Deep Cleaning Records With Steam?

Stltrains : What makes this thread "work" is that steam cleaning works and is a significant stand alone or adjunct to popular record cleaning methods.

According to my email most everyone hears improvements over conventional RCMs. Combo'ing Steam and RCMs is supported by most everybody that's tried it. I have a alot of email from those that use steaming solo and are estatic with the results.

The big Q's (for me) is whether newer/improved record cleaning fluids will make a difference , whether better perhaps safer more specialized steamers are possible/needed and whether specialized bacteria designed to consume contaminates on LPs is commercially plausible ,or are enzymes the way to go. Time will tell.

Oh & how I would like a respected University with a diverse resource base perform scientific studies / research to determine the most cost effective way to safely clean recordings. Johns Hopkins perhaps ??

The market place its hard to make that kind of assessment when so much money is at stake. Business (like life) is rarely rational ; its driven by profit and market share so lots of good intentions get swept aside for the $ or $$$$$. Kinda eat or be eaten. Not too much room for science in that lunchroom.

To be reflective , remember how this thread began ,in part questioning, do I the audio consumer need to buy a $150 "outfit" or is there an alternative ? As we all now know any of us willing to make the effort can "outfit" ourselves for far less , including the same exact steaming unit. Nothing wrong with spending the $150 but you can do it for less. I think we are evolving to the real grit of the matter looking for a little record cleaning grail here and there. So, lets find it if we haven't already.

I've found if I NEVER use a carbon fibre brush my records ALWAYS sound better.

I use a grounded photo lens dust brush before playing a lp with good results. With the static problem i have using my 16.5 i have to brush. I have a De Stat now and it takes several passes with it to eliminate the static build up. I like to pass the lp on the 16.5 after steaming and thats only 2 turns max. Going to figure out this static problem one day.

I'm gonna wave my Reverse Osmosis flag again. It is the only fluid you will need to make your records pristine. You will probably never have to buy expensive record cleaning fluids again. I have a VPI 16.5 RCM and use only cheap 50 cents a gallon RO water, nothing else. They couldn't get any cleaner and quieter. Using expensive RC fluids is throwing money away and not needed. Try it, try it, try it and you will hear it and know. My disclaimer, If your happy using other waters and fluids, then discard my post.

"I'm gonna wave my Reverse Osmosis flag again. It is the only fluid you will need to make your records pristine. You will probably never have to buy expensive record cleaning fluids again. I have a VPI 16.5 RCM and use only cheap 50 cents a gallon RO water, nothing else. They couldn't get any cleaner and quieter. Using expensive RC fluids is throwing money away and not needed. Try it, try it, try it and you will hear it and know. My disclaimer, If your happy using other waters and fluids, then discard my post."

I'll respectfully disagree with that. I currently use ultrapure water which is a far cry better than RO as both a cleaning and rinsing agent in a cleaning regimen that also includes steaming with the ultrapure.

When it gets right down to it, I still believe that a surfactant based cleaner is necessary with many records and is a real benefit with particularly dirty thrift store or garage sale finds as well as very old records (as in 40-50 years old).

I find that the Mo-Fi Super Deep (not the Super Vinyl Wash which I would not buy again) is very effective when combined with steaming and a couple of ultrapure rinses. Cost is about 8 cents a record which I don't find to be extreme in light of what it accomplishes. I've never used an enzyme based cleaner, but unless you have a real biological problem I'm not sure that it's necessary and I find it interesting that the recommendations as far as enzyme based cleaners allow 1) for serious soak time and 2) are followed by a stage or two of cleaning/rinsing with ultrapure water.

My question is: is the effectiveness of the enzyme based cleaners a result of a) the soak time to really loosen stubborn crap on the record or b) the result of using ultrapure as the final stage or c) both of the above and could that result be achieved using a surfactant based cleaner with a bit of extended soak time and an ultrapure rinse.

Whatever the case may be, my experience is that you do need a surfactant in the process. Then you have to get it off the record.