Record-playing Rituals?

Longplate, I'm with you on the Linn Issue. The fact that they have sold this line of BS through the years is an amazing marketing acomplishment. The only so-so construction and nightmarishly difficult adjustment setup, coupled with the lack of the 45RPM speed is unacceptable, in my view. The table is too lightweight in construction for the asking price. It's fundamental resonance ,if I recall, was too high at around 8 or 9 Hz.
Detlof, your point was also valid about the table sounding better than the mid 70s competition. I remember the shows where they would smoke all the competition (mostly japanese direct drive). It was only $525.00 back then.(They used Kieth Monks flip top tonearms for ease of comparison..marketing geniouses)
Ivor's philosophy has been a radically different one, but its more based on Religion than anything else IMO.........Frank

Life IS difficult and that of an audiophile often more!
Why you may ask? Well, thanks to the Albert's kindness I was happily testing the RR unctions and found them to be really convincing in giving a better soundstage both in width and depth and a beter clarity of the overall sound.... until, well, until I struck upon an old, old Louis Armstrong Stereo LP at a garage sale, eagerly took it home and played the first side, just after brushing it off a bit. I fell into a state of bliss, as I heard the old trumpet-genius's voice rasping away between the speakers, savouring the brilliance of the horns, the tapping of feet, the backstage murmurings. Then I gave side two the RR treatment and truly the magic was gone. The voice lost its bite, the contours of it were truly washed out ( pun intended), the soundstage though bigger, was much less precise in the delineation of instruments. A sad disappointment. So what is the explanation ? I don't know.
It may be, that side one and side two were mastered differently, though I doubt that. Perhaps its a question of the vinyl. As I said, it was a very early stereo LP. Has anybody got an explanation? Anyway, I generally have found, that cleaning Lps thoroughly before playing is beneficial to its rendering along several important parameters. This is the first time, that I was forced to realise, that this is obviously not always the case. Maybe those guys who maintain, that washing Lp's is detrimental to the sound, are not as tinnyeared of preculiar as I was tempted to assume.
Regards,

Detlof, that is a very interesting situation that has happened to you. I am not certain I have any better explanation, but would like to offer the following.

Usually, only the best new releases, such as the 45 RPM reissues from Classic Records, do not benefit from a cleaning with the RR fluids. Perhaps the extra care afforded to these specialty LP's make cleaning either unnecessary, or at least (in some cases) less important.

Perhaps the old LP you had was pressed differently on one side, as you suggested. Another more likely situation is that it was overplayed. When that LP was new, and popular, many people were still using Scotch tape to fasten coins to the turntables tonearm. This was often the remedy when a new stylus was needed. It would only require one time with an auto play turntable left unattended to destroy the delicate material. I know of times in my youth when families left an LP on as background music, letting it play for hours on the same side. A brand new turntable with the best cartridge will damage an LP if that policy is followed. Back then, it would take little more than once with a coin taped in place.

Please continue to test, especially with newer and more predictable pressings. The RR fluid is manufactured from lab grade water, and VERY little cleaner. The active ingredient is carbon based, and contains no alcohol, detergents or lubricants. If properly vacuumed (VPI) I cannot imagine that there is much left except the vinyl surface.

It is possible that the LP was treated with a silicone spray or cloth (popular long ago) and the through washing removed all the coatings that had accumulated. In theory, that should have provided an improvement, but as with all things in high end, the strangest things do happen. Please keep us up to date on your progress, and thanks for sharing the test results so far.

Albert, thankyou for your excellent reasoning and your extraordinary experience, which you so openly share with us. Much food for thought indeed! Yes, I'll keep on experimenting and will post it here in due course.
Warm regards to all!

Well, I've been busy experimenting and my new findings are still not carved in stone but here goes: The RR treatment seems excellent for large orchestral works such as RCA shaded dogs with Reiner and the Chicago Philharmonics. There is not only a noticeable difference in width and depth of soundstage between treated and untreated sides of the same LP, but the overall sound seems richer and more lush. Strings and horns especially just seem to have more bloom. A contrary experience was with an old Verve Stereo with Ella Fitzgerald, "Clap hands here comes Charlie", which I had newly bought and where my findings were quite similar to the old Satchmo LP I had written about before. The one side, which I had treated, sounded fine, but there was no real definition of the soundspace of the accompanying instruments. Ella's voice and the rest of the band seemed to be on just one horizontal plane. There was no depth to write home about. The untreated side, though generally more dry in its rendering, showed definite layering of the different instruments, with Ella firmly placed in her own soundspace. The rendering was less lush, but in a sense more realistic with the various instruments playing around her. Also her voice was better definied, much like Armstrongs'voice seemed better to me untreated. So I am still puzzled and will keep on trying to find out if its all in the mind or if there is a reasonable basis to my findings.
Cheers to all,