record cleaning findings/puzzle

Sorry,here is the Canadian site for recordings.[http://www.audio-restoration.com/gilles.php]

More on isopropyl alcohol leaching the plasticizers from vinyl records in wiki.Scroll down to uses link.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isopropyl_alcohol]

Hifitime, I haven't heard that people who use alcohol claim their records sound bright after, this would coincide with my findings. Is this generally accepted as fact. I am trying to find out if the alcohol is removing the effects of the steam cleaning, or the steam cleaning is removing the alcohol/dawn residue.

A small percentage of IPA contacting a vinyl record for a very brief time has absolutely no deletorious effect.

Nor does it contribute to any of the cleaning fluids' efficacy.

Move on hifiguy.

Excellent experiment. Thanks for the interesting results and questions.

I assume there is a sonic print to my solution, is achohol typically bright/harsh sounding?

There may be a sonic residue from either of your methods, but it won't be from the alchohol. Whatever alchohol your RCM doesn't vacuum off has evaporated long before you actually play the record.

Between the 2, at first I found the steamed ones to sound more organic, maybe slightly rolled off in the highs, but just warmer and more detailed everywhere else except the highs.

When I play the Alcohol only, cleaned record the highs are more present/forward, and noticeable, but upon further listening I notice a lack of depth because of it. trick details.

More extended highs are not "trick details". They're real details and the sign of a cleaner record. "Warmer" sound (if due to a different cleaning method) is likely the result of residue on the LP acting to dampen stylus movements. That's perfectly fine if that's the sound you like, but don't fool yourself as to which method is getting the record cleaner.

If HF's are more extended but sound harsh, odds are the problem is that some component(s) in your system is(are) unable to reproduce clear HF's. Other things being equal, greater HF extension is a sign of a cleaner LP. Think about it: whatever residue a cleaning method leaves behind, it will fill in the smallest groove modulations first and most completely. A very thin layer of residue may have little effect on how the stylus sees the long, deep modulations that produce deep bass or big dynamics, but it may easily fill in the tiny modulations that produce high frequencies or micro-dynamic shadings, preventing the stylus from seeing those at all.

NOTE: do not use an Audioquest or any other CF brush for wet cleaning. The bristles have a layer of varnish that some solutions can dissolve, leaving a layer on the LP. One visual clue that this is happening is if the CF bristles start "clumping" together after the brush is dry. The solution we've used that does this most quickly is AIVS's Ultra Pure Water Rinse. We initially thought the problem was with the water, but in fact it's the water's purity which lets it dissolve the varnish faster than other solutions we've used. We use AIVS UPW as our final rinse step, with an appropriate brush of course.

I then switched the cleaning methods for both records ( and others as well) and the sonic footprints followed each method onto each record. I did this back and forth 3 times with this pair and four times on another single record.

Excellent. That's how I test/compare different cleaning methods too. If you can do/undo/redo results than you can eventually figure out what's happening.

FWIW, my results with steam cleaning matched Elinor's. I use my steamer for bathroom tiles, it's way less effective than my vinyl cleaning regimen for LP's.