Results from Beta Testers of New Formulas

Would it also make sense to clean some records with Paul's formulas first, listen to them, then re-clean with RRL and listen again? You might learn if the benefits change or if they're due to double cleaning vs. particular solutions.

Just some suggestions from a lazy guy in the cheap seats!

Hi DougDeacon,

That was one of my points - do it both ways, all ways...for the reason you mentioned.

Hi Kurt,
We must have posted almost simultaneously. Yours wasn't there when I was writing.

Great minds thinking alike perhaps? Naw, we even missed the entrance exam!

Doug

This is very interesting. The vinyl enthusiatsts are all worked up about a method of reducing surface noise, which, I was told in a previous thread, doesn't exist.

Some further observations: using the enzymatic 1st stage, then using my usual RRL as the wash stage rather than the 2nd stage wash STILL results in a much more dynamic sound.
The "edginess" being gone I spoke of in my previous post should not be taken to mean that there was a rolling off of HF information ala Gruvglide or even LAST. Both those products tend to leave a film on the LP (Gruvglide is a lubricant). The enzymatic does not film up, comes up very well with the RCM making the LP very receptive to the wash cycle. Both with Paul's washer solution and with RRL. At this juncture, I think I prefer Paul's. For the next round of testing, I intend to treat the LP's, play them, then rewash in my traditional way with RRL and see what develops. Perhaps also begin throwing a distilled water rinse into the mix as a third step. Any testers doing this yet?
Anyone interested in what music is being used during my testing can follow my posts on the "What's On Your Turntable Tonight?" thread: [url]http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?gmusi&1078448878&openusid&zzSlipknot1&4&5#Slipknot1[/url]