Dear Timothy,
Many thanks for that extremely enlightening contribution. I guess, to an extent, I’ve been trying to establish a relationship between low “quiescent” noise and the acceptable cleanliness/playability of the groove. Also at the opposite end of the scale, establish MRAs effects on trackability, since the stylus is more likely to disconnect altogether during the more “energetic” sections of the programme if there is harmful interference. One would think that if you “aced” both of these it would be Happy Hour(!) however, summarising what we’ve seen so far, Doug has cautioned that celebrating low noise performance may be a naïve view with his assertion that noise is lowered progressively with less imperfect cleaning that rears its ugly head again at the “quantum” level when one has achieved a cleaning regime with the highest possible degree of perfection.
For those who see cleaning as a “non-negotiable” option, we seem to have adopted the mindset or perception that MRA is “alien” to the vinyl and should be removed at all costs (and that “once it’s gone it’s gone”) even though we’ve firmly established it as a component which (most likely) makes an appearance whenever the vinyl is heated i.e. I’ve been inviting conjecture as to whether this could also apply to the effect of the stylus itself when it melts the groove during the playback process. No one has responded to that prospect yet ;^).
Let’s theorise for a moment and assume that Occam’s Razor isn’t as straightforward as it appears (extreme cleaning = fresh low-level noise =end of story). Suppose the vinyl is not melting and reforming during replay but the MRA itself is and this MRA acts as a thermal interface and a thermal barrier to the vinyl.
Therefore it’s possible Doug has succeeded in ultimately cleaning the groove only to find that the groove goes through a partial regeneration of MRA on the first play – because this time the stylus is in contact with the vinyl and not the MRA, which creates noise as a by-product from more “intimate” clean groove contact rather than the LP “enjoying” existing MRA as an interface and not feeling the need to create much additional MRA…
But what happens then?
Doug puts the album back on the shelf content in the knowledge that the first play was satisfactory (but slightly noisy) until the second play finds the MRA partially restored to its former glory….?
I’ve never cleaned new records to the depth that Doug has so I can’t say how that second replay would pan out.... ;^)
Of course this is an aside to the rumoured possibility that MRA is continuously exuded for years afterwards! (But did they consider that the stylus temperature might be the reason if MRA isn’t as much of a barrier as I’ve just suggested???)
So, in the end, it’s not so much the inevitability of MRA existing but whether cleaning can help in situations where there is, perish the thought, too much of it or the chemistry of the LP is flawed i.e. to the extent that such material interferes with peak level tracking? My suspicion is that there can occasionally be too much of it (bad chemistry) and the answer to that may be yes but I’m not hearing any examples in the current batches as yet.
Enter your text ...