I'll never use a Ultrasonic cleaner for CD's

[GregWormald]

I haven't got a CD where the dirt disrupts the sound (AFAIK) so US cleaning has never been thought of by me.

 

This is unlike vinyl where US cleaning of even 'clean' LPs has revealed music that has eluded me for decades!

 

I'm glad the music is still there. Could you download a pic of the label and re-print it yourself?

Edited September 11, 2021 by GregWormald

[muon*]

Easier for me to find another one in my travels.

 

There is a thread on SNA where some people are cleaning their CD's with these things, and getting a better playback result after.

[bob_m_54]

9 hours ago, muon* said:

Well what do ya know, it play OK it seems, at least so far and on track 10 of a 13 track CD, so apparently OK apart from labeling.

 

I like being corrected when I'm misleading myself like I have done here with this.

 

Thanks for the prodding guys, as now I can listen to this extended version while looking for a replacement

 

Edit: Still won't risk CD's in the USC if there is a chance labeling is going to be damaged like this.

Good to hear mate And yes, just a bit of detergent and warm water is perfect. I would have been surprised if the US cleaner damaged the data layer, but it sure mucked up the label eh.

 

Back when CDs first came out, my old man used to sell home audio gear for one of the retailers in Toowoomba. He used to demonstrate how durable they were, by putting the CD on the floor (carpet) and standing on it. Then it would still play perfectly... Till one day he stuffed up and put it on the carpet label side up, and did the same... Yeah well he was a bit red faced... LOL

[Addicted to music]

16 hours ago, bob_m_54 said:

Good to hear mate And yes, just a bit of detergent and warm water is perfect. I would have been surprised if the US cleaner damaged the data layer, but it sure mucked up the label eh.

 

Back when CDs first came out, my old man used to sell home audio gear for one of the retailers in Toowoomba. He used to demonstrate how durable they were, by putting the CD on the floor (carpet) and standing on it. Then it would still play perfectly... Till one day he stuffed up and put it on the carpet label side up, and did the same... Yeah well he was a bit red faced... LOL

You’ll find that’s not the case today.
 

 Initially when CD came out they use to sandwich the data layer with a protective clear plastic so it doesn’t get damaged(Basic CD specs).   You see that with the CDs. that we produced in the 80s, however they got cheap and nasty to reduced cost and to get the production line  cycle constantly on.   Now  days they have done away for cost reduction so the data layer is now exposed, some reason that by saying that the ink label will protect the data layer!  So treat them with respect and always make a copy or rip it to HDD.    

There’s a Government Dept that tested these to destruction and at the time only buy one brand for data distribution.   

[emesbee]

Usually a careful wipe with a clean damp cloth is all you need to do to clean a CD. All my CDs are stored in their cases and handled by their edges, so very rarely need cleaning anyway.

 

[LogicprObe]

 

Good work!

 

It's just crap label quality.

They always look to save money somewhere.

[GC HiFi]

I purchased a Aldi CD US cleaner a couple of years back and tried it, did it make a difference to sq? To my ears yes, but mainly not a good difference, if anything nearly everything I cleaned started to sound a bit thin with less midrange compared to how it sounded originally, after cleaning about half a dozen CD's the cleaner was put in the cupboard never to be seen again.

 

It might have just been my imagination about the difference to sq but after six odd CD's I wasn't prepared to go any further.

 

cheers,

Terry

[bob_m_54]

8 hours ago, GC HiFi said:

I purchased a Aldi CD US cleaner a couple of years back and tried it, did it make a difference to sq? To my ears yes, but mainly not a good difference, if anything nearly everything I cleaned started to sound a bit thin with less midrange compared to how it sounded originally, after cleaning about half a dozen CD's the cleaner was put in the cupboard never to be seen again.

 

It might have just been my imagination about the difference to sq but after six odd CD's I wasn't prepared to go any further.

 

cheers,

Terry

Yeah, the only difference to sound quality would be if you had skips where dirt was causing the data to not be able to be read. As for soundstage, blackness, musicality etc.. etc... nup, can't make a difference.

[bob_m_54]

9 hours ago, Addicted to music said:

You’ll find that’s not the case today.
 

 Initially when CD came out they use to sandwich the data layer with a protective clear plastic so it doesn’t get damaged(Basic CD specs).   You see that with the CDs. that we produced in the 80s, however they got cheap and nasty to reduced cost and to get the production line  cycle constantly on.   Now  days they have done away for cost reduction so the data layer is now exposed, some reason that by saying that the ink label will protect the data layer!  So treat them with respect and always make a copy or rip it to HDD.    

There’s a Government Dept that tested these to destruction and at the time only buy one brand for data distribution.   

The protective layer is UV cured lacquer that is squirted onto the top of the CD, over the sputtered aluminium layer, around the centre of the disc, then spun out to the edges of the CD. I haven't heard of the lacquer being omitted all together, but maybe lesser quality lacquer has been used. You can see on the clear label type CD, where only the text is printed, that some of them get pits, which allows moisture to eventually penetrate and cause spider web like corrosion, That could be due to crappy lacquer.

 

One thing for sure, the label side is far more fragile than the data side.

[BLAH BLAH]

18 hours ago, LogicprObe said:

 

Good work!

 

It's just crap label quality.

They always look to make money somewhere.

Fixed...

[GC HiFi]

14 hours ago, bob_m_54 said:

Yeah, the only difference to sound quality would be if you had skips where dirt was causing the data to not be able to be read. As for soundstage, blackness, musicality etc.. etc... nup, can't make a difference.

 

Hi Bob,

 

Personally I can only judge by what I heard which is it did make a difference, but as I said in my case not a positive one.

 

I'll ask have you ever had a before and after listening session with a CD that was so called 'cleaned' in a Ultrasonic cleaner?

 

cheers,

Terry

[bob_m_54]

Just now, GC HiFi said:

 

Hi Bob,

 

Personally I can only judge by what I heard which is it did make a difference, but as I said in my case not a positive one.

 

I'll ask have you ever had a before and after listening session with a CD that was so called 'cleaned' in a Ultrasonic cleaner?

 

cheers,

Terry

No.. but if you know how a laser pickup works, and disk error correction, you'll see why it can't make a difference. Remember, it's only data stored on the disc, not an analog audio signal, like tape or vinyl.

[muon*]

But it needs a clear view of that data and if the disk has a film of whatever from handling ect', maybe it does help.

 

Just postulating why it might make an audible difference, I really do not know.

 

I always bet each way, if I do bet

 

BTW gambling is bad, mmkay

Edited September 13, 2021 by muon*
Damn typo!

[LogicprObe]

 

Like Bob says, the error correction for CDs is fabulous.

Only eight bits from 16 is music, the rest is error correction. 

(by memory)

[LogicprObe]

 

Interesting article.

 

https://www.stereophile.com/features/827/index.html

[fordute]

Not much else to say.

 

 

[fordute]

 

[Artnet]

Thank you for the links. The second one is definitely longer.

It does get me thinking about the nature of plastic. I am no chemist or materials  expert but am curious about porosity of plastic and how this may effect dust and moisture accumulation.

It would seem ultrasonic cleaning could help in CD cleaning. Not sure why you would do it only once as suggested?

 

 

[audiofeline]

22 hours ago, fordute said:

Not much else to say.

 

 

She says "you cannot use a sponge because it will scratch your CD", but a clean sponge is softer than he fingers!  She then uses a cotton wool ball for the polishing with toothpaste section. 

 

She uses circular motions with her fingers on the CD, which could do more damage if she creates a circular scratch.  She should only be moving from the centre to the edge. 

 

At least she holds the CD correctly!

 

Having said that, a drop of detergent with some water to dilute it is how I clean CDs that have obvious dirt/fingerprints.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 14, 2021 by audiofeline

[bob_m_54]

8 hours ago, fordute said:

Not much else to say.

 

 

 

She's not far off, except:

 

1. Yes you do dry the CD, or you'll get watermarks, depending on the quality of your town water.

 

2. Never rub around the disc, always across the disc across the centre axis. If you leave scratches in the same line as the data tracks you can cause the data to not be able to be read, whereas the data read and error correction process is much more lenient where fine scratches are across the data tracks.

[bob_m_54]

13 hours ago, muon* said:

But it needs a clear view of that data and if the disk has a film of whatever from handling ect', maybe it does help.

 

Just postulating why it might make an audible difference, I really do not know.

 

I always bet each way, if I do bet

 

BTW gambling is bad, mmkay

the only difference to the sound will be either the laser can read the data, or it can't. If it can't you get an no disc error, so you won't hear anything. If you hear that scrabbly noise, or you get the loop repeat problem, then it's a scratch or specs of dirt.

 

If it can read the data... well it will sound the same whether the CD is filmy looking or not.

[bob_m_54]

6 hours ago, fordute said:

 

 

I wouldn't bother LOL.. And he's a bit dodgy in the way he wipes the CD, even though he is using a soft cloth with minimal pressure. But all it takes is one spec of grit on the cloth, wiping in the direction of the the tracks, as he does when he wipes either side of the spindle hole, and you can do enough damage so that the track can't be read. It is repairable, but it's a pain in the butt doing it by hand.

 

As for the statement about the cleaner it is, the better the sound quality... yeah? nah...

[bob_m_54]

6 hours ago, Artnet said:

Thank you for the links. The second one is definitely longer.

It does get me thinking about the nature of plastic. I am no chemist or materials  expert but am curious about porosity of plastic and how this may effect dust and moisture accumulation.

It would seem ultrasonic cleaning could help in CD cleaning. Not sure why you would do it only once as suggested?

 

 

 

https://www.bpf.co.uk/plastipedia/polymers/polycarbonate.aspx#properties

[Ian McP]

Exact Audio Copy can resurrect unplayable cd's

 

https://www.exactaudiocopy.de/

 

[bob_m_54]

Just now, Ian McP said:

Exact Audio Copy can resurrect unplayable cd's

 

https://www.exactaudiocopy.de/

 

Depends... it can read, re-read and keep re-reading, to get as much data back as possible. But if the damage is too great, like even a 3mm scratch over a data track, or a 1mm corrosion spot or flakeoff, it can't. But I agree, it is probably the best and most succesful ripping program. It's all I ever use.