View Full Version : "A Project To Measure Groove Friction; Last Record Preservative's Effectiveness.


Pages : [1] 2

Karma16
08-18-2012, 11:17 AM
HI All,
This threads genesis is a discussion in another thread that generated a lot of interest concerning Last Record Preservative (Last from here on) and how it works. It was proposed that a project be set up to measure groove friction and the way Last affects friction if at all. I do think this could turn into a very interesting quest. To this end, I have started this thread that can function as a meeting place for all who are interested where ideas can be discussed and progress be reported. There is a lot of talent available and I'm sure the ideas will flow freely. Hopefully, this project will become a collaborative effort though this is not necessarily the goal. What follows are some of my initial ideas for the project.

To get caught up on where the ideas stands at this moment, refer to the back end of the thread titled "Last Record Preservative Revisited.

I do think this could turn into a very interesting quest. Skating force has always been the most difficult issue for pivoted arms. No one has a good way to calibrate for skating force except by using the scales provided by the tone arm manufacturer. And who knows if those scales are accurate and useful. But, we really have no choice.

As we all know, skating force is a function of groove to stylus friction and head offset angle. This friction has two components. First is the basic friction created by the stylus tracing an unmodulated groove. This is basically a constant. But when you modulate the groove with audio information, the friction component increases a lot. Just how much it increases I don't know, I've never seen any numbers. But, as a analogy, imagine the stylus tracing a groove lined with sand paper with the coarseness of the grit representing the groove modulation.

Because the groove modulation is constantly changing both in amplitude and frequency, skating force is constantly changing. To extend the analogy, this is like changing the grit of the sand paper constantly according to the audio modulation. There is never a single skating force that can be relied upon. It is this fact that makes this experiment so difficult to perform so that real world answers are obtained.

I think in order to properly model this problem, one would need a record that has two bands. First, an unmodulated groove to serve as the baseline friction value, and single, constant, audio signal modulation to function as a relatively normal record playing situation. Maybe this would be a a 1 KHz tone with an amplitude value equal to those used to measure azimuth. The goal would be use a record that actually exists so maybe a commercial test record would suffice. Then both of these cases need to be measured first with no Last and then with Last. The difference between Last/no Last cases should represent the change of groove friction due to Last. The data would be the output of the strain gauge cartridge probably filtered to eliminate the out of band signals due to noise.

As a reminder, the signal must be measured before the cartridge is AC coupled for use with a normal preamp. We need DC values to give an indication of absolute stylus deflection. This probably means that a minor modification to the strain gauge interface must be made so that the signal from the cartridge can be tapped at the proper point. This really should not be too hard.

Just how to convert these friction values into actual numbers such that an engineering value that makes sense is obtained is difficult and beyond my expertise. I'm not a mechanical engineer.

There are other variables that could affect the outcome if the goal is to obtain calibrated values. These include tone arm pivot bearing friction and the torsional forces imposed by the tone arm wiring. Turntable leveling would be critical. But for the purpose of this test, namely seeing if Last reduces friction, these can probably be ignored sine they will be present both in the Last and no last cases.

In the final analysis, I think this is a major project for the amateur audio file to take on. But this is a talented group.

One thing is sure. If the project is undertaken, it must be done well or the results will have no meaning.

Sparky

avole
08-18-2012, 11:22 AM
Deleted

luvvinvinyl
08-18-2012, 11:52 AM
Excuse me. There are some people who have all the resources to do this.

The makers of the product, Last. The fact they choose not to do so says quite a lot.

Users of their products shouldn't be expected to do the scientific testing.

Okay, first reply in the new thread, and it's a threadcrap. :nono:

Sparky, thanks for setting up a new thread for this. This wouldn't be the first time users have set up an experiment to test real-world application of a particular product, either to verify published specs, or, in this case, to find specs where none seem to be available.

Pio1980
08-18-2012, 12:07 PM
Carried from related thread;
I'd be willing to provide a strain gauge cart with NOS spherical stylus on loan to someone trusted sufficiently rigorous and 'scientific' to perform the experiments for the class. The only gear needed for the test is a decent pivoted arm TT with counter-skating, similar cleaned records or serial testing of untreated/ treated clean records, LAST record treatment, and a pair of DVMs and RCA jax. For actual listening outside the testing a suitable simple biasing network and high-gain linear stage would be required.

Karma16
08-18-2012, 12:07 PM
Okay, first post in the new thread, and it's a threadcrap. :nono:

Sparky, thanks for setting up a new thread for this. This wouldn't be the first time users have set up an experiment to test real-world application of a particular product, either to verify published specs, or, in this case, to find specs where none seem to be available.

HI luv,
I misread your post initially. I thought that you were saying that this thread should not be started. I now realize that you were speaking about avoles contribution.



Sparky

marcmorin
08-18-2012, 12:35 PM
A couple of things to point out. Comparing sand paper to grooves only works if you are refering to frequency and amplitude. What friction are you going to measure? Are you sure you're not refering to impact energy of the stylus into the groove modulation vs pure kinetic friction? Would this friction in groove modulation be of recorded mono signal or stereo? Would the compliance of the cart suspension play a roll?

avole
08-18-2012, 12:44 PM
Deleted

Karma16
08-18-2012, 12:52 PM
A couple of things to point out. Comparing sand paper to grooves only works if you are refering to frequency and amplitude. What friction are you going to measure? Are you sure you're not refering to impact energy of the stylus into the groove modulation vs pure kinetic friction? Would this friction in groove modulation be of recorded mono signal or stereo? Would the compliance of the cart suspension play a roll?

HI marc,
First, I want to point out that I'm not ramrodding this project. I'm involved because I have a vested interest. I have run my own experiments which you can check out with a search. All other questions are open and, if necessary, should be discussed.

I think we should not over think this project or it will become so complicated that nothing will ever result. So Marc, consider all questions open. We need to figure out the best way to do this and come up with data that makes sense. We also need to be able to perform the tests without investing a lot money. We need to keep it simple but effective. So give us you ideas and reasoning. But, keep it simple and cost effective. Your positive input is welcome. None of us are experts in this area.

Sparky

luckydog
08-18-2012, 01:46 PM
We need to figure out the best way to do this and come up with data that makes sense. We also need to be able to perform the tests without investing a lot money.
There are two standing methods posted in sufficient detail to perform at least one of them readily, as set out on the concurrent thread (it is my preference to post on the other thread, in case it should become of enduring interest, as there seems a fair chance)

1. The stopping method
2. The Skate force method

What one is trying to do here is observe any difference in stylus-groove friction coefficient before/after application of the product. The stopping method is everso straightforward, and many people could do that methinks. It also can produce results consistent with JVC et al published reference figures.

Karma16
08-18-2012, 01:53 PM
There are two standing methods posted in sufficient detail to perform at least one of them readily, as set out on the concurrent thread (it is my preference to post on the other thread, in case it should become of enduring interest, as there seems a fair chance)

1. The stopping method
2. The Skate force method

What one is trying to do here is observe any difference in stylus-groove friction coefficient before/after application of the product. The stopping method is everso straightforward, many people could do that methinks.

HI lucky,
OK, go for it. It's so simple that you should be able to get results in a very short period of time. Be sure to specify your methods.

Sparky

Urizen
08-18-2012, 01:56 PM
I'm involved because I have a vested interest.

Please elaborate.:scratch2:

luckydog
08-18-2012, 02:02 PM
HI lucky,
OK, go for it. It's so simple that you should be able to get results in a very short period of time. Be sure to specify your methods.

Sparky
It would already be done, but I do not have the product - which is sort of essential really :) I was hoping that someone with the curiosity who already owns the stuff might do this...................

I quite routinely use the stopping method test to evaluate stylus-groove friction for other various purposes, BTW.

rnorton
08-18-2012, 02:10 PM
Have you considered measuring the friction by simply measuring motor current draw before and after application? Any useful degree of friction reduction ought to show up there. I would use a DC motor and a bridge circuit referenced to an invariable and stable motor supply (a car battery would be excellent)

luckydog
08-18-2012, 02:24 PM
Have you considered measuring the friction by simply measuring motor current draw before and after application? Any useful degree of friction reduction ought to show up there.
Yes, previously I've tried this, but the vast majority of current draw seemingly goes toward electrical loss, and changes weren't measurable. Total friction loss in stylus-groove friction only amounts to about 2mW, typically, IIRC.

Karma16
08-18-2012, 02:30 PM
Please elaborate.:scratch2:

HI Urizen,
My interest concerns a multi-year test I have run with Last that demonstrated vastly increased stylus life which implies greatly decreased grove friction using Last.

This test is well documented in this forum. Do a search using Sparky as your search object and you will find the posts. If you are interested.

Sparky

illini
08-18-2012, 02:38 PM
:lurk:

Fisherdude
08-18-2012, 04:12 PM
I intend to ring Last on Monday and ask why they don't publish the results of their tests, as I'm sure they have conducted them, and alert them to this thread where amateurs (I mean that in the true sense of the word, nothing to do with expertise or knowledge) are doing their work for them. They have the resources, we do not.

My line on this is simple. Any manufacturer should provide information and proof that their product does what it says on the tin. If they do not, then they should explain why. It should not be up to their clients to prove the theory behind their products.

The AK members in this thread want to conduct a fun little experiment in order to try to measure groove friction. They're going to be allowed to have their fun without you interfering. You can do whatever you want with the parent company, but you will NOT post in this thread unless your post is 100% dedicated to positively participating in a project to measure groove friction.

There will be no more warnings of any kind.

Pio1980
08-18-2012, 04:22 PM
It would already be done, but I do not have the product - which is sort of essential really :) I was hoping that someone with the curiosity who already owns the stuff might do this...................

I quite routinely use the stopping method test to evaluate stylus-groove friction for other various purposes, BTW.

Seems simple enuff for almost anyone, a stop-watch and switching the motor off at the same point of play before/after treatment.

rnorton
08-18-2012, 04:34 PM
HI Urizen,
My interest concerns a multi-year test I have run with Last that demonstrated vastly increased stylus life which implies greatly decreased grove friction using Last.

This test is well documented in this forum. Do a search using Sparky as your search object and you will find the posts. If you are interested.

Sparky

This is not science (no control group), but I have used Stylast religiously on my OM-40 Gold Van den Hul stylus for many, many years and it has lasted four times longer than expected with no visible wear. The fact that all of those miles were on a linear tracking arm (Mitsubishi LT-20) may be germane.

Pio1980
08-18-2012, 04:43 PM
I think an LT promotes even tip wear more than anything else, all else being equal.

dr*audio
08-18-2012, 04:57 PM
Shure used to make a test record. One could play back one of the tones on the test record and measure distortion with a distortion analyzer. Skating force causes distortion, so a reduction in distortion after application of Last could indicate reduced skating force, hence reduced friction.

luckydog
08-18-2012, 05:00 PM
Seems simple enuff for almost anyone, a stop-watch and switching the motor off at the same point of play before/after treatment.
Pretty much. But you must disengage the drive so that it doesn't drag, and so that the platter is free to spin down. If you just turn the motor off, the drive is still engaged and it will drag.

At its most simple, you can then just measure spin down time. There is a world record, BTW :) It's not necessary to go through all the weighing and inertia calcs unless you want to produce figures. BUT you can just bet that the first thing you'll want to do is work out what the result means, so it seems inevitable to have to go through the full procedure and produce the coefficient of friction. Otherwise, one won't be able to interpret significance.

Do it half a dozen times to take care of natural variance.

kirk57
08-19-2012, 07:17 AM
Pretty much. But you must disengage the drive so that it doesn't drag, and so that the platter is free to spin down. If you just turn the motor off, the drive is still engaged and it will drag.

At its most simple, you can then just measure spin down time. There is a world record, BTW :) It's not necessary to go through all the weighing and inertia calcs unless you want to produce figures. BUT you can just bet that the first thing you'll want to do is work out what the result means, so it seems inevitable to have to go through the full procedure and produce the coefficient of friction. Otherwise, one won't be able to interpret significance.

Do it half a dozen times to take care of natural variance.

A Lenco TT (with brake removed) would work well for such a test, as the idler wheel is completely disengaged when the unit is powered off. I'm sure you guys know of others.

Mister Pig
08-19-2012, 10:19 AM
Ok, just before I left for work I looked at my 124. I realized that I could place my spindle was on the iron platter, and that I could center and hold my mat in place with the 45 adapter assembly. So when I got home I ran the test, and this is my raw numbers. I ran 5 tests each, as I want to go to bed this morning. I ran tests with record only spin down, then stylus drag on untreated record, then stylus drag on last treated record, and finally stylus drag on last treated record and stylast treated cartridge. Record was cleaned in a VPI 16.5 to start. Cartridge is a Signet 30MA, tracking at 1.5 grams in an ADC LFT2 arm, and anti skate at 1.0

Here is the raw data, I am not going to crunch it, I want to sleep. Also I do not have a scale accurate enough to measure the platter assembly. But it is a 124 MK I and that data should be available off any of the Thorens websites.

Vinyl only spin down

20.9
22.3
22.4
22.6
22.8

Vinyl -untreated with cartridge down

21.5
20.2
20.4
20.7
20.6

Vinyl-Last treated-cartridge down

20.2
20.3
20.7
20.7
20.4

Vinyl-Last treated-cartridge Stylast treated

20.3
20.6
20.8
20.3
20.8

I don't think these numbers are going to show a significant correlation. I also think there is enough uncertaintity between exactly when the wheel disengages and I hit the start button to create a bit of uncertainty in these numbers. Same could be said for the delay between when it stops and when I hit the stop button on the stop watch.

What I can say is that the data shows I am more consistent running the test as it went along. I did go back and do a couple of spot checks on the first series of numbers, and my recheck came within those limits I already listed.

Well I gave it a shot, but I don't think this prooves Last functions in the manner first hypothesised. I still STRONGLY suggest that a call be made to Last to gather more information and or data on tests run. Or perhaps they can suggest a test method that will show what the effects are.

EDIT: Just happened to think of something. Even with a treated Last record there must still be significant heat generated at the stylus tip. Otherwise the stylus would not require a reapplication of Stylast on each side. The Stylast is consumed during playback, and as I recall Davies told me that the heat is responsible. Also that the fluid covers the stylus, and a small potion of the cantilever, and migrate towards the tip as the record is played. So whatever the Last fluid is doing, it must change the vinyl at the chemical or molecular level, as it appears not to be just a conventional lubricant.

Regards
Mister Pig

ripblade
08-19-2012, 10:52 AM
I would think a deck with a low mass platter would be preferable. Perhaps a low end direct drive?

JonL
08-19-2012, 11:10 AM
If Stylast works as described, there is an ultra-thin film of the substance between the stylus and groove. That thin film is constantly undergoing shear, and that shearing will be reflected as increased drag. The film would serve to separate the surfaces so despite a measured increase in drag, wear could actually be reduced by a very large magnitude.

Friction is not necessarily an indicator of wear. Take a journal bearing for example (like a crankshaft bearing in a car). Depending on the oil viscosity and the film thickness in the journal, the friction can vary by a large factor. Charts are readily available, but from memory the change in friction from the optimum value of viscosity and film thickness could easily be a factor of 3. Despite the big difference in friction, there is still essentially zero wear involved. The metal surfaces are fully separated and all the friction is generated by the shearing of the fluid film. A well-designed automotive crank bearing suffers wear only during start up (before a film is generated) and if the oil is dirty. The bearing will have essentially infinite life if it never stops turning and the oil is kept clean. There is however significant friction generated in the journal. A rolling element bearing has much lower friction, but much higher wear.

Friction will not tell the whole story here, though it is an interesting piece of the puzzle.

I also question the ability to perform the spin-down test accurately enough "by hand." Seems we're looking for differences on the order of half a second, which represents about 2.5% of the total spin down time. Error in starting and stopping the clock, variations in speed, variations in how the drive disengages the platter, etc could all be very significant.

luckydog
08-19-2012, 11:20 AM
I don't think these numbers are going to show a significant correlation.....(..)....Well I gave it a shot, but I don't think this prooves Last functions in the manner first hypothesised.
Noble, and much apreciated, Mister Pig. For this method to work, stylus-groove friction has to be significantly larger than platter bearing friction. Also, the more inertia the platter has, the better. A par spin down time for this method to work, with stylus up, is in the order of one or two minutes. Spinning down from 45rpm, BTW.

I do succsessfully use the method, and a spin down time of a about a minute or thereabouts with stylus up is about the minimum really.

I still STRONGLY suggest that a call be made to Last to gather more information and or data on tests run. Or perhaps they can suggest a test method that will show what the effects are. Yes. Those with direct contacts here would seem well placed to do that, and I agree it does seem very sensible.

EDIT: Just happened to think of something. Even with a treated Last record there must still be significant heat generated at the stylus tip. I reckon heat generated is typically about 2mW for a normal untreated case, the vast bulk of which disappears into the stylus. And nothing actually gets hot in conventional terms.

Otherwise the stylus would not require a reapplication of Stylast on each side. The Stylast is consumed during playback, I'm not sure if stylast is on or off topic here. But I think it is a seperate case, though it might share a similar theoretical mechanism. The same surface of the stylus is always presented, whereas the vinyl surface continually changes. It is a quite different discussion, IMO.

So whatever the Last fluid is doing, it must change the vinyl at the chemical or molecular level, as it appears not to be just a conventional lubricant.
IF the active ingredient is as indicated in the patent, yes and yes.

luckydog
08-19-2012, 11:44 AM
If Stylast works as described, there is an ultra-thin film of the substance between the stylus and groove. That thin film is constantly undergoing shear, and that shearing will be reflected as increased drag.
It's very interesting IMO. The film would be a surrogate vinyl surface. But diamond-vinyl is already a relatively low shear friction interface, normally. The issue here seems to be one of extent of any reduction in the normal case. But in the abnormal case, where vinyl compound may have degraded or was originally iffy, I wonder whether there is scope for improvement.

Friction will not tell the whole story here, though it is an interesting piece of the puzzle.
Indeed.

I also question the ability to perform the spin-down test accurately enough "by hand."
I already succesfully use this method, it's accurate enough for these purposes, but one does need to have a long stop time, of the order of a minute or two really.

Mister Pig
08-19-2012, 12:13 PM
I ran times at 33, not 45. Will check to see what a 45 time is.

At 45 the 124 will only do in the 30 second range. My Serac will do 50 second range, but the belt does not disengage cleanly. Getting tension and speed reset could be done by strobe, but that will have to wait till days off, since its more involved. Will give it a shot tuesday or wednesday.



Regards
Mister Pig

gusten
08-19-2012, 01:13 PM
This is a quick test using a 'vinyl gloss', NOT LAST, still it could be interesting to show the result. 10 tests of each.

Spin down only platter+record: 30.3 +- 0.2s.
Spin down dry play : 26.4 +- 0.2s
Spin down with 'gloss' : 29.3 +- 0.3s

Not so bad.
gusten

luckydog
08-19-2012, 04:36 PM
This is a quick test using a 'vinyl gloss', NOT LAST, still it could be interesting to show the result. 10 tests of each.

Spin down only platter+record: 30.3 +- 0.2s.
Spin down dry play : 26.4 +- 0.2s
Spin down with 'gloss' : 29.3 +- 0.3s

Not so bad.
gusten
Pretty good, on the face of it :) Yes, that illustrates the principle here.

luckydog
08-20-2012, 05:41 AM
Hi gusten. Presumably, 'vinyl gloss' is a PTFE or PFPE mold release agent, designed to produce a gloss finish ? I wonder, does the result persist, ie what happens if you play it with more repetitions - of course it must have lasted at least 10 plays already..........also did you note any improvement/change in surface noise/crackle ?

gusten
08-20-2012, 07:46 AM
Hi gusten. Presumably, 'vinyl gloss' is a PTFE or PFPE mold release agent, designed to produce a gloss finish ? I wonder, does the result persist, ie what happens if you play it with more repetitions - of course it must have lasted at least 10 plays already..........also did you note any improvement/change in surface noise/crackle ?

Hi luckydog. Yes I think it can be a compound containing some sort of Flouride polymers. The rest, canīt tell You much yet. It has reduced amplitudes at res freq. rather much, and the sound is very clear at high freq, I think.
gusten

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/39225261/R_LINE_000914-143506.2.wav

flavio81
08-20-2012, 09:39 AM
In the final analysis, I think this is a major project for the amateur audio file to take on. But this is a talented group.

One thing is sure. If the project is undertaken, it must be done well or the results will have no meaning.

Good idea Sparky, although now that the primary ingredient of Last has been disclosed, and it's a (sophisticated) lubricant, i have total faith in that groove friction is diminished and stylus life is prolonged. Again, sincerely i don't think that the real benefit of LAST is for the record itself, but it is for the stylus.

Still, it would be interesting if anyone who is doing this test also tries other cheaper record lubricant alternatives, just to have an idea of how effective could them be compared to LAST. One lubricant that i'd would like to compare to would be the common wet play solution of distilled water (plus a small trace of surfactant/tensioactive/detergent), or distilled water and alcohol.

Another one could be silicon products, or teflon products.

flavio81
08-20-2012, 09:43 AM
Friction is not necessarily an indicator of wear. Take a journal bearing for example (like a crankshaft bearing in a car). Depending on the oil viscosity and the film thickness in the journal, the friction can vary by a large factor. Charts are readily available, but from memory the change in friction from the optimum value of viscosity and film thickness could easily be a factor of 3. Despite the big difference in friction, there is still essentially zero wear involved.

This is very true. You can have a high viscosity lubricant and it will resist movement more, but wear can even be lower.

This is going to be a bit more difficult...

But frankly i'd say that selecting a groove lubricant that has as high as viscosity WHILE such viscosity is not impending correct tracing of the high frequencies, will do good.

gusten
08-20-2012, 10:11 AM
As I see it, which is probably the advantage with Last, the film should only be some polymer layers, and should stick to the vinyl. The polymers shall not move
with needle contact.
This is very different from using an oil as lubricant, as the viscosity is essentially shear stress in the fluid, which of course greatly effects total friction, but not necessarily wear.
gusten

Karma16
08-20-2012, 10:53 AM
HI All,
I don't want to deflect the direction the experiment is taking but I do want throw in a new idea. It is my opinion that Stylast does not function as a friction reducing agent. Rather, it is used to wick heat away from the stylus to groove interface to allow it to be dissipated in the relatively large mass of the stylus tip and cantilever.

I believe that when all is said and done, heat will prove to be a critical issue.

Sparky

luckydog
08-20-2012, 11:01 AM
Good idea Sparky, although now that the primary ingredient of Last has been disclosed, and it's a (sophisticated) lubricant, i have total faith in that groove friction is diminished and stylus life is prolonged.
Seems worth verifying that the Last record preservative product actually is made to that patent, ie it contains an active ingredient of the type mentioned. The MSDS would confirm this, and that would be a public domain document if anyone can find it, I have tried without success. Also subject to someone actually measuring friction with the Last product, along the lines that Gusten has with the vinyl gloss product or otherwise.

flavio81
08-20-2012, 11:06 AM
Excuse me. There are some people who have all the resources to do this.

The makers of the product, Last. The fact they choose not to do so says quite a lot.

Users of their products shouldn't be expected to do the scientific testing.

Avole is pointing out something important.

It's a good thing that this thread exists and the tests will help us a lot. But it is true that this thread, and the whole of the discussion about LAST products, exist because the manufacturer offers nothing to clearly show that the product works, save for a tiny electron microscope picture that, as i pointed out, is totally misleading.

The only way we know anything about how the product works, is thanks to the contributions of forumers such as JonL who pointed out to the patent.

If the manufacturers had published any meaningful test, such as the one being done here, i bet many people would be using LAST and less controversy would be brought by the topic.

luckydog
08-20-2012, 11:26 AM
It is my opinion that Stylast does not function as a friction reducing agent. Rather, it is used to wick heat away from the stylus to groove interface to allow it to be dissipated in the relatively large mass of the stylus tip and cantilever.
The patent doesn't cover the stylast product, only the record preservative (and cleaner, but that lacks the active ingredient). However, there are variants of Fomblin Functional type lubricants with functional ends designed to bind with DLC (Diamond-Like-Carbon). They're used in hard disc drive platter surfaces, where the magnetic surface is sputter coated with synthetic diamond, I understand. So it seems a fair guess IMO that such might turn up in stylast. Again, the MSDS would confirm, if someone can track it down, again the MSDS would be a public domain document and should exist methinks. IF stylast is intended to operate like this, the modus operandus would be friction reduction.

As to heat in the diamond-vinyl interface, diamond is exceptionally good at conducting heat, totally remarkable really. I doubt that interjecting a non-diamond surface film could offer improvement in this respect, if the contact locus remains similar. Wear reduction in the context of a lubricant film would act to seperate and insulate the diamond and vinyl from being in contact ie so that the lubricant film would wear. Also in the context of these lubricant products, reduced friction implies reduced heat anyway. Plus there isn't much heat anyway, perhaps about 2mW total typically.

Press on with the Last friction measurements, that seems potentially relevent to stylast as well IMO.

luckydog
08-20-2012, 12:07 PM
As I see it, which is probably the advantage with Last, the film should only be some polymer layers, and should stick to the vinyl. The polymers shall not move
with needle contact.
This is very different from using an oil as lubricant, as the viscosity is essentially shear stress in the fluid, which of course greatly effects total friction, but not necessarily wear.
gusten
Yes, I agree. On assumption the Last products use the active ingredient types listed in the patent.

Russellc
08-20-2012, 12:12 PM
If Stylast works as described, there is an ultra-thin film of the substance between the stylus and groove. That thin film is constantly undergoing shear, and that shearing will be reflected as increased drag. The film would serve to separate the surfaces so despite a measured increase in drag, wear could actually be reduced by a very large magnitude.

Friction is not necessarily an indicator of wear. Take a journal bearing for example (like a crankshaft bearing in a car). Depending on the oil viscosity and the film thickness in the journal, the friction can vary by a large factor. Charts are readily available, but from memory the change in friction from the optimum value of viscosity and film thickness could easily be a factor of 3. Despite the big difference in friction, there is still essentially zero wear involved. The metal surfaces are fully separated and all the friction is generated by the shearing of the fluid film. A well-designed automotive crank bearing suffers wear only during start up (before a film is generated) and if the oil is dirty. The bearing will have essentially infinite life if it never stops turning and the oil is kept clean. There is however significant friction generated in the journal. A rolling element bearing has much lower friction, but much higher wear.

Friction will not tell the whole story here, though it is an interesting piece of the puzzle.

I also question the ability to perform the spin-down test accurately enough "by hand." Seems we're looking for differences on the order of half a second, which represents about 2.5% of the total spin down time. Error in starting and stopping the clock, variations in speed, variations in how the drive disengages the platter, etc could all be very significant.

While drifting off thread, but still speaking to the analogy of a crankshaft main bearing...A device known as an "accusump" used to be available whose purpose was two fold: One, it held an extra quart of oil, and when you switch on the engine,it squirted this quart into the engine, and two, it squirted out the quart when hard cornering threw the oil up on the side of the pan, starving the pick up and engine of oil. Experiments on an Alfa race car showed signifigantly less wear on tear down, with bearing lasting much longer.

Returning the analogy to turn tables, despite shearing, there was less friction
on the operating surfaces...so it may very well (stylast) do the same thing with the wear on the stylus tip it would seem.

Now a question to users: I tried the Last products years ago and stopped after the first use of the product, which was applied to the albums. Upon playing, I noticed a glop of crap built up on the stylus after play. This persisted for many plays, finally I replace the album. At the time I thought it also screwed up dynamics, but playing the "New" album revealed that was just the nature of the recording. I never returned to last because of the gunk on the stylus....anyone else have this problem, this was back years ago and things may have changed. I currently use RRL stylus cleaner, but I think it is only a cleaner, not a lubricant like last. The product for Stylus use is interesting, is it also a cleaner, or just a friction reducer?

Thanks,

Russellc

Fisherdude
08-20-2012, 12:13 PM
HI All,
I don't want to deflect the direction the experiment is taking but I do want throw in a new idea. It is my opinion that Stylast does not function as a friction reducing agent. Rather, it is used to wick heat away from the stylus to groove interface to allow it to be dissipated in the relatively large mass of the stylus tip and cantilever.

I believe that when all is said and done, heat will prove to be a critical issue.

Sparky

Agreed, although from the perspective of the physics involved, this is the two sides of the same coin. Friction is, essentially, the conversion of kinetic energy to thermal energy.

gusten
08-20-2012, 01:28 PM
Here are two freq plots of a 3150Hz test tone, without and with 'vinyl gloss'.
As can be seen the 'with' has a lower noise floor, which is the second.
gusten

Karma16
08-20-2012, 01:44 PM
Agreed, although from the perspective of the physics involved, this is the two sides of the same coin. Friction is, essentially, the conversion of kinetic energy to thermal energy.

HI Fisher,
Right. I would consider Last and StyLast as two different strategies to accomplish the same thing. But the mechanisms are different.

Sparky

Karma16
08-20-2012, 01:45 PM
Here are two freq plots of a 3150Hz test tone, without and with 'vinyl gloss'.
As can be seen the 'with' has a lower noise floor, which is the second.
gusten

HI gusten,
And this proves? .................... And, BTW, what exactly is your instrumentation?

Sparky

Pio1980
08-20-2012, 01:50 PM
Any way this might reduce 'stiction' and any related adverse effects such as axial "pistoning" /"violining" of the stylus is going to produce a 'cleaner' tracing result with fewer objectionable sonic artifacts.

luckydog
08-20-2012, 01:54 PM
HI gusten,
And this proves? .................... And, BTW, what exactly is your instrumentation?

Sparky
It shows both the noise floor and stability advantages of keeping stylus-groove friction low. The instrumentation appears to be spectral analysis of a 3150Hz monotone. Seems pretty reasonable to me. Great stuff, gusten :)

flavio81
08-20-2012, 02:44 PM
Here are two freq plots of a 3150Hz test tone, without and with 'vinyl gloss'.
As can be seen the 'with' has a lower noise floor, which is the second.
gusten

Brilliant, gusten !! :tresbon:

gusten
08-20-2012, 03:27 PM
Just so there is no misunderstanding, I donīt recommend to go out and buy some 'vinyl gloss' and spray all over your records. I think what can possibly be shown is that decreasing friction is a good thing, and can be done probably in many different ways. The problem is to maintain a long lasting low friction and not causing other types of problems.

In this case I find the surface not getting dry enough, most likely causing problems with dust sticking to it, in the long run. I will use a couple of records, for a long term test, that I will play now and then, but itīs just a test, nothing more.
The sound is very good though, IMO, I prefer it over the untreated records, noise floor and res amplitudes are lower and there is a clarity with higher frequencies that is intriguing.

Sorry if too much off track.
gusten

ripblade
08-20-2012, 04:19 PM
Now a question to users: I tried the Last products years ago and stopped after the first use of the product, which was applied to the albums. Upon playing, I noticed a glop of crap built up on the stylus after play. This persisted for many plays, finally I replace the album. At the time I thought it also screwed up dynamics, but playing the "New" album revealed that was just the nature of the recording. I never returned to last because of the gunk on the stylus....anyone else have this problem, this was back years ago and things may have changed. I currently use RRL stylus cleaner, but I think it is only a cleaner, not a lubricant like last. The product for Stylus use is interesting, is it also a cleaner, or just a friction reducer?

Thanks,

RussellcWhen I had my stylus inspected at the time I was using the old formula, the service tech mentioned a buildup of a whitish powder around the base of the chip. At the time I wasn't using the Last stylus cleaner, instead used the Stylast as the cleaner itself. Knowing this, I've since used the cleaner before applying the Stylast, as I believe it may also be intended to prevent any possible buildup.

Can't say I ever noticed a 'glop' building up, however...just the usual bit of fluff.

ripblade
08-20-2012, 04:26 PM
Gusten, what is this 'vinyl gloss'? Sorry if I missed it, but google just brings up lipstick and paint links.

Can you provide a link to the product?

gusten
08-20-2012, 04:34 PM
Gusten, what is this 'vinyl gloss'? Sorry if I missed it, but google just brings up lipstick and paint links.

Can you provide a link to the product?

'vinyl gloss' is a product intended for vinyl surfaces, mostly vinyl used in cars. Can also be used for a lot of other surfaces if one wants a glossy finish. There are several brands on the market.
gusten

luckydog
08-21-2012, 02:48 AM
This is a quick test using a 'vinyl gloss', NOT LAST, still it could be interesting to show the result. 10 tests of each.

Spin down only platter+record: 30.3 +- 0.2s.
Spin down dry play : 26.4 +- 0.2s
Spin down with 'gloss' : 29.3 +- 0.3s

Not so bad.
gusten
Actually, it is quite a remarkable result. Even without knowing intertia, one can calculate the ratio of torque due to stylus-groove friction, for dry and 'vinyl gloss' treated play. The answer is remarkable, a reduction of around 4.3 times (ie stylus-groove friction is a factor of 4.3 times lower after treatment).

luckydog
08-21-2012, 03:18 AM
Here's the raw data from Mister Pig's test using the Last record preservative.This is the only test result we have so far which uses the Last preservative:
Vinyl only spin down : 20.9, 22.3, 22.4, 22.6, 22.8

Vinyl -untreated with cartridge down : 21.5, 20.2, 20.4, 20.7, 20.6

Vinyl-Last treated-cartridge down : 20.2, 20.3, 20.7, 20.7, 20.4

Vinyl-Last treated-cartridge Stylast treated : 20.3, 20.6, 20.8, 20.3, 20.8
I applied the same method as the post directly above re Gusten's vinyl gloss results above, to extract the ratio of torques due to stylus-groove friction. In this case, I disregarded the min and max test results to improve variance, and averaged the remaining results to obtain

Vinyl only spin down : 22.4 +/- 0.3
Vinyl -untreated with cartridge down : 20.6 +/- 0.2
Vinyl-Last treated-cartridge down : 20.5 +/- 0.2
Vinyl-Last treated-cartridge Stylast treated : 20.3 +/- 0.3

Then the nominal friction reduction factors work out at 1.06 for the record preservative, and 1.18 for the Stylast, but actually it's best to say that the test does not indicate any statistically significant reduction in friction after applying the Last preservative or stylast products. The control for this experiment can be Gusten's vinyl gloss test, which showed a friction reduction factor of 4.32, which is significant. Bigger is more reduction, BTW, the factor is a ratio to the untreated condition.

Then Mister Pig's test results would seem to suggest that the Last products did not alter stylus-groove friction to any notable extent. It would be good if this could be repeated by someone else to confirm. Personally, I think it is a big surprise in the context of the patent. Again the MSDS might throw some light on whether the patent is relevent to the current product, I suppose, if someone could find it. But we could be barking up the wrong tree here, perhaps.

Mister Pig
08-21-2012, 11:01 AM
Here's the raw data from Mister Pig's test using the Last record preservative.This is the only test result we have so far which uses the Last preservative:

I applied the same method as the post directly above re Gusten's vinyl gloss results above, to extract the ratio of torques due to stylus-groove friction. In this case, I disregarded the min and max test results to improve variance, and averaged the remaining results to obtain

Vinyl only spin down : 22.4 +/- 0.3
Vinyl -untreated with cartridge down : 20.6 +/- 0.2
Vinyl-Last treated-cartridge down : 20.5 +/- 0.2
Vinyl-Last treated-cartridge Stylast treated : 20.3 +/- 0.3

Then the nominal friction reduction factors work out at 1.06 for the record preservative, and 1.18 for the Stylast, but actually it's best to say that the test does not indicate any statistically significant reduction in friction after applying the Last preservative or stylast products. The control for this experiment can be Gusten's vinyl gloss test, which showed a friction reduction factor of 4.32, which is significant. Bigger is more reduction, BTW, the factor is a ratio to the untreated condition.

Then Mister Pig's test results would seem to suggest that the Last products did not alter stylus-groove friction to any notable extent. It would be good if this could be repeated by someone else to confirm. Personally, I think it is a big surprise in the context of the patent. Again the MSDS might throw some light on whether the patent is relevent to the current product, I suppose, if someone could find it. But we could be barking up the wrong tree here, perhaps.

Tomorrow or the next day, I should receive a Technics SL 1800. Depending on how the platter free wheels, I plan on using it in a retest. I suspect it may be the most uncomplicated way of doing another test here.

If not I can use my Galibier, and just slip the belt. It will take awhile longer while I fine tune the speed to be able to run the next test, but it should be very repeatable. I think with a couple of trials I can stop the tape belt from interfering with the platter after it is slipped from the motor pulley.

So I will be doing this again.

Regards
Mister Pig

luckydog
08-22-2012, 03:14 AM
I think your original test is a legitimate result, it's just that personally I found the outcome surprising and so it's human nature to think there must be something wrong. But there may well not be. Actually, a difference between stylus-up spin down and stylus-down spin down times was statistically there, so you were successfully able to detect the effect of stylus-groove friction on torque in the scheme of things. The simplest explanation for the result seems there was really no notable change in stylus-groove friction after the application of the Last record preservative, nor the stylast product.

I think Gusten's result with vinyl gloss illustates the extent of the possible reduction in friction, and that significant changes can be detectable even with relatively short stopping times. As previously posted, the method is easier to time when the stop time is longer, inertia is higher, and bearing friction is low. But those results look OK really, IMO.

gusten
08-22-2012, 03:49 AM
I have played my treated records 3-4times now. What has struck me is the improvement in sound quality especially at the second half of the record. Itīs really as if lower friction is something that is needed to get the needle to trace/track good enough. Iīm very pleased so far.

Of course this is only for two records so far, but the result is intriguing.

Another thing that can be seen is a lowering of distortion, third harmonics, forth and so on.

The problems Iīve had is gunk build up on the needle, I think it is something that have been stuck in the grooves, and is now loosening, but I donīt know for sure.
gusten

luckydog
08-22-2012, 05:08 AM
I have played my treated records 3-4times now. What has struck me is the improvement in sound quality especially at the second half of the record. Itīs really as if lower friction is something that is needed to get the needle to trace/track good enough. Iīm very pleased so far.

Of course this is only for two records so far, but the result is intriguing.

Another thing that can be seen is a lowering of distortion, third harmonics, forth and so on.
Yes, such things are part of the reason I'm always so interested in ways which might reduce stylus-groove friction, and closely follow threads like this. Your previous post which showed significant stability and noise floor improvements illustrate too. There are so many significant theoretical, and practical, improvements available through reducing stylus-groove friction.

And yes, I agree it is intriguing and sound quality change can be profound from reduced friction. Many mechanisms can contribute to the overall improvement.

gusten
08-22-2012, 05:53 AM
Yes, such things are part of the reason I'm always so interested in ways which might reduce stylus-groove friction, and closely follow threads like this. Your previous post which showed significant stability and noise floor improvements illustrate too. There are so many significant theoretical, and practical, improvements available through reducing stylus-groove friction.

And yes, I agree it is intriguing and sound quality change can be profound from reduced friction. Many mechanisms can contribute to the overall improvement.

I have read many of Your posts in this subject (and other), You have made the different mechanisms understandable in many ways. So if my records sound better, You should really have the credit.:music:
gusten

luckydog
08-22-2012, 06:12 AM
I have read many of Your posts in this subject (and other), You have made the different mechanisms understandable in many ways. So if my records sound better, You should really have the credit.:music:
gusten
Thanks gusten, that's very humbling. Such things emerge from and always develop and improve through discussion, of course :)
It amazes me how many apparently untapped or long forgotten immprovements there still are, even of such significance as stylus-groove friction for example.

Kico
08-22-2012, 07:23 AM
Here are two freq plots of a 3150Hz test tone, without and with 'vinyl gloss'.
As can be seen the 'with' has a lower noise floor, which is the second.
gusten

Gusten,

I would be very interested to know how you applied the "vinyl gloss" (the process you used) to your records. I have several duplicate LP's in my collection and would like to give the treatment a try.

Thanks for your interest and dedication with new ideas in making vinyl better sounding for all of us in the turntable community.

gusten
08-22-2012, 08:17 AM
Here are two files, treated and untreated, from outer track. The treated played two times before recording. Comments are welcome.
gusten

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/39225261/AJA.22.08.12.wav.wav
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/39225261/AJA.2.22.08.12.wet.wav.wav

Pio1980
08-22-2012, 08:40 AM
No one has mentioned the 'other' product, "Gruv Glide". Any user(s) care to come in and do the spin-down comparo?

flavio81
08-22-2012, 10:03 AM
I have read many of Your posts in this subject (and other), You have made the different mechanisms understandable in many ways. So if my records sound better, You should really have the credit.:music:
gusten

Gusten, great work with the vinyl shine. But could you post a link to the actual product page or at least a list of the ingredientes so we can try to get something similar on our respective countries?

If friction reduction can improve a supposedly bad tracking record, i'm all in!

luckydog
08-22-2012, 11:05 AM
If friction reduction can improve a supposedly bad tracking record, i'm all in!
Yes, stylus-groove friction reduction can improve trackability, especially on inner grooves.

Tonearm drag force is applied to the groove wall, via the stylus, as the groove presents a lateral angle to that force. Which angle depends on instantaneous programme level, location on the record (spindle radius), and tracking offset angle.

Because the groove wall is at 45 deg to vertical, there is then an upforce which tends to make the stylus ride the groove wall, which means mistracking if downforce is not sufficient to hold it in place. The smaller tonearm drag is, the lower the upforce, and the better tracking performance is. And this is essentially why reducing stylus-groove friction can improve trackability, especially instantaneous or 'micro' type mistracking.

This is also why reducing friction helps with inner groove mistracking, because for inner grooves the angle presented is steeper for any given programme level and so the problem is more severe there.

BTW, flavio81, who could forget your contribution to the stimulus for discussion of such issues, partly prompted by the remarkable results possible from wet replay you posted about in the VE thread on wet replay, which in itself can significantly reduce stylus-groove friction ? :)

flavio81
08-22-2012, 01:57 PM
BTW, flavio81, who could forget your contribution to the stimulus for discussion of such issues, partly prompted by the remarkable results possible from wet replay you posted about in the VE thread on wet replay, which in itself can significantly reduce stylus-groove friction ? :)

Thanks LD. Yes, the conclusion was that wet play indeed lowers surface noise (by 6dB if i'm not mistaken) and reduces intermodulation distortion (was this test done by gusten? by manfred/lini?). I forgot that there were tracking ability advantages too!! In any case you know that i have no fear of heavy tracking forces, so tracking has never worried me too much.

The problem with wet play is just that it adds more steps to the process of playing a record, and that it might be dangerous to some cantilever materials or coils on MC cartridges.

That's why a more viscous lubricant is more attractive.

gusten
08-22-2012, 02:16 PM
Gusten, great work with the vinyl shine. But could you post a link to the actual product page or at least a list of the ingredientes so we can try to get something similar on our respective countries?

If friction reduction can improve a supposedly bad tracking record, i'm all in!

This compound I have used was from a very old can I found in my garage, donīt remember buying it, and it has no real info on it, just 'car gloss' and itīs intended to be used on vinyl, rubber or other plastics. No info about content, but Iīm reasonably sure it contains silicone compounds, not PTFE as I mentioned previously. It produces a film that is very slippery, cannot be sprayed inside the house because the floor will become dangerous to walk on.

I have applied the compound outside and wiped the surface with a cotton cloth as dry as possible. Then I have played the record twice and wiped the surface after each play, then the surface is reasonably dry but still very slippery.
gusten

luckydog
08-22-2012, 03:15 PM
Here are two files, treated and untreated, from outer track. The treated played two times before recording. Comments are welcome.
gusten

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/39225261/AJA.22.08.12.wav.wav
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/39225261/AJA.2.22.08.12.wet.wav.wav
This demonstration of what is possible sonically simply through reduced friction is extraordinary. I strongly recommend anyone who hasn't listened to do so. The change in clarity and presentation is striking.

Just to pick one point, this illustrates the improvement in crackle noise spectrum, taken from analysis of the same 1.6s section of the silent lead in, untreated/treated :

http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/picture.php?albumid=2429&pictureid=16196
http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/picture.php?albumid=2429&pictureid=16196

It sounds obvious and extraordinary too ! Great stuff, thanks Gusten.

gusten
08-22-2012, 05:24 PM
Thanks luckydog.
I keep my fingers crossed there wonīt be too much draw backs in the long run, because now I know how good the records can sound, hopefully without slip-stick friction and micro mistracking. Really a big step IMHO. I would really like some to measure the effect of LAST and others in the same vein.
gusten

flavio81
08-22-2012, 05:42 PM
Really a big step IMHO.

A very slippery step.

This demonstration of what is possible sonically simply through reduced friction is extraordinary. I strongly recommend anyone who hasn't listened to do so. The change in clarity and presentation is striking.

Just to pick one point, this illustrates the improvement in crackle noise spectrum, taken from analysis of the same 1.6s section of the silent lead in, untreated/treated :

http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/picture.php?albumid=2429&pictureid=16196
http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/picture.php?albumid=2429&pictureid=16196

It sounds obvious and extraordinary too ! Great stuff, thanks Gusten.

- "Luckydog, what does the analyzer say about its noise level?"
- "It's lower in twentyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!"
- "What? TWENTY? There's no way that could be right!!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiMHTK15Pik

Pio1980
08-22-2012, 05:49 PM
It goes that logically this reduces skating force.

Karma16
08-22-2012, 06:28 PM
HI PIO,
Yes it should. As confirmation, it would still be good to measure skating force. Good work guys but Last still remains an unknown in your tests.

Sparky

JonL
08-22-2012, 06:35 PM
This compound I have used was from a very old can I found in my garage, donīt remember buying it, and it has no real info on it, just 'car gloss' and itīs intended to be used on vinyl, rubber or other plastics. No info about content, but Iīm reasonably sure it contains silicone compounds, not PTFE as I mentioned previously. It produces a film that is very slippery, cannot be sprayed inside the house because the floor will become dangerous to walk on.

I have applied the compound outside and wiped the surface with a cotton cloth as dry as possible. Then I have played the record twice and wiped the surface after each play, then the surface is reasonably dry but still very slippery.
gusten

Seems like it might be similar to "Armor All."

gusten
08-22-2012, 07:03 PM
As I suspect the 'gloss' to be some silicone compound itīs important to be aware of a 'dangerous' effect when using it. It has very high 'creeping' properties which can cause 'open circuit'. The use should always be in extremely thin layers.

I have seen that the 'gunk' on the needle is probably mostly carbon black. This makes sense as the compound would 'creep' under stuff that is not bonded to the vinyl, much more effectively than a washing fluid does.
gusten

kirk57
08-22-2012, 08:14 PM
Seems like it might be similar to "Armor All."

Interesting...wasn't Armor All mentioned in an earlier thread as the WORST possible thing to put on an LP?

So what exactly is this Car/vinyl gloss stuff?

flavio81
08-22-2012, 11:08 PM
As I suspect the 'gloss' to be some silicone compound itīs important to be aware of a 'dangerous' effect when using it. It has very high 'creeping' properties which can cause 'open circuit'. The use should always be in extremely thin layers.

I have seen that the 'gunk' on the needle is probably mostly carbon black. This makes sense as the compound would 'creep' under stuff that is not bonded to the vinyl, much more effectively than a washing fluid does.
gusten

Are you sure gusten? Using occam's razor, i'd say the gunk seen on the needle is just dirt that has been pushed out by the stylus. Dirt that wouldn't be so easily dislodged without a lubricant or liquid. Happens to me all the time when using wet play some records that appear clean.

Carbon black is embedded with the record compound, i don't think it would dislodge by itself.

gusten
08-23-2012, 01:04 AM
Are you sure gusten? Using occam's razor, i'd say the gunk seen on the needle is just dirt that has been pushed out by the stylus. Dirt that wouldn't be so easily dislodged without a lubricant or liquid. Happens to me all the time when using wet play some records that appear clean.

Carbon black is embedded with the record compound, i don't think it would dislodge by itself.

Yes, You are probably right, thinking about it. This record is 35 years old, so itīs more likely all types of dirt that is hard to remove normally.
gusten

luckydog
08-23-2012, 02:06 AM
Good work guys but Last still remains an unknown in your tests.
Well there is Mister's Pig's measurement, which seems to suggest small or no notable change in friction after application of the Last record preservative, nor the stylast product. That outcome seems supported by the general absence of anecdotal reports of profound sonic effect, in the context of the type Gusten has observed with a vinyl gloss lubricant. It hardly seems the sort of thing one might miss or not comment about if the effect were there, IMO. IME such effects are a general feature of friction reduction, BTW.

If so, I find it disappointing because the patent is explicit : "Record preservative compositions have a somewhat different function: they serve to lubricate the record surface, and protect it from friction and wear". And the type of lubricant cited in the patent looks very interesting, as set out elsewhere. However, on the face of it and for whatever reason, there seems not to be the same profound effect, at least that's what we have before us here thus far.

Jeff K
08-23-2012, 11:05 AM
Maybe this one does it. Merrill is reputable. Anyone tried it?

http://www.gmanalog.com/gem5.aspx

Mister Pig
08-23-2012, 11:15 AM
Well there is Mister's Pig's measurement, which seems to suggest small or no notable change in friction after application of the Last record preservative, nor the stylast product. That outcome seems supported by the general absence of anecdotal reports of profound sonic effect, in the context of the type Gusten has observed with a vinyl gloss lubricant. It hardly seems the sort of thing one might miss or not comment about if the effect were there, IMO. IME such effects are a general feature of friction reduction, BTW.

If so, I find it disappointing because the patent is explicit : "Record preservative compositions have a somewhat different function: they serve to lubricate the record surface, and protect it from friction and wear". And the type of lubricant cited in the patent looks very interesting, as set out elsewhere. However, on the face of it and for whatever reason, there seems not to be the same profound effect, at least that's what we have before us here thus far.

Until some of the interested parties to this project sends LAST an email, or has a conversation with Walter Davies, you are basically gossiping about the product. Until you get to ask some relevant questions you are not going to know anything about the product to any degree of certainty.

Regards
Mister Pig

markd51
08-23-2012, 11:16 AM
Interesting...wasn't Armor All mentioned in an earlier thread as the WORST possible thing to put on an LP?

So what exactly is this Car/vinyl gloss stuff?

That's pretty much the consensus I learned from many years ago.

I would suspect Vinyl Gloss to be a similar product to Armor All, in that some of the basic ingredients are Water, Silicone, Detergents.
Mark

markd51
08-23-2012, 11:20 AM
Are you sure gusten? Using occam's razor, i'd say the gunk seen on the needle is just dirt that has been pushed out by the stylus. Dirt that wouldn't be so easily dislodged without a lubricant or liquid. Happens to me all the time when using wet play some records that appear clean.

Carbon black is embedded with the record compound, i don't think it would dislodge by itself.

I might suspect dirts, which I think one could find no matter how well cleaned a record is. Just the simple static electricity of sliding a record in, and out of a sleeve every time causes dusts to cling to the surface.

And probably, that such products as Vinyl Gloss, Armor All, etc may only be acting as an attractant to accumilate such dusts on the Stylus as it rides through the groove.

A similar action is occuring, to like products such as Spray and Dust products, Lemon Pledge Furniture Polish, etc.

markd51
08-23-2012, 11:24 AM
Until some of the interested parties to this project sends LAST an email, or has a conversation with Walter Davies, you are basically gossiping about the product. Until you get to ask some relevant questions you are not going to know anything about the product to any degree of certainty.

Regards
Mister Pig

I seem to remember from years ago, that LAST's claim to the cause of reduced wear on records that were treated with LAST Preservative, was the carrier fluid deposited the substance (Fomblin?) and thus this product acted at the molecular level, hardening the very surface of the vinyl.

I don't much recall that it was referred to as a lubricant per se.
Mark

markd51
08-23-2012, 11:33 AM
I seem to also recall LAST Factory once mentioning a long time ago, about heat generated at the stylus-groove interface approaching temperatures of 315 degrees farenheit, and claimed to be near, or at the melting point of vinyl.

That LAST Preservative somehow reduced these high temps. With such being once said-claimed, it does appear that some form of lubrication, or friction reducing effect was supposedly then taking place.

How they accomplished taking such temperature measurements at the groove, I have no idea, and I can even recall AJ Van Den Hul again stating such, but as well seem to remember others debunking such claims. Mark

flavio81
08-23-2012, 03:31 PM
I seem to remember from years ago, that LAST's claim to the cause of reduced wear on records that were treated with LAST Preservative, was the carrier fluid deposited the substance (Fomblin?) and thus this product acted at the molecular level, hardening the very surface of the vinyl.

I don't much recall that it was referred to as a lubricant per se.
Mark

That's because it is a marketing claim. Yes, they state that it is "not" a lubricant, but Fomblin (PTPE) IS a lubricant. And that's how the makers call it and sell it: as a lubricant.

By definition any lubricant acts at the molecular level...

I seem to also recall LAST Factory once mentioning a long time ago, about heat generated at the stylus-groove interface approaching temperatures of 315 degrees farenheit, and claimed to be near, or at the melting point of vinyl.

That LAST Preservative somehow reduced these high temps. With such being once said-claimed, it does appear that some form of lubrication, or friction reducing effect was supposedly then taking place.

How they accomplished taking such temperature measurements at the groove, I have no idea, and I can even recall AJ Van Den Hul again stating such, but as well seem to remember others debunking such claims. Mark

That one is a myth, perfectly debunked by Luckydog at Vinylengine. AJ Van Den Hul deleted that part from his FAQ (unless you can find it again --- i couldn't!)... Probably AJ reads these forums?

Halo AJ !! Hoe gaat het met je?

Again, occam's razor: There's no rocket science here, any well-chosen lubricant will reduce stylus and record wear (how much? that's what we want to know...)

Seems that Fomblin is a good choice.

flavio81
08-23-2012, 03:38 PM
I just bought this thing:

http://www.edelta.com.ar/edelta/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=shop.flypagem&product_id=580&category_id=76&manufacturer_id=0&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=1&vmcchk=1&Itemid=1

The page is in spanish but basically says: "Dry lubricant with silicone and PTFE, for lubricating printer mechanisms. Chemically inert, great adherency. Suitable for precision mechanisms, be it plastic or metallic ones."

I haven't tested it yet, but seems to be using isopropyl alcohol as solvent (so far, so good). I tested it on a leaflet and yes, it did leave a dry but slippery surface.

Cost was about $10 for a 180cc spray can. It would be even cheaper on the country of manufacture (Argentina).

Wigwam Jones
08-23-2012, 03:47 PM
Seems to me you could measure the effect of drag or friction pretty easily. Play a record and measure the power it takes to turn the record. Treat with whatever product and do it again. It can be inferred that a motor that has to do more work to keep the platter rotating at a constant speed will draw more power. Measure the difference and you should have your answer. Sorry if someone said that already; there was a lot to wade through.

markd51
08-23-2012, 03:55 PM
That's because it is a marketing claim. Yes, they state that it is "not" a lubricant, but Fomblin (PTPE) IS a lubricant. And that's how the makers call it and sell it: as a lubricant.

By definition any lubricant acts at the molecular level...



That one is a myth, perfectly debunked by Luckydog at Vinylengine. AJ Van Den Hul deleted that part from his FAQ (unless you can find it again --- i couldn't!)... Probably AJ reads these forums?

Halo AJ !! Hoe gaat het met je?

Again, occam's razor: There's no rocket science here, any well-chosen lubricant will reduce stylus and record wear (how much? that's what we want to know...)

Seems that Fomblin is a good choice.

Flavio,
As to what you say in your last sentence of this last post of yours, yep, I can go along with, and believe in such.

Playing records wet, or with some sort of a record lubricant, Gruve Glide, Armor All, or whatever, that is makes logical sense that both record wear, and stylus wear can be reduced. Higher friction will equate to faster wear.

My concerns for quite a long time has been the questions of "at what cost"?

And I'm a firm believer that there has to be a trade off. That trade off will most likely be a degree of a loss of fidelity. Again, I believe this is a logical common sense assumption.

Further wonderings-questions will be how much, or what degree of a loss of fidelity? If the loss can be heard, then IMO that loss is too great.

My conclusions have always been, which will it be, the very best fidelity, or pull my hair out worrying, or wondering of whether I'll get 3000 hours from my Stylus, or 3200 hours?

I know Sparky states to have good evidence-proof of a substantial lengthening of Stylus life with the use of LAST Preservative/Stylast, I'm not here to argue such, as such is logically believeable, and just plain science at work, but I do firmly believe that there are many other factors that will/can enhance Stylus life as well.

And as well, there are many factors, and causes to shorten a Stylus' life, such as accidental, which I've been there, and done that, and sure many others have been also. ;-(

I'm sorry that I'm thinking out loud here, gone off on a tangent, and have no further scientific findings of LAST products. Mark

luckydog
08-23-2012, 04:23 PM
That trade off will most likely be a degree of a loss of fidelity. Again, I believe this is a logical common sense assumption.....(..)..... how much, or what degree of a loss of fidelity? If the loss can be heard, then IMO that loss is too great.

Actually, it's quite the opposite. Lower stylus-groove friction can significantly improve fidelity in many and various ways. Gusten's posted audio samples on this thread with vinyl gloss treatment illustrate this well, as do measurements based on this, and there's sound theory to back it.

luckydog
08-23-2012, 04:46 PM
Until some of the interested parties to this project sends LAST an email, or has a conversation with Walter Davies, you are basically gossiping about the product.
Actually, I thought the thread had done a great job of sticking to and discussing public domain facts and asking questions, doing tests etc. Things such as your own tests and measurements don't seem like gossip to me, Mister Pig, neither does discussion of the public domain patent or the properties of 3rd party lubricant ingredients cited there, etc etc.

Personally I'm not sure it could ever be reasonable to expect participation from a manufacturer in such forum discussion, but if anyone felt comfortable to ask, I think that has already been suggested as an idea. Just my 2p worth.

luckydog
08-23-2012, 05:02 PM
Thanks LD. Yes, the conclusion was that wet play indeed lowers surface noise (by 6dB if i'm not mistaken) and reduces intermodulation distortion (was this test done by gusten? by manfred/lini?)
Indeed, it doesn't seem to matter what actual lubrication agent is used, so long as stylus-groove friction is reduced. Here's my own measurement of a wet v dry IMD test I made some time ago now, which also shows noise floor improvement. It also shows detail emerging from the noise floor for the wet case. The wetting agent in this case was 25% IPA in water, IIRC. But with this agent, the surface must be wet, of course.

http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/picture.php?albumid=2429&pictureid=16232
http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/picture.php?albumid=2429&pictureid=16232

Karma16
08-23-2012, 06:31 PM
HI All,
Perhaps some of you remember when the original Thorens TD125 with the factory stock tone arm came out. The tone arm had two anti skating compensation scales. One was conventional for conventional use. The other was adjusted for a record flooded with water. Since this was new and strange to me at the time (still is-what a mess!), I remember asking the Thorens sales rep about it. He gave me a few facts like skating forces decreased with the water and thus less compensation was needed. I don't think he had a through understanding of the role friction played in the creation of skating force. So, his answers were limited. At the time I didn't have a good understanding of skating force either.

The year would have been about 1975. So, we are not breaking new ground here. Remember, this was at a time when skating force compensation was not universally accepted as good practice by all manufacturers such AR. I believe the first arm with anti skating compensation was the SME 3009. At least, it was the first one I remember back in the mid 1960's.

Sparky

Kico
08-23-2012, 06:59 PM
Indeed, it doesn't seem to matter what actual lubrication agent is used, so long as stylus-groove friction is reduced. Here's my own measurement of a wet v dry IMD test I made some time ago now, which also shows noise floor improvement. It also shows detail emerging from the noise floor for the wet case. The wetting agent in this case was 25% IPA in water, IIRC. But with this agent, the surface must be wet, of course.

http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/picture.php?albumid=2429&pictureid=16232
http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/picture.php?albumid=2429&pictureid=16232

Luckydog,

More info, though not directly related to wet play...interesting none the less.

This was information put out by the University of Arizona regarding aspects of using DI water and IPA for wettability during silicon wafer cleaning.

"The use of isopropyl alcohol (IPA) in the drying of wafers has been considered by the semiconductor industry. The addition of IPA to water resulted in a decrease in surface tension at the solution/vapor interface. The surface excess of IPA molecules at the solution/air interface was calculated to have a maximum value of 8.5 x 10⁻đ⁰ moles/cmē at a solution composition of 25% IPA and 75% water. IPA solutions with less than 25% IPA were very effective in removing PSL particles on hydrophilic wafers. Hydrophilic particles such as alumina and glass were difficult to remove from wafers in DI water and IPA solutions, however, hydrophobic particles such as silicon were slightly removable in DI water and IPA solutions. The wettability of particles (θ) and substrate (α) in solutions played important roles in removing particles on substrates. The equation for the calculation of magnitude of surface tension force which balance adhesion force, F(A), did not seem to hold for solutions containing less than 25% IPA. "

luckydog
08-24-2012, 03:34 AM
Thanks Kico. I currently use wet replay in the absence of anything less messy, but only for records with degraded surface noise. Whilst looking for the grail of a permanent treatment that is as effective at reducing stylus-groove friction. I was really hoping that the Last preservative could be a good candidate, because the patent reads well, but the early signs of tests on this thread don't seem so encouraging IMO. However, Gusten's discovery about other products opens some doors and the search continues.

Philosophically, the 'normally good' case of a fine quality stylus playing good standard/composition vinyl often doesn't really require assistance as to friction reduction, i reckon. It's low enough anyway, and benefits can be minimal. IME there can be significant variation between styli in this respect though, and very obviously between records. I reckon any difference between various styli here can be more significant to overall sonic performance than stylus geometry, though geometry is perhaps always heavily implicated anyway. Also aspects such as quality of diamond, grain alignment, standard of polish, shank alignment, cartridge alignment, suspension mechanical impedance likely have significant influence. I think this is possibly why certain spherical styli examples are known to perform so well, in spite of the most basic geometry.

Variation between records seems to be the elephant in the room. Although it's amazing how well preserved many/most original records are (and without preservative treatment !), there are plenty of examples which have degraded surface noise, and in many ways sound far better when played wet IME. Possibly were like it from new, depending on vinyl composition? Almost by definition, these records are fairly old now, but it is these records which seem to offer the best opportunity for some permanent improvement if that can be found, and not have a long term downside. That's my grail.

Personally, I think record and stylus wear very probably follows friction, but IME seems generally very slow anyway, as various papers confirm certainly for records. For me, that's not the primary purpose of reducing friction, though it is welcome. Besides, it seems quite possible that those records with poor stylus-groove friction wear faster, and wear the stylus faster (perhaps still very slowly). These are the records I'm primarily interested in improving anyway, and which the vast majority of people probably wouldn't play in any event, because of what's considered 'poor condition'. It is these I currently use wet replay for.

Beyond that, if one is truly into obtaining the best possible sound/performance from a record anyway, reducing stylus-groove friction is a big big ticket. By any means, especially stylus selection if one is not going to use external agents. That's my 2p worth.

luckydog
08-24-2012, 05:22 AM
The wettability of particles (θ) and substrate (α) in solutions played important roles in removing particles on substrates. The equation for the calculation of magnitude of surface tension force which balance adhesion force, F(A), did not seem to hold for solutions containing less than 25% IPA. "
From somewhere I recall IPA solution has very low surface tension/good wetting properties at about 25% concentration. The water and IPA evaporate at about the same rate too at that concentration, so the properties remain.

BTW, the primary benefits of wet replay aren't through shifting groove debris, though that is a welcome side effect. They arise primarily from reduced stylus-groove friction.

And yes, as Sparky posts, wet playback dates back to the great era, though I'm not sure how it worked was well understood in the public domain back then. It was controversial, not least because of the possibility of permanent changes to the vinyl surface, with hindsight I'd attribute to permanent changes in friction behaviour. Hence the 'once played wet, always necessary' rumour, which isn't strictly true IME.

Since then, lubricants have seriously moved on, of course. Wet playback still works, of course, and if I ever had to demo exactly how good vinyl playback quality can ever be in its broadest sense, I would have to use wet playback. Gusten's vinyl gloss probably beats it though, I think !

Karma16
08-24-2012, 05:25 AM
HI Lucky,
I don't even know how to absorb what you just said. Stylus friction makes no difference? Stylus friction important only in certain cases? Stylus wear not something to be concerned about? I'm very confused about your last post.

I am going to reintroduce my Last and Stylast findings since I believe they have been lost in all this attempt at science that has been going on in the thread. I believe they are important and establish the bottom line data for this investigation. Other data may contradict my data but the final goal is what my data shows. Therefore, I say that the only thing that is important are my findings. I'm going to say it simply.

I have found that Last and StyLast function as the factory claims and I have proven it to the degree that I can. My test methodology is simple and to the point. It's only flaw is it takes a lot of time to get results. But the results do come and they are unequivocal. And the results are hard to argue with. Namely, Last and StyLast reduces stylus wear by a significant factor, the limits of which I have not reached. From a practical point of view, my records remain as new, and my styli wear very little if at all. All of this has important implications for the audiophile who buys serious and fine and expensive cartridges and also has an extensive and essentially irreplaceable record collection.

Do not misinterpret my attitudes. I have huge respect for the scientific method. I have spent over 50 years working in science labs both for NASA and at National Nuclear Laboratories. I understand the process. I used it every day. I also know that tests that contradict practical findings means the tests are bad. Your tests are bad. They don't describe practical reality. At least not yet.

No disrespect is intended for your efforts. Not from me. But if you want to continue the effort you are going to have become more sophisticated if you want to get meaningful data.

In the meantime you could just start using Last products as an act of faith. :music:

Sparky

Edited to Add: Above, someone mentioned Occam's Razor as an operating principle. I totally agree. And Occam's Razor leads to my data and methods.

gusten
08-24-2012, 05:32 AM
Without saying too much yet, Iīm getting increasingly optimistic about just using the compound on the needle, not on the record. So far it seems as it lowers the friction good enough for what Iīm after. It doesnīt reduce pops and clicks to any great amount, but that is no big deal for me, Iīm only after making normal records sound clearer.
Weīll see.
gusten

This is the first time played with a film of the compound on the needle, nothing on the record.

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/39225261/R_LINE_000918-114749.grace.wav

Karma16
08-24-2012, 05:45 AM
Without saying too much yet, Iīm getting increasingly optimistic about just using the compound on the needle, not on the record. So far it seems as it lowers the friction good enough for what Iīm after. It doesnīt reduce pops and clicks to any great amount, but that is no big deal for me, Iīm only after making normal records sound clearer.
Weīll see.
gusten

This is the first time played with a film of the compound on the needle, nothing on the record.

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/39225261/R_LINE_000918-114749.grace.wav

HI gusten,
This is not an exercise in instant gratification. The benefits from using Last products only show up over time. The one exception is the instant and obviously noticeable reduction of static charge build up.

Sparky

avole
08-24-2012, 05:49 AM
HI Lucky,
I don't even know how to absorb what you just said. Stylus friction makes no difference? Stylus friction important only in certain cases? Stylus wear not something to be concerned about? I'm very confused about your last post.Why so? Not sure where your last two comments come from, Luckydog made it quite clear.


I am going to reintroduce my Last and Stylast findings since I believe they have been lost in all this attempt at science that has been going on in the thread. I believe they are important and establish the bottom line data for this investigation. Other data may contradict my data but the final goal is what my data shows. Therefore, I say that the only thing that is important are my findings. I'm going to say it simply..In other words, yours are the only "tests" that count. Perhaps just a touch arrogant - and certainly not proven. These tests are as valid as yours, perhaps more so

I have found that Last and StyLast function as the factory claims and I have proven it to the degree that I can. My test methodology is simple and to the point. It's only flaw is it takes a lot of time to get results. But the results do come and they are unequivocal. And the results are hard to argue with. Namely, Last and StyLast reduces stylus wear by a significant factor, the limits of which I have not reached. From a practical point of view, my records remain as new, and my styli wear very little if at all. All of this has important implications for the audiophile who buys serious and fine and expensive cartridges and also has an extensive and essentially irreplaceable record collection...Except your tests aren't proven nor backed up by others

Do not misinterpret my attitudes. I have huge respect for the scientific method. I have spent over 50 years working in science labs both for NASA and at National Nuclear Laboratories. I understand the process. I used it every day. I also know that tests that contradict practical findings means the tests are bad. Your tests are bad. They don't describe practical reality. At least not yet.Your last two comments are both nonsense and arrogant. I'm not sure you do understand the process

No disrespect is intended for your efforts. Not from me. But if you want to continue the effort you are going to have become more sophisticated if you want to get meaningful data.Same comment about your own tests, which, as has been pointed out, are not without flaws.

In the meantime you could just start using Last products as an act of faith. :music:

Sparkydo you not feel that manufacturers should back up their claims and not rely solely on what you admit to be faith. Oh, it certainly works, but usually only for the credulous few - can a washing powder really wash whiter than white? Some claim to.

By the way, I enjoy hearing the pops and crackles of some of my older records as they remind me of the good times I had with them as a part. That disqualifies me immediately as a serious audiophile according to your definition, so I'll be off now.

luckydog
08-24-2012, 06:01 AM
HI Lucky,
I don't even know how to absorb what you just said. Stylus friction makes no difference? Stylus friction important only in certain cases? Stylus wear not something to be concerned about? I'm very confused about your last post.
I was seperating the 'normally good' case of a quality stylus playing good composition vinyl, from the 'poor condition' case where there is higher friction either due to stylus or vinyl compound condition/quality.

I was also trying to seperate the profound audible effects of friction (which personally is my primary interest), from stylus and record wear - though I think they converge eventually even though wear is generally very slow.

I have found that Last and StyLast function as the factory claims and I have proven it to the degree that I can. My test methodology is simple and to the point. It's only flaw is it takes a lot of time to get results. But the results do come and they are unequivocal. And the results are hard to argue with. Namely, Last and StyLast reduces stylus wear by a significant factor, the limits of which I have not reached. From a practical point of view, my records remain as new, and my styli wear very little if at all. All of this has important implications for the audiophile who buys serious and fine and expensive cartridges and also has an extensive and essentially irreplaceable record collection.
Hopefully this won't be ruled off topic again since you've introduced it yourself, Sparky. But, as a simple matter of fact, those results aren't unequivocal, the only flaw isn't just the time taken, and the results aren't too 'hard to argue with'. If one uses externally published data as a control, such results as to stylus wear are also evidently possible without treatment, on the face of it. And in your case, there was no control, so it's impossible to know the significance, unfortunately.

I thought that is why you started this thread, as a means to validate your results through correlating with reduced friction ? Which seems entirely reasonable, except that outcome is not how it is heading so far.

I'm quite used to a scientific approach to evaluating tests, which can seem brutal, but please don't take this as an affront, it's not intended that way. It's just hard and cold that the measured friction situation so far doesn't sit well or validate your stylus wear test result, which remains in my opinion inconclusive. Maybe it will yet come good.

gusten
08-24-2012, 06:06 AM
HI gusten,
This is not an exercise in instant gratification. The benefits from using Last products only show up over time. The one exception is the instant and obviously noticeable reduction of static charge build up.

Sparky

Iīm really only after lower friction. If there is lower friction it is there instantaneously, what follows from lower friction is not noted immediately, besides sound quality.
gusten

luckydog
08-24-2012, 06:52 AM
Without saying too much yet, Iīm getting increasingly optimistic about just using the compound on the needle, not on the record. So far it seems as it lowers the friction good enough for what Iīm after. It doesnīt reduce pops and clicks to any great amount, but that is no big deal for me, Iīm only after making normal records sound clearer.
Weīll see.
gusten

This is the first time played with a film of the compound on the needle, nothing on the record.

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/39225261/R_LINE_000918-114749.grace.wav

How intriguing ! I wonder how/why/if the compound stays put on the stylus ? Does the stopping test show reduced friction, gusten ?

Edit : I wonder if it stays fluid and a small resevoir of the compound might sit on the stylus and continually creep into the stylus-groove gap ? The stuff does strongly creep, I think you mentioned, gusten. But just a wild guess really ?

luckydog
08-24-2012, 07:40 AM
This is not an exercise in instant gratification Well it is intended to be a fast track way to evaluate probable wear, by measuring any reduction in friction before/after treatment, which I agree with gusten would be an immediate effect.

There are excellent other audible reasons to be interested in friction reduction, of course.

kirk57
08-24-2012, 07:58 AM
I'm an engineer, so I think in terms of requirements.

It appears we are looking for a product that reduces friction, and does not contain any residue that may result in buildup on the stylus, or result in increased dirt levels. also it would be nice if it didn't wash off the first time the LP was run through an RCM.

It seems silicon is bad, teflon is good. What about any of the Teflon dry lubricants? Some contain no silicone:

http://www2.dupont.com/Consumer_Lubricants/en_US/products/lubricants.html

but maybe such a question strays too far from the intent of this thread, which is supposed to be about the LAST product specifically. If so, maybe a different thread regarding other products would be in order.

luckydog
08-24-2012, 08:25 AM
so if we are looking for a product that reduces friction, and does not contain any residue that may result in buildup on the stylus, or result in increased dirt levels, what is out there? (Other than LAST record preservative, that is.).
So far here, but in only one test by Mister Pig, the Last record preservative isn't actually shown to significantly reduce friction. Furthermore, no-one seems to have mentioned the sometimes profound audible improvements associated with reduced friction generally. But a 3rd party active ingredient cited in one of Last's patents looks just the business, in that it comprises lubricant PFPE molecules with functional ends potentially capable of bonding with a vinyl surface. Hence the surprise, enigma, discussion and calls for confirmation.

Pio1980
08-24-2012, 08:30 AM
For a 'dry' treatment, something that bonds to/into the surface and doesn't just lay there to be displaced by the tip is preferred. Ordinary dry Teflon/PTFE sprays probably don't do that unless the stylus tip somehow effectively burnishes the bonding aside from the excess fouling the tip.

luckydog
08-24-2012, 08:41 AM
For a 'dry' treatment, something that bonds to/into the surface and doesn't just lay there to be displaced by the tip is preferred. Ordinary dry Teflon/PTFE sprays probably don't do that unless the stylus tip somehow effectively burnishes the bonding aside from the excess fouling the tip.
I tried previously with a dry PTFE lubricant spray where the only residue is meant to be PTFE. It didn't bond, did significantly reduce friction, and had some truly wild static electricity problems during playback !

Pio1980
08-24-2012, 08:46 AM
I tried previously with a dry PTFE lubricant spray where the only residue is meant to be PTFE. It didn't bond, did significantly reduce friction, and had some truly wild static electricity problems during playback !

Sounds like a party, mebbe I'll try it on a crap record for funzies.
I've had dry Teflon powder cause apparent electrostatic discharge problems in a plastic film insulated tuning capacitor, there seems to be a trend to this effect.

luckydog
08-24-2012, 09:06 AM
... mebbe I'll try it on a crap record for funzies.
:yes: A tip for trying such things out : avoid records which are truly beyond redemption, ie fried. Go for something degraded or below par, but where there's a fighting chance of recovery, because on such things differences can be more readily heard :yes:

Karma16
08-24-2012, 09:20 AM
I thought that is why you started this thread, as a means to validate your results through correlating with reduced friction ? Which seems entirely reasonable, except that outcome is not how it is heading so far.


HI lucky,
No, the reason I started this thread was just as I said in the opening post. I never doubted my test results. The only reasonable cause seemed to be lower friction. I never attempted to measure friction directly and was hoping someone else could and then correlate friction to the results I have seen. So far this has not happened.

Is this because the premise is wrong or the tests are not sophisticated for the task? I believe it is the latter.

And as I said before, I still believe that temperature will prove to be a major issue and that has not been dealt with at all.

Sparky

luckydog
08-24-2012, 10:21 AM
I never attempted to measure friction directly and was hoping someone else could and then correlate friction to the results I have seen. So far this has not happened.
Well, Mister Pig returned results of friction tests with the Last products here, he's the only one so far. Unfortunately that result doesn't correlate with your anticipated outcome, Sparky.

I still believe that temperature will prove to be a major issue and that has not been dealt with at all.
But you'll have seen the calculations referenced and set out elsewhere which show no significant temperature rise, even in untreated cases. That's what you'd have to knock over to be convincing on this point, Sparky. Besides, as Fisherdude posted, friction and heat are two sides of the same coin.

marcmorin
08-24-2012, 10:33 AM
This demonstration of what is possible sonically simply through reduced friction is extraordinary. I strongly recommend anyone who hasn't listened to do so. The change in clarity and presentation is striking.

Just to pick one point, this illustrates the improvement in crackle noise spectrum, taken from analysis of the same 1.6s section of the silent lead in, untreated/treated :

http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/picture.php?albumid=2429&pictureid=16196
http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/picture.php?albumid=2429&pictureid=16196

It sounds obvious and extraordinary too ! Great stuff, thanks Gusten.

Something other to ponder looking at the amplitude(s) on this graph. A cartridge is a velocity meter. If this were friction alone causing the increase in output would indicate the diamond is going into a stick-slip mode causing the stylus to vibrate. Which of course is a possibility. The other possibility is the fluid is filling natual voids is the absolute surface structure of the vinyl.
It has been stated (although I cannot find the links to it just now) that the common transducer, aka phono cartridge can produce voltage with as little as .1 micron of movement. That's 3.9 millionths of an inch. If the fluid is attaching to those voids, as a stylus passes over that fluid, it becomes insantaneously a solid. As you cannot compress a liquid and it remain so.
Changing the surface structure by filling the natural (possible) finish of vinyl of course would change its friction coefficient. My mind sees two things going on here. Voids are filled thus not allowing the stylus movement, and possible stick-slip is reduced.

Mike Gibson
08-24-2012, 10:50 AM
Something other to ponder looking at the amplitude(s) on this graph. A cartridge is a velocity meter. If this were friction alone causing the increase in output would indicate the diamond is going into a stick-slip mode causing the stylus to vibrate. Which of course is a possibility. The other possibility is the fluid is filling natual voids is the absolute surface structure of the vinyl.
It has been stated (although I cannot find the links to it just now) that the common transducer, aka phono cartridge can produce voltage with as little as .1 micron of movement. That's 3.9 millionths of an inch. If the fluid is attaching to those voids, as a stylus passes over that fluid, it becomes insantaneously a solid. As you cannot compress a liquid and it remain so.
Changing the surface structure by filling the natural (possible) finish of vinyl of course would change its friction coefficient. My mind sees two things going on here. Voids are filled thus not allowing the stylus movement, and possible stick-slip is reduced.

If this is so would it not alter the sound of the record? Some of the filled in portions of the groove could possibly contain music if movement that small reproduces sound. Just a thought I had is all. Carry on. :thmbsp:

gusten
08-24-2012, 10:58 AM
How intriguing ! I wonder how/why/if the compound stays put on the stylus ? Does the stopping test show reduced friction, gusten ?

Edit : I wonder if it stays fluid and a small resevoir of the compound might sit on the stylus and continually creep into the stylus-groove gap ? The stuff does strongly creep, I think you mentioned, gusten. But just a wild guess really ?

Itīs more difficult now to measure spin down time, I believe I have to consider the stylus tip to be, more or less, permanently treated. But yes I see an increase in spin down time, if we say the difference with a treated record was 3s, itīs now about 1s.
I feel itīs audible, particularly inner half of the record, and it seems to last several records. It could be as You say, as the diamond has a very high surface tension, and silicone has a very low.
gusten

Here is a clip of a silent groove after playing a couple of records, the silent groove is untreated and not played with any silicone.https://dl.dropbox.com/u/39225261/R_LINE_000918-164412non%20treated%20silentgroove2...stylus%20tre ated%20played%20one%20record.wav

gusten
08-24-2012, 11:25 AM
If this is so would it not alter the sound of the record? Some of the filled in portions of the groove could possibly contain music if movement that small reproduces sound. Just a thought I had is all. Carry on. :thmbsp:

I think marcmorin means voids where the fluid cannot 'escape', for normal groove info the fluid goes in the direction it has 'escape ways'.
gusten

Pio1980
08-24-2012, 11:38 AM
Something other to ponder looking at the amplitude(s) on this graph. A cartridge is a velocity meter. If this were friction alone causing the increase in output would indicate the diamond is going into a stick-slip mode causing the stylus to vibrate. Which of course is a possibility. The other possibility is the fluid is filling natual voids is the absolute surface structure of the vinyl.
It has been stated (although I cannot find the links to it just now) that the common transducer, aka phono cartridge can produce voltage with as little as .1 micron of movement. That's 3.9 millionths of an inch. If the fluid is attaching to those voids, as a stylus passes over that fluid, it becomes insantaneously a solid. As you cannot compress a liquid and it remain so.
Changing the surface structure by filling the natural (possible) finish of vinyl of course would change its friction coefficient. My mind sees two things going on here. Voids are filled thus not allowing the stylus movement, and possible stick-slip is reduced.
I did mention reduced stylus 'stiction'/ "violining" as a factor for improved reproduction via a lubed groove in a prior post.

marcmorin
08-24-2012, 11:40 AM
If this is so would it not alter the sound of the record? Some of the filled in portions of the groove could possibly contain music if movement that small reproduces sound. Just a thought I had is all. Carry on. :thmbsp:

I guess, if enough fluid remained after application to fill in actual cut modulation. It also might affect the sound (good or bad is subjective) in that if it is filling in natural surface void only, that void would be on the suface of the modulation as well.

Karma16
08-24-2012, 11:43 AM
Well, Mister Pig returned results of friction tests with the Last products here, he's the only one so far. Unfortunately that result doesn't correlate with your anticipated outcome, Sparky.


But you'll have seen the calculations referenced and set out elsewhere which show no significant temperature rise, even in untreated cases. That's what you'd have to knock over to be convincing on this point, Sparky. Besides, as Fisherdude posted, friction and heat are two sides of the same coin.

HI lucky,
Right, reduce friction and the heat component will also reduce. Both are desirable effects because of vinyls low melting temperature and its very high thermal time constant. It doesn't conduct heat worth a damn. But diamond is much better.

I think you guys are not looking at the friction, and thus, the heat properly. The heat is being created at the tiny groove to stylus contact point. If the vinyl were a totally ideally solid material, the interface with the diamond would be infinitely small because of their different curvatures. But vinyl is not a perfect solid. It is quite pliable and it deflects microscopically as is pushes against the suspension of the stylus and the inertia of the stylus mass. Thus it is constantly conforming to the presence of the diamond as it passes past the diamond. This conformance increases the area where the diamond and vinyl are in contact but it is still tiny, almost like a knife edge. It is at the knife edge, and only at this knife edge, where the friction exists and the heat of friction is created. Thus, the concentration of heat is at a very small point. That it doesn't instantly melt the vinyl is only because the vinyl is moving and the heat at any tiny contact point is present for a very short period of time.

The diamond is also being subject to friction heat. But its different than the vinyl. In this case the diamond is constantly being heated. At the groove to diamond interface the temperature is very high and concentrated on just the vinyl/stylus contact point. It is very similar to sharpening a knife on a grinding wheel. The sharp edge can be glowing red but the main body of the knife blade is cool. The main blade area is sinking heat away from the edge thus keeping it from melting. Obviously, the groove/diamond case is not so extreme. I have never seen a stylus glow red!! But the idea is the same.

I believe, without being able to prove it, that the temperature rise at the vinyl/diamond interface is the main cause of stylus wear and also the cause of damage to the groove. If true, then reduction of friction will lower temperatures and slow stylus wear and also reduce groove deterioration.

You have to think microscopically.

Sparky

marcmorin
08-24-2012, 11:45 AM
I did mention reduced stylus 'stiction' and "violining" as a factor for improved reproduction via a lubed groove in a prior post.

Yes my friend you did. My question though is the total mechanics involved here. Is the stylus actually reading voids? Is the stylus movement due to chattering of stick-slip? In any case, the stylus has to move in order for there to be any amplitude.

Mister Pig
08-24-2012, 12:35 PM
Ran a set of spin down tests on the thorens at 45 rpm. Suppose I could have done 78, but I don't think its going to matter. Performed on the Thorens TD124, all relevant information about it is in the previous post of mine. I don't have time to crunch numbers as I am heading out for Oregon Coast this weekend. Here they are, shows the same pattern as before I think.

Vinyl Only Spin Down
47.4
48.2
47.2
48.4
47.2

Spin Down With Stylus
42.6
41.8
42.8
42.0
42.6

Spin Down With Stylus and Last Record Treatment
42.0
42.8
42.1
42.6
42.2

Spin Down With Stylast and Last Treatment
42.4
42.2
41.9
42.7
42.3

Once again, I would recommend talking to Walter Davies at Last to get his side of the story about the product. All this proves is that it does not function in the manner you think it might. That is all.

Regards
Mister Pig

flavio81
08-24-2012, 12:38 PM
I believe, without being able to prove it, that the temperature rise at the vinyl/diamond interface is the main cause of stylus wear and also the cause of damage to the groove. If true, then reduction of friction will lower temperatures and slow stylus wear and also reduce groove deterioration.

You have to think microscopically.


Sparky, you must take a look at luckydog's calculations regarding stylus tip temperature. These calculations factor in the friction of the groove in typical conditions. These also factor in the diamond as a conductor of heat.

There's not enough power there to make any interesting temp rise there.

If you take a look at the literature (AES papers), pretty much all of them imply that the wear mechanism is purely mechanical due to abrasion, not due to melting. Wear pictures show abrasion tracks on the vinyl. The person who started the "stylus tip heats to melting temps" myth was George Alexandrovich of Stanton. He was observing that vinyl **appeared** to flow under the stylus, on the microscope, and he pulled the "vinyl is melting" explanation out of nowhere, with no temperature test done. And with other explanations available (#1 explanation: vinyl is compliant!! )

flavio81
08-24-2012, 12:40 PM
It has been stated (although I cannot find the links to it just now) that the common transducer, aka phono cartridge can produce voltage with as little as .1 micron of movement. That's 3.9 millionths of an inch. If the fluid is attaching to those voids, as a stylus passes over that fluid, it becomes insantaneously a solid. As you cannot compress a liquid and it remain so.
Changing the surface structure by filling the natural (possible) finish of vinyl of course would change its friction coefficient. My mind sees two things going on here. Voids are filled thus not allowing the stylus movement, and possible stick-slip is reduced.

Well, lubrication happens when you prevent the contact against two surfaces by putting some lubricant molecules in between, so you can as well call this "filling the gaps" too.

In my view, everything makes perfect sense: lubrication -> lower friction -> higher signal/noise ratio. I don't see any special mystery here.

JonL
08-24-2012, 01:30 PM
I think it is important to understand that there are three major types of lubrication: Hydrodynamic, elastohydrodynamic, and boundary.

In hydrodynamic lubrication, the surfaces are totally separated by a fluid film. This is what happens when a tire hydroplanes. There is no contact between surfaces, there is essentially zero wear, and friction is very low (though it is strongly influenced by the lubricant viscosity and the film thickness between the bearing surfaces.

Elasto-hydrodynamic (EHD) lubrication exists when the geometry of the sliding surfaces are not conducive to forming a fully separating film, in other words when a surface of a very small radius rides against a surface that is flat or has a very large radius of curvature, or has an opposite radius of curvature. In this case, there is very high contact stress between the surfaces and one or both may actually deform to create a larger surface area over which to carry the load. The lubricant in that contact zone becomes "squeezed" such that it's local pressure becomes extremely high -- high enough to cause damage to the surfaces if the system isn't properly designed. EHD may describe the case of wet LP play with low viscosity liquids, which also may explain why "once played wet, always played wet." The vinyl may become damaged by the high pressure in the contact zone, or by cavitation of the fluid film as the pressure drops nearly instantaneously. Coefficient of friction with EHD is usually low, but still higher than fully flooded hydrodynamic lubrication. The use of a high enough viscosity fluid may cause full hydrodynamic lubrication in a system with unfavorable geometry. I suspect this is what's happening with that vinyl gloss substance, and explains why the friction reduction is so large.

Boundary lubrication occurs when chemical films form on the sliding surfaces that continuously shear away and prevent adhesion and tearing of the two surfaces. Boundary lubrication exists naturally all around us. Door hinges rely on a slight film of oxidation on their surfaces to prevent seizure. Additives are included in motor oil that create boundary films on camshafts and tappets to prevent galling and rapid wear. Boundary films protect surfaces from extreme wear during start-up before hydrodynamic films can be formed. Friction is relatively high with boundary lubrication, however if the boundary films are formed from an outside substance rather than an oxidation of the parent material, wear can be low.

I suspect that LAST works on a boundary lubrication principle. I suspect that the record treatment creates adherent boundary films on the vinyl surface, thin enough to not interfere with the groove modulations, but thick enough to prevent wear over an extended time. I suspect that the stylus treatment is a similar material, though it won't likely bond to the diamond stylus. It therefore needs to be reapplied every play. It may also serve to replenish some of the film on the vinyl that may be depleted during play.

If LAST works on a boundary lubrication principle, it may still dramatically reduce wear though the coefficient of friction is not reduced by a magnitude that can be determined by the relatively crude methods available to audio hobbyists.

If we're interested in quantifying how LAST might reduce wear (of vinyl or of stylus), our experiments should measure wear. Measuring friction is at best an indirect measure of the product's performance and may not even be meaningful at all.

The other issue is that of abrasion due to foreign particles. There may be something about the LAST products that reduces the tendency of abrasion to occur. Perhaps the LAST preservative helps keep abrasive particles from "sticking" to the vinyl, where they will plow the groove and wear the stylus. Perhaps the preservative makes it easier for the stylus to knock the dirt free and cause less damage. It could also simply be that using STYLAST requires one to pretty rigorously clean the stylus before every play. Maybe that's the most important part.

marcmorin
08-24-2012, 02:25 PM
I think it is important to understand that there are three major types of lubrication: Hydrodynamic, elastohydrodynamic, and boundary.



Good answer.

luckydog
08-24-2012, 02:48 PM
If LAST works on a boundary lubrication principle, it may still dramatically reduce wear though the coefficient of friction is not reduced by a magnitude that can be determined by the relatively crude methods available to audio hobbyists.
Crux is can this ever be true ? I'm trying to think of any other example where the coeficient of friction between two surfaces is then essentially unaltered after introducing a lubricant layer, and I can't think of one. Especially in the case where the two surfaces would be diamond on PFPE, which one would predict to be super low friction in principle. Stopping method resolves friction coefficient to within about 5% or so.

In the case here, based on Mister Pig's measurements, the coefficient of friction pretty much remains unaltered. The simplest explanation of course seems that there is no lubricant involved. A boundary lubricant layer of PFPE doesn't fit here, IMO. The result here is essentially indistinguishable from no effect on friction.

It would otherwise require a thoroughly remarkable coincidence for the new coefficient of friction to be near exactly the same as the original surfaces, and it doesn't fit the materials apparently involved. Besides, its not even obvious that if the coefficient of friction remains unaltered, that wear on either surface would be reduced in any event..............

Remember the premise that wear is actually being reduced to any significant extent here is not actually proven. Also, the Last patent refers to a mechanism of reduced wear via reduced friction, and cites examples of the lubricant type involved.

flavio81
08-24-2012, 03:53 PM
Wow JonL, great post !!

luckydog
08-24-2012, 03:59 PM
Ran a set of spin down tests on the thorens at 45 rpm.
Thanks again Mister Pig.

Processing the numbers in the same way as before, I obtain friction reduction factors of 1.02 for the Last record preservative treated sample, and 1.04 for the stylast treated. That is to say, the friction coefficients come out as being essentially the same as the untreated case, within 2% and 4% respectively. The 45rpm figures are indeed more accurate, but this result appears to confirm the previous result that the measured stylus-groove friction coefficient appears unaltered before/after treatment with the Last record preservative and stylast products.

gusten
08-24-2012, 04:32 PM
I have done so that I have mixed the 'gloss' with 'blue tack', I just dip the needle previous each record play. It works fine for now and I will see how it will perform for a longer time test. It sounds very good IMO, I have never heard inner tracks sound like this before.
gusten

JonL
08-24-2012, 04:34 PM
I'm trying to think of any other example where the coeficient of friction between two surfaces is then essentially unaltered, and I can't think of one. Especially in the case where the two surfaces would be diamond on PFPE, which one would think to be super low friction in principle.

In the case here, based on Mister Pig's measurements, the coefficient of friction pretty much remains unaltered. The simplest explanation of course seems that there is no lubricant involved. A boundary lubricant layer of PFPE doesn't fit here, IMO. The result here is essentially indistinguishable from no effect on friction.

It would otherwise require a thoroughly remarkable coincidence for the new coefficient of friction to be near exactly the same as the original surfaces, and it doesn't fit the materials apparently involved. Besides, its not even obvious that if the coefficient of friction remains unaltered, that wear on either surface would be reduced in any event..............

Remember the premise that wear is actually being reduced to any significant extent here is not actually proven. The Last patent refers to a mechanism of reduced wear via reduced friction, and cites examples of the lubricant involved.

I don't know what the coefficient of friction is between a diamond stylus and a normal, used, untreated LP groove in a typical home environment (temperature and humidity). I'm sure it's been measured, and there must be a range of published values. I imagine the coefficient of friction isn't very high, perhaps on the order of 0.1 or 0.2. The big reduction in friction determined by one poster with a spin-down test using vinyl gloss is probably the result of the regime becoming fully-flooded, hydrodynamic lubrication which can have a coefficient of friction as low as 0.01 (though it's unlikely to be quite that low in this case). I think it is entirely plausible that the LAST treatment increases the microhardness of the vinyl and applies a boundary film lubricant that combined reduce wear of vinyl and stylus by an order of magnitude, while only reducing the friction coefficient by a few percent.

LAST claims to reduce wear. I'm not aware that they claim to reduce friction. If we're attempting to determine LAST's efficacy, we need to measure wear. Measuring friction is interesting, but it's an indirect indication of LAST's effectiveness at best. There may not be a strong correlation between wear and friction in this case. It may be that a very minor reduction in friction (too small to reliably measure with the methods at hand) leads to a great reduction in wear because the small amount of tearing away of vinyl (untreated friction) is replaced by the shearing of a solid lubricant film (treated friction) with very little difference in friction coefficient.

kirk57
08-24-2012, 04:56 PM
From what I can tell from the patents

http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&S1=%22record+preservative%22&OS=%22record+preservative%22&RS=%22record+preservative%22

LAST does make a claim to reduced friction for the preservative.

gusten
08-24-2012, 05:07 PM
I think it is entirely plausible that the LAST treatment increases the microhardness of the vinyl and applies a boundary film lubricant that combined reduce wear of vinyl and stylus by an order of magnitude, while only reducing the friction coefficient by a few percent.


I believe itīs more reasonable that LAST is not effecting the hardness, and itīs not intended to. Vinyl is a thermo-plastic polymer which is in natural state rather hard and somewhat brittle. Itīs always used together with fillers and plasticizers to achieve the right properties. More likely will the surface, together with another even softer polymer, be softer, but with a lower friction IMO.
If we have stick-slip friction phenomena, and assuming after treatment we have not, then the friction must be considerably lower.
gusten

luckydog
08-24-2012, 05:25 PM
I don't know what the coefficient of friction is between a diamond stylus and a normal, used, untreated LP groove in a typical home environment (temperature and humidity). I'm sure it's been measured, and there must be a range of published values. I imagine the coefficient of friction isn't very high, perhaps on the order of 0.1 or 0.2.
Published values (JVC et al) are in the range 0.22 - 0.55. My own measurements have always been in this range, and gusten's vinyl gloss result is the only one I'm aware of which must fall below this range, an estimate of 0.1 or so perhaps.

I think it is entirely plausible that the LAST treatment increases the microhardness of the vinyl and applies a boundary film lubricant that combined reduce wear of vinyl and stylus by an order of magnitude, while only reducing the friction coefficient by a few percent.
My first reaction is to find it implausible that the friction coefficient would be essentially unaltered, or coincidentally within a few percent of the diamond-vinyl value. Diamond-PFPE seems very unlikely to have the same tribology or coefficient as diamond-vinyl, IMO.

If we're attempting to determine LAST's efficacy, we need to measure wear.........There may not be a strong correlation between wear and friction in this case. It may be that a very minor reduction in friction (too small to reliably measure with the methods at hand) leads to a great reduction in wear because the small amount of tearing away of vinyl (untreated friction) is replaced by the shearing of a solid lubricant film (treated friction) with very little difference in friction coefficient.
Well, we should bear in mind that wear efficacy has not actually been established. Under that circumstance, one should beware of elaborate, rare or tenuous explanation IMO. And yes, one should ideally prove an effect before trying to explain it. The crux is what can be inferred about wear efficacy from establishing lack of change to friction coefficient. Which will probably be as divisive a matter of opinion as establishing whether the product is effective at reducing wear :)

Anyways, it's good stuff and food for thought, JonL :)

luckydog
08-24-2012, 05:35 PM
I believe itīs more reasonable that LAST is not effecting the hardness, and itīs not intended to.
Yes, if one looks at the formulation cited in the Last patent, there's no agent to change vinyl co-polymer hardness at all. I agree, I can't see a basis for that.

ripblade
08-24-2012, 06:08 PM
Originally Posted by gusten:
I believe itīs more reasonable that LAST is not effecting the hardness, and itīs not intended to. Yes, if one looks at the formulation cited in the Last patent, there's no agent to change vinyl co-polymer hardness at all. I agree, I can't see a basis for that.The rumours about Last increasing the hardness of the vinyl is based on the published information surrounding the original formulation, which pre-exists the Fomblin patent by more than a decade. In it, I don't believe there was ever then any claim to reduce friction; that claim seems to be based on the new formulation.

However dubious these claims may appear here, The Last Factory has been in existence since at least the late '70s with almost no marketing. That speaks for something.

Karma16
08-24-2012, 06:58 PM
HI All,
First, the claims are not dubious to me. I have the data. I wish you would not continue forget this inconvenient fact.

I just finished reading the patent. Fortunately there are some non technical verbiage. Without that I would have been lost very quickly. I need to make clear that I'm not a chemist. I'm an electronics engineer. I assume those of you who seem to be actually getting good knowledge from the patent must be specialists in chemistry. I'm certainly not. I can't even begin to evaluate the chemistry as stated. Therefore, I must use alternative means to determine the efficacy of Last. Of course, I have done exactly this.

You all can measure run down time (the only test attempted so far) until the cows come home. You may or may not get data that makes sense. My humble test gives real results while yours produces only more questions. Sorry guy's, it's time to give me my dues. My test works. Yours.....well?????

Several things jumped out because they coincide with our discussion. First, temperature is mentioned as wear factor. And, of course, friction. At no time is hardness mentioned. I can't see how you can expose the working mechanism of last and associated products at your current level of knowledge. Me? Forget it.

Sparky

Mister Pig
08-25-2012, 12:13 AM
[QUOTE=Karma16;5994692]HI All,
First, the claims are not dubious to me. I have the data. I wish you would not continue forget this inconvenient fact.

I just finished reading the patent. Fortunately there are some non technical verbiage. Without that I would have been lost very quickly. I need to make clear that I'm not a chemist. I'm an electronics engineer. I assume those of you who seem to be actually getting good knowledge from the patent must be specialists in chemistry. I'm certainly not. I can't even begin to evaluate the chemistry as stated. Therefore, I must use alternative means to determine the efficacy of Last. Of course, I have done exactly this.

You all can measure run down time (the only test attempted so far) until the cows come home. You may or may not get data that makes sense. My humble test gives real results while yours produces only more questions. Sorry guy's, it's time to give me my dues. My test works. Yours.....well?????

Several things jumped out because they coincide with our discussion. First, temperature is mentioned as wear factor. And, of course, friction. At no time is hardness mentioned. I can't see how you can expose the working mechanism of last and associated products at your current level of knowledge. Me? Forget it.

I agree. Until someonetalks to Walter Davies it is all conjecture. He could make this a lot easier to undersand.

Regrds
Mister Pig

avole
08-25-2012, 02:04 AM
The effects of the compositions may be assayed by means of standard engineering and materials testing protocols. Compositions may most easily be tested by conducting simple comparative tests. For example, one may treat several identical records with the compositions of the invention, and leave several records untreated (or may use alternate sides of the same records as controls). The records are then played repeatedly under identical conditions for a suitable number of repetitions, e.g. 200. At the end of the test, the records are replayed, and judged for sound quality. In general, untreated records will sound "scratchy" and worn after 200 plays, with loss of high frequency sounds, and increased levels of noise. Treated records exhibit much less, if any, signs of wear. Records may also be examined under electron microscope: under such examination, treated records exhibit much less visible wear, whereas the wear for control records is easily noted.

Practical tests, recommended by the makers. Not that convinced by the subjective assessment part, and doubling then tripling the number of plays might reveal more.

luckydog
08-25-2012, 02:46 AM
The records are then played repeatedly under identical conditions for a suitable number of repetitions, e.g. 200. At the end of the test, the records are replayed, and judged for sound quality.
OK, I just did this on a locked groove of an untreated record whilst having a cup of tea. I didn't note any audible change as suggested. This is the manufacturers suggested method, and the control group for their suggested demonstration. But it doesn't seem to work, at least in a quick trial, the control group appears to show no audible change.

luckydog
08-25-2012, 03:21 AM
You all can measure run down time (the only test attempted so far) until the cows come home. You may or may not get data that makes sense.
The stopping method can readily produce results which measure friction coefficient to within about 5% or so, enough to be reasonably confident that stylus-groove friction appears effectively unaltered in Mister Pig's tests of before/after application of Last preservative and stylast. Mr Pig repeated the tests with similar results. The control groups (stylus up, gusten's vinyl gloss) show expected results. The method has previously been shown to produce results consistent with independant published and accepted figures.

That makes good sense to me, and seems quite reasonable to infer that friction was probably unaltered here.

Personally though, it's disappointing. Because I was hoping for good things by way of permanent friction reduction on the basis of reading about Fomblin Functional, the PFPE lubcricant with potential to bind to a vinyl copolymer surface. Oh well, at least gusten's on a roll with the vinyl gloss intriguing discoveries.......!

gusten
08-25-2012, 06:56 AM
Oh well, at least gusten's on a roll with the vinyl gloss intriguing discoveries.......!

Absolutely, the biggest thing since Colossus.:music:
gusten

Mister Pig
08-25-2012, 08:55 AM
The stopping method can readily produce results which measure friction coefficient to within about 5% or so, enough to be reasonably confident that stylus-groove friction appears effectively unaltered in Mister Pig's tests of before/after application of Last preservative and stylast. Mr Pig repeated the tests with similar results. The control groups (stylus up, gusten's vinyl gloss) show expected results. The method has previously been shown to produce results consistent with independant published and accepted figures.

That makes good sense to me, and seems quite reasonable to infer that friction was probably unaltered here.

Personally though, it's disappointing. Because I was hoping for good things by way of permanent friction reduction on the basis of reading about Fomblin Functional, the PFPE lubcricant with potential to bind to a vinyl copolymer surface. Oh well, at least gusten's on a roll with the vinyl gloss intriguing discoveries.......!

The quote on the cows acualy camefrom Sparky's post,but got melded into mine. At the ocean for the weekend and posting from a cell phone. However cows are smart creatures.

As I recall LAST has always been presented as a preventitive care product. Not one that can minimize noise or damage from previous playback. I still suspect you are looking at the wrong indicators for its affect.

Regards
Mister Pig

luckydog
08-25-2012, 10:15 AM
As I recall LAST has always been presented as a preventitive care product. Not one that can minimize noise or damage from previous playback. I still suspect you are looking at the wrong indicators for its affect
Hey, enjoy the ocean, Mister Pig :)

Well it seems that neither the record preservative nor the stylast product appear to reduce stylus-groove friction, which is where any link to surface noise performance would lie. Indeed, it's not noted for these products, and one could hardly miss it IME.

One hardly has to scratch the surface to find the pervasive link between friction coefficient and wear performance in the general topic of tribology :)

It still seems reasonable to me, normal even, to go looking for a friction reduction from products devised to reduce surface wear. And the profound link between surface noise performance and stylus-groove friction has been well illustrated on this thread with gusten's vinyl gloss and my own wet replay results. Along with other profound improvements, one should add.

It had crossed my mind today whether one could use measurement of signal-noise performance as an indicator of stick-slip tribology, and by association, as a predictor of wear performance for those interested in establishing efficacy?

luckydog
08-25-2012, 11:45 AM
It had crossed my mind today whether one could use measurement of signal-noise performance as an indicator of stick-slip tribology, and by association, as a predictor of wear performance for those interested in establishing efficacy?
Just to expand why this might work...........

Stick-slip friction seems the common enemy of both surface noise and wear. Stick being when surface asperities adhere or bond together momentarily, then are torn apart potentially dislodging surface material on a tiny scale, which is essentially wear. There being an associated jolt in friction force as the bonds are torn apart, which ultimately provokes a whole range of audible effects, not least surface noise. Slip being shear sliding motion without surface bonding which is interspersed with stick events. The series typically follows a flicker noise law, I understand.

Then whatever one does to reduce the extent of stick-slip friction would improve both surface noise (and other audible effects), and reduce wear - in principle. And therefore surface noise floor could be an indicator of wear rate.............?

Pio1980
08-25-2012, 04:14 PM
A freq response plot that goes to at least 100k might be informative.

gusten
08-25-2012, 05:36 PM
Just to expand why this might work...........

Stick-slip friction seems the common enemy of both surface noise and wear. Stick being when surface asperities adhere or bond together momentarily, then are torn apart potentially dislodging surface material on a tiny scale, which is essentially wear. There being an associated jolt in friction force as the bonds are torn apart, which ultimately provokes a whole range of audible effects, not least surface noise. Slip being shear sliding motion without surface bonding which is interspersed with stick events. The series typically follows a flicker noise law, I understand.

Then whatever one does to reduce the extent of stick-slip friction would improve both surface noise (and other audible effects), and reduce wear - in principle. And therefore surface noise floor could be an indicator of wear rate.............?

I guess introducing lower friction to a certain record, by wet play or some other, will always? lower noise floor, how much will vary from record to record.

But records could have a lower noise floor, untreated, than some records, treated, I think. Is there something special that should looked upon. A certain frequency?
gusten

Edit: I compared noise on an old record, untreated and maybe only played once, with a treated record , but played hundreds of times. What I can see the noise floor is lower at all frequencies on the record with one play.

Karma16
08-25-2012, 11:14 PM
HI gustin,
Treated with what?

Sparky

luckydog
08-26-2012, 02:18 AM
The concept would be to look at the broad noise floor in the audioband on the same short silent section of the same record before/after treatment. As already posted here showing analysis of one of gusten's vinyl gloss treated records which shows a profound improvement across a wide range of frequencies, there seems no need to select a specific frequency or band, and no need to use high frequencies, any central part of the audible band seems sensible, perhaps near 1kHz or so.

I don't think one could necessarily ever compare different records, though it is an interesting question.

gusten
08-26-2012, 06:55 AM
Here are two plots from an untreated and treated record, the same record and everything else as similar as possible. ('vinyl gloss')
From maybe 700Hz there is a benefit from the treated record in lower noise floor.

gusten

kirk57
08-26-2012, 11:30 AM
What exactly is this 'Vinyl Gloss' product (link?)
Do you see any gunk accumulated on the stylus when playing a record that has been treated with it?

flavio81
08-26-2012, 11:31 AM
Here are two plots from an untreated and treated record, the same record and everything else as similar as possible. ('vinyl gloss')
From maybe 700Hz there is a benefit from the treated record in lower noise floor.

gusten

Dramatic, and amazing. Which software are you using, by the way?

I've been trying the silicone+teflon spray i bought, but haven't done any reliable test. And to my ears the hissy/noisy records do not improve. I'd guess the test would have to be done with good condition records.

gusten
08-26-2012, 12:36 PM
Dramatic, and amazing. Which software are you using, by the way?

I've been trying the silicone+teflon spray i bought, but haven't done any reliable test. And to my ears the hissy/noisy records do not improve. I'd guess the test would have to be done with good condition records.

I normally use RMAA and Audacity. It might be so that in many cases (Iīm guessing with 'vinyl gloss') it doesnīt do so much about low freq noise. It seems to function very good at reducing noise at higher freq, at least so far.

The audible difference, as I hear it, is a cleaner more transparent sound, a better focus on each instrument, it just sounds more right to me.
gusten

Karma16
08-26-2012, 12:53 PM
HI All,
In order for us to evaluate your listening tests we need to know what your playback system is. Can you give us a list?

Thanks, Sparky

luckydog
08-26-2012, 05:48 PM
The audible difference, as I hear it, is a cleaner more transparent sound..........(..)........ it just sounds more right to me.
gusten
Yes. It's a quadruple whammy : lower noise floor, improved stability, lower distortion and better trackability. Reducing stylus-groove friction really can be profound in effect. Hence the quest !

Great stuff, gusten. You've obviously uncovered an intriguing product and method here, which demands to be explored really :).

gusten
08-26-2012, 09:23 PM
Yes. It's a quadruple whammy : lower noise floor, improved stability, lower distortion and better trackability. Reducing stylus-groove friction really can be profound in effect. Hence the quest !

Great stuff, gusten. You've obviously uncovered an intriguing product and method here, which demands to be explored really :).

Iīm thinking the compound is some type of silicone, hopefully on the record it will have a low volatile content and will keep a low viscosity film for a long time.

Iīm guessing this type of mtrl must have been tested by someone previously, so I think we just have to see how it turns out to function in the long run. Someone wrote that silicone was not a good mtrl to have on records, it might be so, I have no clear opinion about that yet.

It does lower friction and the result of this is a great advantage when looking at sound quality, as You say, lets hope the disadvantages are not so many.

Looking at mould release agents there are some that looks similar, containing only silicone compounds, which might also be interesting in testing. I believe mtrls that should function good is really very limited. I do not think PTFE and such will work if not bonded to the vinyl.
gusten

Karma16
08-26-2012, 10:06 PM
HI gustin,
Why not just use Last?

Sparky

flavio81
08-27-2012, 02:27 AM
Iīm thinking the compound is some type of silicone, hopefully on the record it will have a low volatile content and will keep a low viscosity film for a long time.

Iīm guessing this type of mtrl must have been tested by someone previously, so I think we just have to see how it turns out to function in the long run. Someone wrote that silicone was not a good mtrl to have on records, it might be so, I have no clear opinion about that yet.

It does lower friction and the result of this is a great advantage when looking at sound quality, as You say, lets hope the disadvantages are not so many.

Looking at mould release agents there are some that looks similar, containing only silicone compounds, which might also be interesting in testing. I believe mtrls that should function good is really very limited. I do not think PTFE and such will work if not bonded to the vinyl.
gusten

What would be the problem with silicone? Silicones are the typical choice for plastic care products, and for lubricating plastic gears sometimes.

flavio81
08-27-2012, 02:28 AM
HI gustin,
Why not just use Last?

Sparky

Gusten's product (and similar) can be far cheaper than Last, and right now it is proven to work (the spectrum analysis don't lie!)

luckydog
08-27-2012, 03:38 AM
Why not just use Last?

Last appears not to reduce stylus-groove friction, on the strength of this thread so far, according to Mister Pig's tests. And the consequent profound audible improvements associated with reduced friction aren't noted, even by anecdote here. ie whatever way it might be intended to work (as a preservative), in practice it seems not to hit the spot which gusten's vinyl gloss compound does in these areas.

gusten
08-27-2012, 04:45 AM
What would be the problem with silicone? Silicones are the typical choice for plastic care products, and for lubricating plastic gears sometimes.

Someone wrote that itīs a not so good mtrl, it wasnīt me. Disadvantages can be eg, attraction of dust and loose particles on record and mat, separation of dust and particles from the vinyl, sticking to the needle, Iīm sure there will show up other. Of course there is a procedure involved that has to be strict and takes some time, which also is a disadvantage. But the advantage in better sonic qualities is profound, so everything must be weighted against this in the end, I think.
gusten

Karma16
08-27-2012, 05:00 AM
Last appears not to reduce stylus-groove friction, on the strength of this thread so far, according to Mister Pig's tests. And the consequent profound audible improvements associated with reduced friction aren't noted, even by anecdote here. ie whatever way it might be intended to work (as a preservative), in practice it seems not to hit the spot which gusten's vinyl gloss compound does in these areas.

HI lucky,
OK, then how do you explain the dramatic increase of stylus life my long term testing has shown? Further, there is significant anecdotal evidence of improved record life. I have not been able to measure this personally but I can say my records are in fine shape.

Your and others reluctance to acknowledge my test results seems to scream that you are accusing me of inventing my data. I take this as an insult. I can assure you that that is not the case. You too can run the same tests I have done. You won't because you are not willing to spend the time to do so. Your commitment to truth is not as strong as you would like us to believe.

I will say this. You guy's are too cheap to invest in Last and run long term tests. I have serious questions about your commitment to fine sound. None of you have revealed your systems which, of course, is essential for us to evaluate your listening results. I have asked the same question in several ways. What is your most expensive cartridge? Please give a list of your playback system. Etc.

I think your methods are flawed and will never reveal the truth about Last.

Sparky

luckydog
08-27-2012, 05:51 AM
HI lucky,
OK, then how do you explain the dramatic increase of stylus life my long term testing has shown?
Since you directly ask, Sparky, presumably this will be ruled on topic.

Unfortunately, your wear test does not have a conclusive result, Sparky, as I see it, by applying standards of classic reason. This is because there was no control group as part of the experimental method, so it can't be conclusive to associate any outcome with the test treatment. Furthermore, if one 'borrows' untreated control groups from other unrelated independent tests, your test outcome is not necessarily significant, the result could be normal. So any conclusion depends on what one assumes for the control group, which makes the test result inconclusive. Unfortunately, because it must represent a lot of time and effort invested, which is noble stuff, Sparky.

Your and others reluctance to acknowledge my test results seems to scream that you are accusing me of inventing my data. I take this as an insult. Absolutely not, there's no need for your result to be invented for it to inconclusive, Sparky. Disagreement and challenge as to interpretation of test results is not an affront, there's no insult here. And surely there's no suggestion of fabrication in any event.

Karma16
08-27-2012, 06:48 AM
Since you directly ask, Sparky, presumably this will be ruled on topic.

Unfortunately, your wear test does not have a conclusive result, Sparky, as I see it, by applying standards of classic reason. This is because there was no control group as part of the experimental method, so it can't be conclusive to associate any outcome with the test treatment. Furthermore, if one 'borrows' untreated control groups from other unrelated independent tests, your test outcome is not necessarily significant, the result could be normal. So any conclusion depends on what one assumes for the control group, which makes the test result inconclusive. Unfortunately, because it must represent a lot of time and effort invested, which is noble stuff, Sparky.

Absolutely not, there's no need for your result to be invented for it to inconclusive, Sparky. Disagreement and challenge as to interpretation of test results is not an affront, there's no insult here. And surely there's no suggestion of fabrication in any event.

HI Lucky,
What would you consider a conclusive result? Define exactly please.

Further, why are you not identifying your test equipment. In this case, this means the audio equipment you are using, all of it. The fact that you are not, that you refuse to do so, implies strongly that it is not very good. Thus, not good enough to conduct critical listening tests. I assume this is the case.

All testing requires that the instrumentation is defined. You make noise that you are so sophisticated with your testing methodology yet you ignore the most basic requirement. This destroys your credibility.

Sparky

marcmorin
08-27-2012, 09:56 AM
Someone wrote that itīs a not so good mtrl, it wasnīt me. Disadvantages can be eg, attraction of dust and loose particles on record and mat, separation of dust and particles from the vinyl, sticking to the needle, Iīm sure there will show up other. Of course there is a procedure involved that has to be strict and takes some time, which also is a disadvantage. But the advantage in better sonic qualities is profound, so everything must be weighted against this in the end, I think.
gusten

If silicone is the ingredient that is lowering the suface noise to to a reduction in friction, the silicone alone will not increase static, nor become an attractant. The carrying agents in the fluid could. Silicone is inert, it's hydrophobic in nature.

I still see two possible areas that are affected by the treatment you are using in the graph you provided. The untreated track definitley shows effects of stick-slip in the pure model of such. Not so much with base line voltage output, but in the sudden vertical downward spikes shown. Those downward spikes are missing from the treated track.

flavio81
08-27-2012, 10:15 AM
HI lucky,
OK, then how do you explain the dramatic increase of stylus life my long term testing has shown? Further, there is significant anecdotal evidence of improved record life. I have not been able to measure this personally but I can say my records are in fine shape.

Your and others reluctance to acknowledge my test results seems to scream that you are accusing me of inventing my data. I take this as an insult. I can assure you that that is not the case. You too can run the same tests I have done. You won't because you are not willing to spend the time to do so. Your commitment to truth is not as strong as you would like us to believe.

I will say this. You guy's are too cheap to invest in Last and run long term tests. I have serious questions about your commitment to fine sound. None of you have revealed your systems which, of course, is essential for us to evaluate your listening results. I have asked the same question in several ways. What is your most expensive cartridge? Please give a list of your playback system. Etc.

I think your methods are flawed and will never reveal the truth about Last.

Sparky

That's just your opinion, and a rather rude opinion, by the way. Nobody is preventing you from using Last, just use it and be happy enjoying it. Meanwhile, we would like to keep testing alternative products.

The cartridge or system we're using is largely irrelevant. These are not listening tests. Noise floor can just be seen on the spectrum analysis. We're not looking for tonality enhancement, more PRaT or the like.

luckydog
08-27-2012, 01:24 PM
Nobody is preventing you from using Last, just use it and be happy enjoying it. Meanwhile, we would like to keep testing alternative products.
Hi flavio81. But, on the face of it, the Last products don't provide the same advantage/features here, so aren't strictly alternatives.

To be pedantic !

JonL
08-27-2012, 01:31 PM
The untreated track definitley shows effects of stick-slip in the pure model of such. Not so much with base line voltage output, but in the sudden vertical downward spikes shown. Those downward spikes are missing from the treated track.

I think it is an interesting hypothesis that the graphs show stick-slip, but I don't think there's sufficient evidence to state it as conclusive fact. The reduction in noise could also be due to the lubricant film thickness exceeding the height (and depth) of the noise-producing asperities. LAST, as a solid thin film "lubricant" (in quotes, because of the uncertainty of the mechanism), would not be expected to alter the stylus response to asperities.

Fisherdude
08-27-2012, 01:50 PM
Where else but AK can you find a use of the word "asperity". I love this place.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/asperity

luckydog
08-27-2012, 02:12 PM
LAST, as a solid thin film "lubricant" (in quotes, because of the uncertainty of the mechanism), would not be expected to alter the stylus response to asperities.
But, if that were true, I venture it would neither be effective in dealing with wear...........?!!?

There seems a fundamental problem with the concept of a surface wear reduction regime which neither alters nett friction coefficient, nor improves 'stick-slip' flicker noise events. As you seem to be proposing here as an explanation, JonL ? If that were the situation, I'd be highly skeptical of any real effect, on wear or on other audible effects, on tribological grounds. I mean, these links are pervasive in tribology......

And there lies the enigma. On the face of it, there is neither a nett reduction in stylus-groove friction here, nor a discernable effect on surface tribology (based anecdotally on surface noise) ...........

As I see it, if there is neither a nett reduction in friction coefficient, nor a notable alteration in surface tribology (eg as evidence by surface noise), then classically there would not be a prediction for nett surface wear reduction. That would be by far the simplest explanation.

markd51
08-27-2012, 02:17 PM
That's just your opinion, and a rather rude opinion, by the way. Nobody is preventing you from using Last, just use it and be happy enjoying it. Meanwhile, we would like to keep testing alternative products.

The cartridge or system we're using is largely irrelevant. These are not listening tests. Noise floor can just be seen on the spectrum analysis. We're not looking for tonality enhancement, more PRaT or the like.

This is my own opinion only, and everyone knows what they say about opinions, and what they are like!? :-)

I myself for some many good years now prefer to use absolutely nothing on my records, no treatment whatsoever.

But if I were to use any sort of treatment, whether commercially made, or a home brew, or other concoction, I would probably still lean towards LAST as the best treatment, and a treatment that appears to have no huge downsides, or detriments.

I'm taking into consideration not only records, but as well my Cartridge. There's just too much invested in a Cartridge such as the ZYX Airy 3X that I'm now running to take any chances with any products coming in contact with it, and possibly affecting Stylus Bonding Adhesives, Cantilever, and Suspension, and its inner workings. It's another reason why I also steer clear of any liquids (cleaners-treatments of any sort to clean my Stylus, and strictly use a dry method to clean (Mr Clean Magic Eraser)

As for these Silicone products, I'm not so sure about its deposition upon records, and what short term, or long term effects they may have upon the vinyl. I'm getting the impression they will not be favorable.

I know for a fact, once speaking with a friend of mine, his name is Roland Christen, of Astro-Physics Inc, a Telescope, and Telescope Mount Manufacturer in Rockford/Loves Park Illinois.

Roland is one of the foremost opticians in the world, period, makes some of the very finest Refractor Telescopes in the world bar none. His Telescopes are highly revered, and in use around the world. You'll be on a waiting list for many long years for one of his Scopes, but trust that you will use that Telescope for free, you'll never lose a penny on a resale, and in fact virtually all his instruments appreciate considerably in price. I own one, a small 4" refractor (AP 105 Traveler) from his company. I wouldn't let such a scope slip through my hands at the present for any less than $6K.

Anyway, to get to the point, he once told me about Armor All, and such silicone products, and getting such on a lens. Regardless of being a multi-coated lens, or not, one can never fully remove these products from a Lens surface with any sort of cleaners, and that includes any alcohols, denatured alcohols, or even pure Acetone (Which can be a superb optical glass cleaner). They are there forever, and the only way removing them, is nothing short of totally re-grinding a lens surface.

I'm then of the belief, that if one cannot remove such from glass, that has surfaces as smooth as a 1/10th wavelength of light, or better, I'm sort of doubting one will ever remove such from a record either.

I've also heard the same in the audio world, about never getting any of such silicone products anywhere near any electrical connectors, plugs, etc, as again, they are impossible to fully remove.

Just some more food for thought. Mark

avole
08-27-2012, 02:22 PM
So, markD, you are now not using last or similar compounds on your records and stylus?

Excellent, good on yer!

luckydog
08-27-2012, 02:31 PM
I think it is an interesting hypothesis that the graphs show stick-slip Perhaps you haven't seen/heard my simulation of vinyl crackle noise as an extension of stick-slip flicker noise............?

JonL
08-27-2012, 03:02 PM
But, if that were true, I venture it would neither be effective in dealing with wear...........?!!?

There seems a fundamental problem with the concept of a surface wear reduction regime which neither alters nett friction coefficient, nor improves 'stick-slip' flicker noise events. As you seem to be proposing here as an explanation, JonL ? If that were the situation, I'd be highly skeptical of any real effect, on wear or on other audible effects, on tribological grounds. I mean, these links are pervasive in tribology......

And there lies the enigma. On the face of it, there is neither a nett reduction in stylus-groove friction here, nor a discernable effect on surface tribology (based anecdotally on surface noise) ...........

As I see it, if there is neither a nett reduction in friction coefficient, nor a notable alteration in surface tribology (eg as evidence by surface noise), then classically there would not be a prediction for nett surface wear reduction. That would be by far the simplest explanation.

In my last (no pun intended) comment, I merely wanted to suggest that there is insufficient evidence to firmly conclude that there is any stick-slip going on. It might be, it might not be. It's a conclusion to which I'm not ready to jump given the meager evidence that's been put forth.

Friction and wear mechanisms are complex and multifaceted. While the experimentation going on here is fun and interesting, it is unlikely (IMO) to really allow conclusions as to friction mechanisms, wear mechanisms, and the magnitude of wear involved. Until someone here has a scanning electron microscope at their disposal, or wants to calculate how many tests like Sparky's will satisfy the statistical criteria for "proof" and then perform such tests, we're really shooting in the dark.

The diamond stylus is very hard. I doubt it has much affinity for adherence to the vinyl of the record (which is the cause of adhesive wear and "stick slip." I suspect that most stylus wear is caused by hard particle abrasion; small particles of silica or other materials that get trapped in the contact zone between diamond and vinyl. These discrete particles, if relatively widely spaced, will not likely show up in a gross measurement of stylus friction. The use of LAST record preservative and Stylast stylus treatment may in some fashion render these abrasive particles less harmful. Perhaps the preservative reduces the tendency for such particles to adhere to the vinyl, allowing most of them to get pushed ahead or out of the way of the stylus. Perhaps the stylus treatment puts a thin film of material on the diamond that doesn't have a large effect on the coefficient of friction with the vinyl, but protects the stylus from third-body abrasion. This is all conjecture on my part. I don't propose these ideas as facts. Similarly, I think "stick slip" is simply conjecture. We just don't know.

As to the surface noise argument against LAST's effectivity... I haven't re-read the whole thread, but I didn't think any actual measurements of surface noise using LAST were made. Even if they were, I think it's a big reach to use surface noise measurements as a conclusive indicator that there is nothing happening at the surface that could influence wear. To use surface noise as a metric, one would have to study the cause of surface noise, and make sure it's repeatable for every example used in the test. One would have to also impossibly prove the negative -- that there are no factors that do not increase surface noise that do not also cause wear. Taking this one step further... surface noise is obviously audible. Thus it is something in or on the groove that has frequency and amplitude characteristics that also appear in music. Would we conclude that music that has lots of loud snare drum for example will wear a stylus faster than music that is all softly played contrabass solos?

JonL
08-27-2012, 03:12 PM
Perhaps you haven't seen/heard my simulation of vinyl crackle noise as an extension of stick-slip flicker noise............?

No, I haven't.

Another thought regarding vinyl wear (as opposed to stylus wear). It would seem plausible that vinyl wear may be affected by foreign object films that form on the stylus. Anyone who's looked at a stylus under magnification is amazed at the crud that accumulates with anything less than highly meticulous attention to stylus and vinyl hygiene. I don't know what the crud is or from where it comes, but come it does. It seems plausible that the film that forms on the stylus could be more damaging to the vinyl (due to adhesion and trapped particle abrasion) than the simple sliding of a clean diamond. Perhaps LAST and Stylast help prevent these films from forming? I had suggested early on that one benefit of the use of LAST products is that their use encourages a more meticulous attention to stylus and record condition than is typical. This may go a long way towards the effectivity of the product, more so even than the formulation itself.

marcmorin
08-27-2012, 04:01 PM
I think it is an interesting hypothesis that the graphs show stick-slip, but I don't think there's sufficient evidence to state it as conclusive fact. The reduction in noise could also be due to the lubricant film thickness exceeding the height (and depth) of the noise-producing asperities. LAST, as a solid thin film "lubricant" (in quotes, because of the uncertainty of the mechanism), would not be expected to alter the stylus response to asperities.

I agree with you 100% Jon. Which is why I stated earlier in this thread that what I saw on the graphs were two functions and not just one. The sudden drop is not present in the "treated" graph. The drop in voltage is not the stylus in motion, it's the stylus suddenly coming to rest. Which is my big "WHY"? Is that sudden drop in output in the untreated graph a sign of static to kenetic? If so, the same tests could be used with the "LAST" products. The baseline noise might be the same due to asperities, but if it reduced friction, those sudden drops in voltage wouldn't be present as well.

ripblade
08-27-2012, 04:15 PM
I'm impressed by gusten's demonstrations. By his description, I have to conclude that the 'vinyl gloss' is a relatively heavy coating that fills in micro fissures, offering essentially the same benefit of wet playing but at a higher viscosity. It could also help to damp the motion of the stylus or even prevent micro mistracking. Certainly the result we hear is not attributed solely to the reduction of friction.

It's tempting to try it, but what are the long term implications of using this product? This is one question that any manufacturer of vinyl preservatives must grapple with. We here don't have that restriction, but what albums are you willing to try this stuff on? I know my answer would be that it's fine for archiving damaged records, but little else.

I don't think any form of 'wet' treatment would be marketable, so the marked differences in gusten's demonstration would not be apparent with any successful product.

markd51
08-27-2012, 04:38 PM
So, markD, you are now not using last or similar compounds on your records and stylus?

Excellent, good on yer!

Hello Avole,
Nope, probably the last 300-350 or so records I've added to my record collection from about 8 years back to present have not been treated with anything. These are both bought new, and bought used records I speak of.

They simply get a full cleaning on my VPI 16.5 RCM, with Audio Intelligent Record Cleaners, (a 4-step process) and every-all records then go into a MFSL Master Inner Sleeve, and the outer Jacket goes into a resealable Mylar Japanese outer Sleeve. That's it.

My last two Cartridge purchases have both been relatively expensive MC Cartridges, the Benz Micro Ruby 3 ($3,000 list at the time) and the ZYX Airy 3X SB, (which also is currently listed at $3,000)

Thus my concerns are two-fold. Not only did I surmise that any treatment, no matter if someone came along and made a super duper state of the art best ever Treatment-etc at $500/bottle, I myself would still be leery that I;m shortchanging the fidelity of playback, as I see anything placed onto the vinyl as just another form of a contaminant, an additive. A product that possibly might come between that delicate, and precious Stylus, and Groove.

If we're speaking of something like my old Shure V-15 III Cartridge I bought new almost 40 years ago for $125, and still lying around here in its Box somewhere (now I'm showing my age!) perhaps I would not anywhere quite as "anal" with worries of the possibilities of negatively affecting such a cartridge that has questionable worth to me.


Perhaps again, Sparky might say that I most likely will enhance these type of expensive cartridge's lifetime by the use of LAST Preservative, and LAST Stylast treatments? That may very well be true in regards to Stylus Life.

I still get the funny feeling though in the back of my mind, that while benefitting in one aspect, I still might be causing another negative influence in another?

That's why we can all of course assume, make statements, do testing, etc etc until the cows come home, and about the best advice I myself can give to all/anyone is to try some of these treatments, try them on a few records, if you like them fine, and if not, the expenditures are not bank breaking ones.
Mark

luckydog
08-27-2012, 04:43 PM
I'm impressed by gusten's demonstrations......(..).... Certainly the result we hear is not attributed solely to the reduction of friction.
Whyever not ? Theory predicts it, and it seems to be. Very simply.

ripblade
08-27-2012, 04:50 PM
Whyever not ? Theory predicts it, and it evidently is. Very simply.

The fluid's viscosity is without influence? I find that hard to believe.

luckydog
08-27-2012, 05:00 PM
The fluid's viscosity is without influence?
Appols, ripblade, that makes no sense to me, in context.

ripblade
08-27-2012, 05:06 PM
Appols, ripblade, that makes no sense to me, in context.Gusten has mentioned the requirement to wipe down the record several times. Clearly this 'vinyl gloss' is a coating with an unknown viscosity. On the scale of it, this has to affect stylus motion irrespective of the reduction in friction. I have a very hard time imagining that it wouldn't.

luckydog
08-27-2012, 05:11 PM
Perhaps you haven't seen/heard my simulation of vinyl crackle noise as an extension of stick-slip flicker noise............?

No, I haven't.

http://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=41978&start=66

et seq......

JonL
08-27-2012, 05:33 PM
Thanks LD, will look at that after the effects of the margarita have worn off... but I'm only halfway through ingesting it, so it'll be a few hours yet.

flavio81
08-27-2012, 06:09 PM
As for these Silicone products, I'm not so sure about its deposition upon records, and what short term, or long term effects they may have upon the vinyl. I'm getting the impression they will not be favorable.

I know for a fact, once speaking with a friend of mine, his name is Roland Christen, of Astro-Physics Inc, a Telescope, and Telescope Mount Manufacturer in Rockford/Loves Park Illinois. (...) he once told me about Armor All, and such silicone products, and getting such on a lens. Regardless of being a multi-coated lens, or not, one can never fully remove these products from a Lens surface with any sort of cleaners (...) They are there forever, and the only way removing them, is nothing short of totally re-grinding a lens surface.

Mark,

Note that we're dealing with record grooves, not lens surfaces. Lens surfaces are not to be lubricated. If your friend Roland assures silicone is very difficult to remove, then that is A Good Thing (tm) !! Because we want that lubricant to stay there.

Record vinyl (and PVC) is a very chemically resilient compound...

markd51
08-27-2012, 06:52 PM
Mark,

Note that we're dealing with record grooves, not lens surfaces. Lens surfaces are not to be lubricated. If your friend Roland assures silicone is very difficult to remove, then that is A Good Thing (tm) !! Because we want that lubricant to stay there.

Record vinyl (and PVC) is a very chemically resilient compound...

It is really? Are you quite certain about that claim you make, that record vinyl is quite resistant?

That the deposition of silicones, and the other chemicals-products inherit in these concoctions will cause no damage? And what about the Cartridge? Where does that fit into the equation? Is there no consideration for the transducer, or is that just something to write off as "collateral damage", and when the Stylus falls off, or the Suspension fails, it of couse was no fault of any such products used? Can you assure me of such safety?

Don't assume products like Vinyl Shine, or Armor All, or any similar products are safe, or inert.

Firstly, there are detergents in products like Armor All. Do you wish to spread soaps-detergents on your records, and then just leave them there?

What are the purities of the waters contained in these products?



Might be time to take a peek at the MSDS of products such as these, and consider what adverse effects they will have. And I'm virtually 100% certain that they will cause adverse effects. Mark

luckydog
08-28-2012, 04:20 AM
Clearly this 'vinyl gloss' is a coating with an unknown viscosity. On the scale of it, this has to affect stylus motion irrespective of the reduction in friction. I have a very hard time imagining that it wouldn't.
Hi ripblade, any effect of viscosity should show up in the friction coefficient, which is measured to be significantly small in the case of gusten's compound.

Besides, some texts on tribology discuss thin lubricant films behaving solidly/plastically even though fluid. Tribology is not necessarily an intuitive affair at the interface level. In practice, indicators are that stylus motion 'improves' in its broadest sense, with the application of gusten's potion.

Personally, I'm coming round to think that perhaps two measurements might pretty well characterise what one needs to know about stylus-groove tribology changes for most practical purposes here. The friction coefficient, as already discussed. And surface noise floor, as mooted.

To which end, perhaps someone might kindly record and post samples of a few seconds of the same silent lead in groove before/after application of the Last products ? A few seconds of silent lead in, into a few seconds of programme material. Treated/untreated, the same record of course.

luckydog
08-28-2012, 04:24 AM
Might be time to take a peek at the MSDS of products such as these, and consider what adverse effects they will have.
Just to repeat the call for any product label info/MSDS public domain stuff for the Last products too.

flavio81
08-28-2012, 09:55 AM
It is really? Are you quite certain about that claim you make, that record vinyl is quite resistant?

That the deposition of silicones, and the other chemicals-products inherit in these concoctions will cause no damage? And what about the Cartridge? Where does that fit into the equation? Is there no consideration for the transducer, or is that just something to write off as "collateral damage", and when the Stylus falls off, or the Suspension fails, it of couse was no fault of any such products used? Can you assure me of such safety?

Don't assume products like Vinyl Shine, or Armor All, or any similar products are safe, or inert.

Firstly, there are detergents in products like Armor All. Do you wish to spread soaps-detergents on your records, and then just leave them there?

What are the purities of the waters contained in these products?



Might be time to take a peek at the MSDS of products such as these, and consider what adverse effects they will have. And I'm virtually 100% certain that they will cause adverse effects. Mark

Mark,

I know your concerns, of course you want to be very careful with your records.

Records have been cleaned with all kinds of detergents, plus isopropylic alcohol, water, also vinegar, strong acetic acid, lighter fluid. They have also been played with a glycerine suspension... with no ill consequences in any of those cases.

I recall looking at a table where it said which substances were harmful to PVC (the main component of records). PVC is chemically resilient to a lot of stuff.

Silicone oils, again, are a mainstay of vinyl clean/restore products.

markd51
08-28-2012, 10:48 AM
Mark,

I know your concerns, of course you want to be very careful with your records.

Records have been cleaned with all kinds of detergents, plus isopropylic alcohol, water, also vinegar, strong acetic acid, lighter fluid. They have also been played with a glycerine suspension... with no ill consequences in any of those cases.

I recall looking at a table where it said which substances were harmful to PVC (the main component of records). PVC is chemically resilient to a lot of stuff.

Silicone oils, again, are a mainstay of vinyl clean/restore products.

Of this, you probably are 100% correct.

While I've never used, nor have investigated commercially made products such as Gruve Glide, perhaps there may be a way to find the MSDS for this product, and what it contains?

As for the records, I'm probably correct that you folks aren't experimenting with irreplaceable rare vinyl, nor conducting such tests with a $5000 Cartridge.

The worries I have about damaging a $1-$3 thrift shop record find would not be such a horrid loss. I'd be actually more concerned-worried about damaging a fine Cartridge with the experimentation of some unorthodox products.
Mark

flavio81
08-28-2012, 12:16 PM
As for the records, I'm probably correct that you folks aren't experimenting with irreplaceable rare vinyl, nor conducting such tests with a $5000 Cartridge.


:banana: LOL!!

Yes, you're right...

Irreplaceable vinyl is given the Markd51 treatment: Nothing at all, just clean surfaces.

luckydog
08-28-2012, 03:41 PM
Quite a lot of vinyl is both irreplacable and degraded in such a way that reducing stylus-groove friction can make a profound improvement to listening quality IME.......then what is one to do ? You know, the scenario where it's unlikely you'll come across another copy, but surface noise diminishes the listening experience.

At the moment I typically use wet replay to achieve improvement to make such records enjoyable, generally with very good results, but it's messy and I have a dedicated TT set up for it. The alternative is not to listen to them, which would be disappointing and self-defeating I feel.

So the quest for better methods for reducing stylus-groove friction remains. Especially a method which might be quasi-permanent and harmless. That's why exploring discoveries such as gusten's compound is very interesting, IMO.

On the topic of side effects of treatments, I just think one has to deal with each case on merit. Looking at the MSDS for some of the products which resemble gusten's vinyl gloss, they typically seem quite simple and designed to leave a thin solid silicone lubrication film with all other ingredients being volatile, and harmless to vinyl copolymers, unsurprisingly. Some silicone lubricants have functional ends and bind with the vinyl surface, BTW. It seems best to deal with the facts at hand when assessing risk of long term damage in such things. One is far better placed to do that for products where ingredients are known and listed, of course.

gusten
08-28-2012, 04:26 PM
An update. I have not found an MSDS for the product I have been using, Iīm fairly sure itīs a medium viscosity silicone solved in a highly volatile solvent, like Trichloretan or similar. It leaves a film that seems, so far, not to change the viscosity. The low friction from the first treated record is still there, no change.

I consider the improvement in sound quality more than subtle, especially the inner half of the record. Some improves more than others, but itīs still there, in my biased opinion. With the stylus Iīm using I must add.

So far I have only used one cartridge, and it might be so that, with both records and stylus, once treated always treated.
The only problem I have seen so far is some gunk build up on certain records, but not a big problem.
gusten

luckydog
08-29-2012, 05:20 AM
An update. I have not found an MSDS for the product I have been using, Iīm fairly sure itīs a medium viscosity silicone solved in a highly volatile solvent, like Trichloretan or similar. It leaves a film that seems, so far, not to change the viscosity. The low friction from the first treated record is still there, no change.

I consider the improvement in sound quality more than subtle, especially the inner half of the record. Some improves more than others, but itīs still there, in my biased opinion. With the stylus Iīm using I must add.

Thanks, gusten, I think I have found a similar product here, so will also give it a try. And yes, IME improvement from reduced friction can significantly improve many different very audible aspects of playback. It's surprising really that the entire concept is not more widely known and discussed by the audiophile community on the whole, IMO.

The 'modus operandus' needs to be reduced stylus-groove friction to produce these effects, i reckon. I was surprised to find that the Last preservative product doesn't seem to operate like that on the face of it and based on test results posted here. But looking at the claims for 'Gruve Glide', that perhaps seems near the mark ?

gusten
09-01-2012, 03:42 AM
Here are two plots of a 178Hz tone, high level, one recorded a while back, and one recorded now with the record silicone treated.
One can see a lower noise floor with the treated record, but also about 6dB lower level on the sidebands. Even if the sideband level for the untreated record is reasonably low, the treated is considerably lower. Maybe this is one of the reasons for the cleaner sound.

Luckydog: will be very interesting to hear Your findings.

gusten

luckydog
09-02-2012, 05:10 AM
Hi gusten. Thanks, that is interesting again, and seems to confirm both the noise floor and LF stability improvements noted previously, again with your vinyl gloss compound. The sidebands very near the peak are interesting. In the old days, LF stability tests were sometimes done with a 3 or 4kHz tone, as you previously did, of course.

The vinyl and rubber care stuff I ordered arrived yesterday, so I hope to make some tests today and post results shortly. But I was disappointed right away that it does not seem to be based on the same formula as you have tried, gusten. I could tell right away, it is not that slippery to the touch, plus it is water based and has colourant plus some lemon odour additives.

However, it is intended for the same purpose and is meant to leave a lubricant surface that can be gloss, on vinyl. So let's see what happens, but the formula does seem different, unfortunately.

Billfort
09-02-2012, 08:03 AM
This is my own opinion only, and everyone knows what they say about opinions, and what they are like!? :-)

I myself for some many good years now prefer to use absolutely nothing on my records, no treatment whatsoever.

But if I were to use any sort of treatment, whether commercially made, or a home brew, or other concoction, I would probably still lean towards LAST as the best treatment, and a treatment that appears to have no huge downsides, or detriments.

I'm taking into consideration not only records, but as well my Cartridge. There's just too much invested in a Cartridge such as the ZYX Airy 3X that I'm now running to take any chances with any products coming in contact with it, and possibly affecting Stylus Bonding Adhesives, Cantilever, and Suspension, and its inner workings. It's another reason why I also steer clear of any liquids (cleaners-treatments of any sort to clean my Stylus, and strictly use a dry method to clean (Mr Clean Magic Eraser)

As for these Silicone products, I'm not so sure about its deposition upon records, and what short term, or long term effects they may have upon the vinyl. I'm getting the impression they will not be favorable.

I know for a fact, once speaking with a friend of mine, his name is Roland Christen, of Astro-Physics Inc, a Telescope, and Telescope Mount Manufacturer in Rockford/Loves Park Illinois.

Roland is one of the foremost opticians in the world, period, makes some of the very finest Refractor Telescopes in the world bar none. His Telescopes are highly revered, and in use around the world. You'll be on a waiting list for many long years for one of his Scopes, but trust that you will use that Telescope for free, you'll never lose a penny on a resale, and in fact virtually all his instruments appreciate considerably in price. I own one, a small 4" refractor (AP 105 Traveler) from his company. I wouldn't let such a scope slip through my hands at the present for any less than $6K.

Anyway, to get to the point, he once told me about Armor All, and such silicone products, and getting such on a lens. Regardless of being a multi-coated lens, or not, one can never fully remove these products from a Lens surface with any sort of cleaners, and that includes any alcohols, denatured alcohols, or even pure Acetone (Which can be a superb optical glass cleaner). They are there forever, and the only way removing them, is nothing short of totally re-grinding a lens surface.

I'm then of the belief, that if one cannot remove such from glass, that has surfaces as smooth as a 1/10th wavelength of light, or better, I'm sort of doubting one will ever remove such from a record either.

I've also heard the same in the audio world, about never getting any of such silicone products anywhere near any electrical connectors, plugs, etc, as again, they are impossible to fully remove.

Just some more food for thought. Mark

I've used Last a few times in the past but I'm with you here 100% Mark - don't want to take any chances with 'whatever' fluids around my records or cartridge - no matter what some measurements say.

luckydog
09-02-2012, 03:03 PM
I've used Last a few times in the past......
Just to repeat that Last isn't shown to reduce stylus-groove friction on this thread, and seems to lack the modus operandus needed to obtain the benefits described and illustrated with gusten's products. That also agrees with the lack of anecdote suggesting audible improvements via Last, whereas the effects gusten describes are fairly profound to hear and hard to miss, you'd like to think.

I just finished my first set of tests using the vinyl and rubber care product I obtained, which seem to confirm gusten's results. Stylus-groove friction is significantly reduced (stopping method), and noise floor significantly improved. Although this seems to be a different formula from gusten's it seems to have the right modus operandus, and the first results seem similar. Which is great news, personally.

As I've posted several times on this thread, my main interest is recovery/improvement of records which are otherwise unplayable/unenjoyable with permanent degraded surface noise of a certain crackle type. Correlating with, and seemingly having a cause associated with increased stylus-groove friction. Plus taking the several other significant sonic improvements from reducing stylus-groove friction.

I don't think anyone is suggesting widespread treatment of records with such products, at least not yet :) It's just exploratory, and pretty encouraging with some profound sonic improvements available, the likes of which are very rare to come across IME.

luckydog
09-02-2012, 05:49 PM
Here's the first plot of my recordings before/after a thin treatment with the vinyl and rubber care product. It's a time domain plot of c 10s silent lead in. X axis in seconds, Y axis linear level.

Before (untreated):

http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/picture.php?albumid=2429&pictureid=16332
http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/picture.php?albumid=2429&pictureid=16332

After treatment treatment with V&R care :

http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/picture.php?albumid=2429&pictureid=16331
http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/picture.php?albumid=2429&pictureid=16331

I think this is a very easy to visualise illustration of both stability and noise floor benefits.

gusten
09-03-2012, 04:30 AM
Very nice luckydog, hope the improvements will last.
gusten

luckydog
09-03-2012, 04:18 PM
Here's further silent groove analysis which confirms gusten's recorded significant improvement in noise floor with Vinyl Gloss. It is reproduced by my result with V&C Care product:

Analysis of gusten's recording :

http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/picture.php?albumid=2429&pictureid=16196
http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/picture.php?albumid=2429&pictureid=16196

Analysis of Luckydog's recording :

http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/picture.php?albumid=2429&pictureid=16342
http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/picture.php?albumid=2429&pictureid=16342

This is an excellent result, and I think more generally illustrates and confirms the significant association between surface noise floor and stylus-groove friction.

gusten
09-04-2012, 01:04 AM
That is really excellent! Do You hear a difference in sound, besides the lower noise floor?
gusten

luckydog
09-04-2012, 03:23 AM
That is really excellent! Do You hear a difference in sound, besides the lower noise floor?
gusten

Yes, pretty much as you described it, gusten, and an improvement on the results I get from wet replay I'd say as a first impression. I think the same 'modus operandus' that you have found is in play here.

Pio1980
09-04-2012, 08:14 AM
Asking again about Gruv Glide (hate cutesy a-phonetic spellings), anyone using it care to log in?

gusten
09-04-2012, 01:05 PM
Yes, pretty much as you described it, gusten, and an improvement on the results I get from wet replay I'd say as a first impression. I think the same 'modus operandus' that you have found is in play here.
Great!
I can say that lowering friction has yielded surprisingly great improvements in both noise floor and sound quality, more than I thought from the beginning. One hear things in the recordings that previously was unnoticed. I am using the silicone only on the needle now, seems to work fine, I will also try other compounds.
gusten

luckydog
09-04-2012, 05:49 PM
Great!
I can say that lowering friction has yielded surprisingly great improvements in both noise floor and sound quality, more than I thought from the beginning. One hear things in the recordings that previously was unnoticed.

Yes. It is truly profound. The combination of radical improvements to noise floor, stability, harmonic distortion and trackability. In the scheme of audible improvements people generally seem interested in discussing, this is surely off the scale !

flavio81
09-04-2012, 06:47 PM
Gusten, we need more info on your vinyl gloss sample. What does it smell, the color, volatibility, what does it say on the label... something!!

wlmill
09-04-2012, 08:12 PM
I have been following this thread with interest. Gusten's sample does sound very impressive. I am working on a homebrewed solution. I have treated a record with it and the noise floor seems to be lower. I will post more when I know for sure if it works.

gusten
09-05-2012, 02:07 AM
Yes. It is truly profound. The combination of radical improvements to noise floor, stability, harmonic distortion and trackability. In the scheme of audible improvements people generally seem interested in discussing, this is surely off the scale !

Yes, I agree!
gusten

gusten
09-05-2012, 02:32 AM
Gusten, we need more info on your vinyl gloss sample. What does it smell, the color, volatibility, what does it say on the label... something!!

I donīt recommend trying the compound I have been using, it is a test to see how very low friction effects the playback. I will now try to find a compound that can be used long term, and more modern if possible.
gusten

Pio1980
09-05-2012, 08:50 AM
There have been several 'treatments' marketed from questionable and chancy/messy spray silicone oils thru the Ball Brothers Sound Guard audiophile-recognised and endorsed product to Gruv Glide (still available), LAST, and "Reveal", of which I have unused samples and little info other than the packet text.
What is the actual history of using Armor-All specifically on vinyl records and not CDs, I'm turning nada on a websearch. I remember the CD debacle, CDs are polycarbonate and not vinyl.

luckydog
09-05-2012, 12:34 PM
The product I'm testing with good initial success is Autoglym Vinyl & Rubber Care. On the autoglym website, public non-confidential contents are disclosed as follows, under Article 9(3) of EU directive 648/2004/EC :

Polydimethyl siloxane
5-Ethyl-3,7-dioxa-1-azabicyclo[3.3.0] octane
Trisodium 5-hydroxy-1-(4-sulphophenyl)-4-(4-sulphophenylazo)pyrazole-3-carboxylate (ACID YELLOW 23)
Fragrance

This product seems widely available in Europe as an automobile retail aftercare product, and the autoglym website describes this product and others, which might be of potential interest for testing here.

My purpose firstly is to evaluate the benefits of reducing stylus-groove friction, which appear to be profound I should say ! Secondarily, and perhaps seperately, to uncover something suitable for bringing about such effects quasi-permanently, and without side effects !

avole
09-05-2012, 01:20 PM
Efficacy with vinyl is one thing, but, more importantly, what does it smell like?

luckydog
09-05-2012, 02:21 PM
Efficacy with vinyl is one thing, but, more importantly, what does it smell like?
It's water based and has no odour beyond the intentional fragrance, which is sort of citrus. There's a colourant which is weakly yellow too, so it sort of hangs together as lemon like. Neither the colourant nor the fragrance seem to interfere, I suppose any disadvantage of residue seems overwhelmed by the advantage of the reduced friction anyway? Overall, it has the usual product markings for advice on what to do in event of accidental ingestion, but nothing extreme AFAIK here. Seems generally non-hazardous in the scheme of things, as far as I can tell, with sensible precautions as advised.

ripblade
09-05-2012, 04:39 PM
I see the 1st ingredient listed is also used in RainX. I tried a topical treatment of the washer fluid some time ago, but I rinsed it off followed by vacuum drying. There was no significant improvement in this particular instance.

The difference appears to be related to the thickness of the coating. If the automotive treatment is applied, followed by a wash and rinse to remove the excess, does it still measure as well?

luckydog
09-05-2012, 06:11 PM
The difference appears to be related to the thickness of the coating. If the automotive treatment is applied, followed by a wash and rinse to remove the excess, does it still measure as well
The product I have doesn't require a rinse. The process I've used so far has just been to apply as little of the product as possible via a spray to the record surface, then a swift brush around whilst wet with a CF brush before leaving for a minute or so for the carrier to evaporate then buffing with a microfibre cloth to remove excess. The surface then appears dry, dust doesn't seem to adhere, static seems very low, but I'm not convinced the silicone ever sets, i think an ultra thin fluid film remains.

ripblade
09-05-2012, 06:44 PM
The product I have doesn't require a rinse.Well, not with it's native application.

I see the PDMS is also used as a mould release compound. Funny, after being taught for the past few decades that this must be removed from the disc before the initial play, here we are, delibrately applying it.

Oh, the irony...:scratch2:

wlmill
09-05-2012, 07:20 PM
If anyone is interested, here is the recipe for the solution I am experimenting with. The solution consists of 25% IPA, 75% distilled water, 6 drops of ArmorAll Ultra Shine and 4 drops of Dawn. I found this recipe on another forum. I'm not sure I'm hearing any difference when I apply this solution. I will try to post a sample soon.

marcmorin
09-05-2012, 08:56 PM
If anyone is interested, here is the recipe for the solution I am experimenting with. The solution consists of 25% IPA, 75% distilled water, 6 drops of ArmorAll Ultra Shine and 4 drops of Dawn. I found this recipe on another forum. I'm not sure I'm hearing any difference when I apply this solution. I will try to post a sample soon.

How about listing the volume of alcohol and water you're adding the drops of other stuff to. :yes:

wlmill
09-05-2012, 09:33 PM
How about listing the volume of alcohol and water you're adding the drops of other stuff to. :yes:

I am sorry, I should have been more clear in my earlier post. I started with a 24 ounce spray bottle. I filled it a quarter of the way full with 91% IPA. Then I added 6 drops of ArmorAll Ultra Shine, then 4 drops of dawn, then filled the bottle the rest of the way with distilled water. I have applied this to records using a Discwasher brush.

I haven't used this solution on any of my good records. I am trying to find out if this solution would be safe to use. I also haven't been able to find any research that says ArmorAll is bad for records. That doesn't mean it couldn't cause harm.

Pio1980
09-06-2012, 12:30 PM
Again all interesting, tho' is anyone going to test "Gruv Glide", the only alternative-to-LAST serious commercially available record-specific product?

luckydog
09-06-2012, 06:18 PM
Again all interesting, tho' is anyone going to test "Gruv Glide", the only alternative-to-LAST serious commercially available record-specific product?
Actually, it appears that Last record preservative doesn't have the right 'modus operandus' to bring about the same benefits here...... earlier on the thread test results are posted indicating stylus-groove friction is not reduced with Last record preservative. And the key seems to be reducing stylus-groove friction to unlock the gains being discussed.

On the other hand, Gruv-glide from the product website appears to make the right sort of friction reducing claims, and indeed claims most of the associated audible benefits, and more fits the bill it seems. I had a quick look for an MSDS or whatever the US equivalent is to public disclosure of non-commercially sensitive contents is we have here in Europe, but couldn't find anything. Maybe someone from the US could explain what the system is ?

luckydog
09-06-2012, 06:28 PM
I see the PDMS is also used as a mould release compound. Funny, after being taught for the past few decades that this must be removed from the disc before the initial play, here we are, delibrately applying it.
Just a thought, but a silicone based mould release agent might have been used originally in production of the record pressing, and a thin film of it might even be a normal part of the original surface ?

As I understand it, silicone mould release agents can give really smooth or gloss surfaces to copolymer mouldings, like vinyl records in principle. I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me if they weren't originally present anyway......that could be why they seem to work so well ?

Pio1980
09-06-2012, 07:25 PM
Something caught my attention, waterless motorcycle cleaner and polishing spray. I don't think it's as slick as silicone oils tho', Armor-All in particular when used on motorcycle seats has a rep for making the riders perch purchase precarious.
Unintended alliteration there, it happens occasionally in spite of Spiro Agnew sullying it's humour potential by making it political.

gusten
09-07-2012, 07:55 AM
What I can see there are many products from different suppliers that are basically PDMS in an emulsion with water. Essentially to be used where a low friction and a rather high gloss is wanted. Can be used on many types of mtrls with good result, and can be cleaned with water and e.g. soap. If it will leave any film after normal washing one just has to test, I think.

It has low surface tension and the lubrication properties are high. Film thickness is depending on concentration and the amount used, for records this should be very low.

I have looked for Gruv Glide but seems difficult to find in EU, so I will try in testing similar product as Luckydog is doing, itīs a more modern and safe compound than the one I have tested so far.
gusten

Mister Pig
09-07-2012, 10:05 AM
I have a question to propose regarding he use of this lubricant. I can see where reducing friction seems to be giving a lower noise floor, but is the micro detail of the recording still intact? If dine detail is represented by the subtle levels of groove variation, it is plausible that these details are being lost due to the effects of the treatment.

Now this becomes a difficult question to answer, because I suspect that inexpensive cartridges are being used. No one wants to risk their good ones on an experimental product right? So these cartridges are going to miss that fine detail anyway, which means that any detrimental effects of the solution are going to go unnoticed.

Someone is going to have to give this a spin with a top flight cartridge to determine if there are any drawbacks.

Regards
Mister Pig

gusten
09-07-2012, 10:32 AM
I have a question to propose regarding he use of this lubricant. I can see where reducing friction seems to be giving a lower noise floor, but is the micro detail of the recording still intact? If dine detail is represented by the subtle levels of groove variation, it is plausible that these details are being lost due to the effects of the treatment.

Now this becomes a difficult question to answer, because I suspect that inexpensive cartridges are being used. No one wants to risk their good ones on an experimental product right? So these cartridges are going to miss that fine detail anyway, which means that any detrimental effects of the solution are going to go unnoticed.

Someone is going to have to give this a spin with a top flight cartridge to determine if there are any drawbacks.

Regards
Mister Pig

I have been using a nude Shibata of high quality, so itīs good enough I think. I have not seen any difference regarding high frequencies, on what I have measured. Audibly itīs easier to hear high frequencies as, depending on lower distortion, they are cleaner. So itīs really the other way around IMO, finer details are easier to hear as tones sidebands are significantly lower, and also noise floor.
gusten

Mister Pig
09-07-2012, 11:20 AM
I have been using a nude Shibata of high quality, so itīs good enough I think. I have not seen any difference regarding high frequencies, on what I have measured. Audibly itīs easier to hear high frequencies as, depending on lower distortion, they are cleaner. So itīs really the other way around IMO, finer details are easier to hear as tones sidebands are significantly lower, and also noise floor.
gusten

Ther is more to cartridge quality than tip profile, but it is a good profile. Thanks for the clarification on the issue of detail. One more question to ask. Is it possible to determine if the solution is capable of migrating up the stylus cantilever? Is it fluid enough to get out of the groove and up the stylus, and if so over time up the cantilever? The reason I ask, is that it could be an issue for a MC cartridge at least.

have you determined if just treating the diamond has the same effects? If the solution does move, it might be better this way as it means less fluid to move around.

Regards
Mister Pig

gusten
09-07-2012, 11:47 AM
Ther is more to cartridge quality than tip profile, but it is a good profile. Thanks for the clarification on the issue of detail. One more question to ask. Is it possible to determine if the solution is capable of migrating up the stylus cantilever? Is it fluid enough to get out of the groove and up the stylus, and if so over time up the cantilever? The reason I ask, is that it could be an issue for a MC cartridge at least.

have you determined if just treating the diamond has the same effects? If the solution does move, it might be better this way as it means less fluid to move around.

Regards
Mister Pig

I look at the treatment as a very thin film, not really viscous as a fluid. But it has very low surface tension, which it should have, but this also means it creeps easily. I do not know yet about possible disadvantages, this comes later. But the advantages by lowering friction is there.
gusten

luckydog
09-07-2012, 06:36 PM
I have a question to propose regarding he use of this lubricant. I can see where reducing friction seems to be giving a lower noise floor, but is the micro detail of the recording still intact? If dine detail is represented by the subtle levels of groove variation, it is plausible that these details are being lost due to the effects of the treatment.
Actually, detail resolution significantly improves, not only can one hear it, but it shows up on most spectrum plots, for example as previously invisible spectral content appears as if by magic from the noise floor, or because improved LF stability modulates less and so resolution improves and peaks sharpen.

I've tested on a good quality nude eliptical, and a nude FG stylus so far in my testing, BTW. Having intitially tested on styli I was less attached to, I should add. Inspection so far suggests treatment applied to the record is not creeping up the cantilever, BTW.

Rybeam
09-07-2012, 08:44 PM
By using slip covers, carbon brushes and static guns we all attempt to keep dust off our records. We than use cleaners formulated to evaporate quickly and leave as little residue behind as possible to remove contaminates. In other words we all strive to have a 100% clean surface on our LPs. Correct?

The goal being to have a small precision cut stylus maintain complete contact with the surface of the record as it spins.

After all that effort you then apply a coating to the small grooves you wanted clean? To me this makes absolutely no sense.

Don't get caught up in this bonding to the vinyl surface crap, LAST is a coating, a wax, a scum. Nothing is going to make a chemical bond with the vinyl without changing the surface area and sound. In other words melt into the vinyl and cause it to swell. Without heat, or a solvent nothing gets into the vinyl. Vinyl is designed to resist the outside world, and does a damn good job at it.

LAST is likely a silicone wax similar to what is used on cars. It is a coating being placed between your stylus and the record surface. Amour All would be a heck of a lot cheaper, with the same effect.

No thank you, LAST is a snake oil containing an audio placebo effect.

Fisherdude
09-07-2012, 08:58 PM
By using slip covers, carbon brushes and static guns we all attempt to keep dust off our records. We than use cleaners formulated to evaporate quickly and leave as little residue behind as possible to remove contaminates. In other words we all strive to have a 100% clean surface on our LPs. Correct?

The goal being to have a small precision cut stylus maintain complete contact with the surface of the record as it spins.

After all that effort you then apply a coating to the small grooves you wanted clean? To me this makes absolutely no sense.

Don't get caught up in this bonding to the vinyl surface crap, LAST is a coating, a wax, a scum. Nothing is going to make a chemical bond with the vinyl without changing the surface area and sound. In other words melt into the vinyl and cause it to swell. Without heat, or a solvent nothing gets into the vinyl. Vinyl is designed to resist the outside world, and does a damn good job at it.

LAST is likely a silicone wax similar to what is used on cars. It is a coating being placed between your stylus and the record surface. Amour All would be a heck of a lot cheaper, with the same effect.

No thank you, LAST is a snake oil containing an audio placebo effect.

I am not pleased with your use of the words "crap", "scum", and "snake oil", as well as your failure to include the phrase "in my opinion".

markd51
09-07-2012, 09:17 PM
By using slip covers, carbon brushes and static guns we all attempt to keep dust off our records. We than use cleaners formulated to evaporate quickly and leave as little residue behind as possible to remove contaminates. In other words we all strive to have a 100% clean surface on our LPs. Correct?

The goal being to have a small precision cut stylus maintain complete contact with the surface of the record as it spins.

After all that effort you then apply a coating to the small grooves you wanted clean? To me this makes absolutely no sense.

Don't get caught up in this bonding to the vinyl surface crap, LAST is a coating, a wax, a scum. Nothing is going to make a chemical bond with the vinyl without changing the surface area and sound. In other words melt into the vinyl and cause it to swell. Without heat, or a solvent nothing gets into the vinyl. Vinyl is designed to resist the outside world, and does a damn good job at it.

LAST is likely a silicone wax similar to what is used on cars. It is a coating being placed between your stylus and the record surface. Amour All would be a heck of a lot cheaper, with the same effect.

No thank you, LAST is a snake oil containing an audio placebo effect.

I would agree to the point of some of what you say. That you mention the efforts we go through to clean contaminants, residues, mold release formulas, oils, greases, etc, to provide a pristine clean groove that the stylus will "see", and then yet to add some other form of coating, or by what some would surmise, as just another contaminant compromising that precious, and delicate Stylus-Groove interface.

As I've understood, there are groove modulations within the groove as small as 4 millionths of an inch. At the microscopic level, wouldn't a stylus "see" this path as a road covered in sludge, and in fact possibly even cause a drag effect?

Although a record may only spin from 16rpm to 78rpm, I'm certain the approaching modulations are coming at a stylus quite quickly, and that it is a difficult enough job for a stylus to travel through these modulations, and create sound.

That any silicone product, which may not necessarily stay in a viscous state for long then act as a damper? And that any such products will in effect "hide", and mask these ultra minute modulations? I believe it would.

I'm not exactly sure what LAST Preservative contains, that it is just another product to contain such lubricants. I believe I have seen something accumilate on my own Stylus after the use of LAST.

It did appear to me to be more than just the average fuzzball, more like a accumilation of a sludge, and dust combined.

What this exactly was, I honestly cannot comment with any certainty, as I had no means to enact any scientific tests, or any meaningful data to explain what I saw, or what was the root cause?

Whether it was the product itself? Whether it was over-applied? Or was the product dislodging residues, and contaminants that were previously already on the surface of the record? I just don't know? Mark

Rybeam
09-07-2012, 10:29 PM
Truth hurts, in my opinion. I am not trying to upset anyone, just trying to get everyone to think logically.

JonL
09-08-2012, 01:02 AM
Logical thinking does not rely upon guesses and suppositions.

luckydog
09-08-2012, 05:28 AM
I'm not exactly sure what LAST Preservative contains, that it is just another product to contain such lubricants. I believe I have seen something accumilate on my own Stylus after the use of LAST.
Whatever Last is, it seems not to reduce stylus-groove friction as measured and posted on this thread. It therefore also seems to lack the modus operandus apparently needed to realise these audible performance gains, subject to confirmation of someone actually posting some before/after audio samples. But the absence of anecdote seems to support this.

Then these other silicone based products seem far more interesting in my book. Especially as it's perhaps possible that a thin film of silicone mould release might naturally occur in original records anyway.............perhaps that might account for why cleaning with aqueous IPA sometimes raises surface crackle noise, and why playing wet sometimes permanently degrades subsequent dry play, ie if a lubricant film is being accidentally removed...??.........also perhaps might be part of the aging and wear process, as the film depletes.......??...or why some pressings appear to have high surface noise even from new (too skinny application of mould release ?)..........

Does anyone know about actual record pressing mould releases, perchance ?

luckydog
09-08-2012, 05:40 AM
As I've understood, there are groove modulations within the groove as small as 4 millionths of an inch. At the microscopic level, wouldn't a stylus "see" this path as a road covered in sludge, and in fact possibly even cause a drag effect?........(..).........any silicone product, which may not necessarily stay in a viscous state for long then act as a damper? And that any such products will in effect "hide", and mask these ultra minute modulations? I believe it would.
Yes, audible stylus movement can be truly tiny. But the fact that extra detail emerges from the noise floor after the treatment implies that tracing actually improves for the treatment. This represents the very tiniest of stylus tracing movement, of course. Harmonic distortion also significantly improves, BTW. Besides, any such 'drag' would show up in stylus-groove friction measurement, which actually shows a significant reduction under this treatment, ie an improvement.

luckydog
09-08-2012, 05:48 AM
In other words we all strive to have a 100% clean surface on our LPs.......(..)........ after all that effort you then apply a coating to the small grooves you wanted clean? To me this makes absolutely no sense.
What if the ex-factory record surface comprised a thin film of a lubricant, and cleaning it off or wearing it off exposes a surface with worse tribology, eg higher friction coefficient, or eg different stick-slip characteristics ?

Then 'cleaning' might be bad if it comprises more than 'dust and debris removal'.......and restoring a surface film might be bona fide original......???

ripblade
09-08-2012, 07:43 AM
Then these other silicone based products seem far more interesting in my book. Especially as it's perhaps possible that a thin film of silicone mould release might naturally occur in original records anyway.............perhaps that might account for why cleaning with aqueous IPA sometimes raises surface crackle noise, ...This has never happened to me with my hydraulic cleaning regimen. More likely it is poor cleaning method that leaves contaminates behind; dirty wand bristles, incomplete rinses, poor or no vacuum drying.

The story goes that the surface film attracts dust which then adheres to it. Whether this is truth or marketing, I see this as a strong possibility either way. As these records are not pressed in clean rooms it's not a bad idea to clean them before the initial play in any event.

I have a small amount of the earlier Last (pre Fomblin?) formulation, but it's over 20 years old, I don't know whether it would still be effective. I recall at the time I was using it that it did seem to quieten the surface and sweeten the treble in a fashion similar to gusten's sample, but it was much less apparent, and possibly even my own imagination. Certainly, if the samples I posted in another thread demonstrating a change of 4° SRA (a difference of 1/2" at the pillar) was not audible, then a pre/post Last demonstration would not be either.

I still use the Stylast formulation on the stylus; whether it extends the life of it is unknown but I don't see the harm in using it. I don't hear any difference but then it's use is persistent with each play...I would have to wait for it to wear off to be certain there isn't any present on the tip before forming an impression.

luckydog
09-08-2012, 08:36 AM
This has never happened to me with my hydraulic cleaning regimen. More likely it is poor cleaning method that leaves contaminates behind; dirty wand bristles, incomplete rinses, poor or no vacuum drying.
I've noted increase in surface crackle noise sometimes after even very careful cleaning. One type of noise replaced by another, an elevation of the general noise floor with a crackle characteristic. Not always, mind you, but often enough to note, and I know this is generally attributed to residue etc but I now wonder if it's not removing a surface film, or altering surface tribology ?

Certainly, if the samples I posted in another thread demonstrating a change of 4° SRA (a difference of 1/2" at the pillar) was not audible, then a pre/post Last demonstration would not be either.
I'll have a look for those. As you know, SRA is somewhat enigmatic as to why it should have an effect. But previously I have wondered whether the rake angle alters stylus-groove friction and tribology, and that might be related. I know there's a saying 'when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail', but stylus-groove friction does appear to have a quite profound audible effect. Especially for a phenomenum which is hardly ever discussed..........!

I still use the Stylast formulation on the stylus; whether it extends the life of it is unknown but I don't see the harm in using it. I don't hear any difference but then it's use is persistent with each play...I would have to wait for it to wear off to be certain there isn't any present on the tip before forming an impression.
According to Mister Pig's tests posted earlier here, Stylast appears not to significantly alter stylus-groove friction either, BTW.

Pio1980
09-08-2012, 09:25 AM
I have ordered "Gruv Glide" and will try it on the good TT set-up with some vintage well-worn but clean records to start for listening and run-down.
FWIW, the downside of silicone oil residue accumulation on the tip would be increased mass, the upside would be stylus resonance damping at the tip from a lossy semi-viscous loading effect.
LD?

markd51
09-08-2012, 09:34 AM
What if the ex-factory record surface comprised a thin film of a lubricant, and cleaning it off or wearing it off exposes a surface with worse tribology, eg higher friction coefficient, or eg different stick-slip characteristics ?

Then 'cleaning' might be bad if it comprises more than 'dust and debris removal'.......and restoring a surface film might be bona fide original......???

I'm no chemist, chemical engineer, lab tech, or any such.

But I believe that what you say here in this post is absolutely true, that there is compounds incorporated "into" the vinyl composition, such as stearates, and a mold release formula.

That some forms of cleaners, and methods will indeed strip the record's surface of these compounds, and that excessive stripping will be detrimental to the vinyl.

It is said that these vinyl compositions continue to leach stearates during their lifetime, literally until such vinyl (records) will turn to dust.

Alcohols are believe to harm PVC. High concentrations, the wrong types, and left for too long a period will all have a detrimental effect. So can harsh detergents.

It was fairly common knowledge some time back, that cleaners such as Mobile Fidelity Super Record Wash did have a type of lubricant incorporated into the formulation. And perhaps it was placed there to replace such compounds that were being stripped from the record's surface.

Some of those who used this cleaner formula said that yes, groove noise was reduced, but at the cost of fidelity. Mark

ripblade
09-08-2012, 11:53 AM
I've noted increase in surface crackle noise sometimes after even very careful cleaning. One type of noise replaced by another, an elevation of the general noise floor with a crackle characteristic. Not always, mind you, but often enough to note, and I know this is generally attributed to residue etc but I now wonder if it's not removing a surface film, or altering surface tribology ?

(...)

I know there's a saying 'when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail', ... With all due respect, I think this is what's happening here. This is an example of where Occam's Razor should be applied: Any increase in surface crackle after cleaning is due to flaws in the cleaning method, not surface tribology or a dubious increase in friction.

While I believe that any well thought out cleaning regimen will inevitably introduce some noise (with the possible exception of the white glue method), the overall result should always be a reduction in noise attributable to surface contimanants. If not, the method is flawed, quite simply.

luckydog
09-08-2012, 12:35 PM
Any increase in surface crackle after cleaning is due to flaws in the cleaning method, not surface tribology or a dubious increase in friction.

I really don't know. It seems plausible to me that cleaning might well alter conditions as to surface tribology and friction, and remove any original surface film along with the debris. The acid test would seem to be to measure friction before/after cleaning, so we can all add that to the ever growing list...........!

wlmill
09-08-2012, 03:55 PM
Here is a before and after sample using the solution I mentioned earlier.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jvkf7vetykn6ouf/untreated%20sample.wav?m

https://www.dropbox.com/s/n0r5ozqlrx0h9mo/treated%20sample.wav?m

luckydog
09-08-2012, 06:03 PM
Thanks, wlmill. That's very interesting, but perhaps not for the reasons you might first think ! Listening to those samples, and analysing them, suggests treatment with that formula if anything slightly worsens the audible aspects we're interested in.

Here's a spectral plot of the same 5s of silent lead-in from before/after treatment with wlmill's formula :

http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/picture.php?albumid=2429&pictureid=16436
http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/picture.php?albumid=2429&pictureid=16436

You can see that the difference is not that great, but suggestion is firmly that treatment somewhat worsens the noise floor. In the time domain, LF stability also appears slightly degraded. And audibly, the difference is not obvious, if anything the treated case seems worse to me.

But wlmill's formula (which was originally posted on another forum, IIRC) comprises a very small quantity (6 drops) of Armour-All in an aqueous IPA solution, plus a small amount of surfactant, i think. As such, this formula more closely resembles an IPA based cleaning solution, and doesn't seem to be a lubricant.

A few posts back I was posting about how IPA based cleaning sometimes appears to degrade surface noise performance IME, and on the face of it wlmill's formula might just be showing this effect perhaps ? I reckon there's such a small amount of Armour-All involved involved as to be negligible, and there is no lubricant effect here. Then I venture stylus-groove friction, if anything has been slightly worsened by this treatment. Confirmation via a quick 'stopping time' test would be interesting, of course.

So it's still a very interesting result in its own way IMO.......but wlmill's formula does not seem to hit the same mark at all as gusten's or my own commercial silicone based vinyl care formulations. I think this is as expected, given the formulation.

wlmill
09-08-2012, 10:12 PM
Thanks luckydog for analyzing the samples. It is very interesting indeed. After reading this, I am wondering if I will still use IPA in my cleaning solution? Maybe more tests are needed. I applied ArmorAll Ultra Shine directly to the record. I have been curious to see if ArmorAll will work as a lubricant on records. Here is another audio sample.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/e1kpv1wemiosnl8/treated%20sample2.wav?m

wlmill
09-09-2012, 09:31 AM
I have listened to the ArmorAll treated sample a few times and I am not sure I like the sound of it. I understande the objectives of this thread and I am not saying that Last and Gruv Glide don't work. I am just speakeing for my self when I say this. It just doesn't feel right to me to apply treatments to a record once it is cleaned. In my case, the treatments I have added seem to change the sound and not for the better. This is why I don't want to spend money on these treatments, if my records are going to sound like this.

Pio1980
09-09-2012, 11:32 PM
So what did you hear that was 'different' treated with AA?

wlmill
09-10-2012, 12:21 AM
So what did you hear that was 'different' treated with AA?

I could be wrong, but I think I can hear a little more noise in the sample treated with the ArmorAll. The record seems to have a whooshing sound to it when the needle hits the lead-in groove. I just feel the musical presentation was better in the untreated sample. I am probably doing something wrong here because gusten's sample sounds very good. I feel that any product that leaves film or residue on the record, is going to be heard. When I first heard the record after applying the ArmorAll, I didn't like it. I recorded the sample anyway so others could hear what it sounded like.

luckydog
09-10-2012, 03:01 AM
My opinion is there seems a little more audible noise in wlmill's treated sample. But also I doubt that there is enough Amor-All in the formulation to make much difference to anything, if I've read it right. About 6 drops per half litre...........i think one could simply be listening to the effect of cleaning with 25% IPA aqueous, that would not surprise me?

To hear the difference which is available via significantly reduced friction, gusten's samples are good.