|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
67.189.165.161
In Reply to: RE: A-B testing? posted by BPoletti on May 19, 2015 at 06:10:04
A few years back at RMAF we were cleaning records for people with an AudioDeske and a guy brougnt a brand new record he had just bought. It was a double album that they used in their room as a reference and he had me clean one of the albums. This was saturday afternoon and sunday morning he came back and had us clean the other album begrudgingly saying the differences were not subtle.
I know mold release... yada yada and maybe another cleaning method may have netted similar results....
Does anybody have any thoughts on the 40kHz vs 80kHz frequency of the cleaner?
dave
Follow Ups:
Hi Dave,
we made comparisons with 40, 60 and 80 khz machines in a laboratory. We cut a shaded dog into 3 parts and checked the results with a professional microscope. The result? The part of the record cleaned with a 40 khz machine was o.k., but there was some visible dirt left. With the 60 khz machine nearly all of the dirt was gone. But the winner was the 80 khz machine, we couldn't see any dirt at all.
Unfortunately 80 khz machines are not that common and if you find one they are expensive.
Uwe from Belgium
Uwe,
Could it be that the 40 kHz machines simply need more time?
The ultrasonicrecords.com machine is 40 kHz.
Do you (or does anyone) know what the US speed is of the $4000 AudioDeske?
Mel
Mel,
in my experience the longer you clean a record ultrasonically the better the results are. But with the same time the higher frequency was better.
Uwe
I can't answer your question directly, but HW reports that there is no discernable difference between 40 kHz and 60 kHz.
Hearsay. Cite your source so that we can verify your claim. Not that you can't be trusted, but, well....
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: