[78-L] Wet-playing records

[neechevoneeznayou at gmail.com]

Sammy,

If the record has been played wet it becomes noiser. After that to 
restore it to a less noisy condition, you must play it wet, but I can't 
bring myself to call it a benefit. It is a temporary "solution", after 
it drys it is back to noisy. Wet play has only temporarily 
semi-corrected someone else's damage to the disc. It would be better not 
to damage it in the first place, yes?

I don't play mine wet if I value them.

joe salerno


Sammy Jones wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
>> Sammy Jones wrote:
>>> I must have missed the discussion...Probably happened on one of those
>> weeks
>>> where I let the email pile up and never got around to reading the
>> back
>>> issues of the Digest.
>>>
>>> Is wet-playing with distilled water actually beneficial in any way to
>>> playing worn lacquers, or is this just one of those long-standing
>> myths?
>>> Sammy
>>>
>>>
>>> Joe Salerno wrote:
>>>> It has been discussed here, not too long ago IIRC.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know about a consensus, but I personally do not find it
>>>> effective for vinyl. I find it damaging for lacquers, altho it may
>> be
>>>> effective. Problem is, after you play wet, you must from then on
>> play
>>>> wet to enjoy the reduced signal to noise ratio. I only do this if
>>>> transferring a lacquer that has already been played wet and damaged.
>>>> For
>>>> shellac I have not found it to help anything, but water will, with a
>>>> little time, damage shellac.
>>>>
>>>> joe salerno
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sammy Jones wrote:
>>>>> Has wet-playing ever been discussed here before?  Is there a
>>>> consensus of
>>>>> opinion on effectiveness of wet-playing 78s or radio
>> transcriptions?
>>>> Does
>>>>> record material (shellac, vinyl, lacquer) matter?
>>>>>
>>>>> I've really got my doubts that it's very effective, but I'd love to
>>>> hear
>>>>> from my highly-regarded fellow listmembers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sammy Jones
>>>>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 78-L mailing list
> 78-L at klickitat.78online.com
> http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l
>