Any advice on buying quality vinyl

I will add that cleaning older records is very difficult because of several factors, including the fact that, according to a paper I read published by SHURE, the stylus running at 33-1/3 rpm’s contacts two microscopically small points on the groove walls. The pressure on these points of contact is approx. 26 tons per square inch. The implications of this are obvious for stylus wear. However, I believe (no proof yet) this same pressure, and the heat of friction on the groove walls, also momentarily softens the vinyl and causes debris to stick to the groove walls. Normal cleaning methods have a tough time removing that debris.

Also, this same article talks about the effect on the stylus causing wear "flats" that act like chisels that fracture the vinyl wall. The wave crests created by this condition also contributes to a worsening of the reproduction, but my opinion is that the tiny shattered vinyl bits get stuck in the bottom of the grooves where they are very difficult to remove with micro-fiber pads. Perhaps this is why playing a record shortly after cleaning dredges out the stubborn stuff. I used a very fine-tipped, and inexpensive, conical stylus for my "play-cleaning".

The paper was originally published in 1954 when cartridges ran at higher weights and styli were not as good as we now enjoy but, many older records could be very hard to clean because of the playing that they saw early in their life.

Too much information perhaps, but I find this stuff very interesting....

@edgewear, 

I applaud your cleaning procedures. I have never tried Vinylzyme. Residual organic (mold) could be the source of the running noise I am hearing on older RCA records. I have been trying to mechanically agitate all the crud out with various materials and procedures. I have kept everything manual but have tried ultrasonic machines and I don't think they are worth the money for the result- even though the science is very compelling. I have avoided using targeted chemistry as an aid because I wanted to keep the cleaning fluid I use very simple: Dawn and distilled water. No alcohol. No wetting agents. Maybe its time to experiment. Thanks.  

@playpen, 
I like your tenacity. I think the reason the cleaned records may have sounded horrible after cleaning was that the embedded debris had its bond broken by the detergents and maybe the change in the electrical charge- enough to be dredged out by your stylus. I have found the same to be true which is why I mentioned earlier that I actually use a turntable to "play-clean" as part of my method. 

My apologees to the OP for hijacking this thread.  

I have found in discussions that there is a need for clarifying terms.

I use "original pressings" to describe ED1 or original releases.

I use "first stampers" to describe the first stamper sets in a run. Later releases and recuts can also have first stampers. Also, I think first pressings of Columbia and RCA releases don’t always use "1A" in the deadwax.

As I said earlier, for me, pressing order has the biggest effect on the sonics, besides condition, and there’s no way to know the pressing order except if you look for white label promos with the right matrix numbers. In general. WL promos are worth the hunt because the sonics seem to be better.

I agree with the consensus. Clean, clean, clean.

I use an ultrasonic lab grade machine, running at 80KHz, in a 45C chemistry of lab grade detergent, followed by heroic rinsing in distilled water.

Yes, it's expensive, but the results can be quite spectacular - I would say at least as much as doubling the price of a major component. Added to that, the grunge that is removed (which includes diamond dust) is no longer grinding and reshaping your stylus, so in case of an expensive retip, the US setup is virtually free.

Those tube based recordings from the golden age of stereo are incredibly lifelike, no argument there. Less (technology) was more. But the mastering equipment had a limited frequency range, so records made in those days could not approach the sonic quality of the master tape. This gap narrowed considerably in 1968, when Neumann introduced a new disc cutting lathe (the SX-68) able to reproduce up to 20kHz. Unfortunately recording technology also changed drastically with the introduction of solid state multitracking (and multimiking). More (technology) became less.

According to your information RCA’s Dynagroove system was tailored to low end systems with spherical tips, just when elliptical tips were becoming more mainstream (the 60’s was a spherical world). This does indeed suggest they bended over to their marketing division. Dynaflex was the thin icing on the cake.

As for those supposedly noisy early LSC’s, I decided to do a little experiment. I remembered I have two pressings of one of their sonic spectaculars: the complete Albeniz Iberia from 1961, conducted by Jean Morel. I have both the LSC 6094 shaded dog (Indy pressing with 1S,1S,1S,3S lacquers) and the SB-2131/32 (3D,2D,2D,3D lacquers) mastered and pressed by UK Decca, who had a licensing agreement with RCA. Both copies are near mint condition, they both went through the same cleaning procedure and were both played with a Transfiguration Proteus MC cartridge. The experiment showed that both pressings have completely silent backgrounds. Sonically they were very close as well, but I’d give the edge to the LSC. It has slightly more dynamic range and is definitely more controlled in the loudest tutti passages.

What would be responsible for the difference: better tape source, better mastering or perhaps better vinyl?