The "Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation"

@pindac 

Response to your post 11 June 2023 at 4:01 PM.

You used the expression "very experienced".  If you had used the expression "very knowledgeable", or, "extremely knowledgeable", than you would be referring to only one individual (so far). 

@cleeds 

Your Post 11 June 2023 1:02 PM.

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it.  I stated this post's intention is to avoid opinions. 

Your last sentence is absolutely uncalled for. A specific level of Ethanol has absolutely nothing to do with contamination, or levels of contamination.  It is related to design, balance and to obtain the best and most desirable surface tension, and related to the substrate to be cleaned. In this case it is related to the resin portion. of vinyl records which is composed of polyvinyl chloride and polyvinyl alcohol.  A vinyl record is normally 75% to 80% polyvinyl chloride, and 20% to 25% polyvinyl alcohol.

To all, again I must apologize.  It has not been a great day, my Medical Demons are summoning me again.

Farewell for now, and all please stay safe.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

“ two degrees in bebop a phd in swing, he’s a master of rhythm.. a rock n roll king”….  @ghdprentice nailed it….. ego

Wizzzard, please read my post again. No physician in the UK is technically a doctor, unless he or she has done an MD. Yet all are called 'doctor' as a courtesy (it refers to their post rather than a qualification). Once a would be surgeon, or obstetrician, has passed his or her FRCS, or FRCOG, they are delighted to revert to 'Mister' or 'Miss' and that is a little bit of inverse snobbery from the days when barber-surgeons were looked down upon by physicians.

Oxford and Cambridge came relatively late to medical training. Students now graduate with a BA as well as bachelor's degrees in medicine and surgery (by the way, the "Ch. is not latin, but French "chirurgerie"). In my day most students did their pre-clinical years in their Oxford college, but came to London for their clinical years, most to UCH, and some to KCH. A few stayed on at The Radcliffe or Addenbrookes, and the proportion who stay there has risen as those hospitals have found their feet. At that time, a London medical qualification was the most highly regarded, and many schools elsewhere tried hard to raise their standards by asking for higher entry standards (eg I got four offers, three As from Bristol, and three Cs from UCH, KCH and Middlesex. I got my three As, but chose to accept the UCL/UCH offer).

Anyway, this has gone tediously off-topic and I agree that you may close this highly policed thread.

wizzzard

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it.  I stated this post's intention is to avoid opinions. 

The title of your thread ("The 'Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation' ") is itself an opinion. For my purposes, I usually prefer simple distilled water in the Klaudio ultrasonic cleaner. Others should know this can be an effective method. It isn't clear why that troubles you.

Your last sentence is absolutely uncalled for. A specific level of Ethanol ...

I just can't imagine what kind of contamination you are encountering on these records that requires alcohol for removal.

Cleeds, the point is that unadulterated water is not wet enough to get into the grooves. The surface tension of water by itself is too high. So some sort of wetting agent is useful to reduce the surface tension of the washing solution, so that it truly can get into the record, grooves, and actually lift whatever grunge you might imagine is lurking there. that isn’t only wizzzard’s idea. That is the philosophy behind all of these record, washing solutions, other than using pure water. Those who believe that a surfactant is advisable would tell you that you really aren’t doing much with pure water, perhaps.

Can ultrasonic cleaning obviate the need for lowering the surface tension of water? Good question. I don’t know.

Absolutely right, @lewm, but combined with:

I just can't imagine what kind of contamination you are encountering on these records that requires alcohol for removal.

it is obvious to all that alcohol (of any chain length) isn't much good as a wetting agent. At the end of the day, we have one person's opinion about the percentage of a certain alcohol and a certain wetting agent making the "best" cleaning solution in distilled water.

Almost everyone who cleans their records uses distilled water with a detergent and some alcohol added. That's news to no one. To claim some massive benefit from using ethanol rather than isopropanol, or Tergitol over any other detergent should take some evidence.

My experience says that pure DW in an ultrasonic machine is pretty good, but I go quite a long way beyond that for theoretical benefit even though I'm not sure I can hear the advantage. The OP needs to show why his solution is better than any other, and that is not something we have any hint of as yet. To be fair to him, one would need double blind cleaning and a significant number of listeners (and even then, can we say the disks were all equally dirty?) Plainly, we are in the territory of opinion, and I'm happy to listen to opinions. I just don't take them as gospel.

lewm

... the point is that unadulterated water is not wet enough to get into the grooves. The surface tension of water by itself is too high ... Can ultrasonic cleaning obviate the need for lowering the surface tension of water?

I think the answer to your question is very much "yes." Klaudio recommends nothing but distilled water in its machines and that has worked very well for me - it's a one-button, no muss, no fuss approach to record cleaning. I do occasionally acquire a used LP that appears especially foul and when that happens, I start with my OG  Nitty Gritty machine. But that's rare.

FWIW - My vote for “TheVeryBestRecordCleaningFluid”
For any vacuum based machine:

https://groovyhi-fi.com/shop/tm-8-super-record-cleaning-solution/

Applied using a spray bottle (fluid reservoirs are exceptional at growing mold and other contaminates)

Disc Dr. brushes & vacuum tube strips

Bleached white paper sleeves - excellent desiccant for absorption of moisture.

OP,

   Tergitol -s-7 is apparently only legally sold to research labs and industrial (non-medical) facilities, in the US.  So we “consumers” can’t readily get it, if at all. 
   Is Ilford an acceptable substitute? 

@dogberry 

Yeah!, Yeah!, Yeah!

My intention were to lay some matters to rest and to avoid any more entries as your present one.  This intent was to eliminate these matters, because they do not belong here.  Dogberry, do not be offended, but, I was not even thinking about you or your post when I presented my case to put an end to these posts.  Yes, I read your post, but my objective was to address @whart  who was the person who initiated these deviations at the onset.  And, then to his Cheerleaders who were trying to compete with the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders, who are also officially nicknamed "America's Sweethearts", and to chime in with their comments.

I wanted to get my message across to Whart and his Cheerleaders, that their remarks are unrelated to the Primary Subject Matter for which this site was created. And, then you proceed to continue on with this unrelated matter yet again, and, incorrectly I must add, rather then agreeing that this nonsense need to end in order that people that may have real serious questions are not reluctant to post their questions.  I have put off, and, I feel very sorry that I have, @mijostyn in order that I may clear up this unwarranted clutter.

Would you please agree with me to stop such posts - Please?

However, I also find it necessary to correct your post in order that others may get the impression that you are correct.  Recall the words of my original post about facts and truths.  I can not allow errors to continue.

I have forsaken 506 years of an established loyalty to make myself perfectly clear.  But, as someone has previously stated, I am "only someone behind a forum handle who has no meaning or significance".  

You attempted to correct me.  I suggest to avoid doing that in any future posts, it would only be futile.  You had stated  "by the way, the "Ch. is not latin, but French "chirurgerie"".  Seriously!  I ask you Seriously!?  Colleges established in ENGLAND in 1249, and in 1264, and in 1517, and so on to even 1929.  French!  Do you have no comprehension the relationships between England and France over the Centuries.  Have you forgotten all your History lessons.  

Baccalaureus in Medicina et in Chirurgia.  Does not sound French to me.

Chirurgiae Baccalaureus.  Does not sound French to me either.

Ch=Chirurgie, which is latin for surgery!  Get it!  -  Latin, not French!

Every time I sit down to eat, sometimes even at a McDonald's, I can not help but hear the following in my head:  "Nos miseri et egentes homines pro hoc cibo, quem in alimonium corporis nostri sanctificatum es largitus, ut eo recte utamur, Tibi, Deus omnipotens, Pater caelestis, reverenter gratias agimus; simul obsecrantes, ut cibum angelorum, panem verum caelestem, Dei Verbum aeternum, Iesum Christum Dominum nostrum, nobis impertiaris, ut Eo mens nostra pascatur".  It is embedded deep in my memories.  Also, at times when I begin to write something, it crosses my mind that I must write "Dominos Regit Me" before I even begin to write the date.

Oh! I should have mentioned that those words that I had written are in Latin not French.

I still can not get over your remark that the Ch. is French.  It will take some time to clear that one out of my head, but I guess I should take this as an opportunity to remind others, not to submit something in writing on this post unless you are absolutely certain of what you are saying.

I will you again to agree with me to stop such posts?

A very special Thank you to Dan H. For his kind and gracious words and encouragement.  And, I hope, in one of my typical digressions, I did not upset him in any way most recently.

Thank you Dan H.!

@bdp24 ​​@lewm ​​@whart ​​@pindac ​​@cleeds 

CC:  @mijostyn 

On 10 June 2023 at 12:04 AM, someone posted that ( and, I paraphrase ) "he will no longer waste any more time with me ( Wizzzard ) and suggested that I do the same".

On 10 June 2023 at 9:25 AM, the very same day and within just 9 hours and 21 minutes, I responded to that individual who had made the initial post.  My response ( again, I paraphrase ) "thanking him for asking me not to waste any more time communicating with him".  And my response to him was very "short and sweet", and, I had hoped , very clear as well.  And, that response was, and I now Quote, " I won’t ".

For those that may have noticed, I kept my promise, and, I never addressed him again.  Unfortunately, my forum site continues to be"contaminated" with his additional postings, violating his own self-imposed commitment.  Whatever compelled him to continue to post is still in force, and continues to compel him to submit additional post to this very day.  And this compulsion is significant.  He continued to post an additional 1,462 words.

On 11 June 2023 at 10:26 AM, this individual bid his "farewell to all", as it was now likely to be his last post ( yet again ), on this forum.  He bid his Farewell again, and in closing "that all take care and stay well".

Nevertheless, the same forces and powers that had overtaken his previously, had obviously returned, and forced him to contribute an additional three posts compromised of an additional 318 words, and even posting an unrequested chart, and additional links to other unrelated materials.

I do wish that he overcomes the forces that compel him to continue to post and abide by his own initial statement at the onset that  -  "he will no longer waste any more of his time on this site".

To all those reading this, the word number calculation was done by an Adobe program, and was calculated by the computer and not by me personally.  Although the number of words corresponds well to what was stated.  I can only apologize for any minor discrepancies because I have no intention to waste any time to review and correlate the info.

I ask this individual to please adapt to his own statements and commitments.

To all others, I apologize, though I have no control of what is, and, what is not posted.  But, I obviously must have struck a nerve in this individual that he has lost all self-control, and, for that, I must take some responsibility, even if it is superficial and insignificant.

I thank you all for your understanding.  Thank you again!

Maybe I was wrong, just ordered Tergitol S 7 from Advance Scientific. $69.75 incl shipping for 100 ml.  We’ll see ic I get it. 
   I was impressed by @wizzzard’s apparent knowledge and sincerity.  Although, many people question the use of alcohol in vinyl cleaning solutions. 

@cleeds 

Regarding your post 17 June 2023 at 1:45 PM

It is NOT an opinion, if it is 100% Factual.

With regard to your second point, that was already clearly answered.  And, I do not choose to repeat myself.  If you did not understand my response to you, I am very sorry, I can not help you any further.  Perhaps others may have a way of explaining my answer to you in another way that you can better understand the response.  Best wishes.

@dogberry 

Your post 17 June 2023 at 2:48 PM

I believe this was very well explained and presented.  I suggest you re-read my response.  As you are reading the response think of the following.

You are going to a gasoline station purchase Gasoline for you vehicle.  You usually have a choice of three types based on their octane ratings.  When you purchased your vehicle the manufacturer stated the octane rated gasoline you are to use.

That is based on DESIGN of your engine and the ratios of your transmission and differential.  Many items are taken into consideration, but, you buy and use the same gasoline whether you drive fast or slow, whether you drive only within the city or primarily on the highway, whether there are one, two or 5 passengers, whether you drive 6,000 miles per year, or if you drive 80,000 miles per year.  Non of this matters, you still need to buy and use the same gasoline by design.

I hope that helped, if not, I can do no more to help you understand design and functionality.  Again, perhaps others can help you, but, always remember you are concerned with the substrate.  You do not use gasoline to wash your windows.

@boothroyd 

Your post 17 June 2023 at 3:31 PM

I have stated, and stated frequently.  I DO NOT CARE what anyone does or uses.  This forum is not intended as a debate.  If you wish to debate find another forum, or, start one of you own.

And I ask everyone, if you have opinions, to voice their opinions elsewhere.

I am here to answer questions about the formulation presented, and anything that it may relate to as well, and if anyone has any other interests that I am qualified to answer. 

@lloydc 

I spotted your first point, and then I noticed that you had promptly posted again.

Because, I was going to say there are several sites, and supply houses that make it available.

You must realize that your $69.75 purchase for 100 ml. is more than several lifetimes worth of supply.  If you are impressed and pleased with the outcome of the formulation. With your purchase you may consider starting your own distribution.  100 ml will go a long way.  You can get back to me and I can suggest "concentrated versions" that you can package and resell that conforms to all regulations with regard to flammability, types of containers, etc.  Yes, I known that all as well.  remember M.B.A. and owning our own business.  This is different, it does not concern me, we dealt in truckloads, and tankers.

Considering what is being sold, and how bad, even destructive, many of the available products are, and the ridiculous prices that are charged for solutions that do not work or work badly, you may have a viable business.  I suggested in my original, my only condition is that your pricing be fair and reasonable.  For something such as this a 60% margin I would consider fair.  And that would almost amount to almost nothing compared to what is out there.

Keep me informed.  If you have difficulty getting the Tergitol 15-S-7, I can assist as well, but, only if necessary.

Good Luck! 

@rich121 

Your post 17 June 2023 at 5:47 PM

What is so amazing?

@wizzzard 

Pardon me, kind sir.

How did I get dragged into this? ;-)

What I DID say is:

1- @wizzzard stated he had used Last Record Preservative back in 1969. I offered the fact that Last was not developed and put on the market (by Walter Davies, owner of a great high end shop in the ’70’s---Audio Arts, in Livermore, CA) until the early 1980’s. I didn’t say so in print, but that put a chink in wizzzard’s credibility (or perhaps just memory. Who amongst us hasn’t gotten a date wrong?).

2- That I for one am sticking with Neil Antin’s formula for ultrasonic cleaning: Tergitol 15-S-9 surfactant (and in some cases Alconox Liquinox detergent) added to plain ol’ distilled water. For used LP's I do a pre-cleaning in the kitchen sink.

@bdp24

Totally agree... also other mistakes... and when he makes it clear " Distilled Water ONLY. Do not use deionized" and "Check labeling to be certain that it is distilled and not deionized" but can’t/won’t explain why and says he doesn’t know what RO/DI water is... that’s a big hit in the credibility dept.

"That I for one am sticking with Neil Antin’s formula for ultrasonic cleaning: Tergitol 15-S-9 surfactant (and in some cases Alconox Liquinox detergent) added to plain ol’ distilled water. For used LP’s I do a pre-cleaning in the kitchen sink"

Also use the same... Liquinox for the records needing extra cleaning first, then follow with Tergitol solution...then filtered RO/DI water rinse...

@wizzzard

"what is so amazing?"

Your quotes:
"I have stated, and stated frequently. I DO NOT CARE what anyone does or uses. This forum is not intended as a debate. If you wish to debate find another forum, or, start one of you own.
And I ask everyone, if you have opinions, to voice their opinions elsewhere."

Might I suggest the best way for you to get the Self Gratification you so obviously crave, is to read your "facts" to yourself while in the shower.

THIS Forum exists for the EXACT purpose of Debate AND Opinion.
"

@cleeds 

Regarding your post 17 June 2023 at 6:06 PM

The PURPOSE of this (my) forum is clearly stated in my very first posting.  It is located at the very beginning.  It is also automatically reposted at the very top of every subsequent page thereafter.

You are only required to read it to understand.  There is nothing to question about its' intent, you simply need to read it!  If, at that point you still do not understand, there is nothing further I can do to assist you.

Thank you for your expressed interest.

@bdp24 

Regarding your post 17 June 2023 at 6:28 PM

Know that this clearly relates to an earlier post on 10 June 2023 at 9:24 PM, and I recall that post vividly, and have been meaning to respond as soon as I could.  If you can recall some other postings to others, I am limited in my functioning abilities.  The significant delays being related to keyboarding my responses.  Which also relates to previous statements made that I often write my extended responses by hand, and key them in at a later time.

Such was the case when I was responding to @jasonbourne71  who had several questions.  I started to respond in a handwritten to him when I realized that it was far too lengthy and I eliminated significant portions of my intended response.  In the process I managed to convolute the story, and in my haste to at least get back to him, I failed to notice my errors until you so kindly pointed it out to me.  Afterwards, I. wanted to concentrate on @mijostyn  and others to respond to them, and get to you afterwards.  I am still sorry that he @mijostyn  has only received a small portion of my prepared response.

Since you bring this up at this time, I will deviate from the schedule I have prepared regarding my order of responses.  Remember, I am functioning with limitations.

Yes, I did purchase my first AR-XA turntable in December 1969.  I was not able to listen to the table until either December 1970 or January 1971, I only recall that it was around the Christmas period.  I did not purchase the 10 additional AR-XA turntables until late 1971.  Buy the way, the first table purchased was damaged in a move, that is why I later purchased other turntables.

Afterwards, I was captivated by the AR ES-1, and I had purchased a total of three of those.  The First, was one of the very first available, and the final AR ES-1 in July 1989 which has the aluminum tonearm board and is fitted with the AudioQuest Tonearm and Audioquest MC Cartridge, as it was supplied as a package..  When I purchased the AR-XA turntables I was given small case of something called D 3.  It came in a red plastic bottle with white writing.  When I purchased the AR ES-1 turntables is when I was supplied with a small case again of the product made by the LAST Company.

Afterwards, I became committed to the Oracle Delphi.  My first Oracle Delphi was the MK III.  I have owned 6 Oracle turntables in my lifetime.  I presently have 4, one is boxed away, and the other three are in use all affixed with SME V tonearms.  Two AR-XA are boxed away, and two AR ES-1's are also boxed away.

So that is the complete story, and in the intended chronological order.

And, I sincerely do thank you for pointing out the mistake made, otherwise, it would have gone un-noticed.

I believe that I also stated that this is my very first evolvement in any forum, and that error was made at the very beginning.

Thank you again.

As much as it may not be wanted, but at this stage not going to be obtainable to have.

This Thread is a being used by a proportion of contributors, including myself, as an    "in conjunction with content", to be used as an addition to other info attained for the purposes of Cleaning/Purification of a the Hard Medium Vinyl.

Prior to this Thread I had abandoned all previous used methods, which I substituted with the PAVCR Manual Cleaning Method, using the recommended volumes of substances for the mixtures to produce solutions to enable the cleaning to be achieved.   

This Thread focuses intently on a particular solution, made up from a mixture of very specific volumes of the recommended substances.

The Solution being presented has now brought about a situation where some fully comprehend the ideas behind it, as it has been a type of solution already put to use by a limited few contributors to the thread.

Others like myself do not fully grasp the reason for the specifics associated with the substances needed for mixture to produce the proposed Solution.

Speaking for myself I have a trust in the content and accept it to be a Solution that is optimised to perform a particular role, especially for penetrating deep into the Vinyl's groove and being able to release micron sized contamination.

Having this as a Solution to be at hand and used in conjunction with other clearly defined and easily understood methods that can be used, as advised in the PAVCR from Neil Antin, will in my view only add to the positive experiences that are attached to using Neil's advisories, which have proved to be extremely successful.

When it comes to cleaning Vinyl and achieving that moment, when it is realised, that a long owned LP, that was once relegated to sentimental ownership only, is now once again usable, without any concerns for it when being used as a replay medium.

All Solutions proposed to be capable of achieving this are met with a curiosity and attraction.     

@mijostyn 👋

FWIW, and as someone else noted, you certainly can purchase TergitolS7 in the USA. Just google it. Cost ranges from about $70 to about $110 per 100ml bottle. Which would last most of our lifetimes at our respective ages.

Do you have no comprehension the relationships between England and France over the Centuries. Have you forgotten all your History lessons.

1066.

Once again, we need an ignore button.

@mijostyn 

Does this mean you are waving Goodby!, or, Hello!.

It is very important to me.

@wizzzard: Ah yes, confusion clarified! The bottle of D3 you received was included with the Discwasher record cleaning brush, which was introduced in about 1972 if I remember correctly, though it may have been ’71. I adopted the Discwasher as my choice of LP cleaner, replacing the Watts Disc Preener I had been using since ’68.

I too had the original AR XA table, bought new in 1969. And I also bought the improved ES-1 when it was introduced in the mid-80’s, mine without a tonearm, mounting on it instead a Rega 300. That table served me well until I got a VPI HW-19, the first table I was really satisfied with.

@bdp24 

And here you thought that we would never have something in common.  And shared the same interests in as well.

And, by the way, my original lengthy reply to @jasonbourne71  also mentioned the Watts and Discwasher.  Do you remember if this was some joint promotional relationship with the AR Turntables, or, was it just a coincidence that these products were available at the same time?  My memory is now blank about the relationship.  Perhaps you remember.  Just curious.

I just fell for the Oracle Delphi.  I am certain the Design played a significant role in my original choice, and, since that time I never considered anything else.  When Oracle made available a "Kit" to upgrade the Mk III to a Mk V, I was at their facility within days to pick up my kit in then Sherbrooke, Quebec.

Anyway, thank you for your understanding! 

@wizzzard: As far as I know there was no connection between AR and either Watts or Discwasher. But back in the 60’s and 70’s there weren’t the number of record cleaning products available that there are now. The only other serious cleaner---and it was a VERY serious one---was the Keith Monks RCM (the machine that used a suction arm and thread, still available. Audiogon member Bill Hart @whart has one), which is made in England (as were the Watts products). J. Gordon Holt reviewed it in Stereophile, but it was very expensive.

And then there was---and still is---the Decca carbon fiber brush, but it’s intended use is to merely removed dust from LP’s, not deep clean. Similar brushes are available from many other companies, including Audioquest and Hunt, the latter with a velvet pad between its’ two rows of bristles.

I bought my VPI HW-19 from Brooks Berdan, who was also an Oracle dealer. He in fact came up with the famous mod for the Delphi (eventually incorporated into the table by Oracle themselves): a round block of stainless steel bolted onto the bottom of the table’s floating sub-chassis, done in order to better balance its’ mass. Brooks had training in automobile race cars, and knew a lot about suspensions. With the Berdan mod installed the Delphi's sub-chassis bounced straight up and down; without it not so. He sold a lot of Oracles, often with Eminent Technology linear-tracking air-bearing arms mounted on them. Brooks had a Keith Monks RCM in his shop, and a VPI HW-17 RCM. I bought my HW-17 from him, a great machine imo.

@bdp24 

Who knew, another item in common.  I was given a (at that time) a brand new VPI-HW17 Vacuum Record Cleaning Machine from an individual from whom I had purchased other items from.

He was moving to China to make his fortune.  Nevertheless, that is the machine I use for cleaning all my records with my "Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation", obviously, that I presented an the beginning of this forum.

Next, you will be informing me that your wife is an Immunologist, and her first Name is Valerie.  And, that she prefers not to be addressed as Doctor, as my wife does not as well.

We need to stop this and get back to "Bitching" -  we do not need to disappoint the "others" much further! 

Regards,

To All!

In moments I am off to Hospital for the day.

Tomorrow, we are leaving later to a distant Hospital again for my wife.

I will be back when I can.

My wife is a Rheumatologist named Cali. She does prefer Doctor, and she uses her own family name, and I’ve owned an HW17 for about 30 years. My only RCM.

@wizzzard 

i am waving to remind everyone that I am here, in a lot of pain, waiting. 

No knees is good knees.  (Even a bad joke can help.)

 @lewm 

Any humor and 10 mg morphine are greatly appreciated.

Dear Wizzard,
I've also been using the high-quality vinyl cleaning services from the company established near Glasgow, and they operate in this way.
1. They have three align of 3 washing/cleaning machines which can also up to 5 records each time.
2. The washing is in 3 stages: In the 1st stage, the five records run for 5 minutes in an ultrasonic bath with tap water and a solution of dishwasher liquid. The concentration of dishwasher liquid depends on how dirty the vinyl is. Then the hub with the records is moved to the next machine in the line, that rinses the records in tap water. Afterwards, the hub is moved to the 3rd machine that rinses the vinyl records in an ultrasonic bath in the demineralised water.
3. From what I can understand, the process is made so that every 5 minutes, a set of 5 records exits clean. 
4. So, any dishwasher solution is good enough. You can use demineralised water if you don't have good-quality tap water.
I've asked why they don't use the demineralised water for the whole process, and they said that this is a bunch of nonsense because any chemical added to the water, without a final dipper rinsing in clean water, will leave some residues in the vinyl's groove. This comes from someone who does it professionally for different customers and works for profit. 

@wizzzard 

I had an Oracle back in 1978 I think it was. It is a beautiful thing. Back then the suspension was not well sorted out and it was unstable. I wound up selling it I can't remember if I went back to an LP 12 from there or into the SOTA. Once I had the SOTA Sapphire I was in love. Nothing phased it. Since then Oracle has made great strides and I could easily envision getting another. I am however very happy with the Sota Cosmos. It is not as pretty as the Oracle but I can't do without vacuum clamping. It takes pitch consistency to a whole other level. The Oracle's reflex clamping is a close second although you have to be a little careful with 200 gm records. I have seen them crack around the spindle hole. Do you have a spindle hole drill? Do you ever have records that are a tight fit?

I think in order to get anything done we should take this over to the message section. I will set it up if you are agreeable.

Dear Wizzard, I have been following this thread for some time now, and my question to you is would you describe your cleaning process from beginning to end and listing all of the components you use? I have ordered an ultrasonic cleaning system and would appreciate your thoughts pro and con on using your solution in the ultrasonic? A great bit of reading, and thank you to all who have contributed!

Best,

Phil

Didn’t Steve Bannon coin the phrase, "Flood the zone with $H!†" to refer to spraying out an intense amount of information (see: dissembling)? Specifically in the hope that highly rational people will judge the crank too crazy to deal with and leave them be. In Bannon’s case he wanted to exhaust those who would contest his claims as well as lower the intellectual defenses of those he hopes to persuade. I have no idea why I’m thinking of this just now.

@engineears 
Reminds me of Eugenie Scott's Gish Gallop. 

To All!  Please recall I am away, out of Town, with my wife at Hospital. Possible one or two more overnights.  This is regarding my wife's condition not mine.  Uncertain of timing.

Will get back A.S.A.P.  Already, have prepared statements.  Need to be home to do, and I, obviously, need to tend to other matters of priority first.

Till later.  Hopefully not too long.

Thank you for your understanding again.

I just came upon this thread so I figured I would provide my experience with ultrasonic cleaning of vinyl records.

I studied the effect of ultrasonic cleaning of vinyl records back in the late 70s when I built my first ultrasonic record cleaner. In my laboratory, we routinely used ultrasonic cleaners for many laboratory applications. Before I actually cleaned any records in an ultrasonic bath, I wanted to be sure that there were no detrimental effects. To evaluate the effectiveness of ultrasonic cleaning of records and to determine if there were any detrimental effects, I used several analytical techniques. My primary analytical techniques were Photoelectron Spectroscopy (HP 5950A Photoelectron Spectrometer) and optical microscopy (Olympus Laboratory Microscope at about 10,000X). Photoelectron Spectroscopy is sensitive to the top 5 nanometers of a sample surface and can determine the chemical structure of the record surface and the chemical composition of contaminants on the record surface. I also employed several supporting techniques for certain experiments including; Mass Spectrometry (MS), Liquid Chromatography (LC), Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) and Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR).  These experiments were all done on sacrificial records that were cut into 1 cm squares. These 1 cm square samples were analyzed before and after various cleaning procedures. In some cases, the test samples were purposely contaminated with finger prints and various greases and oils to simulate a heavily soiled record.

The variables Investigated include:

Ultrasonic Bath Solution:

1 - Triply distilled water prepared in my laboratory

2- Deionized water  prepared in my laboratory

3 - The addition of either 2.5% or 5% concentration of an alcohol (either isopropyl or ethanol) to each of the above.

Surfactant - I experimented with several different nonionic surfactants which were in use in my laboratory. I settled on several alcohol ethoxylate surfactants with the general structure R(OCH2CH2)nOH where R is the alkyl chain and (OCH2CH2)n is the ethylene oxide (EO) chain. Their chemical structure varied with the length of the alkyl chain and/or the ethylene oxide chain. For reference, the alcohol ethoxylates I used are similar in structure to Dow’s Tergitol 15-S series of surfactants which are secondary alcohol ethoxylates.

Time in the ultrasonic bath - My experiments demonstrated that longer than a few minutes in the ultrasonic bath had little beneficial effect on the overall cleaning process and the possibility of a detrimental effect. Most of the cleaning took place in the first few minutes in the bath. I did observe that extended time in the bath would leach plasticizers, stabilizers or other additives from the bulk of the record test samples and eventually pit the record test sample surface. So I tried to keep the time in the bath to a minimum.

Summary of experimental results:

1. Both trtiply distilled water and deionized water in the ultrasonic bath worked surprisingly well at removing much of the contaminants on the test samples in many cases. Testing on UHV prepared Si wafers in the ultrasonic bath indicated that deionized water did leave some residue while triply distilled water left little to none that could be detected. The small amount of residue left by the deionized water is probably not a major concern.

2. The addition of the surfactant to the ultrasonic bath solution improved the overall contaminant removal efficiency compared to only water.

3. The addition of an alcohol to the ultrasonic bath solution had little effect on the contaminant removal efficiency except in a few select cases. For these few cases, ethanol was slightly better than isopropyl at contaminant removal.

4.  All the surfactants that I tried exhibited similar contaminant removal properties and did a reasonably good job of cleaning heavily soiled record test samples. The biggest difference between the surfactants was the amount of residue left behind after the ultrasonic bath. In general, the lower molecular weight surfactants were found to leave less residue on the record test sample surface and were removed more easily with a distilled water rinse after the ultrasonic bath.

5. I will mention that I did try Dawn detergent just to see how effective it was at cleaning records and whether it had any detrimental effects. Dawn was very good at cleaning the most heavily soiled record test samples but left considerable residue which required an extended rinsing to remove. I would only recommend Dawn detergent for heavily soiled records and not for regular use. Dawn does contain as many as 17 ingredients, some of which may cause issues with records after long term exposure.

6. When I finally set up my ultrasonic cleaner for my records, I only used distilled water and the appropriate amount of the alcohol ethoxylate surfactant in the bath. I typically had it set at about 2 RPM and a run time of about 6 to 9 mins. That corresponds to actual exposure times of ~ 2 to 3 minutes (~1/3 of the record surface is in the bath at a given time). For my setup, between 1 to 3 RPM worked fine. The 6 min time was for my records purchased new which had no obvious contamination and the 9 min time was for previously owned records that exhibited some surface contamination. For records with significant visible contamination, I would add some ethanol (2.5 to 5%) to the bath solution.

The spindle assembly on my DIY ultrasonic cleaner could hold up to 10 records and had a variable speed motor attached.  The assembly rode on a track with a lock nut so the spindle assembly could be raised and lowered into the bath. I actually employed 2 ultrasonic baths both fitted with a track to attach the spindle assembly. The second bath was only used with distilled water. Primarily I used this second  bath to spin rinse records that had been cleaned in the first ultrasonic bath. In some cases I did a followup ultrasonic cleaning with distilled water in the second bath for heavily soiled records. After a distilled water rinse in the second bath, I would raise the spindle assembly and spin dry the records at a faster rate. This left no visible water marks on the record surface and only some residual water droplets on the record outer edges which I removed with a clean room wipe.

I used this ultrasonic cleaner for over 30 years with excellent results and never any issues with my records. Even new records exhibited an improvement in SQ after ultrasonic cleaning. Typically once a record is ultrasonic cleaned, it will need no further ultrasonic cleaning if handled properly. The total time to mount, ultrasonic clean, rinse and spin dry 10 records was typically about 20 minutes. Heavily soiled records might take a few minutes longer.

@ljgerens Great stuff. Good to see your methodology aligns with my amateur endeavors in that I use minimal alcohol and keep the time to 5-9 minutes depending on level of soiling.

Distilled water / 39C / a splash of 91% isopropanol / few drops of previously dissolved Triton X100. SpinClean rinse in distilled water. Remove excess water with lint free microfiber cloth and air dry. You're right—once cleaned, they don't need to be done again.