View Single Post
  #508  
Old 08-31-2009, 02:51 AM
Mopic5's Avatar
Mopic5 Mopic5 is offline
AK Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ann Arbor
Posts: 1,133
Titebond II versus Titebond Extend

After a couple of years of glue peeling, it took a bit of searching to come up with two grungy records that had fifth distributed roughly equal on both sides. The two classical LPs that I finally dug up have relatively low signal to noise ratios in their original recordings. To further enhance the “noise” aspect of these tests, I chose my most microphonic cartridge – a Grado MF 3. The turntable used was a Pioneer PL-518 – Servo DD and chosen for its dustcover to eliminate feedback. (My headphones went on the fritz.)
For this first test, a 1965 RCA-LSC White Dog edition of Ravel/Roussel was used. Side (A) got the Titebond “Extend”, while (B) got the Titebond II.

The first difference was in drying time. With a fan blowing across both glues (The record on the second test was glued up at roughly the same time.) The Titebond II was dry in 2 hours, while the “Extend took 7 . The “Extend” never quite self-peeled, but it did begin to separate itself from the vinyl in many places, so that peeling was a quick pull and took seconds with no glitches. The Titebond II, which peels much easier than the original formula was still no match for “Extends” ease in peeling. What’s more, because of the subtle lifting during drying, there was no static charge generated, but there is plenty with the Titebond II. I was going to take Jon up on his suggestion of using laundry anti-static fabric, but my wife told me that she needs to clean a waxy residue off the dryer screen with each use of these, so I held off. A Zero-Stat gun is definitely in my future.







In the playing, after peeling, I could find no difference between the two in their effectiveness in removing dirt. The first test record, didn’t come out as pristine sounding as I would have wished. While pretty much all snap, crackles and pops are gone, there seems to be some groove wall noise that I suspect is stylus damage. Still the results are pretty dramatic.

The Comparative Files
I used a non-saving demo copy of iZotopes RX for spectral pictures of the captured recordings. All samples are about 30 secs. I did use RX’s zoom resolution feature to take close-ups as well as the full sample run. So in format you’ll find:
1- Full sample uncleaned:
2- Full sample cleaned:
3- Close-up uncleaned:
4- Close-up cleaned.

The first group of four is Side (A) using Titebond Extend.













The sound files should take about 30 seconds or less to download. In format – the first is the raw uncleaned sample, followed by the sample after cleaning with Titebond Extend.

Ravel (A).wav

Ravel (A) Ext-Glue.wav

Using the same format as above, the following four grabs and two sound files are from side (B) using Titebond II.













Ravel (B).wav

Ravel (B) Glue-II.wav

Conclusions
The results for me are a draw, and I’ll probably continue to use both glue pints up before deciding which Titebond flavor to get a gallon of.
Titebond II – Has a very quick drying time and is relatively easy to peel. It can generate quite a bit of static as a result of the peel, depending on one’s environment.
Titebond Extend – As the name implies, an extended drying time for this application. Peeling if needed, is a breeze with no detectable static generation.

The one surprise was that the thin vinyl Columbia LP was temporarily warped by the drying action of the glues – possibly as a result of uneven drying times. Thankfully, unlike heat warpage, the record returned to its flat state once the glues were removed.

Next up… Tackling tenacious mold, with hand scrubbing, a VPI Typhoon, and finally, PVA glue.

Last edited by Mopic5; 08-31-2009 at 03:00 AM.
Reply With Quote