Results from Beta Testers of New Formulas

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 : )

Psychic,

I checked out that site you posted for the water filters. I'd like to get one, but don't know what I would need besides that filter, or how to hook it up. I hope it's not too much to ask, but, could you help a brother out?

Paul,

I'm working on Part 2 of my review right now. It should be up in a few hours, detailing last night's listening session. Quite frankly, I'm amazed at the way it went. I think those following this thread will be too. I need to get it posted so I can finish up today.

Joe

Okay, here are some observations from last night's listening session. First off, With 1 exceptions, I used albums that had already undergone my normal routine, and just used PRCF. I also allowed #1 to sit on the albums for a few minutes before proceeding. One thing first: Leaving the fluid on brings more crap off of the album than you can believe. I thought they were clean! I see now I was mistaken. Wait till you see the picture from the outflow tube. The lineup:

Cat Stevens: “Catch Bull at Four” A&M SP4365
Genesis: “Trick of the Tail” Atco MSFL-1-062
Eagles: “Long Run “ Asylum 5E-508
Volume 2, “Classic Blues” Bluesway BLS-6062-A
Roy Orbison: “Black & White Nights Live” Virgin ST-VR-897531
Neil Young & CH: “Everybody Knows This is Nowhere” Reprise MSC2282

The Blues album was the exception, it was SS. Got it for 2 bucks, how can you pass that up? All of the others are NM. You still would not believe the crap that came off. This applies to every album I’ve used PRCF on. I feel that the enzymes are doing something right. Leaving it on helps to loosen crap buried in the grooves. Then, this time I left them under vacuum for about 6 revolutions, instead of 2. I was a little concerned about static, but using the Gruv Glide styrofoam peanut, there didn’t seem to be ANY. I’ll hold judgment as Patrick is, and see how long this lasts.

The real surprise here was with the Roy Orbison. I think this is an excellent LP, but I always thought it was poorly mastered. You can barely hear T Bone Burnett’s guitar on most of the tracks. Well, guess again. I’m still going to stay away from all of the adjectives, but I hear things now I never heard before. And I thought his album was clean. Now, there is ABSOLUTELY NO SURFACE NOISE AT ALL. While there was a reduction in surface noise across the board, nowhere was it this dramatic. And while all of the LP’s sounded better, again, nowhere was it this dramatic. I had to listen to it several times to be sure! And it was better every time. By the third time I could hear JD Souther’s strings buzzing, the rasp in Bonnie Raitt’s voice, and levels of detail that I never knew were there. And yes, you can tell whose guitar is doing what. Amazing. I also have this on DVD, and I do not think I can listen to that copy again. I’d rather have the level of detail than the “live” experience.

This effect was nowhere near as dramatic on the other albums I tested. But it was still there. I don’t think it is at all a subtle difference. But one thing that I consider essential is to leave the #1 solution on the lp, to allow it to work. Also, forget about the 2 revolution rule on your RCM. You need to get that crap up! After using it in this way, I noticed no more crap on the stylus. Doug said it all in an email:

Glad to hear yours is still working. Ours is too, though in truth it's rarely needed. Clean records don't dirty a stylus.

I can’t say it any better.

So here is the process I used:

1. Apply #1, and use the brush to spread it till it covers the lp.
2. LET IT SIT!
3. Use the brush to scrub.
4. Vacuum, vacuum, vacuum.
5. Apply #2.
6. Use the brush to scrub.
7. Vacuum, vacuum, vacuum!
8. Carbon fiber brush for a couple of revolutions.
9. Enjoy!

So in summation, I’d have to say what happens using PRCF is the availability of a new level of detail, making the MUSIC more enjoyable. That’s what I want out of a clean record. And IMHO, PRCF does it best, so far!

Jphii, you will also need a small pump. As I was explaining Paul, resin tanks/cartridges need minimum flow/pressure throughputs in order to avoid channeling and optimize laminar flow down the bed. Channeling happens when there is not enough flow/pressure and the water flows down a narrow funnel path, using only a small portion of the resin and prematurely exhausting it, causing breakthrough. This is readily visible, as I had tanks channel on me when the customer gave me insufficient water flow/pressure.

The people at Aquatic Ecosystems are a competent staff and will be able to give you all the technical support you need. They flew me for an interview in Orlando back in May (but didn't hire me). Their technical manager, a civil engineer w/ a PhD, didn't know I was there and was forced to interview me on the spot. He started asking me questions about fluid mechanics, pumping systems design and stuff I have absolutely no knowledge of! Oh well, I didn't see me in call center 8 hours a day anyway...

The technical info I've given is not to brag, but necessary to understand and operate a little system like the one I recommend. Paul is right about gases--they will diffuse back into the water and make it "not ultrapure", especially CO2. The anion resin will be the first to exhaust, since CO2 hydrolyzes into carbonate, bicarbonate and carbonic acid (the water will tend to become acidic then). As the resin exhausts it will be unable to adsorb the heavier/more positively charged ions and will dump them, favoring the lighter/less charged ions.

This little system will be able to deliver water of a purity that's pretty close to that one used for nuclear reactors in submarines: they distill seawater and then run it through resins. Do not use any activated carbon, even if tempted. That will clean the water but load it with organic carbon compounds ( NO! ). When the system is started in needs to be flushed till water reaches proper conductivity/specs. At Beaver Balley nuke they use stationary & mobile equipment with the carbon/hydrazyne deoxygenating rig prior to the resin trailer and on a Monday it takes two-three hours of flushing to bring the organic carbon levels down to spec. In the mobile trailers I have used (fed with tap water) spec will usually be reached within 5 to 7 minutes. If using distilled water I'd give an educated guess of around 3 to 5 minutes. That means it's more practical to make smaller batches of demin water and fill them to the top, airtight. Using the system often and making small batches will prolong the service life of the resins.

Is it worth it? I think so. Doing a final rinse with ultrapure water will extract what's left on the record surface and the results will be more worthwhile than using this or that $700 power cord, for sure. I have talked about this with Jena Labs (Jennifer Crock) and she gets better results as the water gets purer and purer. On another note, once the record has gone through a two step cleansing an occasional cleansing with ultrapure water might be all that is needed if there's no fungal growth and/or fingerprints on the record surface.

Well Sean, that was a very short "self imposed vacation". Now you understand how I feel when you start getting technical and I state that I don't know how to read! I have no electrical/electronics knowledge but I *do* know my water. It takes all kinds...

***