The Super Deep likely (I am guessing) contains some alcohol, as well as probably more surfactant. I say this because the SD does not make any claims of no alcohol on the bottle and SVW does. Also, the SD is supposed to be used as the first stage of cleaning or for dirtier records followed by 2 sweeps of the SVW which does not need a rinse.
According to a number of people who have used both, the Art du Son leaves a sonic signature and the RRL does not. The Art also has to be mixed by the end user, with the quality of water obviously effecting the solution and the Art, after mixing, can go bad if not properly stored. |
FYI, I used Record Research Labs for years. I recently switched to Audio Intelligent record wash. It is a three step system. Step one is an enzymatic cleaner to facilitate the removal of mold release chemicals applied to the record stamper. The second step is an alcohol based detergent. And the third step is an application of ultra purified water to remove residue from the first steps.
Walker Audio also sells a similar system. IMHO, the new process I am using is resulting in stunning results. It is like I am hearing some of my favorite records for the first time. I was astonished at how much better my music sounds using the Audio Intelligent method. It is more labor intensive, but it's worth the effort. |
Dear Birdman,
Record Research Lab Deep Cleaning Solution - Super Record pre-cleaner. Concentrated formula for deep cleaning of new and old vinyl. On new or soiled LP's, use the RRL Deep Cleaner first and then follow/rinse with the RRL Super Vinyl Wash. The RRL Deep Cleaner is not intended for general LP care and maintenance. It is usually used just once per life of the LP to restore a heavily soiled LP from our younger days or to remove the release agent (Pam - like) from new LP's. ALWAYS follow with RRL Wash.
Dan
Dedicated Audio |
Hdm's guess re: alchohol is interesting. Inaccurate, but interesting! Neither RRL fluid contains any alchohol. Never has, never will (this according to Brian Weitzel, who makes it). Otherwise I agree with Hdm's post.
SDC contains higher levels of surfactant. That's why it's more effective at removing mold release chemicals and stubborn dirt. It should be the first step, or at least not the last step.
SVW contains only trace amounts of surfactant, and also a vinyl lubricant that leaves no sonic signature (IME). It should always be the final step in the record cleaning process. The next thing that hits the record should be a stylus.
There's a fuller product explanation here:
{url]http://www.tricell-ent.com/RecordResearch.htm[/url]
|
|
Where can I find Audio Intelligent record wash? |
Johnjbarlow's experience underlines the importance of including an enzyme-based solution in the record cleaning process. I agree that such a step is essential. Neither RRL nor any other non-enzyme solution will remove stubborn biologicals.
RRL + Vinyl-Zyme produce similar results, much better than RRL alone.
I've directly compared this regimen to the AIVS regimen. IME RRL + Vinyl-zyme produces superior results. The superior rinse-ability of RRL makes for lower residue levels and/or fewer steps.
|
Was RRL purchased by MFSL?
I just searched in MusicDirect for RRL products and it looks like MFSL is either rebadging or now owns RRL.
Any information on this?
-Thanks |
My regimen has been:
1. RRL Super Deep Cleaner
2. RRL Super Vinyl Wash
3. Steam Rinse.
This weekend I tried the Audio Intellegence process and, introduced Vinyl Zyme (formerly Bruggtessel) into my RRL process. I'm going to try the Vinyl Zyme & RRL process until all my stock is gone and then switch to the AI process. I think that seems to work pretty good.
A member here, TRAUDIO, distributes for Audio Intelligence. |
Is the order:
1. Vinyl Zyme
2. RRL Deep Cleaner
3. RRL Vinyl Wash ?
Or is the Vinyl Zyme in between the 2 RRL applications?
Anyone recommend a really good brush for a diluted detergent wash, as a very first step ahead of the above, if the vinyl is so dirty you don't want it to get near your RCM.
I have seiously water damaged LP's...occurred 10 years ago. |
Music Direct sells the MFSL record cleaning brush . I use three of them in the Audio Intelligent process. I like them so much, I don't even bother with the automatic feature and brush on my VPI 17F RCM. |
DO UOU NEED THE CHANGE BRUSH EACH STEP? |
Birdyy8, using a different brush for each step is a very good idea. Other than a paint pad for spreading my enzyme cleaner I've gotten to where I use those cheap VPI brushes almost exclusively. Those white ones with the felt that come in packs of ten. I use a different one for successive step which should be dealing with less dirt and crude. Once the brushes get dirty I just throw them away and grab some new ones out of the package. Obviously, the brush used in the first step or two get dirty pretty quick. I find I can clean 5-10 LP's with each brush depending on how clean the vinyl is in the beginning.
I really don't know why anyone would want to touch the vinyl with anything except a stylus after the RRL Super Vinyl Wash is vacuumed off. If it's not clean at that point you need to go back and clean again.
A good enzyme cleaner is a must to have on hand. I've been using the AI solutions since Paul first made it available and have been using RRL products for much longer. The AI does do a good job on really grungy vinyl but I don't use it on every LP I bring home nor do I use it for maintenance cleanings. So one order can last a long time. I'm also of the opinion that if you have RRL Super Vinyl Wash you don't need to pay more for the AI purified water which is the third step in their regimen. I don't remember if AI states that it is necessary to use their alcohol based step two cleaner after their enzyme cleaner or not. I do use it because I think there are detergents as well as enzymes in that first solution so I expect the AI step two to remove this stuff as well. It could be that Vinyl-Zyme followed by RRL Super Deep Cleaner is just as effective and less work. I'll have to try that in the future.
It is interesting that Lloyd Walker's new product advises mixing his enzyme solution in amounts small enough to clean a few LP's at a time. If I understand correctly, his theory is that the enzymes are more effective when first mixed and then lose some of that effectiveness after a short period of time. I have no idea if this is true, but this is the first enzyme-based vinyl cleaner I've heard of make this claim.
Happy cleaning! |
I got away from the cheap VPI brushes and I am using three seperate MFSL brushes. They are excellent. Music Direct sells them. The pads can be removed and replaced inexpensively. They give a really sure grip to facilitate deep cleaning. I bought a ceramic three section tray from Pier one that I place them in. This way the chemicals don't contaminate one another. |
Johnbarlow, I have a MFSL brush but can't imagine how the pads could be replaced? Do I just rip it off and do the new ones stick on??? |
Yes, they peel off and replacements are available from Music Direct. |
Music Direct took over distribution of the RRL Cleaning products, they are the only place to get it AFAIK.
I prefer the Audio Intelligent products, they flow better, clean better and cover the record, where the RRL stuff always beaded up.
I was never sure if I was getting it properly cleaned with the RRL. |
I prefer the Audio Intelligent products, they flow better, clean better and cover the record, where the RRL stuff always beaded up. It seems that the old adage "you must empty your tea cup before it can be filled with the new" really worked for Paul Frumkin. Being a lawyer, he came on to this project with his teacup empty. I remember him really soaking up (pun intended) my advice on ultrapure water production. I'm about to receive some products he offered me back then. Now I have a used Record Doctor RCM and have all my remaining albums together in one place. From what he was explaining to me back then the combined action of the soap used and ultrapure water make an effective combination that does not have much surface tension, yet has adequate cleaning action. *** |
I prefer the Audio Intelligent products, they flow better, clean better and cover the record, where the RRL stuff always beaded up. We've discussed this here so many times over the last 3-4 years. RRL is SUPPOSED to bead up. It was designed to bead up, and it works better because of that. Solutions that flow easily and don't bead up are, by definition, harder to rinse and vacuum off the vinyl. Low surface tension is not a one-way street to successful performance. Like most all design parameters, it can be taken too far. My experience is that AIVS went too far. Its rinsability is clearly inferior to RRL's. It left audible residue that took multiple rinse/vac cycles to remove. That is why I bring it out for hardship case LP's only. In our experience RRL (+ Vinyl Zyme) is the better performing product. YMMV of course, but I didn't want anyone believing that "beading up" is a downside with RRL. It's not. It's a carefully selected design feature. |
"Beading Up" is just about as useful as "suds" in a soap formulation.
Suds have NO practical cleaning effect. None, nada, zip, zero. But to the user it looks real cool and it must be doing something. Any soap or cleaning formulation can be made "suds free" with a small amount of anti foam (Dow Corning is a big player in these products) without any degradation of performance.
Perception is reality folks and if it looks like it's cleaning better, it must be. |
Beading up is just a visual indicator of surface tension. The more easily a liquid beads up, the higher its surface tension.
Is beading up useful per se? Of course not, no more than suds and bubbles. But in RRL it's an indicator that surface tension has not been reduced to a level that impairs removal of the liquid by vacuuming. Fluids with excessively low surface tension (ie, that don't bead up) adhere so closely to the record surface that they cannot readily be vacuumed away.
|
Thanks Doug and I'm consistently amazed at audiophiles, as a group, believing that a product costing $20-$50/pint or quart or what have you will provide better performance than a basic cleaning solution discounting far more salient factors such as good brushes and vacuuming.
As I cynically stated in another thread, we're cleaning plastic not cashmere. |
Agree with Dougdeacon that beading up is a function of surface tension. Too high of surface tension, the less cleaning fluid that gets into the grooves and less cleaning effects. The key is to get the solution into the grooves along with some type of physical action to "scrub" the grooves(effect is to allow the cleaning fluid to get between the vinyl and the "dirt") to lift the dirt/gunk out. The use of surfactants, dispersants, wetting agents (and there are dozens of types) are all about getting things suspending in the water versus letting them stay on the vinyl. They accomplish this by reducing surface tension, forming emulsions(via long molecules that have polar and non polar ends)with non polar materials such as greases, oils, etc and dispersants that keep the dirt/dust particles suspended in the water. Water is a very polar molecule and it is great in dissolving other polar compounds such as salt but its pretty crappy in trying to dissolve grease or oil because they are non-polar.
Like audiofeil, I have a lot of experience in the chemical industry and particularly in cleaning end of that business. As Crem1 stated in other threads, the cleaning solution is mostly water and the quality of water is one of the major keys. That is why distilled water is the only way to go. Then whatever mouse milk that is added, it is added to allow water to either dissolve, emulsify or disperse the gunk. |
I'm consistently amazed at audiophiles, as a group, believing that a product costing $20-$50/pint or quart or what have you will provide better performance than a basic cleaning solution discounting far more salient factors such as good brushes and vacuuming. How soaps and detergents work is taught in high school chemistry. Soaps have both polar and nonpolar ends to link water and 'dirt'. We are also taught that scrubbing action is ALWAYS needed in order to properly clean. Therefore, the cleaning solution (whatever is being used) must reach down into the grooves and then be scrubbed. How it is removed is another issue. I've decided to give this a try since it makes a lot of sense to just use plenty fresh water to rinse record fluids ( hey, just like washing salt water out of a boat). GroovmasterI can always do like in a commercial car wash: use lower dissolved solids water to do final *spotless* rinsing (ultrapure water in my case). I do not plan to use my vacuum machine to remove soapy water and contaminate its pads. I'll use the Groovmaster to flush all cleaning solutions ( the soap ) while protecting the record labels. My local water supply comes from the rain forest so its conductivity is around 90 microSiemens, much less than most bottled water. The guy in eBay who sells the Groovmaster has plenty following. I plan to write a review on this gadget. Dougdeacon, that 'intentional low surface tension' thing is another high end marketing trick for the gullible. Anybody with enough chemistry background knows it's crap. *** |
I use the Groovmaster with great success.
First I steam which the Groovmaster makes really easy.
Todd the Vinyl Junkie recommended Oxiclean which I'm using for the really water damaged LP's (paper attached and visible growths!).
I just mix mild solution with distilled water, spray on and scrub with the brush that comes with the Groovmaster. Then 2 x RRL treatments on RCM and all is quiet!
Anyone know if I can re-use remaining Oxiclean mix a few days later or do I need to make a fresh batch eackh time?
My "cheat" is that I use filtered tap water for the rinsing as the hassle of going to distilled each time is too big for me! I'm at the sink!
My thinking is that Oxiclean produces hydrogen peroxide which is the main active ingredient...sound thinking? I'm an arts major who can only get so anal!
Only use above on worst cases but my experience says it works! |
Audiofeil,
"Dirt" and its removal are not as simplistic as you seem to believe. Read Oilmanjo's post, for starters.
I regularly promote the world's cheapest and most effective DIY stylus cleaner. An audiophile I am, but gullible? Try again my friend...
Psychicanimal,
I've owned a Groovmaster for years and it works well. Unfortunately, our public water supply is less pure than yours. It frequently contains deposits that ruin records so I dare not use it as you plan to.
The surface tension of RRL makes it easy to remove from the record. That is not marketing-speak. It is my real world, everyday experience. If you think that's 'crap', that's your business.
If you prefer to DIY I don't question your judgement. I don't have the time or inclination to become a home chemist, so I'm willing to pay for an effective product. If you make something better and sell it for less I'll buy it - unless you try to convince me with marketing crap. ;-)
|
"My experience is that AIVS went too far. Its rinsability is clearly inferior to RRL's. It left audible residue that took multiple rinse/vac cycles to remove. That is why I bring it out for hardship case LP's only. In our experience RRL (+ Vinyl Zyme) is the better performing product. YMMV of course, but I didn't want anyone believing that "beading up" is a downside with RRL. It's not. It's a carefully selected design feature."
1. It is my understanding, Doug, that your experience with AI was limited to the beta testing period, and the formulas have been greatly refined and improved since then. I believe we talked about this a few months ago.
2. Out of all the audiophiles who have used AI, only three ever complained of difficulty in rinsing it. When M. Fremer did his shoot-out, he personally called me and said AI could remove grunge and things no other product could, and that he detected NO sonic signature at all.
Also, Jim Pendleton and his company Osage Audio recently became the sole distributor for the AI products. As part of his due diligence, Jim had an experienced chem lab check the LPs after they had been cleaned using the AI three-step process. The chem lab found NO residue.
3. It doesn't really make a lot of sense to claim that a water-based product's beading-up is a "carefully selected design feature" because beading-up is a natural property of water that contains no surfactant. It's like saying that canned air has oxygen as a carefully selected design feature.
Almost all water-based cleaners employ a surfactant so the product doesn't just sit on the surface of the thing being cleaned. A cleaner using water's natural surface tension cannot easily be forced to enter tight spaces, such as a groove on a vinyl album. How much of a vertical distance is there from the surface of a record to the bottom of its grooves? 1/32 inch? Less? If your RCM can remove liquid on the surface of a record, but cannot suck it out of the grooves, the RCM suffers from an astouding lack of suction power, and surely then the results are RCM-dependent.
Psychicanimal ... you know more about water quality than just about anyone here, so I assume your reference to soap was just a slip of the tongue. There is no soap in any AI product.
Hope this clears things up a bit.
Best regards to all,
Paul Frumkin |
Solubilization of salts, proteins, nucleic acids, fatty acids, and the resuspension of inorganic micro and nanoparticles, as a chemical action on vinyl, requires that a surfactant be used to reduce surface tension to enable removal. The amount should be such that it leaves minimal residue. It's a tradeoff function, there is no free ride and none of this is rocket science. I happen to like RR fluids because I think the deigner hit the correct balance that does the job well. I have never been disappointed by the cleaning ability of these products nor have I ever noticed residue build up on my styli after playing. |
1. It is my understanding, Doug, that your experience with AI was limited to the beta testing period, and the formulas have been greatly refined and improved since then. I believe we talked about this a few months ago.
Your understanding is incomplete, Paul. You sent me two lots of AI, one from the beta test and a new one several months later - after we discussed the foaming and rinse-ability issues. Both lots behaved essentially the same way. If the formula was changed a THIRD time you never told me and I admit I haven't tried it. Are you putting version numbers on the bottles? ;-) *** 2. Out of all the audiophiles who have used AI, only three ever complained of difficulty in rinsing it. It's good to see you admitting the problem. Out of all the audiophiles who have used RRL, exactly zero have ever complained of difficulty in rinsing it. :-) *** When M. Fremer did his shoot-out, he personally called me and said AI could remove grunge and things no other product could, and that he detected NO sonic signature at all. So what? I called you and told you about problems. Do you only give credence to those who offer news you want to hear? If Fremer had a different experience that's okay with me, but it doesn't change mine. *** Also, Jim Pendleton and his company Osage Audio recently became the sole distributor for the AI products. As part of his due diligence, Jim had an experienced chem lab check the LPs after they had been cleaned using the AI three-step process. The chem lab found NO residue.
Again, so what? A lab test doesn't change my experience either. When a cleaning fluid twice leaves foam on my brushes (even the rinsing brush), I don't need a lab test to know there's a residue. BTW, why wasn't this chem lab testing done BEFORE the product was offered to the public. *** 3. It doesn't really make a lot of sense to claim that a water-based product's beading-up is a "carefully selected design feature" because beading-up is a natural property of water that contains no surfactant. It's like saying that canned air has oxygen as a carefully selected design feature. If the canned air contains a non-naturally-occuring percentage of oxygen, or a cleaning fluid has a surface tension different from pure water, then it IS a design feature. The designer of a cleaning fluid should seek to achieve an effective balance between cleaning ability and rinse-ability. More surfactants increase the former but impair the latter. Maximum effectiveness requires a balance, which requires the right mix of water and cleaning agents. The designer of the fluids I prefer did that analysis, using a chemist's understanding of chemistry. You didn't do that analysis, presumably because you have a only lawyer's understanding of chemistry. You relied on beta testers, which is fine, but at least three of whom (by your own account) are not satisfied with the results. I'm one of them. *** Regarding RCM's: my Loricraft gets a record completely dry in one pass. Every single time. Does your VPI do that? Spare us the red herrings. *** Paul, a large number of users are very happy with AIVS. What are you seeking? A monopoly? That is very short-sighted of you. I tried your product. Twice. I didn't like it as well as a competitor's product. Twice. Suck it up and move on. Doug |
stevecham, great post. Bottomline the customer is pleased with the product results. Results usually win out over hype in the longrun! |
If the canned air contains a non-naturally-occuring percentage of oxygen, or a cleaning fluid has a surface tension different from pure water, then it IS a design feature. Well, what's pure water? ASTM standards I, II, III, IV ? Too wide a margin for its parameters. Wonder how surface tension changes as we go up or down... Nuclear grade? All nukes have different standards, even those owned by the same power companies. Nuclear lab grade? Now we're getting somewhere. Wait! It doesn't last too long because exposure to air makes CO2 dissolve in water and change it's pH. Shit. The safe way is to use a good soap and rinse it thoroughly. At least that's how I take showers (don't want incomplete cleanup nor sud deposits in hard to reach places). That's how I like to clean records, too. Hell, I even put a few drops of Purple Death in my heavy duty home brewed cleaning solution! *** |
Using a loricraft I have found the following works well for me:
0. For a record that I have not yet cleaned, new or old
1. If really dirty (usually old) start with RRL Deep Clean, then vac
2. Spread Enzyme Solution (I'm using Bugglewhatever...)
3. Let the enzyme solution sit for a minute or two
4. L'art Du Son step: clean forwards and back, then vac
5. Rinse w Double Distilled Water then vac
6. Rinse w RRL Wash, then vac
For what it's worth I find the enzyme step has made a big difference since I added it. Detergent step 4 appears necessary but must be rinsed well. I am not sure yet if I need to do both 5 and 6. I am still experimenting. Safe to say that skipping 5 *might* be ok but time will tell.
I find that RRL is removed from the vinyl better than distilled H20 i.e. record is dryer. I have to be careful in speading the RRL since as noted, it tends to bead up. If I am not careful in spreading, it will fly off the record onto my loricraft!
For rinsing and solution make up my H20 is quite pure. It measures <2ppm per a Hanna meter. However the RRL rinse is always my last step.
Walkers' recommendation to make the enzyme solution in small batches is a good one. Proteins (which enzymes are) denature (fall apart) in solution and lose activity. I made a mistake making a big batch of the buggle-stuff but life is learning from experience...
Each solution has it's own brush. Fluids are stored in amber glass bottles with glass eyedrop. 1-2 eyedrop of fluid is placed carefully on the record and spread with the appropriate brush. Spray bottles did not work for me - fluid got all over the place and on the record label. I also like glass bottles, mostly cause they look cool. I use to worry about plastics leaching into my solutions but you have to understand that I am an audiophile...
Consider also that I am use both a conventional TT/TA/Cart and an ELP (laser player). The ELP has positive attributes but playing dirty records is not one of them. The ELP is an excellent measure of how clean your vinyl is... you will hear it if it's not!
When I follow my system, developed by trial and trial, I can get dead quiet (occ pop/tick) vinyl with the laser. Omit a step and I pay an aural price. Again, the enzyme step has proven to be particularly important. So mostly I am doing step 2,3 (yes letting it sit makes a diff!), 4, vac, rinse, vac. Note that I don't rinse or vac between the enzyme step and the detergent step. It does not seem to make an audible difference. I do have to be careful not to put too much fluid on the record though.
This takes more than a few minutes but the final result is well worth it to me.
BTW, I have some very old beat up jazz records that I love - in some cases Klymas treatment has helped reduce surface noise to a more reaonable level. When necessary I use it after cleaning. Stuff is expensive though.
Once the record is cleaned this way for subsequent listening I just use RRL Wash, vac and play. Storing records carefully - plastic sleves with open end inside the album cover - keeps the records clean for months. I cannot yet speak to years. If I use the regular TT I can just dry brush with good results.
Another comment: try as I may I cannot make a home brew cleaner that works as well as RRL. And I have tried. Given the comments here I would like to evaluate Walkers' product (he's the man) and the AI stuff. When I do I'll post my experience.
Nice thread. I find record cleaning interesting - some chemistry, some physics, some bio. Mikey would have done us all a favor by taking this more seriously - but we love him anyway! |
Doug, I've not found a product yet which everyone prefers to all others. Having a choice is a great thing, and I support your having a preferred brand. I do not doubt that RRL is a good product that many people like.
To suggest that a little company like Audio Intelligent is seeking a monopoly is plain silly and far beneath your intelligence level. And yea for your Loricraft, but I don't have a VPI. I built my own RCM--it's identical to the one I built for John Grado. The suction power of an RCM is highly relevant to a discussion of how well cleaning fluids are removed from vinyl; it's no red herring, as you suggest.
Doug, if you followed the beta testing thread, then you know that I experimented first with various products, and then with the ratios of the best products, for more than three years before offering the beta product for testing. To say I relied on beta testers to make the product is therefore quite misleading.
I have never denied that three people, including you, didn't like the product; this is not the first time I've acknowledged that, and you know it. But BFD, Doug (see the second sentence, above). I'm sorry if my citing Fremer's experience upset you. But the fact is that every reviewer has liked the product, and most have said it's the best they've ever tried. And by the way, how would you know whether no audiophile ever complained about RRL's rinseability? That's an absurd statement. However, I do think you should continue stating that three people didn't like the Audio Intelligent products. Out of what is approaching 1,000 sales, that's the best advertising I can think of.
Finally, you mention that I'm a lawyer and suggest that, on that basis, the products were not properly chemically engineered. Actually, I'm a research lawyer, and in my nearly 28 years in the practice, I've had to learn a number of technical fields of study. Perhaps on a more basic level, have I ever suggested that you don't know much because you buy furniture for a living?
Peace, brother,
Paul |
Dougdeacon
My experience is that AIVS went too far. Its rinsability is clearly inferior to RRL's. It left audible residue that took multiple rinse/vac cycles to remove. When using my VPI, I found that if I have a strong light shining on the record, and I watch the run out area, I can see when all the flud is picked up. It's usually more than the 2 revolutions that VPI suggests. If you're using a Loricraft I can see how you might have a problem since you only get one pass per cycle. |
I have used the AIVS stuff myself along with three of my compadres who have about 6,000 records to clean between the four of us. We keep alot and sell some on E-Bay. Our results were about the same as the Doug Deacons. I guess that makes seven of us then who don't care for the stuff if Paul Frumkin will give audiophile labels to us. I been spinning vinyl for over thiry years and have gone from cheap stuff to a very expensive rig to a sensible priced rig and I can hear the difference between a record that has been left with a bad after taste from cleaning and one that has not. Does that make me an audiophile?
One of my guys read about the whole starting of this fluid on this forum and that record of what was said and claimed and argued does not seem to match closely with what the current distributor posts on that site.
We had been using a home brew that still does a good job but we had some that had mold and greasy finger prints and stuff that we all see. We tried the AVIS enzyme stuff and the record looked clean and pops and ticks were mostly gone, but it sounded like somebody threw a towel over the tweeters and was holding the woofer cone with their finger. It consistently took three or four passes with a VPI 16.5 and flooding it with distilled water before the sound started to clear up. We tried the Bugtussle stuff on advice and it rinses off with no problems. I would not really use either of these things on records unless they could not be saved otherwise and I could not afford a different copy but if I had to I would use the Bugtussle because it is so much easier to use and rinse off. We threw the rest of the AVIS stuff away. |
Can cleaning fluids permanently alter the sonic qualities
of vinyl? which ones cause more 'damage' which ones cause
the least 'damage' to a record |
depends on the formulation, but typical cleaning fluids for vinyl are not harmful. Some strong solvents can actually dissolve or soften vinyl and should never be used. Toluene, benzene etc are examples of solvents i would stay away from. The commercially available cleaning fluids typically are water combined with trace chemicals that have surfactant or dispersant properties and sometimes alcohol to aid in drying. None of these typicaly will hurt vinyl |
Geo_info, Disc Doctor, Audio Intelligent, Walker Audio Prelude... all have consistently good reports from Audiogon members for doing no damage, cleaning well, and leaving no residue after a distilled water rinse. Products like Gruve Glide leave a surface coating, and that is always something that should give one pause. |
I've never heard of any commercially marketed record cleaning fluid actually damaging a vinyl LP. (Alcohol will damage many 78's, but that's another story.)
Playing uncleaned records can damage them and has done so in my own experience; and once damaged there's no way to repair them.
So the better question is: which cleaning fluids work best within the time you're willing to spend?
|
It seems that this particular thread has run many months, yet in this thread I don't see any specific mention that as I understand it, AIVS products underwent a complete "overhaul" of its products, and any previously noted issues have been totally corrected.
I now myself use the AIVS products by a very high recommendation-endorsment from one of our own members here.
Although the four step process is a procedure that perhaps some may not wish to undertake, I myself see it as a minor inconvenience knowing that my LPs cannot be gotten any cleaner, and left with no remaining residues, period.
After the multitudes of $1,000's of dollars spent on my Cartridges, Turntables, Cables, Pre-Amps, etc, etc, my take is that these extra steps insure that these components can take the best advantage of what pristine clean records can offer. The addition of a couple of extra cleaning-rinsing steps I see as plus, versus a one, or two step.
Apparently AIVS has gotten it's act together big time, resolved all past discrepancies-issues and the four step process I use makes perfectly logical sense. I am very satsfied with the results I am now getting from using them.
All no doubt will agree, a one step process cannot properly do everything that is required of it. |
I use Audio Intelligent Vinyl Solutions record cleaner in the two part wash and rinse. Jim has a couple different combinations of cleaner and rinse available. I can tell you I used the Audio Intelligent products to clean some other record cleaning fluids residue which I will not mention. It's the best I have found. Visit the web www.osageaudio.com to read up on it. There's also a nice line of audio furniture available there. |
Another vote for the revised AIVS solutions. Our experience parallels Markd51's and Musicamaniac's exactly.
Removing the residue Musicmaniac referred to has literally been the equivalent of a full component upgrade. Our records were clean and silent before, but until we recleaned them with AIVS we had no idea how much of the music was being smothered. Top votes for the new AIVS and Jim Pendleton's work. |
I am only using AIVS (a recent shipment) steps 1 and 2.
am I really missing something not using step 3? WHat the heck is step4? |
Hi Richard,
I guess you missed my post on the other thread. Here it is:
Hello Richard,
There have been some users, particularly those who had been using a formula containing a lubricant, that have found the use of an additional cleaning step and the Ultra-Pure rinse to be of use in removing the lubricant. Lubricants are even more difficult to remove than release compounds. Under normal conditions on reasonably clean records, your methodology should be fine. Varied circumstances in record cleaning is the primary reason for several formula choices. Best wishes
Some are using the Enzymatic, Super Cleaner, Premium Archivist, and Ultra-Pure, in that order because of the reasoning above, and are having results that they are happy with. There are other methods that can be used as well. I would be happy to discuss them with you if you like. Best regards. |
