Results from Beta Testers of New Formulas

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.

For sake of clarity, when i mentioned "air drying" the disc, i didn't mean to apply the solution and let it dry on the disc via exposure to air. I meant that one should clean the disc as one normally would i.e. applying the solution and removing it as best possible and THEN letting it air dry. My thoughts about this were that if someone were to clean the disc and then put it back into a sleeve while still damp / wet, "bad things" might happen. A paper sleeve could bond to the moisture and / or a plastic sleeve could trap the moisture, producing what would probably be a warm, dark, moist area for bacteria to grow. Allowing the disc to dry thoroughly prior to inserting it back into the sleeve would remove any chance of either of these happening. By no means did i mean to leave the solution & "crud" on the disc to dry by the air. Sorry if this caused any confusion. Sean
>

Thanks for the input Slipknot. I have a lot of old LPs that might be in need of such a solution. I just don't have an LP player at the moment to test the stuff out with.

Based on Slipknot's report I am left wondering which of the two parts had the most impact on cleaning the record. This is purely a guess on my part but I would suspect that the enzyme solution may give the greatest improvement since enzymes are reported to get those nasty protein/mold deposits. I suspect this based on what I have read from users of other enzyme cleaners. Would any of you guys with the samples do a comparision test using the enzyme solution on both and a different second cleaning solution?