Walker prelude vs. Audio Intelligent

Madfloyd, yes. It is worthwhile using the full Prelude regimen on new high quality vinyl. I demonstrated this with some members of our local audio group during a gathering at my house last weekend. Everyone heard the improvement in clarity and resolution provided by cleaning a couple of new LPs member had brought to play (one was a recent Groove Note pressing, "Percussion Direct," the other a Music Matters Blue Note reissue, "Little Johnny C").

I used the Last Preservative for many years with no adverse effects, but I stopped using it some years ago when I switched to using Disc Doctor and now Prelude cleaning fluids. With really clean vinyl and care in use, I'm not inclined to make the significant investment in the cost of the Last Preservative. I also decided after some comparison listening, that the Last was leaving a slight sonic signature - not as much as the signature left by the original Research Labs fluids, but still audible.
.

Sonofjim, you can buy the enzyme mix separately. Elusive Disc sells it, for example. But, I don't think the replacement kit comes with a mixing bottle or measuring scoops so you may have to sort that out independently.

As to a head to head comparison of steaming with one of these cleaning regimens alone, that is what the audio group member I mentioned in my earlier post was doing. He's now stopped using the steam cleaning step and is using only the full Walker Prelude system.
.

Madfloyd, To answer your specific question, about using a complete four step Walker regimem on new, or sealed vinyl, and is it a waste of time, or waste of products-money, I feel the answer is no, you will reap benefits with vinyl that will be cleaner than directly from the jacket.

There's the argument about Mold Release Formulas, some say they have it, some say they don't.

I try not to discriminate with any of my LPs, whether they were thrift shop finds, or brand new expensive current releases, and perhaps with the thrift shop finds, I may do a repeat step with an enzyme cleaner and/or let this step remain longer on an LP.

Provided that a person uses a good, trusted brand of cleaner, or a properly made DIY, good techniques, and preferably a good RCM, I'm of the belief that any good brand of cleaner, such as VPI, LAST, Nitty Gritty, AI, Walker, Mo-Fi, L'Art Du Son, and others would be a benefit, rather than a detriment, provided you have properly removed said cleaners with a good rinse technique, with very high quality waters-rinses.

As a side benefit, your Stylus will also thank you as well.

From what I understand, Vinyl continues to also leach plasticizers during its life span, so perhaps although some people may not be aware of this, at some point in the future, vinyl again should be re-cleaned. This point in time may vary, and may be hard to determine by an end user. It perhaps depends upon enviornment, the frequency of use of the vinyl, and how the vinyl media is handled.

In regards of LAST Vinyl Preservative, I've used this product for quite a number of years, and quite a few of my LPs were treated with it. I'm sure countless others here have used it as well on the vinyl.

This is one product which may not be the norm, in comparison with other "treatments", such as Gruve Glide.

I've never noted any detriment in using it, my treated vinyl all plays extremely well to this day, and many end users reports seem to usually point to "they think they should not use such a product for ultimate playback", yet you won't find many who will say that they heard a detrimental sonic signature by using LAST.

IMO, one of it's biggest downsides is cost. I once lost 1/2 a bottle, tipping it over treating an LP! A quite expensive mistake, as this liquid evaporates faster than you can say "oh hell"!

Although I still have a full bottle, and a half lying around here somewhere, I have not used the product for a number of years now. This must be a personal choice to try. Try it on a few LPs, and see what you think?
Mark

If you have LLoyd's ear Jtimothya, I'd love to hear the theory as to why the final rinse is something other than pure filtered de-ionized H2O. What's the upside and downside (if any) to additional ingredients?

The final step of the Prelude system had been 2 pure water rinses. I found that very effective, and inexpensive, especially if you buy reagent grade water in bulk. (I'm using NERL.)

As I understand it Lloyd's rationale for the composition of his new Step 4 rinse is grounded in hearing results of its use. As I noted above I hear less surface noise which I attribute to a *cleaner* record rather than otherwise. I attribute hearing more music information to the stylus more directly riding the ridges of a now cleaner groove. When I bought the additional Step 4, Lloyd remarked 'listen for yourself'.

So, to respond to your query about "why is it what it is" finds an answer suggesting "because it sounds better".

Is there a downside to the specific formulation of Prelude Step 4? Since I have been using it I find no evidence of that. My stylus certainly stays clean. This is not to say it has no downside, but it is hard to prove a negative over a very long time period.

While chemist's speculation might be of some value, if someone has access to an electron microscope that might prove more definitive of physical change.

In the meantime I'm accepting that: a) there are no guarantees, and b) I'm willing to trade whatever theoretical risk there may be for the beneficial results. **At this time I believe there is no more risk in using Prelude than there is in actually playing the record.**

Wrt mold release agents, my understanding is that the modern vinyl press does not use such a compound, with vinyl released from the previously heated polished mirror-like surface of a stamper by cooling it. For older records, the most effective product I've found is MicroCare Premier which I vaguely recall employs Dupont Vertrel as its solvent.
 
Tim
 

Thanks Jimothya. Very informative. Agree on microscope. Chemical analysis and microscope would be even better. But, highly impractical.