"Cleaning" Vinyl Makes It Worse Not Better!

Right on @antinn 

Probably a friction stir welded tank my team built….ha. One million linear inches of weld without a defect… definitely NOT trial and error…

@tomic601, 

Probably a friction stir welded tank my team built….ha. One million linear inches of weld without a defect… definitely NOT trial and error…

That's impressive.  The tank was an open honeycomb design.  When they explained what they wanted to clean, I definitely took a deep breath.  But we able to clean the tank using only about 100-gallons of cleaner.  We used a high pressure multi-axis spray nozzle using Teflon diaphragm pumps to keep the fluid clean and as the fluid drained from the tank, a bank of 0.1-micron absolute filters kept the cleaning agent (that I had a Patent for) clean for continuous use with sampling of effluent to determine the process efficiency.  However, the irony is the company w/o my knowledge and w/o including me, filed for and got a patent for the cleaning process; but they never made any money on it.  I uncovered the Patent while researching something else.   Oh well, so much for ethical behavior. 

Take care and best wishes for the holidays,

Neil 

@antinn Sorry I offended you. I'm sure because you have written books, manuals and patents you're well known as an expert submarine tube cleaner. Now it is good that somebody has written something definitive, but not conclusive. That information was never in one place before.

I was merely stating, as I have before, my system works. I tried your Tergitol, it didn't work as well. That's why they added the second Tergitol, to make it the same as Triton X. As a matter of fact I have tried all of the chemicals that you recommend in my US tank and not one gave me the same results I get currently. I also used them manually before a vacuum, still not as good. And, I have zero damage and sonic loss.

The problem is removing tobacco smoke residue from the vinyl after it has set for 25-50+ years. My US system doesn't always get it the first time. I've found using the enzyme that comes with the Walker 4-step system will do a decent job if applied properly. I doubt yours does better.

You seem to be very sensitive about criticism.The fact is there are many ways, as you state, to clean records. Just look on YouTube, there are some crazy people out there..Everyone talks about your stuff as the be all end all for record cleaning. It's just a long tome with a lot of chemistry, that few people understand. I'm glad people are happy with it. I'm glad you're happy with it.

Happy Holidays

97% or my records were purchased new, and the other 3% were either near mint or mint. I was told a long time ago not to wet records as it will make it worse. If you never got it dirty and remove the dust before playing, you're good to go. In the past I have cleaned an older record or two of mine at stores (or on my brother in law's $4000 model that uses some kind of expensive fluid) considering buying a RCM and never was able to hear a difference after cleaning versus before. These were very old, but in excellent condition. Mainly MOFIs from the early 80's. 

I use the Audioquest and Hunt brushes. Audioquest is easier to use. I wore out an Ortofon one that looks to be the same as the Audioquest with a different handle.

If you buy a lot of used records from people who ate or smoked or mishandled records (or you don't know where they came from), I guess you need to clean them. 

Very rarely (it could be once in 6 months) I will clean the stylus with an old dishwasher stylus brush and a tiny bit of that fluid (if any).

@tuberculin, 

Make no mistake, you did not offend me.  You criticized the work that I have done, and I have the right of response.  Period. 

I have expended as much as 4-6 hours working with someone when they are attempting to use the chemistry and process that are documented in the book and run into problems.  For the record, I have never worked with you.  There are little details that can make a large difference such as concentration and application, even the brush and the technique using the brush (for vacuum RCM).  That is why I always say the devil is in the details.  

I would like to know the source of your statement:  

I tried your Tergitol, it didn't work as well. That's why they added the second Tergitol, to make it the same as Triton X. 

The origins of Tegikleen which is a blend of insoluble Tergitol 15-S-3 and soluble Tergitol 15-S-9 go back to 1996 when Triton X100 would have been readily available world-wide:  The Care and Handling of Recorded Sound Materials, By Gilles St-Laurent Music Division National Library of Canada January 1996  “The Canadian Conservation Institute (CCI) recommends the use of nonionic, ethelyne oxide condensates surfactants to clean sound recordings. The CCI does not foresee long-term problems associated with the use of nonionic surfactants such as Tergitol. Tergitol 15-S-3 is an oil soluble surfactant and 15-S-9 is a water-soluble surfactant. Combined they remove a wide range of dirt and greases and can safely be used on sound recordings. Use 0.25 part of Tergitol 15-S-3 and 0.25 parts of Tergitol 15-S-9 per 100 parts of distilled water. The recording must then be rinsed thoroughly with distilled water to eliminate any trace of detergent residue.”.

Otherwise, you are entitled to your opinion, and as the old saying goes, you can make some of the people happy some of the times, but you will never make all the people happy all the time.  

Peace