Deep Cleaning Records With Steam?

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.

Hdm : My experience using live bacteria (that release enzymatics to assist digesting organics) , the results have been impressive for cleaning dirty used records. I also include a stage for record cleaning fluids & steaming that appears to improve upon the ultimate result. Note: I am told by the designers the bacteria I use are enviornmentally safe ; safe to us humans , our pets and the world-at-large.

What is interesting is that one class of the bacteria that I use are in a spore stage until hydrated. Perhaps, the bacteria's effectiveness could be related to the water source choosen for hydration. Perhaps, ultrapure may mate up well with those critters.