Results from Beta Testers of New Formulas

Psychic,

I think you said "clean water is better" but damn if I can tell!!! Thanks for the compliment, too.

Paul,

I hope you know I was kidding about the bottles (sorta!). I think the frugal use may be the culprit. I am using more RRL, just because I have more. I think I've got enough left to finish the sonics test. I've been listening all day today, and finally got through the first 9 albums.

I may be getting ahead of myself here, but I do have a definite opinion on one of the albums. I bought the CBS Mastersound Pink Floyd Wish You Were Here new in 1980. I paid $14.95 for it, the sticker is still there. I can honestly say that the album has never sounded as good as it does now. I tend to dislike most of the adjectives used to describe sound. But here, I guess the one I would use is, it just sounds more right. For the rest of my opinions, wait and see....

Joe

Just talked to Paul Frumkin on the phone, courtesy of MCI's The Neighborhood program...

From our conversation (and posted results) I can tell that Paul is definitely on the right track on how to achieve proper record cleaning. Making ultrapure water is a specialty subject indeed, but I convinced him that using it in the mixing of his #2 solution would improve results by no small margin. Clean water IS better, Jphii. The thing is that ultrapure water does not behave like reverse osmosis nor distilled water. There comes a point in purity where the water turns into a powerful solvent (that's why it's used in steam blows in plants). Just ultrapure water in steam form is a powerful cleaner. Maybe in a cleaner future you can Beta test two batches of #2 mixed w/ distilled water and ultrapure water, respectively. We'll see, things look good.

Where's Raoul?

***

I just wanted to add one thing that I am trying tonight. Since the #1 solution is an enzymatic formula, and Paul has left it on albums for extended periods without harm, I have decided to leave it on after I spread it on the lp, but before brushing, for a couple of minutes. I figure this may help loosen the debris that is in the grooves.

I did this on an lp, and it seems to make the runoff even dirtier. So I am assuming this is a good thing. Said lp does sound very good, too, which is after all the whole point.

I wonder if the wonder water would help loosen this stuff and make it easier to remove? I know the difference between distilled & RO water, after so many years around boats. Boaters love RO water, but I can see your point here, Psychic. The ultrapure stuff is beyond me! So, I called a buddy of mine who runs the steam plant at East Carolina University, and he confirmed what Psychic said. Now, remember, this was not because I doubted what you said. It just never hurts to have a second opinion. I have no problems deferring to experts (except Raoul, of course).

More to come as I finish my testing and finalize the review.

Psychicanimal's knowledge of water chemistry is amazing. He convinced me of the benefits of ultra-pure water, and I can pursue using ultra-pure water for the small amounts of water which get added to a cleaner formula concentrate.

But because of the relative unavailability of deionized ultra-pure water, folks who want an ultra-pure water based cleaner formula will need to either (1) purchase the concentrate AND their own dionizing equipment, or (2) purchase the cleaner formula in non-concentrate, ready-to-use form, and incur the expense of shipping water, albeit ultra-pure water.

I'll look into deionizing equipment on Monday, and report back.

Best regards,
Paul

Here's my report for today. I replaced the vacuum pad on my Nitty Gritty and used two new Last brushes. I also transferred Paul's two formulas into new plastic bottles with drip spouts.

The records for this test were purchased today at an estate sale. They are:

Tony Bennett "Who Can I Turn To", Columbia CS 9085
The Doors "The Soft Parade", Elektra EKS-75005
Otis Redding "The Dock Of The Bay" Volt S-419

My usual cleaning ritual begins with wiping the records with an old cleaning brush wetted with distilled water. I then follow the directions provided by RRL with the Deep Cleaner and the Vinyl Wash using the Nitty Gritty. I did this with all three albums and listened to each very carefully, making note of areas that were problematic.

I then used Paul's formulas and followed his instructions again on the Nitty Gritty with new brushes. Additional residue was visible on the new brushes, especially the brush used to apply the enzyme fluid. This surprised me since I was very careful with the first cleanings using the RRL products. Any reasoned person would assume that there was a chance I didn't get all the grunge out of the grooves with the first cleaning. I just don't know for sure but suspect the enzyme cleaner was doing what it is supposed to do.

The results were better than I would have imagined. No, it doesn't fix scratches or vinyl defects. But, beyond a lowered noise floor more information came through. I don't think this was an imaginary phenomenon or wishful thinking on my part. It's real. The Doors album was in near perfect condition. After using the RRL products there was some (although very little) crackling in addition to the stylus in the groove noise associated with a generic American pressing of that era. After cleaning with Paul's formula there was no crackling at all. Zip, nada, nothing but stylus drag on generic vinyl.

I normally use Gruv Glide because of the felt mat lifting with the record. For these three albums I decided not to introduce Gruv Glide in the process assuming I would just deal with the hassle of a lifted felt mat to give the fairest of comparrisons. Yes, the mat lifted with the RRL products and surprise, surprise, it didn't lift with Paul's formula. Only time will tell if this is a lasting consequence of this potential product.

Small things make a difference in this hobby. A perfect example is the Tony Bennett album. On the first listen and being very familar with this album I was very pleased that I had found such a nice copy of an album that was made circa 1960. I have plans to give it as a gift. With the second listen using Paul's formulas I discoverd there were three instruments that stood out from the full orchestra more than before. They were the piano, bass and drums. This was The Ralph Sharon Trio who was Tony Bennett's touring band. It's not surprising that they were more pronounced than the rest of the musicians since it was probably recorded that way, being as they were the basis of his sound inside and outside of the recording studio. This gave the recording a layered effect in depth that we all try to find in better recordings.

I've posted many times about purification of water and believe that this formula would benefit from ultra pure water. I have access to such water locally due to friends in the computer chip manufacturing business and used it with my home brew solution prior to embracing RRL products. For the record, RRL is great stuff. I've been using their stylus cleaner for better than 15 years and consider their record cleaning products to be top drawer. Paul's two step cleaning fluids have the edge in my opinion and not by a small amount. The difference is significant but not what I would say is huge.

I have no affiliation with Paul whatsoever. I'm not going to invest in his company or attempt to become a distributor. I would like to buy some of the concentrate whenever it becomes available. I would like to use a few drops more than he suggests but since I have so little I'll continue to apply as sparingly as he suggests. I will report back on one of our dryest days to tell the crowd if the anti-static properties remain.