MRA : Myth or Menace?


New Vinyl : MRA : Myth or Menace?

This is an exercise to see how far I could get playing brand new LPs, UNCLEANED, before MRA toxicity became a problem.
I must forewarn you that for digital audio enthusiasts, the following notes will seem as productive as watching paint dry… ;^)

In an earlier A’Gon thread which lamented the number of warped examples of new vinyl on release I posted the beginnings of the experiment. Quote :

“Here's a heartening story for the OP : I often accumulate new LPs but don't play them with the intention of getting them cleaned first. Yesterday I took a chance and played one that had been stored, uncleaned from new since 2013. Opening it for the first time, it was "ruler flat", no discernible warps. Hole and label registration were very good. The LP played as if it had just been scrupulously cleaned. Noise floor was inky black. Transient peaks tracked perfectly and cleanly throughout the entire record. This 180g was a triumph of LP manufacture that harked back to the halcyon days of the 70s & 80s when no one had even heard of MRA and uncleaned LPs bought new still sound perfect today."

“Emboldened by my own experience (above) I've started playing new LPs without cleaning them. After warming up the stylus on a 2nd-hand LP, the next two that I tried were "For Your Pleasure" (Roxy Music), 1x180g LP, and "The Raven That Refused To Sing" (Steve Wilson), 2x180g LPs.
To my pleasant surprise all three of them gave the same result as above. Each had a nice glossy black patina with no staining or “marbling”.
(It’s possible that coffee coloured staining/marbling may be an indication that someone needs a new chemistry set and that the formula may be compromised in some way but I can’t be sure about this…) :^D

I paid particular attention to the quiet/silent passages on the Steve Wilson because it had a bit more dynamic contrast than the other album.
Even though I listen at levels of 85db or so - measured at a distance of 5-6m there were no clicks or pops just inky blackness. As a double-check I stepped into the near field during quiet sections and got the same result.
The run-ins and run-outs were also smooth and untroubled.”

After those listening experiences I sensed the beginning of a grand experiment to see how many new, uncleaned, LPs I could play while still obtaining such gratifying results before I crashed-and-burned on a severely MRA-riven one… ;^)

So, the experiment continued….
In addition to the ones previously posted (above), and as before, this is a description of their physical and behavioural properties for the purposes of checking where we are in terms of meeting acceptable standards of LP manufacture :

Norah Jones, “The Fall” (single album).
Anti-static poly lined sleeve supplied with enough room to slide the LP out unlike those that are paper only and so tight you end up destroying the sleeve to get the LP out!
Very slight spindle hole mis-registration. Again, not as bad as the HFN/RR test disc.
Disc was as flat and unwarped as you would have liked it to be.
In terms of surface noise this was silent throughout.
Run-in and track transitions were silent also.
The runout on Side A was silent despite having a piece of fluff caked on the end of the stylus!!
(I noticed this LP was one of those rare ones more inclined to become statically charged, despite the diligent application of a Zerostat)
Doesn’t get any better than that if you are looking for a result. SQ was excellent.
Another winner?!?!???

(Please note : for the next set of reviews none of them were static “chargers” i.e. the stylus was perfectly clean at the end of each side (not, perhaps, under a microscope but visibly clean when viewed with the naked eye – the stylus was cleaned, once per LP, btw..). There were also no signs of discolouration or blotchiness on any of the discs mentioned.)

Edwin Astley, “Randall & Hopkirk Deceased” (single album) sourced by Network-on-Air.
Quote : “Featuring new transfers from original analogue tape elements, mastering/vinyl cutting by Ray Staff (one of the best audio engineers in the world) and high quality pressing by the renowned Pallas pressing plant in Germany, this range of audiophile-level albums is presented on 180g virgin vinyl…”
Like the NJ, provided with an anti-static poly lined sleeve with plenty of room to reach in and grab the LP.
The manufacturers do seem to be getting their act together. Even the few that only have paper sleeves at least enjoy a decent sized one.
This was an album released to celebrate RSD but whenever I tried to get a copy in the shops I struck out.
I ended up ordering it on-line from the creators…
This was a terrific test of surface noise in fact it was a bit of a revelation. There were plenty of long silences on this collection of incidental orchestral music. (Rather like listening to a work such as Mussorgsky’s “Pictures at an Exhibition” only twice as long!)
Inky blackness prevailed during those silences. Track transitions and run-ins/runouts also silent. SQ superb. Slight 1960’s “colouration” to the recording – more so than you’d experience on e.g. John Barry Collections, but still the best rendition of this music I’ve ever heard (and I’ve got some BD recordings featuring it).
Again this disc sounded so good you’d think it had been cleaned. Excellent dynamics and recording depth.
If only BDs sounded like this, audience involvement would be off the scale!
So, a triumph! There are others available from Network. Given the quality of this offering I’m going to have to collect them all now… 
(Update : I’ve made a start and ordered a few already….)

Hawkwind, “Electric Tepee” (double album, red vinyl Limited Edition)
These played perfectly with a perfect noise floor (or at least as far as I could tell given that it was a hard-Rock album). Track transitions were silent and run-ins/outs also silent until the very end.
Nicely finished product. No rough edges or rags.
Textbook stuff! 
My only objection was that it, disappointingly, had been supplied with paper sleeves with circular cutouts and no poly liner 
They were loose enough to get the discs out easily so no problems.

The Enid, “Invicta” (double album)
The first LP needed the spindle hole to be reamed slightly (loose core) nothing too involved. Second one fitted ok.
The first LP was clearly “dished” even though it wasn’t easily visible. (The reason I know this is because I have a spirit level bolted to the bearing housing on my tonearm ;^)
It started off with a strongly “negative” VTA i.e. “tail down” then the arm progressed “downhill” towards the inner grooves where VTA levelled out.
The reverse situation applied to Side B. (I didn’t bother adjusting VTA to average it)
Apart from slight “dishing” there was a single pinch-warp on the first disc but not severe.
Basically it looked good – even to a perfectionist.
Grooves were not very deeply cut and the runouts were excessively long (1.5” typically). They could have used the available space better.
Perhaps attributable to the dishing, noise performance slightly less than perfect on occasions with both discs but commendable as it was low-level and wasn’t intrusive.
SQ was faultless otherwise.
Verdict : less than perfect (physically) but still excellent.

The Beach Boys “Pet Sounds” 180g single album.
No defects in drilling or labelling. Not warped in any way.
Poly lined sleeve plus detailed inner sleeve.
Very low-level noise only during the occasional track transition, no audible noise during the music itself.
SQ was first class. Very lifelike and alive. Sounded like it was recorded yesterday.
Excellent pressing.

Led Zeppelin “Led Zeppelin” 180g single album.
Needed the spindle hole to be reamed out. Again, not warped in any way.
Poly lined inner sleeve similar to the Goldring type.
Back to 100% inky black background silences with this one. Run ins completely silent as were the track transitions.
SQ beyond reproach. This album will leave you dazed & confused…

Based on these most recent experiences I’m inclined to buy MORE new vinyl rather than less.
I’d had one bad experience with MRA and this had put me off playing new vinyl – tending to save them until an opportunity to get them cleaned arose – but as you can see, some of these new albums have been different class while all have been eminently playable.

With no problematic issues after about 16 LPs (4 of them not yet described here) you can see the percentage failure rate is still zero. This gives a good percentage indication of success and I have to say the signs are good but the most important observation is that cleaning was not essential to get good results (especially in terms of surface noise & tracking on peaks)and that is what the experiment was really about. ;^)
This may not be "your" experience but if not we’re still interested in your comments if you've tried the experiment already ;^)

I still have large amounts of new vinyl still sealed in its packaging so I’ll keep going… but effectively the notes end here as I feel the exercise has been worthwhile ;^)
moonglum
I fail to see how MRC could be deleterious to the sound of vinyl since it would presumably act as a lubricant.
Why assume that a lubricant is necessary or beneficial? Neither is consistent with my experience.

Any substance on the vinyl surface isolates the stylus from the smallest modulations, which reduces audible micro-dynamics and HF extension. If the goal is to reproduce everything that's cut into the groovewall, then by definition (and to my ears) anything that mediates stylus-groovewall contact (including "lubricants") must impair ideal reproduction.
I have a decent pile of old white papers that were published by the AES; you can access them cheapest by paying a one time fee for a year of access or pay a tariff per download. Among the things I found were various papers on the subject of wear, static and the like, along with various patents that are part of the public record (you need no AES access to obtain these) addressing surface noise, and again, static. I found very little to no discussion of "mold release" compound or agent as such. One paper, by S.K. Khanna, from RCA circa 1977 did address vinyl compounds in some depth, including the chemistry of PVC, polymerization processes, general characteristics of PVC resin as used for records, and then contained a discussion of various formulation variables, including the resins themselves, stabilizers (for heat and lubrication during compounding), colorant (which the author noted was used to "hide" plate out problems); fillers to change the visco-elastic properties of the compound and to reduce noise. Khanna also made note of certain "special additives" including lubricants, modifiers, plasticizers and anti-static agents, all of which have an impact on "flow". The author observed that the compounding process was complex, more "art than science' and at that time- during the height of vinyl as a medium, urged that basic research needed to be conducted into materials science to address the needs of "quality-conscious" persons. What this tells me is that even during the "golden age" the medium didn't follow one practice.
A couple other things to note: remember the oil crisis? It led to a lot of shoddy vinyl. I don't think that's when recycling started, but it probably become more widespread; Albert P noted in another thread that he has found debris embedded into vinyl; i have, as I'm sure others have too. One last thought- again speculation on my part. If the mix is made up of different (recycled) materials, each with their own chemical and heat/flow/etc characteristics, this could make manufacture far more problematic. I don't know, but I suspect one advantage of "virgin" vinyl, isn't that it is "pure" but it is probably more consistent. I offer this for what it is worth, not as an answer. As Miller said in Repo Man, I think about this stuff on the bus.
Dear Doug,
You offer an interesting alternative viewpoint on the outcome of record cleaning by saying that cleaning will make records noisier(?)

Let me throw in a few wildcards :
- Countless RCM owners will have waxed lyrical in their assessments about how quiet LPs are after thorough cleaning.
- Check out MF's review of the ADS (scroll down to "so how well does it work?"). Quietness, post-cleaning, is the first comment.

http://www.analogplanet.com/content/worlds-best-record-cleaning-machine#g7I3uVfs2AWgERKf.97

- The stylus, almost as soon as it makes contact, develops a film, an "interference layer" if you will, which may negate those results as playing progresses?
- As above, because the stylus causes the groove to melt and reflow behind it, it throws into question whether a clean groove should be "noisier" or not, given that the most intimate thermal contact is obtainable when clean?

I'm not being critical of you, Doug, as I'm certain your routines are far more thorough than is possible from any automatic RCM. Anyone who dedicates themselves to that level of perfection deserves cleaner records than everyone else ;^)
Dear Geoff,
That was one of the 2 classic arguments when record cleaning initially became a subject of debate. People were torn as to whether it was a good idea to clean the MRA/MRC off, by facilitating the passage of the stylus through the groove ("lubrication"), despite the claims that MRA renewed itself i.e. the vinyl "sweated"/exuded MRA for years after manufacture
(or at least it did so to a reducing degree?).

Unfortunately we're still no closer to knowing, for sure, whether MRC actually exists in vinyl manufacture. (Whart's commendable research says no.)
If that's the case we should have a reasonably clean groove after manufacture provided the Alchemists didn't make it on a Friday. ;^)
Back when I had my special ed. Maplenoll air bearing everything with 500 feet (count 'em!) of air tubing, two air buffers, sub hertz isoaltion stand for the Mapleshade, and naked Quad 57s I used the water lubrication system for playing vinyl records, you know with that little red roller do dad from Audio Technica. There really is NO substitute for playing records wet. Thus, I don't understand why anyone would not favor a bit of lubrication. Now, whether or not MRC would actually act as a lubricant who knows. Apparently we don't even know if MRC is involved at this point.