|
|
Post by gazjam on May 6, 2015 15:40:08 GMT
that you don't read properly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2015 15:43:23 GMT
its efficacy . there is no way to establish not even subjectively the effectiveness of a vacuum wet clean as opposed to say one of those manual wet cleans .there is so much rubbish talked about the efficacy of rcm by middle age men salivating over there new toy purchase . i can appreciate it is convieniant but laugh at the wondrous powers ascribed to a not very powerful vacuum pump over gravity . Err.... Yes there is, it's called a microscope look on the Garrard501 site on the PRC section and you can see photos of before and after cleaning. Interestingly the images came from the Mormon Church Sound Archive, who use a Loricraft PRC  you can see them here loricraftinternetshop.co.uk/ There are others that show manually cleaned records too. If I can dig them out I'll post them. A good manually wet clean is about 60-75% as good as vacuum. |
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on May 6, 2015 15:43:51 GMT
gaz you will be posting a picture of me eating a bacon sandwich next .
|
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on May 6, 2015 15:50:13 GMT
its efficacy . there is no way to establish not even subjectively the effectiveness of a vacuum wet clean as opposed to say one of those manual wet cleans .there is so much rubbish talked about the efficacy of rcm by middle age men salivating over there new toy purchase . i can appreciate it is convieniant but laugh at the wondrous powers ascribed to a not very powerful vacuum pump over gravity . Err.... Yes there is, it's called a microscope look on the Garrard501 site on the PRC section and you can see photos of before and after cleaning. Interestingly the images came from the Mormon Church Sound Archive, who use a Loricraft PRC you can see them here loricraftinternetshop.co.uk/ There are others that show manually cleaned records too. If I can dig them out I'll post them. A good manually wet clean is about 60-75% as good as vacuum. sorry , but you post of full of ambivalence and conjecture . you need to assume , visibly cleaner under a microscope equates to better sound quality , whilst logically it would appear to a reasonable assumption it is still an assumption and since when as logic been sufficient evidence in hifi where have you got your 25% worse figure from , your own marketing ? I remain very dubious about the difference between wet clean and vacum wet clean and this were your argument is the weakest . upodate - i wrote the above giving you the benefit of the doubt over the photos , post posting , i looked , those photos are laughable marketing spin . i find insufficient evidence to alter my opinion. I will however check out the garrad site . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2015 16:19:55 GMT
I get the figures from examining the afore mentioned photos, the wet clean with a mircofibre cloth left more detritus behind than the the vacuum RCM - simples. I can't see the problem with understanding that they sound rubbish with rubbish in the grooves and better without it. By the way the marketing spin is not for my product, so what's this tosh about benefit of the doubt?
|
|
|
|
Post by gazjam on May 6, 2015 16:48:07 GMT
gaz you will be posting a picture of me eating a bacon sandwich next . Heh. |
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on May 7, 2015 6:12:04 GMT
there is so much rubbish talked about the efficacy of rcm by middle age men salivating over there new toy purchase . Sounds like sour grapes there, DQ. It doesn't seem like you've ever used one as, if you had, you would know just how much suction you get from a vacuum applied to a narrow slot. Two revolutions and the record is dry.
Seriously, I don't recall you ever presenting such a weak argument, you are usually more careful with your claims.
|
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on May 7, 2015 9:01:51 GMT
If my argument is weak , i dont actually see any rebuttal .
I have no problem with personal testimonies of satisfaction ,it is generalized bollocks i rally against .
I am now expected to believe that vacuum systems are 25% better based on dstewarts personal analysis of photographs taken for the purpose of marketing a machine . o dear .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2015 10:45:05 GMT
If my argument is weak , i dont actually see any rebuttal . I have no problem with personal testimonies of satisfaction ,it is generalized bollocks i rally against . I am now expected to believe that vacuum systems are 25% better based on dstewarts personal analysis of photographs taken for the purpose of marketing a machine . o dear . 1 As I stated earlier all my research was carried out at the time I developed the fluid, it was peer revied and seen by eqipment reviewers about 20 years ago, try to keep up. 2 I don't sell the machines, I make fluid that works, whatever your cleaning method and the photos on line I refered the forum to, as explained were taken by an end user. In this case the Mormon Church Sound Archive, who have one of largest collections on the planet, that they like to keep clean. 3 Sorry but only a fool, or someone who's only interest lies in trolling and stirring, would adopt the position you do. You have no evidence, but won't accept the testimony, evidence and imperical experience of those who do. Here is a bit of advice, engage your brain before your typing finger, stop trolling people and get a life. |
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on May 7, 2015 15:06:49 GMT
your argument amounts to I know best listen to me , accept what i say . You have given me bugger all to engage my brain except rhetoric . Sorry I do not accept what you say at face value for 2 reasons ,1: what you say is not evidence . 2: it is put in somewhat pompous manner . and what the fuck is a peer reviewed analysis of record cleaning fluid/technique .  your personal attack on me for writing uncomfortable truths is par for the course . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2015 19:08:34 GMT
your argument amounts to I know best listen to me , accept what i say . You have given me bugger all to engage my brain except rhetoric . Sorry I do not accept what you say at face value for 2 reasons ,1: what you say is not evidence . 2: it is put in somewhat pompous manner . and what the fuck is a peer reviewed analysis of record cleaning fluid/technique . your personal attack on me for writing uncomfortable truths is par for the course . Sorry DQ, I had not realised the monumental depth of your ignorance, perhaps this will help dictionary.reference.com/browse/peer+review As for uncomfortable truths, as soon as you say anything interesting, or indeed accurate, I might pay some attention. Until that time, which I doubt will come, I'll just ignore your gum flapping |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2015 19:19:46 GMT
I find it's the best way. I have not read one of his posts for weeks.
He should spend more time listening to music and chilling out a bit.
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on May 7, 2015 21:22:57 GMT
Ok guys, you've each had a go at each other so let's cool it now please and discuss the merits of record cleaning.
|
|
|
|
Post by pinkie on May 8, 2015 7:09:31 GMT
I get the figures from examining the afore mentioned photos, the wet clean with a mircofibre cloth left more detritus behind than the the vacuum RCM - simples. I can't see the problem with understanding that they sound rubbish with rubbish in the grooves and better without it. By the way the marketing spin is not for my product, so what's this tosh about benefit of the doubt? This is so obviously true to anyone who has bothered trying an RCM that it is one of the wonders of HiFi fora that there is any merit in a debate. I recall the records I ruined (mostly my dads records, my dad ruined) with wet cleaning "leave it in to dry like rock in the groove" methods. Some of those records I rescued with a proprietary foam that was the equivalent of the wood glue technique - peel it off dry. One - absolute gem (Bach double violin concerto David and Igor Oistrach - probably my all time favourite record)- remained in its concreted-up condition until I was persuaded to have a go at an RCM (credit where due - Marco and his magic methods). WIth some trepidation I have to say, given I associated any wet cleaning with trashing records (unless you played them wet) I put Bach through the treatment. A complete revelation. Not perfect - it was old and abused - but restored beyond my wiildest dreams. My Dad cried when I played it to him. Debate Spinoza - not whether vacuum RCM's clean records better |
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on May 8, 2015 8:15:43 GMT
your argument amounts to I know best listen to me , accept what i say . You have given me bugger all to engage my brain except rhetoric . Sorry I do not accept what you say at face value for 2 reasons ,1: what you say is not evidence . 2: it is put in somewhat pompous manner . and what the fuck is a peer reviewed analysis of record cleaning fluid/technique . your personal attack on me for writing uncomfortable truths is par for the course . Sorry DQ, I had not realised the monumental depth of your ignorance, perhaps this will help dictionary.reference.com/browse/peer+review As for uncomfortable truths, as soon as you say anything interesting, or indeed accurate, I might pay some attention. Until that time, which I doubt will come, I'll just ignore your gum flapping I know what a peer review but your absurd suggestion i dont was clearly not serious and is just typical of your obfuscation . peer reviews encompass experts opinion amongst suitably qualified experts . to talk about peer reviews in the context of rcm efficacy is bollocks beyond belief . |
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on May 8, 2015 8:44:50 GMT
Enough now! Debate the issues, not the person.
|
|
|
|
Post by julesd68 on May 8, 2015 8:47:26 GMT
I get the figures from examining the afore mentioned photos, the wet clean with a mircofibre cloth left more detritus behind than the the vacuum RCM - simples. I can't see the problem with understanding that they sound rubbish with rubbish in the grooves and better without it. By the way the marketing spin is not for my product, so what's this tosh about benefit of the doubt? This is so obviously true to anyone who has bothered trying an RCM that it is one of the wonders of HiFi fora that there is any merit in a debate. I recall the records I ruined (mostly my dads records, my dad ruined) with wet cleaning "leave it in to dry like rock in the groove" methods. Some of those records I rescued with a proprietary foam that was the equivalent of the wood glue technique - peel it off dry. One - absolute gem (Bach double violin concerto David and Igor Oistrach - probably my all time favourite record)- remained in its concreted-up condition until I was persuaded to have a go at an RCM (credit where due - Marco and his magic methods). WIth some trepidation I have to say, given I associated any wet cleaning with trashing records (unless you played them wet) I put Bach through the treatment. A complete revelation. Not perfect - it was old and abused - but restored beyond my wiildest dreams. My Dad cried when I played it to him. Debate Spinoza - not whether vacuum RCM's clean records better just about says it all really ... |
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on May 8, 2015 9:05:15 GMT
I am pretty sure Spinoza would have debated the factual accuracy off claims to the cleaning superiority of a vacuum wet clean over a simple wet clean . Shrouded as it is in irrationality , received wisdom and convention .
|
|
|
|
Post by pinkie on May 8, 2015 13:37:37 GMT
I am pretty sure Spinoza would have debated the factual accuracy off claims to the cleaning superiority of a vacuum wet clean over a simple wet clean . Shrouded as it is in irrationality , received wisdom and convention . Nah - he'd have tried one and settled the issue the obvious way. You don't debate whether its raining - you go outside and find out if you get wet. You debate why it rains... |
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on May 8, 2015 14:17:12 GMT
I am pretty sure Spinoza would have debated the factual accuracy off claims to the cleaning superiority of a vacuum wet clean over a simple wet clean . Shrouded as it is in irrationality , received wisdom and convention . Nah - he'd have tried one and settled the issue the obvious way. You don't debate whether its raining - you go outside and find out if you get wet. You debate why it rains... Your analogy is not valid . wet clean v vacuum wet clean arguments are analogous to arguing over whether the rain in manchester gets you wetter than the rain in leeds. |
|
you can see them here 
