From: jl@glen--canyon.com   
      
   On Thu, 1 Jan 2026 10:34:44 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid   
   (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:   
      
   >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>   
      
      
   The processing should obviously be digital. That would fix speed   
   variations, noise, skips, everything.   
      
   It's no doubt being done already.   
      
      
      
      
   John Larkin   
   Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center   
   Lunatic Fringe Electronics   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)