2. analog
  3. 1126313662

How Should We Clean A New Record?


Have you ever listened to a new record a month or so after you’ve cleaned it with a record cleaning fluid (RCF)? Listen closely: it sounds unexpectedly noisy doesn’t it? Many think so and, for this reason, have stopped using RCF on new records! Others insist that cleaning them with an RCF is an absolute must to remove the offending mold release. And then there are those who have always felt that dry brushing is all that new records require. Amazingly, EVERYONE IS RIGHT! If you are interested in how these seemingly contradicting choices can all be valid, please read on.

CAN YOU HEAR THE SOUND OF MOLD RELEASE?

A new record is covered with a thin layer of mold release, unquestionably a contaminant with a sonic character. However, this sound is subtle, a thin veil that’s mostly unobtrusive. The Teflon or Silicone mold release actually acts as a lubricant that protects the grooves without significantly obscuring the Vinyl’s sound. Countless times I compared the sound of new records BEFORE and SHORTLY AFTER cleaning with an RCF. Without Vinyl lubricant or preserver, the difference is ever so slight and seems barely worth the effort and the risk of using an RCF. Still, a mold release is a contaminant and a dust magnet; it makes sense to remove it if this can be done safely.

THE NOISE OF RECORD CLEANING FLUIDS ON NEW RECORDS

Can an RCF make a new record noisier? The surprising answer is yes! A small fraction of all RCF ingredients ALWAYS remains on the Vinyl surface as an adsorbed film after vacuuming (see my primer on RCF from last week). Held to the Vinyl surface by intermolecular forces, this film is only several molecules thick (less than 10 nanometers) but grooves can also be quite fine at high frequencies (about 100 nm). Amazingly, many can hear the sound of this adsorbed layer!

But here’s the tricky part. The cleaned record is quiet shortly after cleaning as the adsorbed film after vacuuming is still wet—a WET FILM dampens noise. But days or weeks later, with all the liquid gone, the DRY FILM becomes audible. It is a background noise akin to the sound of a dirty record, but much fainter. You may even think that your cleaned record has been re-contaminated with dust. It hasn’t. It’s the sound of dry surfactant. If you re-wet the Vinyl (by rinsing or re-cleaning), the noise goes away only to return when the record is dry again.

An alcohol-based RCF—diluted with water!—leaves a less objectionable sound on a new record because the adsorbed alcohol evaporates completely under vacuum and leaves no dry film behind as long as no surfactant is used. (Note: Dry adsorption film has nothing to do with solid residue from the distilled water making up the RCF.). But even an alcohol-based RCF still leaves a very faint background noise behind; this suggests problems in addition to dry adsorption film but that’s a complicated story for another time.

WHAT ARE YOUR CLEANING OPTIONS WITH A NEW RECORD?

1. Given the current RCF technology, I recommend the Hippocratic approach: first, do no harm. Use a dry brush on your new records, keep them clean, and stay away from RCFs.

2. But if you must wet-clean a new record—because it’s noisy or you find the sound of mold release objectionable—use an alcohol-based RCF (diluted alcohol; little or no surfactant) which leaves behind little or no dry film. The residual background noise is minimal and inaudible in many systems.

3. If you must use a surfactant cleaner, rinse well with low-residue water. Repeated rinsing is necessary as some adsorbed material always remains on the Vinyl after each rinsing by chemical equilibrium. The record will be quiet, wet or dry. Alas, many of you will find this rinsing ritual very tedious.

4. Alternatively, you can use a RCF with lubricant or preserver. It leaves behind an “oily” film that keeps the adsorbed layer “wet” and noise-free. Just remember that you are now replacing mold-release sound with lubricant/preserver sound, even though that is usually an improvement.

5. Some of you like the effectiveness of enzyme-based RCFs. I have not used them much. Their impressive cleaning action (by chemical breakdown of organic contaminants) is certainly attractive but the concomitant breakdown of the plasticizer, also an organic compound, remains a concern.

CONCLUSION

While nearly all agree that old records benefit from a good cleaning with an RCF, there is no consensus or easy solution for cleaning new records. Since I do not find the veil of the mold release very objectionable, I feel that a dry brush is the safest thing to use on a new record—until better RCFs are developed.

One alternative is to use an alcohol-based RCF which is free of other additives. You may also use surfactant-based RCFs but most will leave a faint background noise when dry (days or weeks later). To minimize this problem, rinse several times with water to remove the surfactant film. You may also use an RCF with a lubricant/preserver that keeps the adsorbed layer “wet”, a trade-off between mold-release and lubricant sound. The long-term effect of such additive is still unclear. (Note: To identify the type of RCF you are using, please refer to my last week’s primer on RCF.)

For safer and easier cleaning of new records, we need novel RCFs employing surfactants that are inaudible when dry. This is a difficult but not an impossible demand. RCF manufacturers should look beyond common surfactants (alkylaryl ethoxylates or alkylaryl sulfonates) which belong to an ageing technology. There are exotic surfactants out there that can do the job. Some are (very) expensive but surfactant cost should not be a factor since only a minute amount is ever used in any RCF (typically less than one part in 100, literally pennies per quart of RCF).
justin_time
justin_time OP
100 posts
 
NOONTOON: Thank you for taking the time to read and respond to my thread. In an effort to keep my answers brief, I will not necessarily respond to your comments in the order they were presented.

YOU WROTE: "The better surfactants, enable the water to lose it's surface tension and spread out. (this means it gets deeper in the grooves, did you ever notice that if you slowly and carefully fill a glass of water the dome, meniscus is taller than the rim of the glass? This is surface tension) Further a combination of those will lift not only dust, but organic and inorganic substances. Grease, oil, release agents, sludge, bacteria and any left over water based solids from other cleaners. (I buy used as well as new)"

My main point was not to compare the cleaning effectiveness of various RCFs. It is obvious that surfactant-based RCFs are by far the best cleaners. I already went through the chemistry of record cleaning and the way surfactant works in excruciating details in a very long primer on RCF I posted last week. This threat is about new records, which in my opinion do not usually require deep cleaning. If the main goal was to avoid leaving any background noise behind on a new record which had none to begin with, and for this restricted case only, I find that dry brushing is the safest method and that alcohol-based RCF leaves behind less background noise than surfactant-based RCF.

YOU WROTE:…“The alcohol seems to leave a cleaner record but does it. The alcohol will assist in evaporation of the water but most water, contains small amounts of disolved solids. Even super cleaned RO/polished water. Which are left behind. Crunchy granlola suite!!!”

Alcohol-based RCF leaves behind less residues and less background noise than surfactant-based RCFs (if you do not rinse several times after cleaning and do not use lubricant to dampen the noise) regardless of the quality of the deionized/distilled water (D/D) used. Actually, the topic of residues from D/D is one of the most misunderstood areas of record cleaning. Beyond listening tests (with dry record), a crude material balance easily shows why we have less residues with alcohol-base RCF than with surfactant-based RCF.

I assume here that we use D/D water to make up the alcohol-based RCF. The level of total dissolved solid or TDS (potentially left as residues on vinyl) varies from about 100 ppm in the worse quality of D/D to less than 10 ppm in triple D/D water or triple filtered reverse osmosis water—that’s a mouthful. (I personally use HPLC water which contains less than 0.1 ppm residues.) Now compare that to a surfactant-based RCF, such as the one you make yourself, which typically contains about 1,000 to 5,000 ppm (0.1 to 0.5%) of surfactant dissolved in water (I will ignore the residues from the makeup water for simplicity sake) compared to 10 to 100 ppm TDS in alcohol-based RCF. So which RCF will leave more residues on vinyl after cleaning and vacuum? The surfactant-based RCF of course, by 10 to 500 fold! And we have not yet included the amount of surfactant that is preferentially attracted to the vinyl surface by physical adsorption forces.

In short, a surfactant-based RCF will leave behind far more residues (evaporated and adsorbed) than an alcohol-based RCF, regardless of the quality of the D/D water used in both RCFs. Again, this in no way implies that alcohol-based RCF is a better cleaner; it just leaves less residues, that’s all.

YOU WROTE: “I'll take any small amount of left over surfactant, over the bacteria and mold chewing up my vinyl."

My thread was never meant to be an indictment of surfactant. That would be truly ironic since I make my living designing, studying and using surfactants. Surfactants can be an outstanding cleaners but are not without side effects. Surfactant-based RCF leaves behind surfactant residues from adsorption and evaporation which is far more abundant than water residues from alcohol-based RCF because of the higher surfactant concentration. But, as I pointed out in my thread, you do not have to put up with this. All you have to do is follow each cleaning by rinsing the same way you do your laundry and your record will be perfectly quiet.

In a nutshell, I main hope was to present potential complications arising for each cleaning method. As long as you are aware of them, any method you chose to clean your new records with will the applied with the best possible effectiveness.

Cheers.
justin_time OP
100 posts
 
Dougdeacon: Thank you for the many interesting points you made.

YOU WROTE: “… I've tried playing new records with only dry brushing. Those records are now ruined. Whatever particulates or contaminates the mold release grabbed onto got ground into/against the vinyl by the stylus. This damage has proved irreversible by cleaning with any means at my disposal - which include a Loricraft, highly purified, deionized water and solutions with surfactants, with alchohol and with enzymes.”

I am sorry to hear about your bad experience with dry brushing. I have not had a comparable experience: I brush a new record carefully before and after each play and store it in a new sleeve free of dust. I know of a well known person in record mastering who flatly refuses to use RCF on ANY record period, so annoyed is he by the background noise created by these cleaners. I am not nearly that extreme because the problem isn’t permanent and can be easily rectified.

Being a surfactant specialist, I used to clean every single new record I bought with surfactant RCF until one day, quite by accident I am ashamed to admit, I played a record that I cleaned about a month earlier and played once without any problems. I was shocked to hear a faint background noise that wasn’t there before. And to my complete horror, I found that ALL my new records cleaned by surfactant RCF had the same faint noise unless they have been played a lot. I figured out what the problem was (dry surfactant film) and promptly proceeded to rinse every previously cleaned record with HPLC water: they are all dead quiet now. I can’t emphasize this point enough: you don’t hear any noise if you play the record immediately after cleaning or with if any lubricant/preserver is present in the RCF.

YOU WROTE: “…My preferred RCFs (based on achieving the best results) are the ones made by Record Research Labs. Brian Weitzel is also a chemist BTW, so I'm sure he considered many of the issues Justin_Time has raised. Presumably this explains why RRL contains far lower surfactant levels than other RCFs and no alchohol at all. If RRL leaves any residue or sonic signature I've never heard it. That is not true of the other products I've tried.”

I agree with you. RRL makes some of the best if not the best RCFs out there. And yes, RRL is probably aware of the problems with surfactant noise. Using less surfactant certainly helps reduce the surfactant residue but unfortunately also reduces the cleaning power as well, thus the need for two cleaners (the Super Deep Cleaner and the Super Vinyl Wash). The lighter-duty SVW also uses a lubricant (carboglycinate) which dampens any noise that the surfactant film might create; this lubricant seems to have little or no signature of its own. Overall, an effective solution if not a simple one.

If you worry about the mold release (Teflon/silicone lubricant) attracting dust and gumming up your expensive stylus—aren’t they all ridiculously expensive these days?—I think the same concern should apply to any lubricant used in the RCF until the manufacturers explain to us how theirs are different and why we shouldn’t worry.

I have played around some with formulating new surfactants for RCF. It is possible to design a surfactant that works very well—actually better than most—at very low concentration, doesn’t adsorb much, and does not create any audible noise after drying. As the market for such experimental surfactants expands to a commercial level, we will be able to use them to make simple and safely effective RCF. I am sure smart RCF manufacturers will figure out what these surfactants are soon enough, if they haven’t already.
justin_time OP
100 posts
 
LUGNUT: Thanks for the clarifications.

YOU WROTE: “You mention that you can hear the residue for a time after cleaning a new record. My experience is just the opposite. My new recordings have proven to be quieter with cleaning.

Please let me attempt to re-clarify the point: if you clean a new record with an RCF and play this record immediately after cleaning, you don’t hear any noise at all—the surfactant film is still slightly wet. And yes, there is absolutely no doubt the record is quieter after cleaning.

Now put the record away for a month or so. Then play it again: you’ll hear a faint background noise (from dry surfactant film) that wasn’t there before! As a double check, you can simply rinse & vacuum the record a few times: the background noise will disappear.

If you played the cleaned record repeatedly, the noise will also fade away. If you always rinse your new records after cleaning or if your RCF contains a lubricant or preserver, you won’t hear the surfactant noise either.

YOU WROTE: “…Someday somebody will finally introduce an ultrasonic record cleaner that uses only the best water as a cleaning agent and everyone will be on the same page. Hold onto your wallets because it'll be expensive.”

It’s curious that you mentioned ultrasonic cleaners. I have some big ones in the lab that easily accommodate LPs. I tried them. They work better than anything else out there at dislodging dust particles that even my best RCF couldn’t touch. Still, one problem remains. In order to better remove mold release and organic contaminants, I found it necessary to use a little surfactant to better solubilize these materials and also to penetrate deeply into all the nooks and crannies. Unfortunately, the surfactant also caused a not insignificant amount of plasticizer to leach out (as emulsions). Still some more work to be done!
lugnut
1,190 posts
 
Justin time,

Obviously surfractants, HPLC water and ultrasonic action is too aggressive. Still, I believe even a conventionally applied approach as a first step to remove the mold release compounds followed by an ultrasonic bath using only HPLC water is a sound idea.

Another point which needs to be brought up is cartridge selection. I do rinse with pure, lab grade water as a final cleaning step and that may be partly why I'm satisfied with my cleaning ritual. Through the years I've also found that there are a few cartridge manufacturers whose products seem nearly immune to the surface noises of which we are discussing while other cartridges seem to enhance these artifacts. That is one reason I left the moving magnet camp in the 70's, especially the Shure V15 that is a fine piece in every other regard. My current cartridge is the most quiet in the groove moving coil I've ever heard while still bringing out all of the inner details I love.

Tone arms, tables and phono stages also contribute to what we are discussing even though, to a certain extent, this seems illogical. At least that is what my ears have discoverd through the years. Linear tracking arms are by far the best in my experience but good ones are clearly outside of any budget consideration for me. - Side note here. I'm a strong mechanical guy and a real lightweight with electronics. I've been very lucky being able to hear components in other systems that didn't enhance surface noise and chose those within my budget to great effect. I enjoy great synergy from stylus to amps.

A decade or so ago a CFC cleaner was banned from use. I've never used this product but understand it really removed the mold release compounds and nasty fingerprints quite easily. In one of the many audio catalogs I receive and promptly give away there was a reintroduction to an evironmentally friendly replacement product. Are you familiar with this first step? Any reason not to use them?

For sure, proper cleaning of records is a very time consuming process and one which takes a lot of experimenting to get right. I honestly believe that many folks just don't take the time to experiment and get it right. I intentionally pulled records I cleaned last month for a repeat play last night just to see if I could hear any traces of dried surfactants you mention. My final rinse with lab grade water must make a difference because all of these examples are as quiet as I've ever heard.

I'm surprised that there haven't been more posts to this thread. Mind sharing how many hits it's gotten?
justin_time OP
100 posts
 
Hello again Lugnut. Once again your response is thought-provoking.

YOU WROTE: “Obviously surfractants, HPLC water and ultrasonic action is too aggressive. Still, I believe even a conventionally applied approach as a first step to remove the mold release compounds followed by an ultrasonic bath using only HPLC water is a sound idea.”
— ABOUT ULTRASONIC. This is actually a rather difficult problem because the cleaning requirements are so fundamentally different: embedded solid particles require mechanical actions, which the ultrasonic machine provides but mold release and even organic contaminants (finger prints, glue and other Unidentified Drying Objects—UDOs?) strongly adhere to the vinyl surface and are surprisingly resistant to ultrasonic action. They require chemical intervention to initially “lift” them off the surface first before ultrasonic can do its work. It is difficult to find a gentler cleaner for Vinyl than surfactant—ammonia, acid, bleach, enzymes are all considerably harsher cleaners. I am looking for a surfactant that provides low surface tension but with a limited ability to solubilize and emulsify. That’s like asking a vampire to only bite but not drink blood. But I still have a few candidates to test if I can find the time.

You WROTE: “A decade or so ago a CFC cleaner was banned from use. I've never used this product but understand it really removed the mold release compounds and nasty fingerprints quite easily. In one of the many audio catalogs I receive and promptly give away there was a reintroduction to an evironmentally friendly replacement product. Are you familiar with this first step? Any reason not to use them?”
— ON CFC CLEANERS. Yes, I am quite familiar with the product. The first one was called…FIRST. As you said, it is a CFC, but it has a longer molecular chain-length than the more familiar Freon. I used many isomers of the trichlorotrifluoroethane from the lab and achieve essentially the same amazing results. They work based on a familiar principle in chemistry: things that are alike prefer to stay together. And Teflon or Silicone mold releases are molecularly similar to CFC and thus easily removed by the latters. I would imagine that if you use a longer-chain CFC, the environmental impact would be dramatically reduced. I am not familiar with the CFC replacement so I can’t be sure what they might do but, if they work like CFCs and if you keep the contact time brief, the plasticizer within the vinyl matrix should be quite safe from these products.

YOU WROTE: “For sure, proper cleaning of records is a very time consuming process and one which takes a lot of experimenting to get right. I honestly believe that many folks just don't take the time to experiment and get it right. I intentionally pulled records I cleaned last month for a repeat play last night just to see if I could hear any traces of dried surfactants you mention. My final rinse with lab grade water must make a difference because all of these examples are as quiet as I've ever heard.”
— ON RINSING. You did the right thing by rinsing your records with distilled water after cleaning. Imagine what would happen to your clothes if you did the laundry without using the rinse cycle! It is such a trivial thing that I am puzzled why so many people do not automatically rinse their records after cleaning.
— A SMALL EXPERIMENT. Are you curious enough to conduct a small experiment? First only dry-brush a brand new record and then play it once. Next, clean the record with a surfactant-based cleaner—no lubricant or preserver please!—and vacuum it thoroughly to remove the excess liquid but skip the rinsing step. Now play the record again immediately. If you used a good RCF, you’d notice that the record is dead quiet, an improvement over the un-cleaned new record. Next store the record for about a month or two (the length depends on the humidity in your house). Finally, play the record again: you’ll hear a very faint background noise that sounds like a dusty record but with ultra-fine dust particles! Don’t worry; you haven’t damaged your record. Just rinse it a couple of times, et voila, the noise will not come back.

YOU WROTE: “I'm surprised that there haven't been more posts to this thread. Mind sharing how many hits it's gotten?”
— HITS OR MISSHITS? So far, this thread has 288 hits. My previous RCF thread, a long primer—an oxymoron?—received 1188 hits and 33 responses. I can only guess the reasons why threads like mine have relatively few hits. First, my threads are much longer than the average threads which immediately puts many people off and even angered a few. Second, I tend to present or discuss basic concepts in the hope that people will use the knowledge to make their own decisions in specific situations. Apparently, this is not a very popular approach—people prefer instant gratifications and quick fixes. My approach may even appear condescending to some people. Finally, Chemistry is a notoriously unpopular topic with audiophiles who much prefer talking about mechanical or electronic issues perhaps because many have those backgrounds. But that’s all just wild guesses. Perhaps my verbosity and pontification put people to sleep. For this, I am amused and strangely unrepentant.
More to discover