Record Cleaning Machine Fluid

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]

Sorry for the wrong HTML bracket. You know what I meant!

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.

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 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.

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. ;-)

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

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?

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.