Results from Beta Testers of New Formulas

RE: ULTRA-PURE WATER

As promised, I contacted AquaFX, a Divison of Aqua Engineering & Equipment, Inc., in Winter Park, Florida. These guys are the ultra-pure water gurus whom Psychicanimal suggested that I contact.

The first reaction of the guy I spoke with (Bob) was that ultra-pure was too aggressive for vinyl LPs: it has the potential leach plasticizers and other large chain molecules out of the vinyl ... even though it doesn't do so with food storage safe plastics (e.g., PET, MDPE, HDPE and Nalgene). Bob thought there would be a point where, when enough other stuff is added to the ultra-pure water, this doesn't occur, and he's going to get back to me on what that point is.

However, unlike most surfactants, detergents, soaps and cleaners, the surfactant I use is a single molecule. The benefit of a single molecule surfactant is that it can be effective at very low concentrations. This is a good thing when it comes to removing the cleaner by vacuum or rinse and vacuum. (Of course, the wetting agent adds another molecule, so we're at a 2 molecule soup).

So while I wait for Bob to get back to me, I'm a little leery of going down this path. Yes, ultra-pure water is a good solvent. But perhaps it's too good of a solvent. More later.

Best regards,
Paul

Non-tester jumping in here, just to offer thanks to all who are giving of their time, energy, knowledge and beater vinyl. It seems like you're getting excellent results so far and there's potential for even better ones with that water quality improvement in the works.

Joe quoted a comment I made about how often we use our stylus cleaner. We frequently play 10 or more sides with only a dry brush swipe between sides to relocate the cat hairs. I've gone 20+ sides without needing to clean. Paul's doohickey is the best stylus cleaner I know, but not needing to clean the stylus at all? Priceless. Record cleaning is orders of magnitude more important than stylus cleaning.

While a need for stylus cleaning clearly correlates well with dirt in the grooves, IME a stylus often comes up clean even after playing a noisy side. If the grunge is stuck to the vinyl... Listening is the ultimate indicator, as usual.

We do have stubborn LPs that resist repeated applications of RRL, Vinyl-zyme, Premier, alchohol-based solutions, brillo pads, etc. If vigorous scrubbing with DD brushes and repeated Loricraft sweeps won't clean these things then maybe Paul's solutions will. Can't hurt to try, so I'll be ordering a batch - once he gets some decent bottles and clean water of course! ;-)

BTW, some of the irretrievably noisy LP's in our collection were ruined with tap water and a GroovMaster. No amount of subsequent cleaning has helped. I caution everyone: avoid using tap water on anything but a beater record. I don't know what's in your water, but ours often contains high levels of manganese oxides (I think that's what Paul found). Once something like that gets ground into the vinyl, enzymes, alchohol, deionised water and juju juice are all useless. Metal oxides probably aren't much good for the stylus either.

BTW, it makes perfect sense to this non-chemist that leaving Paul's enzymatic solution on the LP for a bit would help. Enzyme reactions take some amount of time, right?

BTW #2, I don't know about the inventors/providers of other cleaning solutions, but I'm pretty sure the reason Brian Weitzel (RRL) hasn't chimed in on this thread is simply that he is a gentleman. His chemical knowledge and practical experiences would undoubtedly be beneficial, but commenting on a thread devoted to a competitor's product would be unprofessional and provocative. Brian is neither of these things. Even in private conversation I have never known him to be other than a model of propriety.

Doug: I've commented on the "beading up vs surface penetration" area of this discussion in threads where Brian did respond. As far as i know, neither he nor anyone else has refuted the comments that i've made about a lack of penetration below the surface resulting in a lack of deep cleaning. Besides learning about this type of stuff from a Chemical Engineer that used to work for NASA, it would seem to be a matter of common sense. After all, if you can't get below the surface, you can't clean below the surface. Since most of the "grundge" resides in the "nooks & crannies" of a disc, a solvent that lacks proper penetration below surface level can only do a superficial job of cleaning. This is probably why Joe aka Jphii was still pulling "gobs of grundge" off of what he assumed were "previously cleaned" discs. They might have been "cleaned", but to what extent was up to the previous solvents & methods used. Sean
>

Sean and all,

I don't dispute the need to break surface tension with some materials, but without knowing what stuff came off Jphii's records I would hesitate to say that heavy does of surfactant is the answer to all cleaning issues. Perhaps it is the enzymes or surfactant or the combination of the two. Just like setting up a system, there are trade-offs. Surfactants can be your friend but they can also work against you when trying to get everything back off the vinyl.

I just want to echo the thanks to all the testers out there. The results so far have me salivating for this PRCF solution as well.

I do have a question for you testers. Especially those, like Joe, who are seeing lots of stuff come off of what you thought where clean LP's. That is, do you see any deposits on the brushes you are using?

Dan_ed,

I started out with new Last brushes which are white for applying Paul's cleaning formulas. I first cleaned the records in my usual fashion which, IMO, is very thorough using brushes which were not new. When cleaning with Paul's stuff, I did notice more grunge on the new brushes. Understand, I don't have a lot of this fluid to waste and followed the directions to the letter. The ammount of dirt on these new brushes was not as great as you might believe from reading the above posts but it was noticeable, no doubt. I've understated my findings for fear of appearing as a shill for Paul. Again, I have no affiliation with Paul other than being a voluntary Beta tester, nor will I be entering any business relationship with him. I'd buy this stuff in a heartbeat and use it without fear but I can understand completely the concerns raised by others as far as leeching is concerned.

Unless I make some new discovery while using these fluids I'm going to end my postings to this thread with the following summary:

This stuff is good. It beats anything I've used by a wide margin. There are sonic benefits beyond reduced surface noise. The anti-static properties are a definite benefit. A little bit goes a long way. I've also found that used albums that are marginal in condition (visible scratches, poorly handled, very dirty, but don't look like they would skip) become very listenable. I've yet to clean any of my perfect audiophile pressing that I purchased new. I will do that without hesitation at some point but the excitement of otherwise noisy albums being quieted so much is where I'm concentrating my efforts. Remember, I've only got about one ounce of this stuff to play with.

For full disclosure to this group I offer the following also. I have contacted Paul requesting to buy the concentrate in whatever large quantity he would be willing to sell me. If the price was something I could afford at the time he would sell retail, I will try to buy a gallon of each. That would probably last me the rest of my life. Of course, with that kind of quantity I would be tempted to occassionaly gift a small amount to others along the way for them to try like has been done for me by other kind Audigon members.

If anyone has any questions for me I will be happy to respond to any emails or phone calls. I hope I've not appeared to "go over the top" with my recommendation but the temptation is there to do so. Again, it's that good.