record cleaning findings/puzzle

Excellent experiment. Thanks for the interesting results and questions.

I assume there is a sonic print to my solution, is achohol typically bright/harsh sounding?

There may be a sonic residue from either of your methods, but it won't be from the alchohol. Whatever alchohol your RCM doesn't vacuum off has evaporated long before you actually play the record.

Between the 2, at first I found the steamed ones to sound more organic, maybe slightly rolled off in the highs, but just warmer and more detailed everywhere else except the highs.

When I play the Alcohol only, cleaned record the highs are more present/forward, and noticeable, but upon further listening I notice a lack of depth because of it. trick details.

More extended highs are not "trick details". They're real details and the sign of a cleaner record. "Warmer" sound (if due to a different cleaning method) is likely the result of residue on the LP acting to dampen stylus movements. That's perfectly fine if that's the sound you like, but don't fool yourself as to which method is getting the record cleaner.

If HF's are more extended but sound harsh, odds are the problem is that some component(s) in your system is(are) unable to reproduce clear HF's. Other things being equal, greater HF extension is a sign of a cleaner LP. Think about it: whatever residue a cleaning method leaves behind, it will fill in the smallest groove modulations first and most completely. A very thin layer of residue may have little effect on how the stylus sees the long, deep modulations that produce deep bass or big dynamics, but it may easily fill in the tiny modulations that produce high frequencies or micro-dynamic shadings, preventing the stylus from seeing those at all.

NOTE: do not use an Audioquest or any other CF brush for wet cleaning. The bristles have a layer of varnish that some solutions can dissolve, leaving a layer on the LP. One visual clue that this is happening is if the CF bristles start "clumping" together after the brush is dry. The solution we've used that does this most quickly is AIVS's Ultra Pure Water Rinse. We initially thought the problem was with the water, but in fact it's the water's purity which lets it dissolve the varnish faster than other solutions we've used. We use AIVS UPW as our final rinse step, with an appropriate brush of course.

I then switched the cleaning methods for both records ( and others as well) and the sonic footprints followed each method onto each record. I did this back and forth 3 times with this pair and four times on another single record.

Excellent. That's how I test/compare different cleaning methods too. If you can do/undo/redo results than you can eventually figure out what's happening.

FWIW, my results with steam cleaning matched Elinor's. I use my steamer for bathroom tiles, it's way less effective than my vinyl cleaning regimen for LP's.

Doug, I will try it again today, but what I refer to as trick details are the hf being pushed forward. Hearing the " tssh" of a symbol out front and the rest of the body of cymbal is back in the soundstage where it is supposed to be. You notice the hf detail and think there is more detail, but it's just out of place.
With the steaming method I think the details were all there, more in fact across the whole spectrum, but most importantly the sound as a whole was more real and natural.
If you think the alcohol would produce a cleaner record, I will try it on another couple pairs of doubles and report back. Maybe the dawn leaves a residue, of the cf brush ( I just ordered a vpi brush)
Sometimes hearing the differences is the easy part, it's deciding which is the right or real sound, or even which one you prefer that drives me mad.

Maybe with the steam the grooves are cleaner. I read that the high frequencies are higher in the groove wall, so maybe the steam cleans further down the groove and allows the detail from the rest of the spectrum to match the level of the hf, therefore sounding even and not accentuated in the highs. I mentioned I thought it sounded slightly rolled off at first, upon further listening, the highs are still there, but the mids and bass are more detailed as well. It doesn't sound damped, it sounds more open and lifelike???

I'll report back when I get the new brush.

I didn't say alchohol would produce a cleaner record. I said it wouldn't leave a sonic signature.

I use an alchohol step in my regimen for only one reason: to de-nature any enzymes left behind by my first cleaning step, which involves a soak in an enzyme-based solution. If I weren't using enzymes I wouldn't use alchohol. Like Audiofeil, I haven't found it to be particularly effective as an LP cleaning agent.

"The high frequencies are higher on the groove wall"? What????

Ya sorry, it appears maybe I am higher. So much reading and info on the googlegon net sometimes I mix and match facts. Thanks for the clarification.

i have found steaming does improve the quality of the cleaning regime i use but i do not use it on all applications. I also use a home made version using alcohol similar to yours and find it effective especially with steaming. IMO, the steaming raises the temperature of the cleaning fluid slightly thus making it more effective. The alcohol primarily reduces the surface tension and allows the fluid to get deeper into the groove. It does aid in evaporation, but i think that is a minor attribute especially with vacuuming. I also think the use of good brushes are a key to cleaning. a brush that has the microfibers that can extend deep into the groove improves cleaning. Now having said all of this, i find the highs more improved with deep cleaning than anything else. If you have ever pick up a dust ball or little grundge on the stylus, you probably noticed it when the highs got lost or distorted. So i echo dougs comments that if a cleaning regime produces brighter highs, it is more effective.