Results from Beta Testers of New Formulas

Just talked to Paul Frumkin on the phone, courtesy of MCI's The Neighborhood program...

From our conversation (and posted results) I can tell that Paul is definitely on the right track on how to achieve proper record cleaning. Making ultrapure water is a specialty subject indeed, but I convinced him that using it in the mixing of his #2 solution would improve results by no small margin. Clean water IS better, Jphii. The thing is that ultrapure water does not behave like reverse osmosis nor distilled water. There comes a point in purity where the water turns into a powerful solvent (that's why it's used in steam blows in plants). Just ultrapure water in steam form is a powerful cleaner. Maybe in a cleaner future you can Beta test two batches of #2 mixed w/ distilled water and ultrapure water, respectively. We'll see, things look good.

Where's Raoul?

***

I just wanted to add one thing that I am trying tonight. Since the #1 solution is an enzymatic formula, and Paul has left it on albums for extended periods without harm, I have decided to leave it on after I spread it on the lp, but before brushing, for a couple of minutes. I figure this may help loosen the debris that is in the grooves.

I did this on an lp, and it seems to make the runoff even dirtier. So I am assuming this is a good thing. Said lp does sound very good, too, which is after all the whole point.

I wonder if the wonder water would help loosen this stuff and make it easier to remove? I know the difference between distilled & RO water, after so many years around boats. Boaters love RO water, but I can see your point here, Psychic. The ultrapure stuff is beyond me! So, I called a buddy of mine who runs the steam plant at East Carolina University, and he confirmed what Psychic said. Now, remember, this was not because I doubted what you said. It just never hurts to have a second opinion. I have no problems deferring to experts (except Raoul, of course).

More to come as I finish my testing and finalize the review.

Psychicanimal's knowledge of water chemistry is amazing. He convinced me of the benefits of ultra-pure water, and I can pursue using ultra-pure water for the small amounts of water which get added to a cleaner formula concentrate.

But because of the relative unavailability of deionized ultra-pure water, folks who want an ultra-pure water based cleaner formula will need to either (1) purchase the concentrate AND their own dionizing equipment, or (2) purchase the cleaner formula in non-concentrate, ready-to-use form, and incur the expense of shipping water, albeit ultra-pure water.

I'll look into deionizing equipment on Monday, and report back.

Best regards,
Paul

Here's my report for today. I replaced the vacuum pad on my Nitty Gritty and used two new Last brushes. I also transferred Paul's two formulas into new plastic bottles with drip spouts.

The records for this test were purchased today at an estate sale. They are:

Tony Bennett "Who Can I Turn To", Columbia CS 9085
The Doors "The Soft Parade", Elektra EKS-75005
Otis Redding "The Dock Of The Bay" Volt S-419

My usual cleaning ritual begins with wiping the records with an old cleaning brush wetted with distilled water. I then follow the directions provided by RRL with the Deep Cleaner and the Vinyl Wash using the Nitty Gritty. I did this with all three albums and listened to each very carefully, making note of areas that were problematic.

I then used Paul's formulas and followed his instructions again on the Nitty Gritty with new brushes. Additional residue was visible on the new brushes, especially the brush used to apply the enzyme fluid. This surprised me since I was very careful with the first cleanings using the RRL products. Any reasoned person would assume that there was a chance I didn't get all the grunge out of the grooves with the first cleaning. I just don't know for sure but suspect the enzyme cleaner was doing what it is supposed to do.

The results were better than I would have imagined. No, it doesn't fix scratches or vinyl defects. But, beyond a lowered noise floor more information came through. I don't think this was an imaginary phenomenon or wishful thinking on my part. It's real. The Doors album was in near perfect condition. After using the RRL products there was some (although very little) crackling in addition to the stylus in the groove noise associated with a generic American pressing of that era. After cleaning with Paul's formula there was no crackling at all. Zip, nada, nothing but stylus drag on generic vinyl.

I normally use Gruv Glide because of the felt mat lifting with the record. For these three albums I decided not to introduce Gruv Glide in the process assuming I would just deal with the hassle of a lifted felt mat to give the fairest of comparrisons. Yes, the mat lifted with the RRL products and surprise, surprise, it didn't lift with Paul's formula. Only time will tell if this is a lasting consequence of this potential product.

Small things make a difference in this hobby. A perfect example is the Tony Bennett album. On the first listen and being very familar with this album I was very pleased that I had found such a nice copy of an album that was made circa 1960. I have plans to give it as a gift. With the second listen using Paul's formulas I discoverd there were three instruments that stood out from the full orchestra more than before. They were the piano, bass and drums. This was The Ralph Sharon Trio who was Tony Bennett's touring band. It's not surprising that they were more pronounced than the rest of the musicians since it was probably recorded that way, being as they were the basis of his sound inside and outside of the recording studio. This gave the recording a layered effect in depth that we all try to find in better recordings.

I've posted many times about purification of water and believe that this formula would benefit from ultra pure water. I have access to such water locally due to friends in the computer chip manufacturing business and used it with my home brew solution prior to embracing RRL products. For the record, RRL is great stuff. I've been using their stylus cleaner for better than 15 years and consider their record cleaning products to be top drawer. Paul's two step cleaning fluids have the edge in my opinion and not by a small amount. The difference is significant but not what I would say is huge.

I have no affiliation with Paul whatsoever. I'm not going to invest in his company or attempt to become a distributor. I would like to buy some of the concentrate whenever it becomes available. I would like to use a few drops more than he suggests but since I have so little I'll continue to apply as sparingly as he suggests. I will report back on one of our dryest days to tell the crowd if the anti-static properties remain.

While i have a rather involved record cleaning process, some of you may remember me commenting on various vinyl cleaning solutions lacking the proper surfactant formulation to fully penetrate the grooves. My "multi-stage" cleaning process came about because i've never found a single solution that actually "did it all".

To sum things up, if you can't penetrate and loosen up the sludge, there's no way to fully remove it. This is true whether you are doing a simple vacuum lift of the solution or even a clean water rinse and vacuum. Putting something on top of the grundge and actually penetrating and loosening the grundge for removal are two different things.

A product that beads up isn't penetrating, hence the lack of deep cleaning action. A solution that not only penetrates, but "foams" or "bubbles" will have the best cleaning action due to the natural aeration taking place. When the solution stops foaming or bubbling, it has reached the point of contaminant saturation and the natural cleansing action has been drastically reduced. If natural aeration ( "scrubbing bubbles" ) of the product doesn't occur, manual agitation ( scrubbing ) of the area to be cleaned would definitely be beneficial.

The only problem with such an approach and "stronger" cleansing agents is that one has to wonder what kind of long term effect on the vinyl substrate is taking place and what kind of residue would the cleansing agent itself leave behind? Hence the necessity for not only a thorough yet "relatively gentle" cleaning, but also a thorough "flushing" of the remaining grundge and any residue left behind. This allows one to "get the best of both worlds" i.e. remove the grundge as thorougly as is possible without leaving any type of caustic cleaning agent or residue behind.

For those that aren't familiar with my "record cleaning ritual", i have three different RCM's ( record cleaning machines ). Side 1 goes onto the platter of the first VPI 16.5 RCM. I manually scrub this using Disc Doctor cleaning solutions and brushes. This helps to break up and deep clean anything imbedded in the grooves. The drawback here is that Disc Doctor solution by itself, while a reasonably good penetrant, is not that easily removed. This is where the VPI 16.5 comes into play.

As was previously discussed, the Record Research Labs fluid doesn't really penetrate that well by itself i.e. it beads up on the surface. As such, it acts as both a topical cleansing agent and helps to lift and suspend the Disc Doctor solution. This allows the vacuum to pick up both the liquid and the grundge that is suspended in the cleaning solution, kind of like how a properly designed motor oil acts as a carrier to suspend the dirt until it can get back to the filter in a car. If the secondary solution ( RRL ) didn't "bead up", the "grundge" would sink back into the grooves with the solution as it was settling. Hence the "drawbacks" of one cleaning solution ( Disc Doctor's tendency to "cling" to the vinyl ) is negated by the "drawbacks" ( RRL's tendency to "float on the surface" ) once the vacuum ( filter ) is applied.

This disc is them removed from the first VPI 16.5 and placed with Side 2 platter up on the second VPI 16.5 RCM. Side 2 is then manually scrubbed with the Disc Doctor solution and then rinsed with the RRL fluid. This approach cleans both sides of the disc with neither side seeing anything but a clean platter mat underneath it. On top of that, having a platter mat underneath the disc allows me to apply enough pressure to really clean the grooves without fear of actually scuffing / damaging the other side of the vinyl.

After both sides have been manually scrubbed with the Disc Doctor solution and brush and topically cleaned with the RRL fluid, which is recovered through the vacuum, the disc is then installed onto a Nitty Gritty 1.5FI. Where the NG machines differ from the VPI's is that there is no platter mat that touches the disc, hence the reduction in potential for further contamination. The discs are supported strictly by the label area, keeping the grooved data area clean.

For my purposes, the 1.5FI dispenses nothing but distilled water. This acts as a final rinse to remove any lingering residue / grundge / cleaning solvent. This water and any residue is then recovered by a thorough vacuuming. I then flip the disc over onto the other side with no fear of contamination ( no platter mat to worry about ) and repeat the distilled water rinse.

While some may find this a bit "over the top" and "costly", it really isn't. You only have to do this to a disc one time, so it's not really a big deal. As far as the high expenses involved with having three RCM's, through careful shopping i've only spent about as much on these three machines as someone would on a brand new VPI 17. Given that a VPI 17 ( or any other commercially available machine ) could not compete with the results obtained from this method, the cost is actually quite low. If one has a large LP collection that they value, such a set-up is simply a small investment to protect the much larger investment that one has in irreplaceable vinyl.

Paul's cleaning solutions seem to be working well and the feedback so far seems to be very positive. Given that i've had to resort to two different types of "cleaning agents" that weren't really designed to work together, Paul's approach of complimentary solutions may offer the best of both worlds. Once i can make further headway on some of my other projects, i hope to purchase some of this from him and give it a go. I have quite a few used LP's that i've accumulated since my last "cleaning session", so it would be a great opportunity for me to see just how well it works in comparison to the above method. Sean
>

PS... I really appreciate the time that you folks, especially Dopogue, Jphii and Lugnut have put into both testing and reporting their results. It's made me want to keep checking into this thread. As far as Psychic's comments go, he should know that us simpleton's can't understand all that technical jive. All those technical spec's go right over our heads : )