Walker prelude vs. Audio Intelligent

This isn't a perfect comparison, so take it with a grain of salt, but:
I have taken albums cleaned with a VPI machine and AI listened to them, and been happy. Upon visiting a friend, I heard obvious improvement after he cleaned my LPs with Walker's system including step 4, and the same VPI 16.5 that I have.

Even better, after listening he re-cleaned the LP using the new Walker Vortex tube on the VPI and the improvement was startling! Stuff that I can't see is getting removed from the album, because at casual glance, the records were already clean, but you can certainly hear the difference. Remarkable. Cheers,
Spencer

Steam beats them both. But I do like using the AI cleaners and pure water rinse. I must admit that all of the positive comments about the Walker solutions makes me a little curious. But then I hear that the Walker rinse has something else in it. Anyone know what that something else is and does it get left behind?

I believe accurate comparison between two such fine products may be a crap shoot, because us end users perhaps only have one criteria to measure by, and that is our ears. As far as scientific analysis, does any of us possess lab equiqpment, or other devices to accurately measure thier findings under strict controls.

By saying this, one could perhaps also conclude that they used Walker Products first, then repeated thier cleaning regimem with AIVS, Mo-Fi, Premier, or other cleaners-rinses, and came up with similar, but opposite findings, in that the latter cleaners seemed to offer improvements.

The actual "true" conclusion could be that two, or more cleanings resulted in a cleaner LP, versus just one of any particular brand.

As a reader of this thread, I might be inclined to try Walker, but again, how would I know my findings are accurate, cleaning an LP that was once previously cleaned with XYZ cleaners, and followed up with Walker cleaner, and then claimed that Walker is of course better, and getting my Vinyl cleaner. My findings would be flawed, and not give a true accurate analysis of one product versus another, due to lack of controlled scientific testing.

This does not at all make any claims by myself that other user's opinions are in error, they may very well be noting improvements, but perhaps not for the reasons that they believe. Mark

 
To quote myself from an earlier thread:

I spoke with Lloyd today about the Step 4 final rinse and was told it is composed of ultra-pure water, a teeny bit of alcohol, and 1% of a secret ingredient. It replaces the second pure water rinse in the Prelude regimen and Lloyd suggested it made a 10%-15% improvement.

I've tried a bunch of different cleaners over the years, though not the AIVS. And I trust my ears. I can tell the Walker is the best I've tried because its results are clearly audible.

After using the original Prelude regimen for many months, I then tried the new Step 4 Final Rinse. It was better than I expected and again, results were clearly audible. After rinsing records previously cleaned with Prelude, results were not subtle. I heard less surface noise, but more impressive was the real, substantive increase in harmonic and overtone information. Record after tediously cleaned record, I continue to be impressed with the Prelude system.
 
Tim
 

FWIW, my experience with Walker Audio Prelude and the Step 4 Final Rinse matches Jtimothya's experience. But regardless of my choice of Prelude, I'm convinced that you can't go wrong trying one of the top cleaning regimens recommended here and then trusting your own ears and experience. Using either Walker or AIVS is going to be way better than most (if not all) of the other alternatives out there.

And, I do agree with Markd51's observations about testing any of these very good products against one another. I've heard of lots of comparisons, but most that I've heard about are the serial cleaning with one product followed by cleaning with another product. Not a very good methodology in my opinion for a controlled test, for all the reasons Mark highlights. The only viable way to do a controlled comparison test would be with multiple identical copies of the same LPs from the same pressing run and adjacent to one another in that pressing run. I don't have a reliable means for doing this type of controlled comparison.
.