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

[Doug Pomeroy]

> A couple months ago I posted comments based on my experience
with playing discs wet.  Trying to find that post in the 78-l  
Archives is
too time-consuming (i.e., I'm too lazy), so I will summarize as briefly
as possible.

I have found overall surface noise to be reduced when worn lacquers
are played wet, using water with a few drops of KODAK Photo-Flo added
to enhance the spreading of the water fully over the surface and fully
INTO the grooves (non-beading).  Liquid detergents also contain
surfactants which will serve this purpose, but they should be rinsed
off with distilled water after being used.

NOTE: in my experience, playing lacquers wet more than once will,
greatly increase surface damage.  SO, try never to do it more
than once - in other words, be sure to determine which stylus and
tracking force is best before you wet the disc surface, so that you
can get the best transfer on the first pass.

NOTE: surface noise is greatly influenced by the stylus tracking
pressure.  If your cantilever is too compliant, you will not be able to
track heavily enough, and neither water nor anything else will make
much difference!

i know of no studies examining why playing a wet surface might reduce
surface noise.  I have tried to think why this might be so.

1) Playing a groove wet appears to improve the disc-to-stylus contact.
How can this be?  I have wondered about this for a long time.
I believe there may be an electrical factor involved: playing a dry  
groove
can generate an electrical (static) charge due to friction, and water  
will
neutralize such a charge.  I suspect that static buildup effects  
tracking
in a negative fashion, degrading the groove-to-stylus contact.  The  
water
may help create a pathway for discharge of static from the disc surface,
via the stylus to the cartridge ground connection.

2) If the liquid completely fills the grooves, the stylus is really  
tracking
them under water. The groove is thus "lubricated", helping the stylus to
slide freely.

3) Water probably cools the stylus, which otherwise becomes quite hot  
due
to friction.  Why a cool playback stylus might be better than a hot  
one I
cannot say!

Just speculation.

Doug Pomeroy
audiofixer at verizon.net

=========================================

I don't know how to access the 78-l archives
>> 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