not returning at all without treating them (perhaps with Emitex :)).
The recording itself is easy, as mentioned before. Everybody can do it. If this would not be the case, how could Linn’s studio masters exist? Personally, I simply need it because I don’t have a professional’s musical memory and fast recognition. But as soon as something is changed on the deck (e.g. I built the alu top plate in an out again lately), such small variations like aging of fluid treatment effects cannot be traced any longer.
Just a few thoughts, far from presenting any solution.
BR, Klaus
Last edited by k_numigl on 2011-11-20 04:42, edited 1 time in total.
I don't have the time to spare or the inclination to do scientific studies on the subject. If I did I would use equipment to listen, instead of my ears.
In my world it is more about the feeling the music than analyzing things. Something about the cleaning of records with my setup makes the experience very noticeably better than uncleaned records.
My opinion is that the vacuuming is the real cleaning. The liquid prevents any damage from a dry cleaning and the dirt is suspended in solution to be cleaned away. Think about cleaning eyeglasses. I have lots of experience with that. Dry cleaning is likely to ruin a lens in one cleaning. Wet is much safer. No damage done. Different liquids have some affect - but any wet is better than dry.
The needle drop recordings are way easier to use to compare than real life time, but they are not as good as being able to switch instantly.
I have not sorted out which recordings are which except the first ones I commented on. I preferred the cleaned. It was easier to just let it play. The uncleaned one did not hold my attention in the same way. Not a scientific method - just an opinion. Like it or not the naming of the files is going to affect our perceptions. Simple fileA vs. fileB, without knowing what is what, reaching a clear consensus is something I would believe in. If the parts with the differences could be isolated (cropped) to small files that could be more quickly compared it would help me. As a matter of fact if the files could be put together so we don't have to switch anything would be better yet. In other words a file that has both the before and after being edited together so we can play through a few bars of the one followed by the same few bars of the other. No switching required.
I will do some more comparisons when the time and mood are favorable. So far I am in Klaus's camp on this. But as in the past I have learned so much from Fredrick and Thomas I see the need to remain open minded.
I have clearly become used to the presentation of the KDS. Clean noiseless and consistent.
In my world it is more about the feeling the music than analyzing things. Something about the cleaning of records with my setup makes the experience very noticeably better than uncleaned records.
My opinion is that the vacuuming is the real cleaning. The liquid prevents any damage from a dry cleaning and the dirt is suspended in solution to be cleaned away. Think about cleaning eyeglasses. I have lots of experience with that. Dry cleaning is likely to ruin a lens in one cleaning. Wet is much safer. No damage done. Different liquids have some affect - but any wet is better than dry.
The needle drop recordings are way easier to use to compare than real life time, but they are not as good as being able to switch instantly.
I have not sorted out which recordings are which except the first ones I commented on. I preferred the cleaned. It was easier to just let it play. The uncleaned one did not hold my attention in the same way. Not a scientific method - just an opinion. Like it or not the naming of the files is going to affect our perceptions. Simple fileA vs. fileB, without knowing what is what, reaching a clear consensus is something I would believe in. If the parts with the differences could be isolated (cropped) to small files that could be more quickly compared it would help me. As a matter of fact if the files could be put together so we don't have to switch anything would be better yet. In other words a file that has both the before and after being edited together so we can play through a few bars of the one followed by the same few bars of the other. No switching required.
I will do some more comparisons when the time and mood are favorable. So far I am in Klaus's camp on this. But as in the past I have learned so much from Fredrick and Thomas I see the need to remain open minded.
I have clearly become used to the presentation of the KDS. Clean noiseless and consistent.
Good idea Salty! More work for the person posting the files, but I certainly think it would be useful.SaltyDog wrote:I As a matter of fact if the files could be put together so we don't have to switch anything would be better yet. In other words a file that has both the before and after being edited together so we can play through a few bars of the one followed by the same few bars of the other. No switching required.
You have access, so feel free to edit it :)
A few hours ago I power cleaned and re-recorded some Mozart
piano sonatas, Larrocha playing. The result is so outstanding and clear,
that I doubt anyone can deny the enhanced musicality. Pure magic.
Will attempt to upoad it on monday (just below 2 GB).
BR, Klaus
A few hours ago I power cleaned and re-recorded some Mozart
piano sonatas, Larrocha playing. The result is so outstanding and clear,
that I doubt anyone can deny the enhanced musicality. Pure magic.
Will attempt to upoad it on monday (just below 2 GB).
BR, Klaus
Interesting read(!),especially since there are differing opinions. A source for new experiences and a possibility to gain new knowledge. Would it be possible to have a listen to the previously mentioned files? I tried downloading them, but they seem to be removed from the server.k_numigl wrote:You have access, so feel free to edit it :)
A few hours ago I power cleaned and re-recorded some Mozart
piano sonatas, Larrocha playing. The result is so outstanding and clear,
that I doubt anyone can deny the enhanced musicality. Pure magic.
Will attempt to upoad it on monday (just below 2 GB).
BR, Klaus
No, in the case of your files I found the differences obvious. In fact so obvious that I can tell them apart right now, when playing them on a lousy computer. I can hear both the slight confusion of the orchestra and the pitch instability of the piano that I mentioned earlier.k_numigl wrote:...it seems Fredrik is talking about subtle nuances dependent on the listener’s local position.
The description of how I make comparisons was a separate issue, an attempt to describe how impressions can vary when things get tricky. Sorry if I was being unclear!
That is not how the Tune Method works. Any music becomes easier to understand on a higher performing system.k_numigl wrote:Other reasons for differing in a judgment about those files could be different musical experiences. A person used to a more monofil pop oriented spectrum might not be enlighted to suddenly hear five of six voices in a multistranded more complex piece, even if the orchestra plays enlighted.
After listening to my first 10 personally rotation brushed LPs (X2000 and LADS) for over a week now, I´d like to state that the improvement is really huge - even bigger than I thought (more than my recent Rubikon upgrade), but this maybe due to listening to my own music.
For me all LPs (classical, jazz, jazzrock, pop) are now better in every aspect I can think of. First and most important - it´s a lot more fun and interesting - even revealing - to listen to them. Not wanting to talk about hifi categories - as these seem to be interpreted as non-tundem-citeria, there is simply a lot more music to listen to. Better interaction, better timing (!), better flow of ideas - both within a solo and between band members, better intonation (! - Cannonball Adderley Sextett in New York - Yusef Lateef´s "Synthesia" really shows), less confusion (!), more confident playing from all musicians, more details - be it different voices within a section (strings, horns, jazz combo frontlines, unisono parts), voices in the background (accompaniment) or more distinguishable notes within fast solo lines, more dynamics - within individual phases or within a whole solo or tune.
On recordings that I´ve known for years this is quite stunning - as one starts to think, that one has never really heard them before. But what´s even more convincing (not that I´m in need of it) is that whole recordings (or only single tunes and solos), that have been boring or irritating before, now become real gems - I mean real gems. Players I didn´t get, Bands that I thought didn´t play together very well on a recording, even musical styles (Monteverdi).
The improvement is so huge - it is almost frightening as basically I´ll now have to give everything I didn´t like so far a second try.
Please check out Klaus´files again and let´s not end this discussion here. I honestly don´t think anyone as interested in and dedicated to the most realistic and musical (tundem vs. hifi) reproduction of music as we are, can differ about these results.
Maybe it will be easier with non classical music - for some of us are not familiar with it.
For me all LPs (classical, jazz, jazzrock, pop) are now better in every aspect I can think of. First and most important - it´s a lot more fun and interesting - even revealing - to listen to them. Not wanting to talk about hifi categories - as these seem to be interpreted as non-tundem-citeria, there is simply a lot more music to listen to. Better interaction, better timing (!), better flow of ideas - both within a solo and between band members, better intonation (! - Cannonball Adderley Sextett in New York - Yusef Lateef´s "Synthesia" really shows), less confusion (!), more confident playing from all musicians, more details - be it different voices within a section (strings, horns, jazz combo frontlines, unisono parts), voices in the background (accompaniment) or more distinguishable notes within fast solo lines, more dynamics - within individual phases or within a whole solo or tune.
On recordings that I´ve known for years this is quite stunning - as one starts to think, that one has never really heard them before. But what´s even more convincing (not that I´m in need of it) is that whole recordings (or only single tunes and solos), that have been boring or irritating before, now become real gems - I mean real gems. Players I didn´t get, Bands that I thought didn´t play together very well on a recording, even musical styles (Monteverdi).
The improvement is so huge - it is almost frightening as basically I´ll now have to give everything I didn´t like so far a second try.
Please check out Klaus´files again and let´s not end this discussion here. I honestly don´t think anyone as interested in and dedicated to the most realistic and musical (tundem vs. hifi) reproduction of music as we are, can differ about these results.
Maybe it will be easier with non classical music - for some of us are not familiar with it.
As I missed the first opportunity to dowload the files in question, would it be possible for you to make the files available again?k_numigl wrote:Self evidently. This prompts me to bet on the universes, not the playback.lejonklou wrote: Any music becomes easier to understand on a higher performing system.
KR, Klaus
-
Music Lover
- Very active member
- Posts: 1673
- Joined: 2007-01-31 20:35
- Location: In front of Lejonklou/JBL/Ofil
Hi guys
I recently upgraded my Linn System from and early Linto to a Uphorik.
A good improvement! Which meant that - as all good upgrades seem to mean - I played discs at more volume without it sounding loud. I am sure you know what I mean.
I became aware of a rustling noise that at times almost presented as a sort distorted squeak. Very quiet. Came and went in time with the revolving turntable - a bit as if the records were very warped - which they were not. Only usually noticeable between tracks.
And not on all records. I was initially fearful that the Uphorik had some intermittancy problem, or maybe RFI. Affected both channels and sometimes only the right on it seemed. I put my old phono stage back, turned up the volume - problem still there.
Now last year I had access to a Moth record cleaning machine, and used their own fluid, which I think is a mixture of pure water, is. alcohol and some sort of detergent/wetting agent.
It seems that the records that show this fault (and most do not) were cleaned on the machine (i.e my old favourites!)
Last evening I took two of the most offending records and washed them under a running tap, using a tiny drop of detergent, and a fine hair brush. The idea was to try to wash out dirt from the bottom of the grooves.
It seems to have worked remarkably well.
While I am impressed the the price and build of the Moth machine, I am not sure whether the cleaning fluid was to blame, or may method of cleaning. Perhaps a double clean with clean water the second time might have been better.
Anyone experienced any of this??
Don, foggy downtown York
I recently upgraded my Linn System from and early Linto to a Uphorik.
A good improvement! Which meant that - as all good upgrades seem to mean - I played discs at more volume without it sounding loud. I am sure you know what I mean.
I became aware of a rustling noise that at times almost presented as a sort distorted squeak. Very quiet. Came and went in time with the revolving turntable - a bit as if the records were very warped - which they were not. Only usually noticeable between tracks.
And not on all records. I was initially fearful that the Uphorik had some intermittancy problem, or maybe RFI. Affected both channels and sometimes only the right on it seemed. I put my old phono stage back, turned up the volume - problem still there.
Now last year I had access to a Moth record cleaning machine, and used their own fluid, which I think is a mixture of pure water, is. alcohol and some sort of detergent/wetting agent.
It seems that the records that show this fault (and most do not) were cleaned on the machine (i.e my old favourites!)
Last evening I took two of the most offending records and washed them under a running tap, using a tiny drop of detergent, and a fine hair brush. The idea was to try to wash out dirt from the bottom of the grooves.
It seems to have worked remarkably well.
While I am impressed the the price and build of the Moth machine, I am not sure whether the cleaning fluid was to blame, or may method of cleaning. Perhaps a double clean with clean water the second time might have been better.
Anyone experienced any of this??
Don, foggy downtown York
-
Music Lover
- Very active member
- Posts: 1673
- Joined: 2007-01-31 20:35
- Location: In front of Lejonklou/JBL/Ofil
Still not sure I understand you.k_numigl wrote:If you regard these samples as more Hifi, we just live musically in parallel universes.This (difference in opinion) could perhaps be due to the total playback setting. Maybe, maybe not.
Are you saying results, based on evaluating using the tune method is dependent of something?
It's all about musical understanding!
I managed to cut about 1.5 minutes from start, so files are small.k_numigl wrote: I power cleaned and re-recorded some Mozart
piano sonatas, Larrocha playing
Presumably it is obvious which is what. K.
https://www.hidrive.strato.com/lnk/LVhBHbdC
https://www.hidrive.strato.com/lnk/AXhBH6vw
My impression is that Test1 is clearly better.
Especially evident from 0:46, where on Test1, the pianist is skilled, focused, delivering a message that hits me right in the heart. On Test2, he is going back and forth between vague and exaggerated, almost making fun of the piece when playing softer just before 1:00.
I also find it evident that the piano isn't pitch stable on Test 2. For instance on the "climbing" with the left hand between 1:21 and 1:27.
Especially evident from 0:46, where on Test1, the pianist is skilled, focused, delivering a message that hits me right in the heart. On Test2, he is going back and forth between vague and exaggerated, almost making fun of the piece when playing softer just before 1:00.
I also find it evident that the piano isn't pitch stable on Test 2. For instance on the "climbing" with the left hand between 1:21 and 1:27.
-
Music Lover
- Very active member
- Posts: 1673
- Joined: 2007-01-31 20:35
- Location: In front of Lejonklou/JBL/Ofil
On my laptop/iPhone headset, just played half of the track.
Test1 is better.
The first impression is that the pianist hesitates on Test2, he seems to be little unsure about what to do next and as a consequence hit the piano keys in a rather strange random way. Sometimes too soon, sometimes too late.
Great test Klaus, thanks!
Test1 is better.
The first impression is that the pianist hesitates on Test2, he seems to be little unsure about what to do next and as a consequence hit the piano keys in a rather strange random way. Sometimes too soon, sometimes too late.
Great test Klaus, thanks!
It's all about musical understanding!
Thanks, but I got new download links (for the opera piece) from Klaus.lejonklou wrote:I should have some of the files on a harddisk. Will make sure you get them.hcl wrote:As I missed the first opportunity to dowload the files in question, would it be possible for you to make the files available again?
In order to avoid bias I have not read all of this thread and at first I had direct listen on my computer (with AKG501 headphones) which ofcourse is not that good. My impression where the same as when me an my wife later had a listen using the KDS. We found the following:
Better: mahler_ludwig_sings_emi-d_s1_se2ak_V2.wav
Worse : Mahler_fahrender_ludwig_se2ak_rblads.wav
Edit:
I have now browsed most of the last three pages of the thread, but am a bit confused about what we (my wive and me that is) actually compared. Did we go with or against the majority and did we compare the same pieces as the rest of you did? The difference for us, where quite subtle but also rather important as (at least I) found the rblads-version to be univolving and somewhat confused.