Got an LP cleaner you want to make money on?

It is advised by some that new records should be cleaned to remove any mold release that is still present
Alan

With respect to the OP, who admits he has little experience, all records should be cleaned - including new ones. There is no significant risk if proper techniques are used. There is, however, a real risk of vinyl damage from playing uncleaned records.

The vinyl plug that's placed in the mold to make an LP releases chemicals during molding and cooling. Residue from these chemicals is often called "mold release" compounds. Many people misinterpret this term to mean that the manufacturer coated the mold with some release agent, which remains behind on the LP. That is not the case, however chemicals released from the vinyl during molding do remain behind.

These should be removed before play, as otherwise they smother sonics and gunk up the stylus. Further, they provide a sticky medium that grabs onto any stray dirt. Imagine what happens when a sharpened diamond drags a piece of dirt acrosss a soft vinyl groovewall... the resulting damage cannot be repaired.

Mold release residues can harden over time, making them more resistant to removal on vintage LPs. IME, 50s-60s era Decca/London records are among the toughest to clean (if they've never been) but once you do... wow!

***
Agape126,

Record manufacturers do not "spray some type of solvent (scratch resistant") on them. A new record, after cooling, comes out of the mold and goes straight into the sleeve with nothing added but a visual inspection (if we're lucky).

I've been playing records since the 60's and that's the first I've heard of needing to clean them before playing. Not sure about that one. New LPs have always sounded great. Could that be one of those urban legends?

As you've never cleaned a new record it's meaningless to say, "it sounds great"? You have no basis for comparison.

If this is the first time you've heard of this, you haven't spent much time reading forums like this one. Not that anyone would blame you! Playing records is way more fun than cleaning them, or reading about cleaning them. Try the "Record Playing Rituals" thread stickied at the top of this forum. Search for relevant keywords here or on VA. I'm far from alone in this experience and it's no urban legend.

In my system (listed) the improvements from effective cleaning of virtually any record are instantly obvious, to me and everyone who's ever visited. That includes a dozen or more Audiogoners over the years.

Please note that the sonic indicator of a truly clean LP groove is NOT a lack of clicks and pops. That's the easy part. The real test is the audibility of low level detail, upper order harmonics and micro-dynamics. Anything less than a perfectly clean groove will mask these to some extent. A trained ear that knows what to listen for helps.

Caveat: if all you play is rock/pop music with a typical MM cartridge, you may not hear many differences. My listening tends toward acoustic instruments and unamplified vocals, especially authentic instrument recordings of classical era and older music. Such recordings are many times more revealing of minor problems anywhere in the reproduction chain, including groove grunge. My preferred cartridges are extraordinarily sensitive to low level musical detail. In other words, my setup is biased toward revealing things that other systems may mask.

More than one visitor has brought over a record they swore was clean, or was new. The sonics were muffled, at least to me. Despite their insistence it wasn't necessary, I've sometimes cleaned the record for them and re-played. It's no exaggeration to say that their jaws hit the floor.

Unless you've tried something...

I'm glad Doug took that one on, and diplomatically, to boot. As to cleaning new records, there are a number of issues going on, aside from the mold release compounds (which are part of the plastic nuggets now, and not a spray, like PAM*):
if you look closely under good light at a new record, you'll often find fingerprints and other detritus (in addition to paper liner 'lint'). It is a manufacturing process with all that entails.
Aside from cleaning new, out-of-the-shrink records, I often re-clean after initial play. The stylus will dredge up material- whether this is the result of not de-horning metal parts used in the manufacturing process, or simply the result of the stylus in effect 'cleaning' the groove, I find that some new records are actually quieter after first play and re-clean.
If new records are sleeved in paper, static is almost inevitable. I find the Zerostat to be overkill (and to often do more harm than good in creating a charge) and dry brushes to be ineffective at getting into the grooves.
As Doug noted earlier (whether in this thread or another one, resleeving is pretty essential, unless the record was originally packaged in a high quality inner sleeve). And, apart from fingerprints and other crap on brand new surfaces, those cheap paper sleeves used on major label releases often leave paper lint.
Some new records benefit sonically more than others from a clean before play, but it is noticeable. To make a valid comparison, you'd probably have to compare two identical pressings, and assume that there is no copy to copy difference in sonics. (Since, if you play, then clean, you've added a variable in your comparison by playing the record first, before cleaning, see above).
One of the biggest gripes I've heard over the years, apart from the time and effort involved in cleaning, is the sonic signature left by cleaning fluids. These fluids have improved considerably over the years, and there are many home brew formulae as well. The trick, in my estimation, is to get the cleaning fluid OFF the record once it has done its job.
I'm currently using a combination of methods that includes enzyme cleaning and lab water rinse, which does a good job in removing the residue of any cleaning fluid. (That's what makes records sound noisier or muffled by cleaning- fluids left on the record). I also use a commercial ultrasonic machine with a small amount of surfactant. The newest commercial ultrasonic device designed for records uses no surfactant whatsoever, and some users substitute lab water for the distilled water usually recommended by the machine manufacturers.
Clean stylus is key here too.
I buy used records 10/1 over new records, because i'm looking for early pressings, rather than reissues. (Most of the new records I buy are new releases, not reissues). Used records definitely require cleaning and I've brought some records back from virtually unplayable to better than VG+, sonically. (Many times, the old records have been abused on grotty tonearms and the grooves are just chewed up- cleaning isn't going to 'fix' that).
You said you didn't want to spend big dollars on a state of the art cleaning machine, whether a Monks type or ultrasonic. Thus, my earlier recommendation of a basic vacuum machine with a two step process- the AIVS No 15 (which has both enzymes and detergents, simplifying what is otherwise a multi-step process), followed by lab water. This can get you pretty close; I haven't fooled around with steam, I know some folks swear by it.
And since you said you have records from the 60's, you'll probably be surprised at what a good cleaning can do to those, sonically, even assuming you've taken good care of them.
____________
*I think in ye olde days, the release compounds were applied, not mixed into the plastic compound. But, there is considerable debate about the effect of this stuff, even today.