Update;
I'm lovin my unit, it does a great job even though I do not enjoy cleaning.
My collection has grown substantially to a few hundred now, still not even close to what most of you have.
Update;
I have truely enjoyed the TW-Acustic Raven One table so I have moved up the line and have on it's way their Raven AC3, looking forward to it.
My VAC Sig. MKIIa full function pre, so happy with it that I have decided to pull the trigger and get their Statement 450 mono blocks. |
Dougdeacon, thx for the tip for keeping the tube clear I will do that.
It's a no brainer regarding what I heard in my set-up, I did not go to the extent of what you have described in cleaning but will.
I'm shocked with all the crud on "new records", my stylus will never be put through that abuse again.
|
Dev, glad you're seeing the benefits so quickly. Seeing that muck in the jar from previously "cleaned" or new LP's is indeed an eye opener.
Hopefully it'll be an ear opener too.
What I do to keep the tube clear is put the nozzle off the back of the machine, sucking air, and leave the vacuum running while I'm applying the next fluid (not during the long enzyme soak, just for the quicker fluids). I've not had any buildup in the tube in years.
|
This thread serves a lot of good information. You will find the solution which works best for your collection. For saving time, try AIVS No.6 or the new MoFi cleaner. You know, there are differences.... :-) |
Peterayer thx, I decided to just use distilled water and a little more than the spoonful. My thought is all this product already being inside the tubes so using the distilled water should flush it out doing the job.
After exsperiencing the over all sonic difference along with seeing the crud in the jar and all from new recordings well it's a no brainer for me, nothing gets played until cleaned. Knowing and seeing what I have now I would not want to put my stylus on any record unless cleaned. |
Congratulations, Dev. I have the PRC4 in cherry. It's a great machine, but my stack of uncleaned LPs is growing because I spend all my time listening and not cleaning. One word of caution: if you follow the advice in the manual and suck up one spoonful of alcohol at the end of each cleaning session to keep the tubes clean, beware of dripping the alcohol on the record mat. I found that the chemicals in the AVIS or the alcohol turns the black mat slightly lighter. Mine is now very uneven in color, but the functionality is unchanged. |
Update, received my new Loricraft PRC4 w/walnut veneer last week.
Nice looking pce, over all very happy with the fit and finish and it's so easy to use. Allot quieter than my friends PRC3, does a great job. I like being able to have options of how I decide to clean my records and with all the info. on this thread provides me with such THX! |
Yes, I used to use a similar regimen. I think I got lucky on a few records, adopted a short cut, and then sang myself to sleep. So to speak. :-) |
Dan,
In our experience, the majority of LP's have some amount of that blurring veil. We agree that it behaves exactly like a thin layer of some contaminant (or lubricant) and it's difficult to remove.
"Was it the enzymes or was it the extra soak?"
In our experience it's the enzymes. We tried scrubbing and soaking many LP's with multiple non-enzyme fluids (AIVS and others) to no avail. It was always the enzyme step that did the trick. If they aren't used first that veiling layer isn't "loosened" enough for other fluids to work. Unfortunately, enzymes require extended soak times. Unavoidable but certainly a bummer.
Since most LP's have such a layer we clean every one with the full regimen, starting with AIVS #1 Enzymatic. For us it feels faster to do it well the first time than to hope a shortcut will suffice, then end up recleaning anyway. (Been there, tried that, hated it.)
***
Completely agree with Mark that more effective fluids and *some* RCM, well used, will outclean less effective fluids and a "better" RCM. By definition, a less effective fluid is one that doesn't dissolve or suspend all contaminants. With such a fluid the record won't be clean no matter how well we vacuum it, though it will be really, really dry.
***
We use AIVS #15 as a pre-clean step for especially dirty looking records (which we never intentionally buy, but one slips in now and then). It works well. Others use it instead of Enzymatic or even instead of #1, 2 and 3, following only with a pure water rinse or two. We signed up for the full masochistic plan long ago and now we're too old to change. ;-)
|
What I find most interesting about this particular LP is that the enzymes seem to have been working on some contaminant. This was a recently opened pressing from the Music Matters series of Curtis Fuller's The Opener. Was it the enzymes or was it the extended soak? I don't know. I'm just bummed about the extra time involved. |
Peterayer,
The best way I can describe AIVS #15 PreCleaner, it is like the Enzymatic Formula on Steroids.
As far as I can tell, no Alcohols are in this product, and I was told it contains not one, but two broadband vegetable based Enzymes.
As I understand it, the #15 PreCleaner can be used as a replacement for the Enzymatic Formula, or in conjunction with the Enzymatic Formula as a following-next step.
The #15 can also be used as well as a first step in a two step cleaning process, and then followed by AIVS #6 One Step Cleaner.
As suggested by Osage Audio, it states #15 PreCleaner is not to be used all by itself as a cleaner.
I myself seem to find a 4-step AIVS process works best on all my records, old, or new, using #15, the Enzymatic Formula, the Super Cleaner, and then lastly, the AIVS Pure Water Rinse.
As Doug states, and I concur, on average, a 5 minute application, and soak seeems just about right with all steps preceeding the Pure Water Rinse.
As for the contest-battle of the RCM's, the Loricraft vs VPI method of fluid removal, I cannot personally give the lowdown, having never used the Loricraft, or any other String Feed Nozzle Type Machine.
Advantages, and disadvantages with both machines-methods I'd assume.
I think Doug is more experienced in that regard, having used-owned both. I would probably recieve no flak, saying that the VPI 16.5 is the "best of the cheap". And the most convenient in the lesser expensive RCMs in this price range.
The new Clearaudio Smart Matrix is in another class, with better build construction, better quality of parts consist than the VPI 16.5, and at twice the price, it should be.
I'd still have to say, it's undeniable, that Harry W/VPI still puts out the best bang for the buck, price king RCM on the market, the VPI 16.5.
Some may argue that, in regards to price, as there are many Nitty Gritty Fans.
I personally like the fact that the VPI has a Platter, on which I can easily apply Fluids, no need to move-flip records for vacuuming, that gravity is on my side to let Fluids sit, and soak as needed, before one chooses to remove. A simple swing of the Vacuum armwand, hit two power switches, and the fluid removal is done in two revolutions of Platter.
As for Doug Deacon, I've been following his personal advice, and reading his posts here for a number of years.
Doug IMO, has always been the voice of unbiased logic, sensibility, and wisdom-knowledge. Mark |
Mark,
I was not aware of the AVIS #15. Is it used before the enzyme soak or instead of it? How would you describe one versus the other?
Regarding your stance that the VPI 16.5 with the 4-step AVIS gives better results than a "$4000 Loricraft ...with lesser cleaners" I have no doubt. I'm curious to know if, given the use of the AVIS cleaners, which type of RCM - wand type vs. point nozzle - works better. I have not made a direct comparison, but I would gues that the Loricraft would outperform the VPI 16.5 in absolute terms. Time, effort and cost are another matter.
I, too, am most appreciative for the information I have learned from reading Doug Deacon's many posts about analog, including the Magic Eraser discovery. |
Peterayer,
And I will still revert back to the last paragraph on my first post on 7-10-10 in this thread, where I said my VPI 16.5 with AVIS Cleaning products will give better results than a $4,000 Loricraft, or a $5200 Clearaudio Double Matrix with lesser cleaners.
I'll still stand behind this statement with no doubt. And as Dan_Ed's discovered, even the steaming has proven less promising than at first thought.
I can forsee some having to "run back to the drawing board" so to speak, just as I once read Doug D. having to do in the past. Meaning an entire collection may have to be gone through again, but the results would probably proove worthy, just as Doug had found.
Thankfully, for somebody like Doug, with all his hands on research, testing, and learning from his experiences, both good, and the not so good, this man has saved me a considerable amount of time, and money from investigating other cleaners on the market. I thank him for placing me on a good path with RCM's, and Cleaners-Rinses.
I know I'm going to sound like a commerical, or shill, but I'm unsure if any of you have tried AVIS's new #15 Pre-Cleaner. I have no affiliation with AIVS, other than being a totally satisfied customer of his products.
I've found this product even more effective as a first step cleaner, it seems to work more quickly, works more efficiently, and is one fine, outstanding product. I highly recommend trying this one, and adding it to your arsenal. You won't be diappointed on how this one works. Mark |
... astounded with the improvement in clarity and dynamics Yup. Dan's steam cleaned LP yesterday sounded dull, flat and boring. Yet this was a new 45rpm Blue Note reissue that ought to have sounded at least decent. Actual enzyme soak time was probably ~10 minutes but that was an accident. We were eating dinner and enjoying friends (Hi Sunnyboy!) and I forgot it for a while. Normally I soak ~5 minutes and that's usually enough. The improvement in Dan's LP was startling if you weren't expecting it. Paul and I had heard 100 variations of that "almost clean" dullness during our record cleaning trials so I was pretty confident. Happily, we brought a boring record to life! |
Dan,
Your report rings sad but true in my experience. I soak new and used but fairly clean LPs for 10-15 min. with the AIVS enzyme cleaner that Doug uses and I'm astounded with the improvement in clarity and dynamics. I have done this demo for two audio buddies and they, too, heard the dramatic effect. I'm afraid it takes time to soak and clean LPs.
To be fair, I have not done a controlled experiment with many cleaners and a wand-type vacuum versus my Loricraft, but I can say the AIVS/Loricraft combo is certainly more effective than my old L'Art du Son/VPI16.5 combo. |
Ok, ok. Once again my words have been ripped from my mouth and feed back to me in large chunks. :-)
Steam isn't doing as much for me as I thought. It may have helped some used records but I'm back on the soaking band wagon. Doug soaked my previously cleaned, LP for at least 15 minutes with the AIVS enzyme cleaner and the results proved without a doubt that my current, faster regimen is not cutting it. I'm not quite ready to spring for a Loricraft, but I am going back to the slow, soaking method.
Looks like I won't be cutting into that backlog anytime soon. :-) |
Some general information for the lazy User. I am one of those with RCM. My experience the last 12 years with cleaning fluids (please notice, I don't write what is good, better, best, I don't know all fluids). I started 12 years ago with a VPI 16.5 and the VPI cleaning fluid. It is a concentrate. Later I read a lot about home made fluids and the rip off pricing from commercial fluids and I tried my own stuff. In a lot of mixes, I had contact to Audiophiles, we talked endless about how many parts of "this" in "that" and it was a good time.
Years later I got a Keith Monks and was impressed how much more information I was able to hear after cleaning with this kind of Design (Point nozzle). I went ahead with fluids, I bought real expensive ones and after years I realized, no matter what I do, some records won't get silent. Well, to make a long story short, when the vinyl has problems (cooling process, noisy vinyl), I could do everything, it got a bit better, but far away from the results I had with the old vinyl from pre 1990.
Last year I thought, no matter what I use and no matter how good the RCM is, sometimes it is the way it is. Waste of time.
I gave up this Cleaning Fluid Odyssey and went back to the cheap stuff, the one from VPI. and my results are as great as with 10x more expensive fluids.
And I like the results. It is clean.
And those which still have tics, pops have it even after 10 cleaning runs.
That's the way it is. |
Thanks, Guys! I'll drink to that! |
Yes, I agree. I demag up on my third floor, two floors away from the cartridge, speaker magnets etc. The device picks up the screws under my wood floor and buzzes. Scary stuff, but this is a crazy hobby at times.
A demag party sounds fun. |
Ditto. I don't allow strong electromagnets anywhere near my cartridges or any other gear. It doesn't get used on the platform of my Loricraft either. Demagging the motor or magnetic arm clutch seemed like a poor idea.
One minor diff: per instructions from some mad scientist we demag LPs *before* cleaning on the untested but seemingly reasonable and probably harmless hypothesis that this might reduce the tendency of some grunge to adhere to the vinyl. Quite speculative, but I sleep better. ;-)
|
Randy, I take the cleaned LP off of my rcm and lay it my pool table well away from my system, especially my cartridge. I clean, then demag, then slide into a new sleeve. |
Peter, Doug and Dan ... one more question ... do you demag on the RCM platter after you've cleaned each side of the LP or elsewhere? Just trying to visualize the most efficient production line. Thanks again. |
Walker does recommend treating LPs with the Talisman prior to each play. We didn't have it long enough to test how fast the effects wear off, but if even the manufacturer says so...
Furutech claims that using their Demag once should last indefinitely. Not having one, we've never tested. I've been too lazy to repeat treat an LP with our doohickey and listen for further improvements. Should we schedule a double-blind demagging party?
|
Peter,
I think Doug found that with the Talisman repeat demags are necessary, and maybe Walker advertises it as so. So far, with the stronger magnet, I have not found it necessary to repeat the demag on any LPs.
I do also pull my tubes and cables every 6 months or so to clean and demag them. That actually may be too long of a time between demags of the cables. I haven't really experimented with it. |
Dan and Doug,
Do you guys demag your LP's once only or do you notice additional demags are needed over time? Could it be like the Cardas Frequency Sweep I use for my cartridge every week or two but less often?
We could start a separate Demag thread and really raise some eyebrows. |
Yeah, guess I stated the obvious. :-) It is funny that this subject usually causes all kinds of heartburn which lead to one of the pointless arguments. These days I see mention of demagnetizing LPs and I don't even think twice about it. |
Thanks, Dan.
It's acted this way since new and Paul replaced the (incredibly shoddy) stock switch ages ago. It made no improvement. Maybe his "better" replacement switch, ain't.
Guess we should have hired an EE! Can you recommend an audiophile grade switch for less than the cost of a Furutech? ;-)
|
Doug, sounds like that button switch on your's has gone bad. They are cheap enough. :-) |
Thanks, Doug! Great advice, as always. All the best. |
Randy,
We use a handheld small tools demagnifier, sold through industrial supply houses. There are many out there, ours cost ~$65 IIRC.
I'm reluctant to post a link because ours was TOO cheap (a product of China, and not their best work). It gets hot very quickly if leave it plugged in, even with the switch "off". It has a thermal shutoff but we don't trust it. I wouldn't want to help anyone burn down their house.
That said, it operates like Peter's. Both work on the same principle as the Furutech: pretty powerful electromagnets. By not spending $2K we have to provide the slow circular motion and gradual distancing from the LP (or silver disc) but it works very well.
Sonic effects are as Peter described, and gray scale improvements on DVD's are visible and measurable with Digital Video Essentials.
We A/B'd ours against the much less powerful $200 Walker Talisman and the $65 cheapie outperformed it easily.
|
Thanks for that tip, Peter! I'll give it a try.
Best,
Randy |
Hello Randy,
I use an old Geneva Audio/Video Tape Eraser which I originally bought through an audio dealer to demagnetize CD's in the early 90's. I think it was originally designed to erase VHS tapes. It cost about $80 back then and I now use in it a circular motion on each side to demagnetize LP's. It works great resulting in a quieter noise floor. It is much cheaper than the $2K Furutech? device, which may be more effective, though I don't know if the Geneva is still available. Geneva Group, Model #PF-215, made in the USA. |
Hi Peter and Doug,
May I ask, what product do you use to demagnitize the LPs after cleaning? Thanks for your helpful posts. |
Well, I guess our approaches are on par time-wise. I'd say it takes me ~20 minutes just to clean a record.
But remember, I have to do everything manually. Except the sucking part, of course. Not only do I still have a backlog, but I'm developing carpal in both wrists. :-) |
Dan,
You've seen our clean-me-now pile in the LR and that's barely a tenth of it.
As Peter says, for throughput compared with wand style machines, a Loricraft can be part of the problem, but not part of the solution. Vacuuming alone takes ~1 minute per sweep X 6 sweeps/side. If speed is your goal don't count on a thread style machine to help. If I ever want to hear all our records I may need to hire somebody! :-(
We've yet to find a magic bullet to shorten our process to < ~15 minutes/side without impacting results. We'd hoped steaming might replace our 5 minute enzyme soak. No luck, and there's no other step in our process it could replace that would save any time.
Of our ~15 minutes, 6 are consumed by vacuum sweeps and 5 by the enzyme soak. Applying the other 4 fluids takes only ~1 minute/each. I don't include demagging, predusting and resleeving times, since those steps can be done whilst another LP is on the RCM.
Agree with Sonofjim that it's all about personal preference, both for cleanliness levels and for what makes sense to each of us. I'm sure Markd and Hdm are correct that wand style machines can be effective if used with intelligence and care. A thread style machine makes it a easier and largely foolproof to vacuum really well, though certainly at a cost in money and some extra minutes/side.
The Audiodesk machine Peter mentioned once interested me. 100 LPs in 8 hours with minimal user involvement is tempting. I once spent a similar period to do just 36 LPs, and with fewer solutions than we use now. It took my entire attention for a whole day, woo-hoo! Unfortunately, from operational information provided by the dealer and direct comparisons reported by an owner, it's apparent the Audiodesk cannot clean as well as our current process.
Again, it's our choice to insist on maximal information retrieval as against convenience. We only listen to 3 records, but d@amn they sound good! :-^)
|
Hello Dan,
Right you are. My PRC4 with the AIVS 4-step (two rinse) process takes 20-25 minutes per side. I follow this with a demag and new inner and outer sleeves. I think Dougdeacon spends about the same time per side with his PRC3.
V e r y s l o w g o i n g. But the results are fantastic. As Doug says, it's about the added involvement one experiences from the increased information being extracted from the grooves. There is a lot worse than a backlog of unclean records stacked in a corner. As I tell my friends who express an interest in LP's...."Analog is a commitment." |
HI Peter,
well I was hoping that the lack of cleaning backlog was due to the Loricraft/Monk/Clearaudio machines being faster. Apparently, from your response, a PRC4 wouldn't help as much with my backlog as I thought. :-(
|
As usual Doug's comments are well-reasoned. On some level I agree with Sonofjim and to paraphrase Thom Mackris the best recording cleaning process for each individual is the one you actually use. Software is the most important component in your system. It's worth the effort to do all you can to protect and enhance those precious vinyl discs. |
I have come to reguard debates on record cleaning methods as pointless. It's a no win arguement. First of all there are endless ways of reaching essentially the same result. Second, we judge the results by listening(which is an inherently subjective experience) on systems which differ in a multitude of ways between us.
I use the VPI. I've heard records cleaned on Doug's Loricraft and Albert's Odyssey and Audiodesk. All produce impressive results. A friend of mine on a tight budget uses the Spin Clean(dirty word to many of you I'm sure) and I'm surprised at how effective that device can be. The most important thing is to not play dirty vinyl, whatever your method.
In the end do what works for you and you can afford. I agree that "audiophile" purified water is a rip off. There's no way it can be more pure than Nerl lab grade water and even if it was it would not have any detectable impact on the results. |
Doug, I agree, common sense dictates that a wand style machine can be a source of re-contamination. But that those inherit qualities can be lessened with a few additional steps. I always assumed as well, the abrasive qualities by physical contact could as well create damage to the vinyl surface, and groove.
A pre-cleaing/pre-dusting before the record reaches the RCM will lessen what the Wand encounters. Periodic replacement of the Vacuum Wand and/or protective velvet strips.
An additional wand dedicated for rinse only will help, and of course the obvious, is a simple additional rinse step at the end.
I understand as well, that groove silence, or the omission of clicks-pops to be used as a gauge to judge a cleaner's-rinses efficiency.
That clicks-pops can be damage, or anomalies in the vinyl that no cleaner, or RCM will magically remove.
Mark |
Syntax, That photo makes me want to trade in my PRC4.
Dan_ed, Is that stack of LP's not there because those of us with expensive machines don't have any money left over to buy more LP's or is it not there because some machines like the wand vacuum types are so much faster than your DIY cleaning regiment that owners have already gone through their stacks of dirty records and there is no time for a backload to build up? :^)
I just talked to a guy who has the automatic Audiodesk machine who did 100 LP's in an 8-hour marathon session last weekend. It has taken me three months to do 100 LP's so I have quite a stack built up but my wife won't allow it in the LR so it's hidden away. |
APicture for those who love some serious engineering. Inside of the German Source Odyssey RCM :-) Point Nozzle RCM |
I don't use steam as a replacement, it is part of my regimen that also includes AIVS cleaners and rinse. However, I have found in my DIY cleaning station that steam does enhance the results I get. For others, YMMV. But there is no issue with heat.
What you guys with the expensive machines miss the most is the great backlog of lps that need cleaning stacking up in the corner. :-) Lends an eclectic look to the room. I call it "retro-yard sale". |
I've seen Dougdeacon use his Loricraft PRC3 and heard the results. It's one of the reasons I bought my PRC4 and why I also use the AIVS four-step solutions. His post above is right on the mark. |
"4. The ultimate test of vinyl cleanliness is not how quiet your surfaces are. One can eliminate clicks and pops with many different methods using many different machines, but that's only the first step. Much harder than that is getting the grooves clean enough so that a very revealing system can reproduce all the low-level information in them. Anyone who touts a cleaning method or machine based on how quiet their surfaces are is not listening at the highest levels. Their statements must be considered in that context."
Doug, I couldn't agree with you more. Effective cleaning is about more than elimination of clicks and pops; it's about unleashing the information in the groove. My system is perfectly capable of resolving those differences.
The problem with debates about record cleaning is that it is impossible establish with any certainty a real absolute in terms of process. Everyone is doing something different. Different fluids, different brushes, different amounts of time in terms of leaving fluids on records, different techniques with respect to removal of fluid. Think about the variables.
My comments above with respect to steaming refer to it being used in conjunction with more traditional cleaning techniques (fluid, vacuum, rinse, vacuum, 2nd rinse, vaccum) with steaming being part of the process, certainly not the entire process.
I believe it was Markd who suggested above that better results could be obtained with effective technique and quality fluids and a more rudimentary vac (ie. slot based) than with weaker fluids and a Loricraft or Monks and I couldn't agree more.
Do the Monks/Loricraft warrant their expenditure when used with the very best techniques/fluids. Quite possibly. I won't argue that.
In terms of value for money, I'm not so sure. I've bought and cleaned about 3,000 records with a KAB EV1 in the past 4 years. I utilize a dedicated Filter Queen vac with the KAB and I've cleaned records that I've previously had cleaned on a Monks and there is no comparison. In the end, all that proves is that the fluids used with the Monks were probably substandard in affecting a really good clean.
But it's showed me that technique and fluids are extremely important and that a strong focus on both those can achieve very good results.
I had a chance to buy an older Monks for about $800 before I acquired my KAB 4-5 years ago and don't regret passing on it in the least. It was not in particularly great shape and required some serious money in terms of parts to put it into A1 original shape and had the look of being somewhat like an early 60's Jaguar in terms of what I'd have to do to maintain it and keep it in top operating form.
The KAB (with a very high quality vac), with excellent fluids, steaming and practised technique, offers me everything I'll ever need in a cleaner for $160.
Is a Loricraft/Monks 15-20X better?
Not for me. |
FWIW in response to some points made above:
1. We've owned and used a PRC3 for 5-6 years. In all that time I have only once had the thread bind up in the tube. That was less than a year after we bought the machine and I blame operator error. We've had no such problems for years.
2. We've tried steaming, using a device like the ones often recommended on this forum. Maybe it was operator error again, but the results were miles behind what we get from our 4-step AIVS regimen. Someone said Lloyd Walker is a perfectionist and so are we. Steaming didn't come anywhere close to producing acceptable results for us, though it certainly was faster.
3. The Clearaudio solution doesn't match the performance of the AIVS solutions we use, regardless of the RCM you vacuum them with. Koegz's experience that his Clearaudio D.M. worked better than his Loricraft PRC4 was therefore based on different performance criteria than ours.
4. The ultimate test of vinyl cleanliness is not how quiet your surfaces are. One can eliminate clicks and pops with many different methods using many different machines, but that's only the first step. Much harder than that is getting the grooves clean enough so that a very revealing system can reproduce all the low-level information in them. Anyone who touts a cleaning method or machine based on how quiet their surfaces are is not listening at the highest levels. Their statements must be considered in that context.
5. Never tried the Clearaudio RCM's, but as pointed out above the demonstrably inferior physics of slot vacuuming and the constant battle against contaminated felts make them a non-starter for us. No doubt they're faster and if it does a good enough job for some, that's great. To each his own.
|
I am convinced that the Keith Monks, new or used, is the best you can get for reasons that Syntax explained previously. I don't know what a new one costs, but expect to pay around $2500 for a used one. If you aren't DIY inclined, it is probably worth the price. |
IME, steaming can be an extremely important and valuable step in a cleaning regimen and I do it regularly. It's particularly effective with really dirty records.
I'm not fond of steamers like the Mapleshade which concentrate the steam in a very small area, favoring a steamer which provides a much more diffuse distribution. I never have a record warping while steaming and wouldn't advocate doing so.
I see no reason for any of the marketers of commercial record cleaning products to endorse steaming as there is really nothing in it for them and it would, in a sense, shed a somewhat negative light on the efficacy of their products.
I'm grateful that companies and people like RRL, Disc Doctor, Audio Intelligent and Lloyd Walker have come up with effective cleaning products (especially their first stage cleaning products) but I'm a lot less grateful that they sell ultrapure water (which is every bit as important, if not moreso, than the first stage of cleaning whether it be surfactant or enzyme based) for five to eight times the price (Lloyd Walker's price) to gullible audiophiles who could buy it from any scientific supply house at pennies on the dollar.
If Lloyd's markup on his tables resembles anything like his markup on his water he must be very comfortable. |
I would Imagine if Lloyd Walker trusted in such as steam cleaning (which IMO is a misnomer, it's actually hot water) that he would endorse such, and market such to compliment his Prelude System.
It's a shame in a way that manufacturers as such cannot participate in these forums, as we could then get accurate-truthful, and useable information straight from the horse's mouth so to speak.
About Lloyd, I don't personally know the man, but I'm quite certain Walker Prelude wasn't originally concocted on Lloyd's Kitchen Table, nor is the final cleaning formulas manufactured in Lloyd's Kitchen Sink.
He no doubt went the full monty, with degreed chemists, testing, analyzation, testing again, on, and on, till his formulas were perfected, and acceptable for marketing.
I assume that after use of his products, that nothing further needs to be done to the vinyl in a near future tense. Just the dusting, and yes, in time vinyl does need to be recleaned. One cleaning, no matter what the product doesn't insure that the record is now going to stay pristine clean for the rest of its usable life. Mark |
Just for the record, Lloyd Walker experimented with steam for all of about 15 minutes. His 4 step product functions just fine, thank you very much, without steam. He tried steam - it was not the answer. |
