Results from Beta Testers of New Formulas

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.

I am not one bit surprised that you've taken the approach that you have, Mr. Frumkin. But please, go ahead, berate me, berate my past views. It is evidently transparent that yours is an attempt to shroud your inability or unwillingness to answer the questions I posed with respect to the research that went into your product (which you NEVER answered, in spite of your FALSE statement to the contrary). To name but a few, I asked what your research (if any) showed with respect to the various plasticizers in vinyl records, what they were, and whether your product was developed to specifically avoid the degradation of those plasticizers. You DID NOT answer. I asked specifically about your experience with a particular phthalate - one of the most common plasticizers in vinyl records (do you even remember which one I mentioned?). You DID NOT answer, nor even acknowledge its existence. I asked if you had done research with respect to the composition of vinyl among different records labels and from different production eras within those labels. You DID NOT answer. To say that you have answered fully, meaningful and cogent questions, is being nothing more than disingenuous to prospective customers. But, yes, it is easy to say that someone is really not looking for answers when you’ve no answers to give. Too, it is so easy to say you won’t respond to me in the guise of avoiding the issue. Now it looks like there are perhaps others with similar concerns. Gonna answer them? Or, maybe, go dig up something they’ve said in the past to discredit them and take the attention away from you? And please, look up the definition of the phrase “empirical results”, it might help you in the event you decide to conduct and/or report on your development research.

OK, if you must label this as “busting in with an aggressive rant” (I thought you said this was an open forum), let it be such. I’ve said all I have to say on this subject. I think it is ultimately clear where you stand, or don’t stand. Let the buyer beware. Too bad it is often that way for all of us.

Best Regards,
David

Oh, and Jeff, I understand where your coming from in your response to Viggen, I really do. But, you mention RRL fluids. Try contacting Brian Weitzel at RRL or the folks at VPI, or the Disc Doctor and ask them the same questions I've posed. You may or may not agree with or fully understand all that they have to say, but you'll find that there is a basis, a process, and a background from which they've formulated their product. Nothing here, though.

Before this thread gets yanked, I'm going to jump in on Paul's defense concerning the questions posed by 4Yanx on knowing vinyl compositions and measuring affects on plasticizers;

It is impossible to know all the plasticisers present in records as well as the base polymer blends. We are talking about formulating cleaners that will be used on vinyl records made over the last 50 - 60 years. There have been numerous reformulations and this doesn't take into account the affect of recycling of rejects. Manufacturers do not reveal what they use in their "vinyl" compositions except when they choose to patent the formulation. Even when they patent the formulation, the patent makes wide ranging claims on what polymers and plasticizers could be present. It is also impossible for Paul or anybody to track down a sufficient number of current and former vinyl record manufacturing employees to do interviews to find out what was in a sufficient range of vinyl compositions. Even if Paul could get ahold of these people, very few would remember the formulas exactly unless they wrote down/stole manufacturing documents. Furthermore, it is financially impossible for Paul to go to the effort of having all the variations of vinyl records submitted to a testing lab to break down the formulas. Trying to deformulate polymer blends is brutal. Let's assume that Paul could get samples of all relevant vinyl compositions and submit them to a laboratory for chemical analysis. Such testing would easily blow past $10,000 and very likely would exceed $100,000 due to the number of samples. The cost could even be considerably higher since I haven't consulted any laboratories on what it would cost to answer such a question on a per vinyl formulation basis. High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) and Mass Spectroscopy (MS) and Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) testing is not cheap; often ~ $300/hour or more.

I guarantee you that none of the current cleaning formulations and record treatment products currently sold on the market were tested on every permutation of vinyl composition made over the last 50 - 60 years. I've read the U.S. Patents on Discwasher, GruvGlide, and Last Record Preservative and they definitely didn't test everything in sight. They tested a few select records until they were convinced that they could proceed to beta testing, reformulate if necessary after beta testing, then commercialized. If they had to do exhaustive testing to prove their cleaner was safe on everything, the product would never make it to market because they would be bankrupt and it would take decades unless they had a large laboratory support staff. The record playing industry is too small to make enough money to fund the kind of research to answer these questions and still be profitable at selling record cleaning formulas.

I could go on-and-on about all the permutations someone would have to go through to answer the questions about product safety.

The bottom line is that LP record cleaning formulas are formulated in similar fashion to glass cleaners. The total non-volatile solids level has to be low to minimize residue that will show up sonically on records (analogous to minimizing streaking on glass). The sonic signature part is also dealt with by finding the surfactants that have the least inherent noise. I have often wondered that when current record cleaning formula vendors talk about their formulas having low inherent sonic signature, are they confusing this with the surfactants ability to quench static charge and its efficacy on removing soil. After finding the correct surfactants and keeping them at a low concentration, all you are left with is using sufficiently high purity water and possibly blending with ethyl or isopropyl alcohol. The alcohol content shouldn't be run too high because of flammability issues. Alcohols probably can leach some plasticizer as well as the surfactants but it will likely be very minimal because the cleaner ingredients cannot penetrate into the polymer network.

Let's get real for a minute here. If we are so worried about the potential to leach a trace amount of plasticizer from a record's surface, why are we even playing the records to begin with. The wear and tear of playing the record is far worse than what will happen with Paul's cleaning formulas (well, I can't vouch for Shellac or nitrocellulose-based records).

Mr. Kidknow
Note: I am a chemist who formulates water and solvent-based cleaners for aerospace and occasionally janitorial/sanitation applications.

I know Paul and have discussed record cleaning formulation ideas in the past. I don't know if his test formulas incorporate some of my ideas/suggestions but it is OK with me if he has done so in his latest cleaner formulas.

I know first hand from past e-mails with both Disc Doctor's Duane Goldman and RRL's Brian Weiotzel that they both had paid outside labs to test various vinyl formulations. Both mentioned that while it was expensive, it gave an idea of what would harm the entire vinyl formulation, which may explain why both shy away from alcohol entirely.

We as consumers need guys like Goldman and Weiotzel that take the extra precaution to insure that we are not ruining our records. What concerns me is the long term effects. I saw above where someone mentioned the Armor All mess where it etched the CD's years down the road and made them unplayable. I've got to admit, I liked the sound of the AA treated CD's at the time. The AA seemed to make the discs sound more analog. But when it made my discs unplayable years later I was upset that I whoever suggested it didn't do enough research and suggested it anyway. I was even more mad at myself for doing it anyway. If someone had mentioned the possible risks at that time, I'd have an additional 500 CD's in my collection. At $15 each that's a lot of money.

Mrkidknow mentions his connection with this fluid and also the expense that Goldman and Weitozel paid to insure that they had safe fluids. It seems that this new record fluid was designed without this information.

Is it safe or is it not?

This reminds me of the whole HRS Cables fiasco. Remember that one? Christain Brower posted here for months like he was going to determine the best cables, only to distribute, market and sell HRS here at Audiogon later. It was a scam.

He used Audiogon.