Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site watmath.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!mabarnstijn
From: mabarnstijn@watmath.UUCP (Michael A. Barnstijn)
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: record preservatives
Message-ID: <5904@watmath.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 5-Oct-83 10:44:09 EDT
Article-I.D.: watmath.5904
Posted: Wed Oct  5 10:44:09 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Oct-83 12:02:11 EDT
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 19

Ok, people!  Just what is supposed to be the problem with record preservatives?
I've been using Sound Guard record preservative for three years now and am
very satisfied with what it does for me: it reduces record wear
(records i had for only a year before i started using SG sound much worse
 than the treated albums i've played often in these last 3 years)
AND it reduces static so much that you'd swear they had an anti-static field!
Well, a little bit of hyperbole.  But in all, i'm happy with the apparent
reduction in wear and the definite reduction in static build-up after treatment
(even ~2 years after SG treating, the anti-stat still works).
But now, SG isn't available up here in the Great White North, and i've been
hearing nasty things about record preservatives.  Apparently, though, there's
new stuff out called "LAST".  Anyone heard of it?

So what's wrong with record preservatives?  For those who have used them 
and liked them, what's right?  Let's find out what you think.


Michael A. Barnstijn, Dept. of Comp. Sci., University of Waterloo, Canada
...!{allegra|decvax|utcsgrv|utzoo|sunybcs|...}!watmath!mabarnstijn