Results from Beta Testers of New Formulas

4Yanx,

Like I said... I'm no chemist so whatever answers or explanations a developer would provide would be meaningless to me anyway. I would imagine that would apply to you as well, although as you pointed out in your rant you have some active interest in the area so perhaps you're better informed than the rest of us. It's certainly obvious you have a burning desire to be right about this issue. I tried the stuff and it works well, as for any long term effects I'll have to monitor the records and see if there are any untoward changes. The records I used the two-step process on were lost causes and they sound very good now, so what's to lose? I view this as a pleasant hobby, not something to get all worked up about.

I agree with 4yanx that this thread seems to be nothing more than a marketing tool and free advertising. The last thread was likely pulled for that reason and this one will likely meet it's same demise.

Since paulfrumpkin had asked for interested parties to phone or e-mail him for his generous offer, he HAS their contact info as well as their address, right? If all he was after was their opinion, he could have done so directly. Instead, he posts a thread asking for users to share their opinion. Why? Free publicity? Hmmm, is that not a violation of the rules? Perhaps someone with more knowledge could answer that? Common sense tells me that it appears to be a violation ...

Secondly, Paul refused to answer questions about his fluid. 4 yanx has every right to ask whether or not Paul has done his homework and if he has even done any real chemical analysis or analyzed what is in a vinyl record. He has the right to ask if tests were conducted to determine whether or not harm can occur with the use of his fluid. This is not mean, this is not spiteful, not in the least. To me it appears as nothing more than asking for info. I can't understand why Paul didn't answer, unless no tests were conducted or he doesn't understand the question.

Paul has agreed to replace any damaged records at face value, but to me, the value of a record is not determined by replacement value alone, but also by availability. As an example, I'd paid $300 for my Fred Jackson "Hootin' and Tootin'" Blue Note original. It took me 5 years to find a NM copy. Would I risk cleaning it with a fluid when the chemist that made it refuses to tell me the tests conducted to determine it was actually safe? In today's market, via eBay, I might be able to find one quicker, but do I risk it when less than 500 copies were made?

It would be nice to know what tests were done to determine that this cleaner is safe and if there are any long term effects (remember the Armor All CD treatment fiasco? It took 5 to 7 years to make my CD's unplayable) . I'm with 4yanx on this one.

I don't understand Jeff's logic at all. Just because he is not a chemist; therefore, he is not interested in tests conducted to ensure the safety of his records and argues others should also not care as well?

Hi everyone,

I have asked A'gon why the prior thread was pulled. I haven't received an answer. If it's against the rules to give free product and ask for feedback, then I'd hope A'gon would tell me, and I would refrain from doing so. Yes, I could have asked people to e-mail me with comment and copied and pasted those comments into a subsequent advertisement, but I feel that an open forum -- over which I have no control -- is the most honest. I'm surprised that level of openness and honesty offends some. If the feedback from this expert group is positive, I will open a commercial account; but at this point, nothing is offered for sale!

If anyone read the prior thread, they would see that I did not ignore 4yanx. I answered 3 of his postings fully. But he became more demanding and belligerent with each subsequent posting, and it ultimately became clear that he was not interested in answers, but in polluting the thread with venom and slamming something he had not tried ... exactly as he does again here. While he owned up to previously recommending washing LPs in Dawn Dish Detergent, he didn't 'fess up about also recommending DIRECT Vinyl Floor Cleaner for LPs. I have little doubt that 4yanx will again bust into this thread with his aggressive rant. I will not, however, again respond to his postings. His invective means little against the empirical results being reported and which will be reported ... and it is upon those results which I think we should focus.

But free publicity? It costs only $3 to post a commercial ad. It has cost a significant amount in boxes, containers, postage and product to provide these samples. But a commercial ad would not provide a feedback forum over which I have no control. I felt, and still feel, that this open forum is in the highest spirit of our community and shared hobby. I hope A'gon feels likewise, and will let this thread survive.

Best regards,
Paul

Viggen,

You can point to all sorts of empirical data and testimonials that are often touted by PhD's but frankly I'm in no position to evaluate the validity of the claims. Since I'm far from being an expert in such things I am quite willing to give something a try, especially if the records are considered lost causes. Call me lazy if you will but I don't have a clue what's in the Record Research fluid I use either. No idea at all. Zilch. Nada. I'm totally clueless. The RRL fluid was recommended to me, I tried it out, and I'm quite happy with the results. Paul's stuff seems to restore records that I thought I'd have to junk, even after careful cleaning with RRL. If over time there's no apparent donwside to using Paul's cleaning fluid then I'll expand the use of it. My point to all this: why not approach this with an open mind, and why would anyone dismiss the product without trying it out? End of my contribution to the thread, there's certainly more important and interesting things to worry about. Remember folks, this hobby is supposed to be fun.