|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
199.196.144.17
I got mine yesterday. It is the generic (Made in Holland, perhaps Phillips?) one from Garage-A-Records. I placed a relatively clean and high static album onto the TT, turned a few times with the brush in contact, touched several metal surfaces before and after to discharge. I find it has done absolutely nothing to relieve static. It did sweep up a little dust, but I was able to pick up even more with the Discwasher velvet pad. I guess the DIY RCM vacuum wand could be used on this spot to pick up the line of dust and help minimize the static build up that would result from a full album vacuum. What I am trying to do is come up with an alternative approach to wet cleaning for the not-so-dirty albums. The carbon fiber brush is just not measuring up. Am I missing something?
Follow Ups:
. . . to build yourself a DIY RCM that has the platter grounded to the mains ground. Chemicals ain't going to do it, nor is any snake oil copper wire embedded in a brush.Sorry for the rant.
for a "high static album" the best thing to use is a zerostat and then keeping your records in anti static inner sleeves.
static isnt usually a problem when the disc is on the platter. its when you remove it that the static comes up with it, thats when you use your zerostat to kill the charge.the milty is good in that you dont have to touch the velvet fibers with your fingers but i still prefer a watts preener (sadly no longer available). after dry preening, which may determine that you need to use more aggressive wet cleaning, i lightly dampen the velvet with a fine mist sprayer of filtered or distilled water, an then re-preen and rock the preener up as i remove it from the surface of the record.
that may reveal a line of fine dust, if so, i repeat until there is no line. THEN the carbon fiber brush to get int the grooves to remove the loose dust that may still be there. i let the platter spin a couple of revolutions while angling the brush into the oncoming vinyl \\ and the sweep off to the side. i do that at least twice and its effectiveness can be seen by the particles that accumulate on the plinth.
if i thought there were static after all this (almost never for me) i would use the zstat at that time for good measure.
also-NEVER wet the carbon fiber. it was meant to be used dry. i use a milty sometimes instead of my preener but i dont think its as effective. if the surface were more of a curve, i would be more comfortable.
one last thing, i use a fingernail type washing brush to brush off the preener and milty pads so i am not leaving a residue of finger oils on them. and i ALWAYS wash my hands before handling the records for the same reason.
...regards...tr
*/*
The Discwasher is similiar to what you are doing with the watts preener in that a slightly damp cloth/velvet is used, I did that too, and found no improvement in static on the album.
doesn't have an external grounding wire, can't say if it has an internal wire to the metal-covered handle, but one wonders why would the handle would be metal at all if it did not serve a purpose, why not plastic? Certainly much cheaper and easier to make. The package claims the brush helps with static for all that is worth. No instructions are provided.The fibers are very thin and bend easily. Even if it were thin enough to ride in the groove, I would think they jump in and out during brushing, reducing effectiveness. The velvet just seems more suitable for a mechanical approach.
The wet cleaning does a fantastic job at eliminating static, even with 5 revolutions under suction, no discernable static. I am testing for static by discharging myself :O and bringing the album against my skin, judging relative to how it stimulates body hair.
I am going to measure the thickness of velvet fiber, paint pad, carbon fiber, and paintbrush bristle relative to the groove width and will post findings.
That particular AQ knock off is nowhere near the quality of a real AQ brush, the $20 an AQ brush costs is well worth the $20, the CF brush you bought is close to useless.But even a genuine AQ isn't going to do what you're trying to do the CF fibers are too supple to reach down into the groove enough to dredge out the crud effectively, the AQ brush is what you use after
a Goldring or Hunt has dredged out the deep in the groove particulates to whisk them off the record surface and the AQ does require a little finese, and it may take 4 or 5 repetitions of the entire process to do the job with a typical used LP.
email me you old audiogeek, tried callin ya twice you.....
Henry
My cell phone is now toast since I have achieved the exhaulted state of penuriousness ;-) all part of my plan for World domination !
I've been using a Milty DuoPad (velvet - short-fibre pile)pad cleaner for 20+ years...brilliant for cleaning - especially the vey fine 'powdery dust' that lies at the groove bottom (and which the C-F cannot remove..).However, it's pointless telling these guys that they're no good (the C-F brushes that is .. ;~))) - as they even use them Wet ..
..No wonder it's called the Asylum!The velvet pad is far preferable..you won't damage the LPs either (scratches..)...try a DuoPad though - double-sided - lasts for years...just a few $'s
If static is a real probem when 'dusting-off' LPs then you could have two velvet pads..the first to clear away the debris..the second barely 'moistened' using a fine 'atomiser' spray.
That will release the static charge from the LP with a 'once round the block' clean.
Frank- Isn't the Milty pad one of those "Quaint" British alleged technologies like Lucas lighting(AKA Prince of Darkness), SU carb's etc ?
Donning my Nomex flame proof suit ;-)
The Lucas reference was a brilliant touch :-)Welcome back Fred!!!
cheers,
Send an instant karma to me...
-Ray
*/*
I think the Amish brushes use Belgian or Clydesdale tail Horsehair brushes and therefore lack the anti static aspect ;-)I believe their Diesel powered tables have inherent rumble issues as well ;-)
Regards FredJ
Clip clop clip clop bang bang bang clipclopclipclop An Amish drive by shooting ;-)
You are right. The pads work better for getting down into the grooves for cleaning as in wet cleaning. Once the record is clean, the CF brush is used to remove surface debris and possibly reduce static. CF brushes aren't supposed to get stuff out of the grooves. They are for clean records.
The Hunt or Goldring have stiffer bristles that the AQ brush does and do in fact reach down and effectively dredge out the crap and they don't become contaminated like the velvet does, but the Hunt or Goldring arent suitable for whisking the stuff off the record surface
like an AQ, in the case of the Hunt or Goldring the velvet pad between the CF rows of bristles is supposed to pick up the dust, which is not really very effective in it's intended role.As far as wet cleaning an AQ does a great job, which is evidenced by RRL's recommending them for that use.
So (somehow) a C-F brush traversing a contaminated LP 'can't' pick up contamination.Maybe that makes sense - as it can't pick up the dust either !!!!!!
Of course, any True Audiophile would be aware of the virtue of 'de-contamination' - and would clean the velvet pads...
Anyway, I thought these C-F cleaners (some of..) had a velvet pad in-between..
" Anyway, I thought these C-F cleaners (some of..) had a velvet pad in-between "
*/*
Frnk Now you've resorted to Chaucer ;-)
I've not been using it for years, but after five months or so I can report that it works very well. Even after picking up an album at an out-of-town store, that was RCM cleaned just before I paid for it, the Milty pulled "microdust" up and out of the grooves when I got it home. It also pulled this fine stuff out of the handful of (new, sealed) Classic reissue records I've purchased.I've only used it on a couple of hundred LPs, but I can also report that the "red side" does a very good job of pulling out larger particles that can evade wet cleaning. The "black side" of the brush takes care of the finer stuff. It can produce a quiet surface with no chemicals, no mess, no noise.
Best regards,
How do you pick up the line of dust at the end of the sweep?
Adding to Frank's response...For the 'microdust' sometimes for me it just takes a quick little
uwards twist of the brush, parallel to and away from the LP at the end of the 'stroke." The 'black side' of the brush is so fine that this stuff is often pulled right into it. I tend to brush about 1/3 of the LP at a time, and sometimes at the end of the 'stroke' I'll change the brushing angle and sweep it off onto the floor. Sometimes I'll use a LAST brush, moistened with the regular LAST cleaner, and that will pick it up, too.For bigger stuff that doesn't respond to the 'black side' of the brush I'll sometimes use the 'red side' tangentially and that really pulls "boulders" out of the grooves. It's amazing what comes out of there sometimes.
For bigger stuff, blowing if off often works. Once the LP is clean it's clean, as with any other method.
I keep an AQ carbon fibre brush nearby, and sometimes use it when I find the brushed or blown-off dust flying off the LP surface--but then straight back up onto the other side of the LP (static!).
I keep the Milty clean by using a LAST brush on it, gently.
Jim
Two methods (+ any that Jim has thought up..)
1 (depending on the room temperature/humidity) a short 'breath' on the pad will provide sufficient 'moisture' to lift the dust-line.2 as they're so cheap..get two and you could put an 'atomised' spray of moisture on one - and then 'buff' them together - so, that method (for the fastidious)...
Also having two pad/brushes makes it easy to 'knock' the dust off.
Great (Quaint British) Product.
You would'nt be disappointed..
*/*
You might want to try grounding yourself...touch a metal chassis with one hand while brushing with the other.
The AQ has an internal copper wire to aid in the static dissapation the knock off probably doesn't
The "knock-off" is from the Pickering CFB-80 Antistatic Carbon Fibre model. I have both brushes and I think they both work great, but as stated before, great at taking dirt/dust off of clean records. Never seen evidence of anti-static action.The brush is great for what it does, and not bad for only $6.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: