Results from Beta Testers of New Formulas

Hi Psychicanimal,

It was my understanding that: (1) distilled was preferable to deionized because it removed both ions and organics; (2) deionized substituted polyvalents, such as Mg+, for Na+ and Ca+, which maybe didn't really advance the ball all that much for our purposes; and (3) your water basically become re-ionized when exposed to the air.

Also, if the group concensus is that these formulas work well and I am therefore encouraged to offer them for sale, I had planned on selling them in concentrated form (dilutable in the range of 4:1 to 8:1) -- I don't want folks to have to pay shipping for water, at 64.4 pounds per cubic foot. To maintain purity if I use deionized, and assuming most folks have ready access to distilled but not deionized, I would have to ship in dilute, ready-to-use form, which would undermine one area of cost savings.

But both formulas would contain some water, and since you have worked in the industry and garnered expertise, I would like to discuss this with you either directly via e-mail or through a telephone call. Thanks!

Best regards,
Paul
(302) 836-0453

Ok, it’s time to start putting some results down as I go, so this is round one. Right now, 11:33 am Saturday morning, 18 September, 2004. Let’s start with a list of LP’s I’ve cleaned this morning with Paul’s formula. The couple of albums I did last night are not going to be included here. I used them to get a feel for the amount of formula to use. All were cleaned on a VPI 16.5 VPI. I used new felt on the pickup tube, and new Last brushes. The Denon 103r was cleaned before the play began with Last #9, and in between each LP with a Zerodust. All albums were cleaned with a carbon fiber brush when they went on the platter. Any reference to pictures here means that before the weekend is over, I’ll have a page on my site with them on it. Also, this is a comparison to RRL fluids, which I have used for the past 6 months. The only other cleaners I have used in the last 6 months are the Premier spray, and the Gruvemaster (or however he spells it) in the sink, with a little Dawn. I am not using them in this test. Also, if I have to include the “I have no connection, yada yada” disclaimer, you have misunderstood the purpose of this thread.

1: Warren Zevon Asylum 7E-1060 VG
2: Yes, Close to the Edge Atlantic SD-19133 G-
3: Elton John, Captain Fantastic MCA 2142 MCA (734) G
4: Joni Mitchell, Hejira Asylum 7E-1087 VG
5: Stan Getz, Focus Verve VE-1-25-28 VG
6: Eddie Harris, Electrifying EH 4MWB 4M106 NM
7: Kingston Trio Capitol T-996 VG
8: Frank Zappa, Apostrophe Discreet DSK-2289 G
9: Pink Floyd, WYWH (HSM) Columbia HBL-43453 NM

All grading is visual, before cleaning, and I tend to be very conservative. For example, the Electrifying Eddie Harris is new, played once. The Yes album had some mold or some crap on it (otherwise it was ok), so that rating may be generous. Nasty Yes Normally I would use the sink for this, but I figured this might throw a curve ball here, so I just used the fluids.

One thing first: Paul, if you sell this formula in those bottles, I’ll have to hunt you down and kill you. For the freebie samples, OK, but they were a pain to use. If the formula were a concentrate they would be OK, because you would not have to try and pour it on to an album.

Well, I guess the first thing you need to know is the way I’ve gone about this. The Stuff! First, for this round I ONLY used RRL and Paul’s formula (hereafter referred to as PRCF, for Paul’s Record Cleaning Formula), playing after each cleaning. I can honestly say that doing this was a tremendous pain in the ass. After about the second record, I realized that it is almost impossible to make direct comparisons if you clean with RRL, listen, then clean with PRCF, and listen again. Too much time goes by for a valid comparison, IMHO. Per Doug’s suggestion, I also did the reverse, PRCF then RRL, to which the same PITA addendum applies. So, for a couple of albums I did the side a, RRL, side b, PRCF thing. I also kept the volume and other settings on the electronics the same, and made no adjustments to anything EXCEPT the VTA.

For round two I am going to try using albums I have 2 copies of. This presents another set of problems, such as the condition of each album, but I’ll address that issue when it happens. Round one is going to address the surface noise and grading issues EXCLUSIVELY. Sonic improvements or degradation are set for round 2.

One more disclaimer here: Only the Zevon, Mitchell, Getz, Harris, Kingston Trio and Pink Floyd albums have been played on my TT. The other 3 were in too bad of shape, which is why I bought them for this test!

Right up front, I have to say one thing: Surface noise is greatly reduced using PRCF. This is not a subtle thing, but glaringly obvious. Even using PRCF first, then RRL, the results are the same, less noise. I attribute this to the enzymatic cleaning, since watching the output tube on the 16’5 shows dirtier output using it. No matter which order you clean them in. As I stated in my last post, PRCF also makes the LP’s LOOK cleaner.

Six of the nine albums I am very familiar with, and know EXACTLY how much noise they have on them. Just to be sure, I played them again before running the test, without cleaning. They have all been cleaned with RRL, just not recently. Now, after cleaning for the test, every one has improved. It may sound like I keep repeating myself, but this stuff works, and works well. Also, the visual grade of the albums has improved. The Elton John, Zappa, & Yes albums were a mess, but second copies I have. Each one is now at least a VG-, maybe VG or better. RRL has never improved surface VISUAL CONDITION like this. PRCF took that shit off side 2 of the Yes album like it was never there Clean Yes. Normally I would spend 10 minutes in the sink with something that looked that bad, and then go to town on the RCM.

The other interesting thing I’ve found is that the stylus seems to pick up more crap after using PRCF. The Zerodust has all kinds of stuff in it now See what I mean. I think that the process may loosen some old junk in the grooves that the second stage is not strong enough to remove. This happens when I clean with RRL then PRCF. Going the other way it does not seem to happen as bad. It may be possible that the RRL Super is a little stronger than PRCF’s second stage. Interesting, but not conclusive. More testing is needed to see if this is primarily due to the filth on some of these discs. But, for the next round dealing with the sonics, I am going to pay special attention to the stylus. I plan to give it a good cleaning with Paul’s funky little stylus brush. That thing works!

So, for now I would have to say I’m very impressed with the PRCF. I do have some preliminary opinions on the sonics after cleaning, but I am going to do many more hours of listening over the weekend before I make any comment. It’s taken me 4 hours to write this up so far, and I’m just getting started. Be prepared for another long post before the weekend is out.

Excellent, Jphii! That's good, thorough work, fair within the practical constraints of such a test. Right on.

Paul, I am in the process of moving to Florida early next week and could not take up your offer to test your product. I have been, however, paying attention on your test and what exactly the Record Research products, which rely on ultrapure water, do. Professionally, I hold a degree in Aquatic Science, so I can get pretty technical, except when someone like Raoul ticks my nerves...and then I start giving my "prescriptions".

The subject of resin chemistry can get complicated and demands time and thorough thinking to understand. When I went through corporate training everybody had BS degrees and was having a hard time (except the chemists). What goes on is that as a resin begins to exhaust, the heavier ions ( SiO2, Ca+2, etc, ) are released in favor of the smaller, lighter ones. This is a broad generalization, as an anion resin will exhibit a Silica dip before actually breaking through--just to get a broad picture. Final polishing stages should be devoid of bivalent atoms and ions in order to assure the highest purity. The system I used to run would have gas transfer membranes followed by activated carbon + hydrazine to remove CO2 + O2 past the reverse osmosis unit, which delivered the water @ 8 to 9 uSiemens. A softener followed the degassing units and then on to electrodeionization stacks which mainly removed monovalent ions. After that were two mixed bed polishers in series which brought the water to specs (0.055 uSiemens conductivity, TOC < 20 ppb, SiO2 < 5ppb, DO < 5ppb). Why am I saying all this?

1) Because the water coming out was as pure as the laboratory reagent water and I could clean my glasses of all grease with just a Kim-wipe and ultrapure water. I think ultrapure water has applications to remove stuff from records AFTER initial cleansing and perhaps might benefit being the mixing agent for concentrated solution.

2) Because ultrapure can be made relatively inexpensively in the home if distilled water is available. Considering the price (or pricelessness) of a record collection, this deionization cartridge is more than affordable and simple to use:

Deionization filter

I think it would make ideal rinse/mixing water for the hobbyist.

If anybody is interested I can compile a bibliography of scientific articles on the subject of resin chemistry and demineralized water (after I move & get settled).

With psychic power and primal intensity,

Jphii,

Thank you for your thoughtful, detailed and careful review. Using small sample bottles was one of those things which seemed like a good idea at the time. I should have realized this technically-inclined group would want to do more testing than the small samples permitted. Hence, my sending more (and larger) samples upon request. Sorry about that, Jphii!

I have not encountered accumulation upon my stylus. These different results may be due to: (1) your use of test LPs which were more heavily soiled then mine; (2) frugal use of the cleaner formula -- understandable in light of the small samples sent; (3) the VPI's suction power compared to my self-designed RCM with 1 hp. of suction power. But I would think that (3) would be overcome by addressing (2), and making more liberal use of the cleaner formula. Your larger samples are on their way, and I'll be interested in seeing if more liberal use of the cleaner formula does, as anticipated, reduce accumulation on the stylus.

Thanks again for your very thorough testing and review.

Best regards,
Paul Frumkin

Somebody please remind me never to get into a water chemistry debate with psychicanimal ... with whom I hope to be speaking soon.