Contact Enhancer Deterioration


I had been impressed with the initial application of both Walker Audio and Quicksilver contact enhancer products. There is an immediate increase in clarity, extension, and dynamics. The effect was not subtle.

However, I am now convined that over the ensuing weeks to months, the enhancer becomes detrimental. It happens gradually, so it is not obvious. The sound becomes soft, diffuse, veiled. Removing the enhancer with some alcohol has brought things back into focus.

One last experiment was whether this detriment was just due to loose connections or tight connections. For example, it has been postulated that these enhancing material form a bonded and continuous surface. Power cable connections, while they seem to be quite stable, are always moing due to vibration and expansion of metals. This will create cracks in any polymerized material. However, items such as fuses and speaker cable spades tend to be more stable due to the connector pressure and location. Would these surfaces also benefit from removing the enhancer? The answer is yes.

For those of you who are using contact enhancers, I urge you to remove this and listen to your system again. Feel free to report your findings. If anyone has any other experiences, that would be good to hear. If someone feels that there is a particular place that benefits from a contact enhancer long-term, I'd be interested. It seems that the conservative thing to do is to clean your contacts, particularly if they are prone to oxidation.
rtn1

Showing 2 responses by mitch2

Used to use Quicksilver, but cleaned it all off and now use Deoxit for cleaning and ProGold for treatment. I have sometimes wondered how well the expensive Furutech Nano Liquid works. I have found the Furutech products I have tried to be excellent in most respects, but I have not tried the Nano. I will look into the Stabilant 22 - thanks for the tip.
4est, in a post on 11-20-10 you stated,
After you clean them, you might want to try using Stabilant 22. It is the active ingredient in what used to be called "Tweek". It is a bonified contact enhancer used in military, communications and IT fields.
What exactly is the relationship between Stabilant 22 and Tweek? I have read a lot about poor results using the old Tweek product, such as the Soundstage! review from 2003 where Bill Cowan says (about Tweek),
When it was used between dissimilar metals, a thick layer of black gook built up on the metal surfaces, and this could happen within a very short time frame. This gook was very difficult and sometimes even impossible to remove completely -- I managed to destroy the RCA plugs on a fairly pricey pair of interconnects trying to get it off. Since then, I’ve stayed away from contact enhancers, although I have made use of the Caig Pro Gold. But Pro Gold is billed as a preservative rather than an enhancer, and I’ve never had a problem with it causing any kind of chemical reaction on metal surfaces. For straight cleaning, I use either isopropyl alcohol, or when confronted with badly oxidized connections, Caig’s DeOxit. In both instances, the cleaner is applied and then completely removed, rather than left in place like Pro Gold or the H2L solutions.
The information I found on Stabilant 22 states, it is a,
amorphous-semiconductive polyoxyethylene-polyoxypropyline block polymer with a molecular weight of about 2,800
What the heck is that? In liquid form, it appears to be primarily Isopropoal alcohol and is then called Stabilant 22A. If you guys are having success with it, then Stabilant 22 or 22A themselves must not cause a detrimental effect when left in-place over long periods of time like Tweek did, and it must not degrade as some believe the SST and Quicksilver do. Is this because it is polymer based vs. the organic oils (I believe are) used in SST and Quicksilver? Do you use it in its concentrated form or diluted with Isopropol alcohol? Any performance comparisions with ProGold?