From: liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid   
      
   john larkin  wrote:   
      
   > On Wed, 31 Dec 2025 09:31:47 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid   
   > (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:   
   >   
   > >Joe Gwinn  wrote:   
   > >   
   > >> On 29 Dec 2025 21:10:03 GMT, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz   
   > >> Tuddenham) wrote:   
   > >[...]   
   > >   
   > >> >Critically, drying it is going to be the biggest problem.  Slow draining   
   > >> >will allow debris-laden water to capillary into the groove bottoms and   
   > >> >concentrate any muck.   
   > >>   
   > >> I'd rinse it off with straight alcohol, maybe then spin dry it.   
   > >   
   > >It depends how many discs you wanted to treat.  You could finish up   
   > >wasting a lot of alcohol and generating an explosion risk.   
   > >   
   > >   
   > >> >   Ideally it should be dried by strong suction to   
   > >> >get the water out as quickly and thoroughly as possible.  (The Keith   
   > >> >Monks machine did it this way)   
   > >>   
   > >> Or blow it off using filtered clean dry compressed air.  Maybe while   
   > >> the disk is spinning.   
   > >   
   > >That might work better than the vacuum system but both have the   
   > >potential to create static charges on the disc surface which will   
   > >attract dust and make it noisy again.   
   >   
   > I suppose that if you had two or more ratty records and wanted to make   
   > a good digital copy, you could play them all and do some clever   
   > processing.   
      
   The idea was peoposed by Peter Copeland of the UK National Sound Archive   
   about 20 years ago.  At the time it wasn't possible to synchronise the   
   two copies accurately over a long period of time but he did manage to   
   synchronise them for a few seconds, which was long enough to demonstrate   
   that the idea worked   
      
   His concept was to have multiple copies on  a 'cake-stand', all playing   
   simultaneously.  The speed variations due to the turntable would be the   
   same for all copies and offset errors due to variations in the starting   
   point would be constant, so there would only be variations caused by   
   excentricity and ovality for the software to remove.   
      
   What most people don't realise is that a mono disc already contains two   
   copies of the sound, one on each groove wall; it is the difference   
   between these two copies that is used by my archival disc player to   
   identify the unwanted noise.   
      
   < http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/other/Turntables/de-clicker.htm>   
      
      
   --   
   ~ Liz Tuddenham ~   
   (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)   
   www.poppyrecords.co.uk   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)