Sean,
Thanks for a well reasoned addition to a thread that has gotten a bit heated, unfortunately.
The protocol you advise seems like a prudent one. It offers the possibility of sample-testing the safety as well as the efficacy of Paul's solutions over a larger array of samples, situations and observers than one person could easily manage.
I'm also concerned about the vinyl safety issue raised by 4yanx. Since Paul has declined to specify what if any safety testing he's done, prudence forces us to assume that he has done none before this test. That seemingly puts the onus on the volunteer testers, to report not only their immediate cleaning results but also to report the ongoing condition of the cleaned vinyl for some length of time.
Since Paul (apparently) didn't perform safety testing before making his offer, it would have been best if he'd included a request for that, with a warning not to test his solutions on valuable records. That would have made the situation clear from the beginning and prevented much regrettable bloodshed. Having failed to do that, no doubt innocently, Paul could have responded to 4yanx with a simple followup request to his volunteers for a protocol like the one described by Sean.
I hereby move that the volunteers adopt a long-term vinyl-safety test as described by Sean, and that they include as many non-valuable LP's from different labels/eras/countries as possible. Meaningful results will of course require weeks/months/years depending on the degree of uncertainty each of us is willing to accept for the (presumed) cleaning benefits received.
Do I hear a second?
Thanks for a well reasoned addition to a thread that has gotten a bit heated, unfortunately.
The protocol you advise seems like a prudent one. It offers the possibility of sample-testing the safety as well as the efficacy of Paul's solutions over a larger array of samples, situations and observers than one person could easily manage.
I'm also concerned about the vinyl safety issue raised by 4yanx. Since Paul has declined to specify what if any safety testing he's done, prudence forces us to assume that he has done none before this test. That seemingly puts the onus on the volunteer testers, to report not only their immediate cleaning results but also to report the ongoing condition of the cleaned vinyl for some length of time.
Since Paul (apparently) didn't perform safety testing before making his offer, it would have been best if he'd included a request for that, with a warning not to test his solutions on valuable records. That would have made the situation clear from the beginning and prevented much regrettable bloodshed. Having failed to do that, no doubt innocently, Paul could have responded to 4yanx with a simple followup request to his volunteers for a protocol like the one described by Sean.
I hereby move that the volunteers adopt a long-term vinyl-safety test as described by Sean, and that they include as many non-valuable LP's from different labels/eras/countries as possible. Meaningful results will of course require weeks/months/years depending on the degree of uncertainty each of us is willing to accept for the (presumed) cleaning benefits received.
Do I hear a second?