Does the Step 4 final rinse for Walker Prelude help?


help? Simply, yes, amazingly so.

I have now played six records which were previously cleaned using Prelude. Afer listening I cleaned each with the new Step 4 and then listened again. I expected some benefit, especially as I had already done two Step 3 rinses. What I got, however, was a major reduction in the noise level often revealing noises I had been only somewhat aware of. Listening to Harry Belafonte's Returns to Carnegie Hall. The subway becomes quite obvious and even traffic outside. This, of course, does not improve the performance but the improved ambience and awareness of the movement of the performers greatly improves the realism. Further, the bass is greatly improved.

The Joni Mitchell Blue album moved from a roughly recorded performance into one with great realism about her then youthful voice. One focuses much more on her lyrics. Finally the Duke's Big 4 45 rpm release soared in dynamics. The bass and the piano leaped ahead in realism and the sense of being there.

I have done this with three other albums, but the pattern is obvious. I now have to rinse many, many albums today.

If you like Prelude, Step Four is absolutely necessary. The label says not to take internally, so it clearly contains chemicals not meant to drink.
tbg
Guys, it is hardly true that a rinse with ultra-pure water leaves nothing behind. There is the friction of vinyl and the static electric charge on the record. I can remember when Lloyd recommended GrooveGlide and certainly the Talisman removing static charges have benefit. I have used both and find the benefits of Step Four exceeds them. I continue to use the Talisman, but do find it has less effect now.

While you guys fret about how this can be, I will keep doing a final rinse with Step Four on my previously Preclude treated records and enjoying them. If your ears tell you there is a benefit, shouldn't you conclude that your logic and theory must be wrong?
"Guys, it is hardly true that a rinse with ultra-pure water leaves nothing behind. There is the friction of vinyl and the static electric charge on the record. I can remember when Lloyd recommended GrooveGlide and certainly the Talisman removing static charges have benefit. I have used both and find the benefits of Step Four exceeds them. I continue to use the Talisman, but do find it has less effect now."

I fail to see any logic in the above statement. Lubricating the record groove or eliminating the static charge both have absolutely nothing to do with getting the record clean. If you want to argue they can make the record sound better, I suppose that's fine (although there are people that have used Groove Glide that do not like what it does-certainly makes sense to eliminate static though if you have static issues) but they both have nothing to do with making the record sound better by making it cleaner which apparently is what the Step 4 does or is purported to do.

If that is indeed what it does, I'd just be interested in hearing why, if it is more than ultrapure water, it is to be used following an ultrapure water rinse as opposed to before it and what it contains, without, of course giving away any proprietary secrets.
Hdm, of course I am talking about getting more off the record, which Step Four certainly does. I have asked Lloyd and even directed him to the thread.

I agree about Grooveglide. I used it a couple of times and sought to clean it off.

As I said, I already twice rinsed my records with ultra pure water and was told by Lloyd that Step Four was not just more ultra-pure water. He was right!
HDM and Mark,

My local materials scientist tells me that certain alchohols will decrease the surface tension of very pure water relative to a PVC surface. This may allow Step 4 to flow more readily deep into groove bottoms and tiny modulations than pure water would do. That might explain the results Tbg and Rushton have heard, which I trust to be real. Neither of these gentlemen has ever posted anything that wasn't honest and helpful for as long as I've known them.

My question was based on the fact that the lower the surface tension of a fluid, the more difficult it becomes to remove a thin film of that fluid from a surface. Any combination of fluid, wetted surface and RCM involves a conflict between the surface tension between fluid and surface and the air velocities produced by the RCM. For any given air velocity, the lower the surface tension, the more fluid will be left behind.

Tbg and Rushton's results and Walker's explanation all make perfect sense. I only wondered (perhaps somewhat academically, as Rushton suggested) about the risks of alchohol traces and the possibility that an alchohol step immediately following the enzymes might be useful. Those questions remain, but it's beyond my knowledge to do more than pose them for anyone who's interested to consider.

Doug

P.S. to Mark, neither Paul nor I had anything to do with designing the AI fluids. They were in the finished form we know today several months before we first saw them. Jim gets 100% credit for the redesign. We're just satisfied users like you or anyone, with no other interest.
Lloyd responded to my email saying the following: "No, using ultra-pure water after the Step 4 would not be better." I would have liked more elaboration, but hey, it is his product.