Results from Beta Testers of New Formulas

Jjmali,
As you can see, Mr. Frumkin himself is open to suggestions and ideas from others, and has just explained some of his safety testing in response to Sean. If the thread starter is willing to respond constructively then by definition the post was useful.

I will of course honor your request by never offering any thoughts or suggestions on any thread of yours. Now that I understand your sensitivities, I wouldn't dream of intruding on your private space.

Hope you enjoy talking to yourself,
Doug

ANOTHER PRECAUTION:

This was on the prior thread, but I should repeat it here.

1. Do not use the formulas on 78s. They are made of shellac, and the isopropyl might dissolve them.

2. I also have no experience with acetates, and therefore cannot comment at all about the formulas' safety on acetates.

3. Lastly, do not use a natural bristle brush with the enzymatic solution. Natural bristle = hair = protein ... and the enzymatic is designed to dissolve protein deposits. Hence, over time, the enzymatic would dissolve the natural bristle ... and perhaps leave its remnants on your vinyl.

Please feel free to write with any questions or concerns. Again, I look forward to the testers' feedback. Thanks!

Best regards,
Paul Frumkin

Do you recommend a carbon fibre brush? If so, which? They all seem to be intended for dry brushing.

Hi Jyprez,

Carbon fiber brushes have advantages and disadvantages. On the plus side, carbon fibers have incredibly small diameter. They are therefore capable of going deeper into the grooves. But even carbon fibers are not capable of brushing most modulations in the grooves -- high frequency modulations are so small that they're measured in the same units as are lightwaves: microns (one one-millionth of a meter).

Further, carbon fibers are so soft that they provide very little "scrubbing" action. Further, most of the cleaning occurs because of the agitation of the cleaning fluid, and not because of direct brush-into-groove contact. The softness of carbon fibers makes them not very effective agitators.

I tried using a carbon fiber brush for a while with the cleaning solutions, thinking (as perhaps you are thinking now) that their small diameter would allow better penetration into the grooves. I concluded that their drawbacks outweighed the advantages; it also didn't let the fluid flow on the LP very well, and acted more like a squeegee than a brush. I used the Audioquest carbon fiber brush. Perhaps another brush -- such as the Hunt EDA Mark 6 (whose fibers are "backed up" by a velvet-like bar) -- might be more effective.

Certainly, nothing was harmed by using the carbon fiber brush that I could tell. If you try one or more carbon fiber brushes, I think all of us would be interested in your results. FYI, I contacted Audioquest with this very question before trying their carbon fiber brush with the solutions. Their terse response was that their brush was meant to be used dry.

Best regards,
Paul Frumkin

Here are some VERY EARLY initial impressions of Paul's cleaning solutions. Disclaimer: I have no connection to Mr. Frumkin other than to try his product and offer my observations. Also, keep in mind that this first impression is based on using the samples for the first time.
The solution samples come in two bottles, with written instructions for application, which I have followed.
The first solution to be applied is an "enzymatic" which I assume is a "crud buster" pre-wash. This is applied to the LP then vacumned off.
The second solution is an LP washer. Applied with a different brush than the first fluid and vacumned off. The directions specify NOT using a natural bristle brush for the enzymatic fluid which I followed.
Now- for the results: The first LP I tried it on has quite a bit of surface noise due to age and perhaps prior abuse (I bought it used). I cleaned one side with my usual RRL fluids on my 16.5 RCM and played it. Then I recleaned it with the sample cleaning fluids and played it again. The surface noise was significantly lower and the run-in and run-out groove noise was much more silent and black.
Next, I played a recently cleaned disc that is in really good shape with very low surface noise, taking note of string tones, stray pops and clicks, etc. Then I treated it with Paul's two-step cleaner and replayed it. The pops and clicks were gone and it seemed to me that the rough edge I have always heard on the violins on this recording were much less strident and more rounded and "rosin-ness".
As another test, I cleaned an LP my usual way, then recleaned it with the new stuff. Even though the LP was thoroughly clean, a re-cleaning showed more grunge in the runoff after using the review samples.
These observations are very early in the game for me, and, I am interested to see if there will be any changes to the vinyl over the long term due to the use of the "enzymatic" solution. Time will tell. This I will say: the stuff works people! It cleans great, it reduces surface noise greatly, and it seems to add a certain "sweetness" to the music on the discs I experimented with thus far. These were orchestral and jazz trio works. I will experiment further and report more findings as I get more use of the product. My impressions thus far are positive.