Record cleaning fluids

It seems AIVS collects the vote of many who tried it.

Well, it is like reading a review. All is great, all is fine but:
AIVS is a multistep cleaning solution, that means, any owner who spends 30 minutes per record expect to hear terrific improvements. And the more fluids he can use, the better.
I am sure, when any of the other users clean their record 3x with LADS or whatever, they will get the same result. I used AIVS, too and it didn't bite the bullet for me. Probably I have a superior cleaning machine, who knows...and not one record I cleaned with the Enzyme fluid gave me an improvement to the fluid I used before with it.

Syntax, you're lucky. I wish I had 3X LADS to help clean my records!

Even one would be good sometimes. I tried without success to convince my wife to do it after dishes while I'm watching TV drinking some Cognac but washing several times the same thing is not in her culture.
Maybe Ultrasonic should be the right way to go.

Barba

I was using Lloyd Walker's fluids, first 3 steps, then 4. (Ugh). Switched to using AIVS No. 15 and lab water. No discernible sonic difference, and 1/2 the time (two steps v. four). I suspect that any combination of good detergent/surfactant, followed by a pure water rinse will accomplish much the same thing; I am partial to the enzyme cleaners, like the No. 15 (which is apparently both an enzyme along with detergents), because I clean a lot of old records. Some of these benefit from a soak and mild agitation with the cleaner- whether it was cigarette (or other) smoke, combined with air borne grit or other foreign matter, it seems like some of these old records literally had stuff 'glued' to the grooves, and the difference between a superficial cleaning and a thorough cleaning is dramatic.
I think the key to the lab water rinse is to get the cleaning fluids off the record surface; not sure even a high quality vacuum, ala Monks, does that 100%. (I'm not a chemist but suspect there is some residue left that may create a sonic signature. That was certainly the case 30 years ago, when I used 1 step fluids with a VPI- the records would sometimes be noisier after cleaning). I think the water rinse is itself not just a solvent, but may displace whatever cleaning fluid was put on as a first step. (Scientists- chime in here- I'm speaking only from anecdotal experience).
I'm interested in the fact that the Monks fluid doesn't necessarily require a 'rinse.' I'm going to try a Monks machine next. While I like the ultrasonics for convenience and lack of 'static,' I've found that I am getting better results 'pre-cleaning' manually and using a vacuum machine before using the ultrasonic, at least on old records.

I think the key to the lab water rinse is to get the cleaning fluids off the record surface; not sure even a high quality vacuum, ala Monks, does that 100%. (I'm not a chemist but suspect there is some residue left that may create a sonic signature. That was certainly the case 30 years ago, when I used 1 step fluids with a VPI- the records would sometimes be noisier after cleaning).

The Monks can do that much better than any other Machine on the market. The VPI has two lips, one in front of the slot nozzle and one behind. When the back lip is wet from a few cleanings, the slot mechanism is nearly useless because the contaminated back lip serves the gunk and fluid again onto the record. That is the reason why VPI cleaned records needs a new clean again and again after the drying time...it is a cheap but hardly a serious solution for an intelligent Audiophile like you are.

Here is a pic from the result of the cleaning with a Monks Design. Records cleaned only new Reissues or Records from early 60's in Mint ir Mint minus condition....

Fluid removal with a Monks Design

Btw. the cleaning fluid I use is clear like fresh water...