As you have read, Albert Porter has had the generosity and kindness to ship a bottle of the RR Cleaner together with a sample of the stylus cleaning fluid out to me. The parcel arrived two day ago. When it arrived, I happened to have a live recording of a big band (Buddy Rich, haven't got the label and number here at present)on the platter, which I had previously treated with my ritual plus concoction, as described above. The recording has a nice soundstage, both in depth and width, Rich's drumset has tremendous kick and sparkle, the double base is quite well rendered, the piano a bit too laid back, but the horns and reeds up front alive and vibrant. Even the audience is fairly well caught up, the ambience very alive. So it was a good record with plenty of parameters for trying to find out if anything would be different. My personal attitude was sceptical: I wondered if I would be able to hear any difference at all, even if there were one, which I also was sceptical about.
I first listened to the first two cuts on side one in its original state. Performances, I know very well. I then treated this side of the lp with the RR stuff, cleansed with my usual Nitty-Gritty fluid on the VPI afterwards, cleaned the stylus with RR and then let her rip, playing the whole side through. The same procedure then with the other side, as in side one.
My preliminary findings:
With the RR treatment the tiniest gauzelike veil seemed removed from the performance, something I had not realised was there before. This was consistent through both sides.
I use plasma tweeters - no material is moved here - just a flame - so my highs are impeccably fast, extended and pure and I never thought, they could be bettered in any way. Well it seemed, that after RR treatment just the tiniest of grain was removed here. One instant was especially remarkable: There is suddenly a very high pitched whistle from the audience to be heard, which after RR treatment hurt a bit in the ear, something it never had done before. ( I had not fiddled with the volume controls of course, nor changed anything ) That left me flabberghasted. The soundstage did not change, the soundspace was a bit more vibrant, the piano was bit less recessed, reeds and horns a tad "closer" as before.Perhaps there was more dynamics to the drum, but I cannot be sure. The only negative thing: The double base seemed just a tiny bit muddy suddenly and I suppose it was something which was masked before and I had not noticed this so clearly. Otherwise the boundaries of the instruments seemed to be drawn by a bit sharper pencil, if you like, as before, however not interfering with the bloom of them. The differences described are in no way large, but clearly to be noticed and to my ears clearly to the better. I think the stuff could make good recordings bloom, but also make bad ones ( especially in the violins ) sound worse.
Of course I still cannot be completely sure of the suggestibility factor----so more experimentation is needed.
But for the moment, I think this stuff beats all I know and have tried. The next step is to experiment with classical music,soprano voices, solo piano and solo string instruments. If you are interested, I'll keep you posted.
Incidentally, in the latest edition of TAS there is the letter of a reader, describing how much better LP's would sound unwashed in any way, painstakingly describing the differences. Goes to show, how different out tastes, experiences, ears and last not least our rigs are.
THANKYOU ALBERT FOR YOUR KINDNESS, Regards,
