[78-L] Wet-playing records

[David Lennick]

Has anyone tried cleaning a wet-played disc on the Monks or with the Doctor's equipment? I've cleaned many records that had taken on moisture or been put into plastic sleeves while damp (even years after the fact) and they've cleaned up fine.

dl
 
> Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 23:17:55 -0500
> From: neechevoneeznayou at gmail.com
> To: 78-l at klickitat.78online.com
> Subject: Re: [78-L] Wet-playing records
> 
> 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
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 78-L mailing list
> 78-L at klickitat.78online.com
> http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l