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

[Doug Pomeroy]

APOLOGIES FOR BLANK MESSAGE JUST SENT BY ACCIDENT

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Doug Pomeroy <audiofixer at verizon.net>
> Date: April 11, 2010 7:37:23 PM EDT
> To: 78-list <78-L at 78online.com>
> Subject: Here we go again, was Re: [78-L] Wet-playing records
>
>> 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