Record and stylus cleaners

Charlie1 · Post by **Charlie1** » 2011-11-23 20:23

hcl wrote: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.

Yes, I lost track of what was what too. I compared rblads to another file that it was originally paired with. There are two new files posted today - you could compare those instead, but we don't know what they are yet.

hcl · Post by **hcl** » 2011-11-23 20:50

Ok, thanks! I´ll download them now, but I will not be able to compare them immediately anyway.

paolo · Post by **paolo** » 2011-11-24 20:06

I find Test1 easily more meaningful and involving.

Similarly to previuos comparisons I find the difference musicacally quite important and mainly related to pitch and timing (both greatly affecting the tune): in particular Test2 piano notes' tempo is somewhat floating and undifferentiated where in Test1 it becomes exact, driving and clearly articulated.

It's interesting to know what are we comparing with what now? Uncleaned vs. cleaned or different cleaning methods?
Thanks again Klaus.

SaltyDog · Post by **SaltyDog** » 2011-11-25 01:55

Just a suggestion here. Could we keep the difference quiet on the forum a while longer.

Maybe PMs for those that have had time to do the comparisons and want to know sooner.

I really like the idea of not knowing until I have time to compare for myself.

The blinder the better for me.

Has anyone been able to get the files to play by dragging them into Kinsky Desktop?

Azazello · Post by **Azazello** » 2011-11-25 16:37

Salty, It would be a quite simple operation to have someone renaming the files if you want to do a blind test.

SaltyDog · Post by **SaltyDog** » 2011-11-25 17:03

Thanks. What I was talking about is the two newest ones. Test1 and Test2.

So far it is blind.

SaltyDog · Post by **SaltyDog** » 2011-11-26 14:03

I was just on the Linn forum and came up with a queation for this thread.

What affect will cleaning a record have on slippage between the mat and record? Does the better sounding side of the mat have something to do with slipping?

Post by **lejonklou** » 2011-11-28 21:48

Absolutely no idea, Salty.

Is the Test1 versus Test2 approaching the point where we can be told what we were listening to? As Azazello mentioned, if anyone wants to compare them blind, even after we've been told which is which, you can just ask someone to rename them TestA and TestB. Then later revealing which is which, when you're done comparing them.

I find it interesting that there wasn't a clear difference in "cleanliness" between Test1 and Test2. I mean, it wasn't like one of them was more crackly or with a clearly higher degree of surface noise compared to the other. To me, the difference was almost entirely of a musical nature.

Music Lover · Post by **Music Lover** » 2011-11-29 22:56

lejonklou wrote: I find it interesting that there wasn't a clear difference in "cleanliness" between Test1 and Test2. I mean, it wasn't like one of them was more crackly or with a clearly higher degree of surface noise compared to the other. To me, the difference was almost entirely of a musical nature.

Yes, I was little surprised as well as I also expected a difference in the sonic character - based on the previous feedback in this thread.

btw, my experience is that the Tune Method gives consistent results without using blind or double blind tests AND (more importantly) regardless of expected outcome.

hcl · Post by **hcl** » 2011-11-30 19:35

I find both Test1 and Test2 to be rather poor sounding with a quite bad tune in Test1 and almost no tune in Test2. My wife, who almost always is very quick separating better from worse, took some time (one pass on each track) and settled for Test2 after some thought (with a non satisfied look). Although I really did not prefer any of them I thought Test1 was slightly less bad (listened to both files using both my computer and through the DS.

ThomasOK · Post by **ThomasOK** » 2011-12-01 19:10

I had the opportunity yesterday to listen to the new Test 1 and Test 2 files on the same ADS/1, Klimax, etc. system as I used for listening to the previous tracks. Initially I started with Test 2 and then listened to Test 1. I find Test 1 to be easily the more musical piece. The timing of the notes on Test 2 sound somewhat halting in places almost as if the pianist had to think a millisecond about what note to play. This probably isn't a good explanation but there was an unevenness to the notes played. There was also a better rendition of the pitches and harmonics on Test 1 than on Test 2. While neither track sounded particularly quiet I would say that Test 1 actually sounded a little noisier to me but the musical difference easily overwhelmed any effect the noise made. Test 1 was just easier to follow, more real sounding, better paced and more fun to listen to. While I was doing the comparisons one of the other guys came in and accused me of "playing air piano" to Test 1. I did find that Test 1 made me want to move to the music more.

I do also know what Fredrik meant about the Test 1 track pulling at your heart. Interestingly, I found this quality more obvious when I did a brief initial comparison using the built in speakers on the store's iMac. Even with this compromised playback system I definitely preferred Test 1. The differences were just made more obvious with the ADS/1, Klimax system.

One final observation: when listening to Test 2 I generally switched over to Test 1 fairly quickly only letting the full track run once or twice. When listening to Test 1, unless I was consciously switching back and forth quickly, I tended to always listen to the end and wish it would keep going.

ThomasOK · Post by **ThomasOK** » 2011-12-01 19:12

Music Lover wrote:btw, my experience is that the Tune Method gives consistent results without using blind or double blind tests AND (more importantly) regardless of expected outcome.

This has been exactly my experience as well.

SaltyDog · Post by **SaltyDog** » 2011-12-03 02:56

To me Test 2 is the cleaner sound - less noise.

One of the things that gives me trouble is that I am having trouble with the surface noise. I have gotten so used to silence being part of the music that the noise distracts me.

My 12 year old daughter was born with substantial hearing loss in one ear and to a lesser extent in the other. She plays piano and feels it more than I would. Her sense of timing has been obvious since she was an infant. It shows in her dancing and piano. I played these tests for her and asked her which one was easiest for her to imagine playing along with. She has very convincingly chosen Test 1 each time. She has never mentioned the surface noise.

So one more vote for Test 1.

k_numigl · Post by **k_numigl** » 2011-12-06 11:48

There's litte to say and nothing to add. I think it is as clear as it can be that Test1 is 'simple washed' and Test2 is washed using the rotation brush. I firmly regard Test2 as much better. The preference of Test1 has nothing to do with tune dem. Let it suffice that in my view after rot. brushing the artist plays much more delicately and refined where e.g. Fredrik regards her as 'uncertain'. I think this means missing much of the music, but perhaps wrong – if it is not appreciated it is not missed.

Only two remarks perhaps to add. How can it be possible to lessen the signal transcription by removing a dirt cover from the grooves? And second, I heard A. Larrocha playing live for two times – there's not much of that steam engine like progression of Test1 in her performance.

So finally the basis of the different judgments is pinned down, imo, what is an advantage.
Regards, Klaus

Music Lover · Post by **Music Lover** » 2011-12-06 11:56

Klaus,thanks for the feedback.
Ok so both test 1 and 2 are with a cleaned records. Do you have a recording on this very track before the cleaning?

Some of the older links seems broken, can you upload these tests again please?

ThomasOK · Post by **ThomasOK** » 2011-12-06 20:11

Interesting! I had guessed that Test 2 was rotation brushed due to the lower noise but I didn't know if Test 1 had been cleaned or not. Would I be right to assume simple washed is using the regular brush and just the Hannl liquid while the rot. brushed is the Hannl followed by LADS?

The difference between what you hear and what we are hearing makes me wonder if the high-res digital rips of vinyl really are a good method of evaluation?

jiddu_k · Post by **jiddu_k** » 2011-12-07 11:47

ThomasOK wrote:The difference between what you hear and what we are hearing makes me wonder if the high-res digital rips of vinyl really are a good method of evaluation?

I don´t think that this is the problem - high-res digital rips in Klaus´quality are a phenomenal way to compare and evaluate results on different systems - provided the files are played through a good system (MajikDSI or higher). I can´t remember any comparision in the last months in which Klaus and I came to different conclusions regarding an improvement of musicality.
In my own system the differences between unwashed, washed and rotation brushed versions of Klaus´files are showing exactly the same effects as my own unwashed, washed and rotation brushed LPs. If there is a difference the music is even a bit more direct in real life (playing vinyl).

k_numigl wrote: I firmly regard Test2 as much better. The preference of Test1 has nothing to do with tune dem. Let it suffice that in my view after rot. brushing the artist plays much more delicately and refined where e.g. Fredrik regards her as 'uncertain'. I think this means missing much of the music, but perhaps wrong – if it is not appreciated it is not missed.

That´s my view as well - "if it is not appreciated - it is not missed"

Music Lover · Post by **Music Lover** » 2011-12-07 14:51

jiddu_k wrote:
ThomasOK wrote:The difference between what you hear and what we are hearing makes me wonder if the high-res digital rips of vinyl really are a good method of evaluation?
I don´t think that this is the problem - high-res digital rips in Klaus´quality are a phenomenal way to compare and evaluate results on different systems - provided the files are played through a good system (MajikDSI or higher). I can´t remember any comparision in the last months in which Klaus and I came to different conclusions regarding an improvement of musicality.
In my own system the differences between unwashed, washed and rotation brushed versions of Klaus´files are showing exactly the same effects as my own unwashed, washed and rotation brushed LPs. If there is a difference the music is even a bit more direct in real life (playing vinyl).

k_numigl wrote: I firmly regard Test2 as much better. The preference of Test1 has nothing to do with tune dem. Let it suffice that in my view after rot. brushing the artist plays much more delicately and refined where e.g. Fredrik regards her as 'uncertain'. I think this means missing much of the music, but perhaps wrong – if it is not appreciated it is not missed.
That´s my view as well - "if it is not appreciated - it is not missed"

IMHO, No need using a MajikDSI or better, Tune Dem can be used regardless of equipment used. I used my PC and it was easy to hear that Test 1 was better. I also previously used a phone-line to evaluate a remote system, worked perfectly.

What do you mean by this line "The preference of Test1 has nothing to do with tune dem"?

Charlie1 · Post by **Charlie1** » 2011-12-07 15:06

Music Lover wrote:I also previously used a phone-line to evaluate a remote system

I've previously used a phone-line to evaluate a remote (and rather angry) wife, and check if it was safe to come home. Also worked perfectly.

just kiddin'

SaltyDog · Post by **SaltyDog** » 2011-12-07 17:48

I do not hear the differences in the piano playing style. I hear a cleaner record being played. Test2 sounds better - but the tune dem is not clear-cut. My ability of comparing piano is probably not as good as my ability at voice and orchestral instruments.

Do you guys really think that these recordings are good examples of a Tune Dem demonstration? Certainly not like a difference in setup or components.
Are you hearing enough difference in tune to chose an added cost if the difference you hear were from two cartridges, tone arms, or plinths. I'm still struggling with the difference between sound and tune on these two.

Charlie is that a tone dem or tune dem? I can tell by tone dem in complete silence. (smiley)

Charlie1 · Post by **Charlie1** » 2011-12-07 20:03

SaltyDog wrote:Charlie is that a tone dem or tune dem? I can tell by tone dem in complete silence. (smiley)

Definitely tone dem ;o)

hcl · Post by **hcl** » 2011-12-07 20:11

At first I had a similar thought as SaltyDog when listening on my main system (KDS/1) when it was slightly non optimized (speakers out of place and cables not exercised since august *). Actually, before checking the hifi, I thought it was slightly easier to tell better from worse (Test 1 better) when comparing on my computer and AKG501. After having fixed the hifi I found it even easier to appreciate Test1 over Test2 and yes the tune is more easy to appreciate on that recording.

* The connections needs to be un- and re-plugged about once each or other month to keep the system at its best.

Charlie1 · Post by **Charlie1** » 2011-12-07 20:24

hcl wrote:At first I had a similar thought as SaltyDog when listening on my main system (KDS/1) when it was slightly non optimized (speakers out of place and cables not exercised since august *). Actually, before checking the hifi, I thought it was slightly easier to tell better from worse (Test 1 better) when comparing on my computer and AKG501. After having fixed the hifi I found it even easier to appreciate Test1 over Test2 and yes the tune is more easy to appreciate on that recording.

Good point HCL. I too sometimes find tune dem hard when the sound quality clearly changes between the A and B dems. And I don't think the difference in sound quality was all that obvious when listening to these files through a computer, although I could hear some.

Interesting to read your comment about the connections.

donuk · Post by **donuk** » 2011-12-08 11:35

http://www.videojug.com/film/how-to-cle ... -records-2
Thought you would be interested in this approach!

Don, from damp York

ThomasOK · Post by **ThomasOK** » 2011-12-08 21:50

donuk wrote:http://www.videojug.com/film/how-to-cle ... -records-2
Thought you would be interested in this approach!

Don, from damp York

Youch! That's really scary! I'm sure that will really do a good job of getting junk out of the grooves??? Nice way to treat the label too!