[78-L] Here we go again, was Re: Wet-playing records

[Doug Pomeroy]

> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 03:58:20 -0400
> From: "Sammy Jones" <sjones69 at bellsouth.net>
> Subject: Re: [78-L] Wet-playing records
> To: <78-l at klickitat.78online.com>
> Message-ID: <000001cad94c$c0ae9810$420bc830$@net>
> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"
>
> Somebody has recommended the method to me saying it will make noisy  
> lacquers
> sound better.  I've known about playing records wet for a long  
> time, but
> have dismissed it based on what I've read.  I'm trying to determine if
> there's anything to this.
>
> Joe, below you say you find playing lacquers wet is damaging, but  
> may be
> effective.  I'm curious under what circumstances you may have  
> gotten benefit
> from doing this.
>
> I did a test on a non-valuable, very noisy lacquer and couldn't  
> hear any
> difference going from dry to wet and back to dry.
>
> Sammy
>
> Joe Salerno wrote:
>
>> Distilled has nothing to do with it AFAIK.
>>
>> I think it may depend on how they became worn, as I described
>> previously. Let me phrase it another way - play a lacquer wet and  
>> then
>> examine your stylus. The black gunk on the tip used to be your  
>> record.
>> I
>> don't see how one could describe the process as "beneficial" when  
>> it is
>> destroying the artifact.
>>
>> What are you expecting? Wet playing to eliminate pops and clicks? Not
>> in
>> my experience. To eliminate broadband surface noise? Already answered
>> that.
>>
>> joe salerno