The "Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation"

The "Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation"


I am providing this formulation for all who are interested in the very best, and can be proven and demonstrated to be the "Very Best". It can easily be made from available ingredients. On the surface, it appears to be very simple. However, it is based on extensive complex chemistry along with precise mathematical calculations and verifiable data.


You may use it with absolute confidence and be truly assured that it is beyond doubt the "Very Best". You may use it for your personal needs. Or, archival entities may use it for their purposes with confidence. Or, you may choose to start an enterprise that makes and packages quantities as either a "ready-to-use" or a "Semi-concentrated" version for sale and distribution knowing that nothing better exists. You have my blessings and encouragement with one condition. And, that is, that the pricing represents a "fair margin", and, not an obscene gouging, typical for such products.


Initially, I had prepared a presentation that briefly introduced myself, and provided the thought processes, design parameters, and the necessary basics of chemistry, physics, and mathematics to assure you and allow you to be absolutely confident in this formulation. I made a considerable effort to keep it as simple, but, also as thorough enough to achieve this confidence. However, that presentation entailed 5,239 words, typical of such a requirement, however, unacceptable in length by this website forum.


I have no option other than to offer the formulation as a 100% parts by weight version suitable to produce 1 Kilogram of the cleaner, and, invite you to question me about any aspect of the formulation.


Professionally, I am a Chemist, more specifically a Polyurethane Chemist. I have a Doctorate in Chemistry as well as two other Doctorates and a M.B.A.. I held prominent positions in significant corporations before being encouraged to start our (wife and I) manufacturing facility servicing those I previously worked for. We started, owned, and fully operated this business. We eventually obtained 85+% Market Share in our sector in Medical, Automotive, Sporting Goods, and Footwear areas before retirement.


The Audio Industry is extremely technical and many brilliant minds have contributed their talents over the decades in order that we may enjoy music today as we choose. Like many other technical industries, those of lesser minds and values invade the arena with their "magical" inspired revelations and offer their "magical" ingredients and items to all at extremely high prices. They promise that if only we are willing to part with our money - they can provide these items to you that make your audio system sound as if the orchestra, or vocalist, is in your room with you. And, after all, "magical items" must be expensive, otherwise, they would not be "magical".


This disturbs me enormously, and, it is for such reasons, I feel compelled to provide realistic and truthful information that conforms to basic Engineering, Chemistry, Physics, and Mathematical Principals in those areas with which I am very knowledgeable and familiar.


          "Ultimate Record Cleaner Solution"


   Ingredient                                          Amount by Weight (Grams)


Distilled Water                                     779.962


Ethyl Alcohol                                       220.000


Tergitol 15-S-7 (Dow Chemical)            0.038  (Approx. = 2 Drops)



Important and/or Relevant Criteria


1.)  Distilled Water ONLY. Do not use deionized, tap, rain, or spring water. Distilled Water is readily available in most grocery stores. Check labeling to be certain that it is distilled and not deionized. The pricing is comparable.


2.)  Ethanol must be purchased at a "Liquor Store" or a "Liquor Control Board" that is suitable for human consumption, and the appropriate taxes must be paid. This assures that the alcohol consists of only Ethyl Alcohol and water. You need to purchase the 95+% version, also known as 180+ Proof. NOTHING ELSE is acceptable. (100% Ethyl Alcohol is not available under "normal" circumstances). Denatured alcohol from a Hardware Store or elsewhere is PROHIBITED, as well as ANY other alcohols.


3.)  Tergitol 15-S-7 is made by Dow and is available on the internet in small quantities from Laboratory Supply Houses such as Fisher and Advance, etc.. I have no affiliations with either Dow Chemical, or Fisher, or Advance. You MUST use Tergitol 15-S-7 ONLY. No other Tergitol product is acceptable for this designed formula, and you need to acquire the undiluted form only.


4.)  The above cleaner formula will result in a non-foaming (VLF) Surfactant Formulation that exhibits the following:

            Surface Tension of 28.5 dynes/centimeter @ 20 C. (68.0 F.)

            Surface Tension of 28.2 dynes/centimeter @ 25 C. (77.0 F.)


5.). A Surface Tension of 28.5 dynes/centimeter is Remarkable and will properly clean records of all organic soilings, and all oily substances, as well as very significant amounts of inorganic soilings.  This available Surface Tension coupled with the Azeotropic Characteristics of very rapid evaporation and spotless drying occur because of the selection of Ethyl Alcohol and the very specific concentration determined as 22.00% p.b.w., further improves the products abilities.  The "Ease-of-Use" and "Spot-Free" results are to be accepted.


6.). Be aware that an "ideal temperature of use" also exists for this formulation.  And, that reasonable temperature is 40 C. (104.0 F.). Further increases in temperature offers no improvement, therefore, confirming the proper use of the term "ideal". I mention this not because of of any substantial improvement, but, only to be aware of its’ existence. And, if you have a choice to utilize a room that is warmer than another, select the warmer room closer to 104.0 F. There is no need to elevate the temperature of the records or the materials. Simply be aware that 104.0 F. Is ideal.


If interest is expressed in this submission, I am willing to provide additional submissions regarding other materials, and, other areas of interest.  Such as"Best Contact Substance", "Best lubricants for turntables", " Better Dampening Materials" for turntables and tonearms, and, most significantly, "Best" material for "Turntable Platter/Vinyl Record Interface" usually called "Record Mats". The last item will certainly disturb many individuals and anger many suppliers.


Whatever I may contribute is substantiated by Science and Testing, and Verifiable. Science has no Opinions. Opinions in these matters are best reserved for those who rely on their imagination and wishful thinking.


Also, I have no vested interests in this Industry. Simply possess some scientific knowledge that also relates to some aspects of the Audio Area, and I am willing to share that information if requested!



You do not offer any explanation as to "Why" it is not either a good or preferred material, other, than to make an issue that 7075 Aluminum alloy was first used in 1943.  You need to do better.

Are you "Age Biased", if so, you should also have a low opinion of "Diamonds" which were first known, and spoken of, to be made into a gemstones, because of their brilliance, beauty, and hardness very early in the 4th. Century B.C. (320 B.C. I believe).  Does this aspect render them now useless and undesirable?

Also, anodizing of Aluminum (Type I) was first discovered in 1923.  It is still in use today.  Besides we now also know that we can anodize Aluminum with other chemicals, not just Sulphuric Acid.  And, different resultants are produced with different chemical acceleration ingredients, very different. In 1943 the processes of extrusion and casting of Aluminum were in their developmental stages.  The process has a significant bearing on the end result.

Just because the same additional metals were recognized and designated as 7075 does not also make it the same as well.  Especially the concentration of Copper.  And the methodology of incorporation has varied.  Basically the 7075 of 1943 is not exactly the same as the 7075 of 2023.  Subtle, but nevertheless, somewhat different.

If you are to be critical, you need to present more details, and, you dispense with your "Age Bias". That is all I am saying.

I was not asked to explain my selection for a tonearm, only, what I would choose.  But you, on the other hand, are critical of my selection - that normally requires details and arguments of worth, not just to mention to development initiated in 1943.  That is insufficient as a "Criticism".



@wizzzard  on this matter of material type, I am not material prejudiced or critical.

I have heard Tonearms with different metals used as Wands from materials being Organic, Metallic and Composite. I myself don't see the Arm Wand as being the detriment of SQ, there is so much more that will impede the Tonearms optimised function. 

My own experiences to date are certainly leaving me with the certainty, that friction is 'a/the' debilitating factor in how a Tonearm is able to function, especially in allowing the Cart' to work to its optimised when interfacing with the Groove Modulation.   

I am for quite some time, familiar with Korg Investigations of materials and have over the past years been in occasional discussion, where Wand Materials, Wand Length and Damping Methods have taken place with individuals who have used their acquired  knowledge and skills from chosen careers to be thoroughly investigative, with the result being they have produced Tonearm Designs.  

None of the above makes me an expert or authority, it just shows I have an interest.

What I was very correct in presuming to occur, is the type of response I have received to the post I have made about the use of 7075 - T6.

As a side, when I was heavily involved in Target Shooting Competition, nearly all ancillaries to assist with accuracy, would not be considered valuable if not a 7075 Material, with this in mind, there is a time in my life I have been an advocate oof this Alloy.    


Please forgive me, but I am having difficulty in understanding your last post to this forum, especially the last to paragraphs and the relevance of "Korg Investigations" in this matter.

Can you please elaborate or clarify your posting.  I have read and re-read this post more than several times and have difficulty relating.  This is my problem and not years.

Thank you for understanding.  I want and need to understand.



I was suffering from a illness when I posted, which may have caused my typo. 

The reference should have been to Korf and not Korg.

I am a fan boy of Korg, the Link I posted has an embedded link to Korf.


Any news on the Larostat?

The arm wand section is only 6 inches because the tonearm we are working on is a straight line tracker based on a new motor design used by the semiconductor industry in robots that position chips under lasers. Our motor is about 1/10th the size of the original. It is a linear motor that has no mechanical contacts, floating on opposing magnetic fields. No friction, no noise. It can be controlled within nanometers. We should be able to maintain tangency within a few seconds and level will not bother it at all. It could actually track a record vertically. There are three of us involved, a robotic mechanical engineer, a retired electronics engineer who specializes in robotic control systems and me. We have not decided yet if this is practical to do. We have to finish our CAD drawings then price everything out. We need to keep it under $50,000. I'm hoping for $20,000. If we can bring it in that low we will sell a pile of them. The other problem is the possible effect of all that magnetism and control noise noise on the cartridge. We won't know this until we build one.