Anybody using the last record preservative

Do you clean your new LPs, when they arrive? I find there’s more crap on the record from the factory then buying used.

There are three possible answers that I can think of: 1)  The act of scrubbing the records in the application process for LAST is quite rigorous and that can remove crap in the groove of new records.  I actually clean the records thoroughly before applying the LAST because I don't want to be rubbing hard with abrasive crap in the groove.

2) The second thing is that, after treatment, the records feel smoother (lower friction) when running any kind of brush against the groove, this less abrasive surface might reduce production of noise.

3) The lower friction means lower build up static electricity when the stylus tracks the groove reducing both attraction of dust and the noise generated by static discharge jostling the stylus.

longest sentence ever

Feeling the surface of an LP doesn’t tell you much about friction in its grooves.

Punctuation is your friend.

Last is supposed to reduce friction between the vinyl and the stylus.  Several such record treatments are supposed to do the same. The old "Sound Guard" was a dry lubricant designed for the same purpose. 

Whether any of these products work to reduce wear is something I don't know if this has been demonstrated.  When i comes to long-term effect, it is probably even harder to tell.  How long does one wait in such a comparison?  Could the product ultimately reduce record life if it unfavorably alters the record surface in the very long term?  So far, records I have treated with LAST or Sound Guard are in good condition, but, so too are records that have not been treated.

I begun using it more than 20 years ago.  It seems as though it reduces friction and can be perceived in the sound.  Seems to reduce groove noise.  I can't say as to whether it reduces record wear, but theoretically, it should.  I like the product.

I'm a fan. Have "Catch a Fire" by the Wailers with the old Zippo lighter cover. Treated 30 or so years ago. I've had the album 50 years. Sounds spectacular. 

I have been using last record preservative for… hmmm, I guess more than thirty years. All my albums are treated (2,000).
 

My methodology is to clean with Last Power Cleaner before cleaning on my cleaning machine, then apply LAST. Most of my albums have been cleaned and treated only once. 

Then Last All-Purpose cleaner before playing each time to get the dust off.
 

Back in the vinyl days I put all new records through the Nitty Gritty first, then treated with LAST & stored in MHS archival sleeves. And so they remain today, nothing being spun more than once a year barring intoxicated visitors. Sounds like little has changed, LAST still around -- those big wide brushes too? 

For the last (no pun intended) several years or so, I have been using "LAST RECORD PRESERVATIVE" after a thorough ultrasonic cleaning of all my vinyl albums.  As far as I've been able to discern, there have been no ill effects on audio fidelity or sound quality.  However, after reading what a few chemists had to say about LAST RECORD PRESERVATIVE, I have now abandoned its use.  For example:

“The (LAST) record preservative contains only 2 ingredients ... perfluoropolyether ... and ... a fluorinated lubricant ... originally developed by DuPont Chemical.  It is incorporated at a level of 0.055%, and the other 99.945% is a blend of perfluorohexane, perfluoroheptane, and perfluorooctane ... the majority of which is perfluorooctane.  A blend such as this perfluoroalkane in “Industrial Circles’ is frequently called a “DAG”, which is a various blend allowing the product to be about 50% to 60% lower in cost than a specific ingredient, as in this case, that would be perfluorooctane.  Another way of lowering the cost.  It is not a CFC because it contains no Chlorine.

I took the liberty to calculate the raw material costs based on current pricing of materials in what would be considered relatively small quantities, that is, 5 gallon containers versus 55 gallon drum price which would be far significantly lower in price.

The 2 oz. of LAST record preservative that sells for $64.95 contains $0.094 worth of raw materials.

The 8 oz. version that sells for $228.95 contains $0.374 worth of raw materials, and the 16 oz. “best value for your dollar” selling for $432.95 contains only $0.748 worth of raw materials.

A 5 gallon Plastic bucket and a stir stick and two scales, a funnel, and a few coffee filters and you are in business.  A semi-sophisticated (meaning non-automatic) which would require a variable mixer, and a 25 litre stainless steel mixing vessel, with more accurate scales, and a variable volumetric manual filling device with proper industrial filters, (would) cost no more than $2,000.00.

I took only the 16 oz. Record preservative as an example and contacted people that we use to purchase high quality “peel and stick” labels, and a company we purchased bottles from (colored glass in this case).  I am speaking high quality labels, better than those of The LAST factory, and they would be impervious because they would be coated and in three colour printing.  I considered employing someone at $55,000.00 annually including all benefits and insurance, including Workers Compensation Insurance, and I calculated the Total Cost to produce a 16 oz. bottle of LAST record preservative to cost only $1.936 per bottle.  The same product that you are expected to pay $432.95 (for).  That is a whopping 5,595 % Margin.

The claims, on the other hand, is another matter.  Fact, the “preservative” is a lubricant.  It provides no preservation of the actual vinyl.  And, their statement that it “bonds to the records” is an absolute impossibility.  It is a surface application only, no bonding!  Also, NO penetration takes place.  And, certainly no bonding, even remotely, can take place.  The Chemical bond between a Fluoride and another Carbon atom is one of the strongest chemical bonds to exist.  In order for bonding to take place, this chemical bond needs the be “altered”, even just slightly, and that is a TOTAL IMPOSSIBILITY!   Therefore, this claim is absolutely false." 

In my last round of record cleaning, I used "LAST POWER CLEANER FOR RECORDS" as my initial cleaning step, followed by my other cleaning steps, including ultrasonic cleaning, and avoided using "LAST RECORD PRESERVATIVE".  There was/is no discernable difference in audio fidelity or sound quality between the records treated with "LAST RECORD PRESERVATIVE" and those without.  Records are just as quiet; surface noise is just as absent, and the noise floor is just as deep, black and quiet.  I'll use up the last of my "LAST POWER CLEANER FOR RECORDS" because of what it cost me.  However, now that I know what its chemical composition is, I'll make my own power cleaner, at far lesser cost, in the future.  As for the record preservative, I've concluded this to be a waste of time and money.

There's a guy on Youtube who uses WD-40 with similar results.

Last power cleaner on new albums followed by applying Last Record Preservative since 1977.  Put the album in a static proof sleeve and then put a plastic sleeve over each album jacket. They remain in mint condition. Takes some effort but it’s worth it. Still purchasing vinyl on a regular basis.

I have a few cans of GruvGlide, which I don't use. I bought them many years ago when I thought they might be a good idea. They do smell delicious though, and if I ever get into huffing they might be useful.

I have been using it for years. Always clean a new record. I alway ultra sonically clean my records. 

Maybe 3 in 1 oil would be less volatile than WD40 and have less overspray. 

ghdprentice

6,160 posts

03-07-2024 at 12:37am

Maybe 3 in 1 oil would be less volatile than WD40 and have less overspray.

I know of an individual who’s been using WD-40 for at least a decade in this way; that should be an eye blink for chemical integrity / lifespan of vinyl. Ingredients like “white spirits” and the liquid-like state of the film, once applied and made available to the pick-up / hollow cantilever, had me head-scratching and chin-rubbing. I haven’t employed WD-40 this way despite what wonders I’ve heard it do in person (for old noisy records).

Makes me wonder the ingredients in Last and not just how it would affect the vinyl, but the pick-up, too. Should be much easier for folks in a hundred years since that’ll be ample time to assess for a cartridge and “workin’ disc’s” lifespan alike.

WD-40 on LP’s from the ‘60s sure did sound good as on old door hinges, though.

Perhaps fifteen or twenty years ago when vinyl was the only medium for audiophiles there was enormous amount of effort by audiophiles and even chemists to determine appropriate and effective cleaning fluids. Extensive testing, much of it science based where museums were concerned with record preservation made it very clear that even adding a very small amount of alcohol to cleaning fluid would remove plasticity from the vinyl and result in increased wear and damage the records.

So, unless you are really interested in diving in to the enormous volume of literature on the subject. I would stick with major / non alcohol based cleaning and preserving fluids. So that leaves out STP, transmission fluid, and olive oil.

@ghdprentice even extra virgin?

Well, early picked extra virgin is probably OK.

Is there no spätlese extra virgin? Not to mention auslese or trockenbeeren auslese? Happy days at the Friday night Practice tasting session with the vintner in attendance!

I wouldn't do something based on someone else doing it on youtube.  A lubricant that is wet and sticky will hold on to dust and any other crap that falls on the record and that cannot be good.  Last is just the opposite.  It is dry and slippery and reduces static charge so the record is less likely to attract dust.  

There is a lot of experts that claim that vinyl records do not have plasticizers that can be extracted by alcohol and so it is safe to use it on records.  I play it safe and use cleaners that are either free of alcohol or use low concentration alcohol.  

Let me do a little myth busting here.  There is a guy who wears a chemist smock and hawks ultrasonic record cleaners.  Any of you who have been to a trade show know who I am talking about.  Anyway, he scrubs and scrubs until all the white gunk stops frothing out of the record grooves.  It is quite a process.  He hates records that have been treated with Last because it is next to impossible to remove the stuff according to him.  It seems to bond pretty well- kind of as claimed by the manufacturer.  Next, some time around 1979 or 1980, toward the very end of my years in hifi retail, the rep for Last came into our store and set up a demo as follows:  Two brandy new direct to disc copies of Dave Grusin on Sheffield Records were opened and one was treated with Last and then both were put on identical Dual changers (1219 model if memory serves) and left on repeat for a week plus of continuous play.  Come Saturday a week later to much fanfare and in front of a considerable crowd the two records were compared.  The untreated one was quite noisy, but the treated one was still quiet.  As quiet as a freshly opened copy.  Last sold well at that store from then on, and I for one have used it ever since on literally thousands of records with stellar results.  It is a one time treatment, even if the treated record is later cleaned again and again.  And no treated record has ever  needed more than an occasional re-cleaning.   Oh, by the way, in all the years and all the time I have used Last there has never been one problem with either their bottles or the labels.

@billstevenson I use the Kirmuss KA-RC-1 on ever record and then treat with LAST great combo and after treating just give my LPs and occasional bath in the KA-RC-1 and freshen up the LAST treatment.

Love it.  

I've used the LAST record preservative since the 1980s, always after cleaning the LP first (mostly with a Nitty Gritty vacuum cleaning machine).  I don't recall the preservative being claimed to improve the sound of the record, just prevent wear--which would maintain the LP's sound quality.  On some of my LPs, I think it added low-level surface noise; after realizing that, I've been reluctant to use it on LPs with quiet music.

I've not done any careful comparison of treated and non-treated LPs.  Pretty much all of my LPs that I bought new still sound fine, whether treated or not, in part because of using an antistatic gun and carbon-fiber brush before each play, with the record under a direct light so I can see any visible dust particles.  I rarely wet clean them more than once.  I store them in rice-paper or poly-lined sleeves.  I play them with the dust cover of the turntable down.  All of this effort to minimize dust collection on the LPs pays off in fewer ticks.