Results from Beta Testers of New Formulas

What is the difference between buying a "branded" product off of the shelf in a fancy package and "trusting it to work as described" or being given something as a test sample and being asked to see how you like it? The difference is that one "assumes" that the marketed product is put out by a reputable company that has performed rigorous testing to come up with that product. As we all know, this is not always true. If it was, we wouldn't have product recalls, lawsuits resulting from false claims / health hazards / damage to property ( even if used as directed ), etc....

You take your chances with ANY product that you've never used before. While having recommendations from reliable sources ( friends, co-workers ) may ease the tension and / or guide one towards more reliable products, there are always instances where one will try a product that they aren't happy with in terms of performance and / or think that it is not suitable for what it was marketed / recommended for.

Paul simply asked for beta testers for a product that he himself thinks is worth giving a try. He's covering the shipping, the chemicals, the glass containers ( NOT cheaper plastic ), etc... and in return, simply asking for honest feedback. I don't remember HMS ( or anyone else for that matter* ) offering "free samples" to anyone, so that comparision is moot.

On top of that, anybody that would think of using an unproven ( by the public ) and unfamiliar ( to them ) product on one of their prized possessions is a fool. Common sense would dictate that one would want to use a disc of little to no retail or personal value for obvious reasons. This disc should be of a known condition i.e. noisy even though cleaning has been attempted on several occassions with several different formulas.

Here's the kicker though. There's no guarantee that anyone in the world could make for this either. That is, what if one of the previous cleaning agents used left a high level of residue on the disc? What if that residue caused a negative reaction to occur with the chemicals that Paul ( or anyone else ) provided? Would this be Paul's fault or liability to cover? While i don't think so personally, it really wouldn't be a big deal IF someone had the sense to use a test disc that wasn't worth anything to begin with.

Another factor here is that if something like a "vinyl molten mess" were to occur due the afore mentioned chemical reaction, who would be responsible for the potential damage done to a stylus? After all, the degradation of vinyl could result in a bonding of foreign material to the stylus itself and / or "wicking" of chemicals into the cantilever ( in extreme cases ). Once again, common sense would dictate that specific precautions with ANY unknown substance be taken into account. Given that not everyone thinks this far in advance, Paul should have issued some basic suggestions with this product.

My suggestion when trying out a product like this is to clean an old junk record as you normally would. If you don't have a record cleaning machine, let it air-dry in a clean area. Put it back in a clean sleeve and let it sit for a few days. If the disc appears to be normal i.e. no visible signs of chemical reaction ( clouding or discoloration of vinyl ), no "softening" or "stiffening" of the vinyl, etc.... give the disc a spin using the TT / cartridge combo that you care the least about. Before doing so, make sure that the stylus is spotlessly clean and properly aligned. If after several plays over an extended period of time the stylus is still spotless, you have reasonable assurance that the vinyl is still stable and that there is little to worry about in terms of potential cartridge damage.

Over this time, you should have been able to formulate an opinion of the effectiveness of this cleaning agent AND protected your expensive and personally valuable investments ( both vinyl and stylus / cartridge ). Should you feel the need for further testing in order to confirm your previous thoughts, you can now play this on your primary TT / cartridge combo for full evaluation.

Outside of all of that, i've spoken with Paul several times over the years. He's been nothing short of a gentleman. The fact that he's gone well out of his way to help fellow human beings in a less than advantageous situation, along with the help of many other Agoner's, speaks volumes of his nature and integrity.

Outside of his personal mannerisms, i know that he's been actively pursuing the goal of coming up with what he feels is the best method of record care that he can find. Several years ago, he forwarded pictures and info to me pertaining to his own vacuum based record cleaning machine. As such, i know that this is not some "shot in the dark, last minute entry" into what he thinks is a viable solution to the problems he's been working on solving.

Having said that, let's keep this in perspective. I'm not saying that i know for certain what Paul has, how well it works or if it will / won't damage your vinyl. All i'm saying is that this fellow Audiogoner thinks that he has something that works well for not only himself, but also for others that may have similar problems. He's willing to share his findings with others, foot the bill for letting them try it out at his expense and asks for nothing more than their honest opinions. I'm sure that he'd like as much specificity as he could get, but if all one told him was whether or not they think it solved their problems, did nothing one way or the other or created more problems, he would probably be happy.

Given that EVERYONE here on Agon is typically looking for "the next best thing" at the best price possible, and one of the "regulars" here has gone out of his way to GIVE AWAY something that he thinks could potentially be such a product to a small group of people, i find some of the attitudes here rather disheartening. Given the other "random" and potentially damaging formulations that others have promoted and / or attempted to use on this and other vinyl related forums, how can this be any worse? That is, so long as proper / common sense precautions are taken.

While it is true that one should always proceed with a certain sense of caution, but when we are talking about NO investment and the common sense use of materials that are of little to no value for the testing to be performed, what does one really have to lose? If one was truly concerned, they could treat a disc or small selection of discs, pay attention to them for an extended period of time ( several months of normal use ) and base their use / opinions of this product over that period of time. Paul didn't tell anybody that they had to buy this product, treat all of their discs at one time and then hope for the best. He offered it up to those that were willing to try it and hopefully, had enough common sense to use it in what most would consider an intelligent manner. Maybe that's asking too much. Sean
>

PS... Compare this to buying a "home-brewed" power cord that could be mis-wired and have the potential to kill you or severely hurt you when tried out, i think that the above points are pretty much "moot".

*JPS Labs gave away free samples of the materials that they use in some of their cables. While the circumstances were completely different, i didn't want to overlook the only exception that i'm aware of to the comments that i made above.

For sake of clarity, when i mentioned "air drying" the disc, i didn't mean to apply the solution and let it dry on the disc via exposure to air. I meant that one should clean the disc as one normally would i.e. applying the solution and removing it as best possible and THEN letting it air dry. My thoughts about this were that if someone were to clean the disc and then put it back into a sleeve while still damp / wet, "bad things" might happen. A paper sleeve could bond to the moisture and / or a plastic sleeve could trap the moisture, producing what would probably be a warm, dark, moist area for bacteria to grow. Allowing the disc to dry thoroughly prior to inserting it back into the sleeve would remove any chance of either of these happening. By no means did i mean to leave the solution & "crud" on the disc to dry by the air. Sorry if this caused any confusion. Sean
>

While i have a rather involved record cleaning process, some of you may remember me commenting on various vinyl cleaning solutions lacking the proper surfactant formulation to fully penetrate the grooves. My "multi-stage" cleaning process came about because i've never found a single solution that actually "did it all".

To sum things up, if you can't penetrate and loosen up the sludge, there's no way to fully remove it. This is true whether you are doing a simple vacuum lift of the solution or even a clean water rinse and vacuum. Putting something on top of the grundge and actually penetrating and loosening the grundge for removal are two different things.

A product that beads up isn't penetrating, hence the lack of deep cleaning action. A solution that not only penetrates, but "foams" or "bubbles" will have the best cleaning action due to the natural aeration taking place. When the solution stops foaming or bubbling, it has reached the point of contaminant saturation and the natural cleansing action has been drastically reduced. If natural aeration ( "scrubbing bubbles" ) of the product doesn't occur, manual agitation ( scrubbing ) of the area to be cleaned would definitely be beneficial.

The only problem with such an approach and "stronger" cleansing agents is that one has to wonder what kind of long term effect on the vinyl substrate is taking place and what kind of residue would the cleansing agent itself leave behind? Hence the necessity for not only a thorough yet "relatively gentle" cleaning, but also a thorough "flushing" of the remaining grundge and any residue left behind. This allows one to "get the best of both worlds" i.e. remove the grundge as thorougly as is possible without leaving any type of caustic cleaning agent or residue behind.

For those that aren't familiar with my "record cleaning ritual", i have three different RCM's ( record cleaning machines ). Side 1 goes onto the platter of the first VPI 16.5 RCM. I manually scrub this using Disc Doctor cleaning solutions and brushes. This helps to break up and deep clean anything imbedded in the grooves. The drawback here is that Disc Doctor solution by itself, while a reasonably good penetrant, is not that easily removed. This is where the VPI 16.5 comes into play.

As was previously discussed, the Record Research Labs fluid doesn't really penetrate that well by itself i.e. it beads up on the surface. As such, it acts as both a topical cleansing agent and helps to lift and suspend the Disc Doctor solution. This allows the vacuum to pick up both the liquid and the grundge that is suspended in the cleaning solution, kind of like how a properly designed motor oil acts as a carrier to suspend the dirt until it can get back to the filter in a car. If the secondary solution ( RRL ) didn't "bead up", the "grundge" would sink back into the grooves with the solution as it was settling. Hence the "drawbacks" of one cleaning solution ( Disc Doctor's tendency to "cling" to the vinyl ) is negated by the "drawbacks" ( RRL's tendency to "float on the surface" ) once the vacuum ( filter ) is applied.

This disc is them removed from the first VPI 16.5 and placed with Side 2 platter up on the second VPI 16.5 RCM. Side 2 is then manually scrubbed with the Disc Doctor solution and then rinsed with the RRL fluid. This approach cleans both sides of the disc with neither side seeing anything but a clean platter mat underneath it. On top of that, having a platter mat underneath the disc allows me to apply enough pressure to really clean the grooves without fear of actually scuffing / damaging the other side of the vinyl.

After both sides have been manually scrubbed with the Disc Doctor solution and brush and topically cleaned with the RRL fluid, which is recovered through the vacuum, the disc is then installed onto a Nitty Gritty 1.5FI. Where the NG machines differ from the VPI's is that there is no platter mat that touches the disc, hence the reduction in potential for further contamination. The discs are supported strictly by the label area, keeping the grooved data area clean.

For my purposes, the 1.5FI dispenses nothing but distilled water. This acts as a final rinse to remove any lingering residue / grundge / cleaning solvent. This water and any residue is then recovered by a thorough vacuuming. I then flip the disc over onto the other side with no fear of contamination ( no platter mat to worry about ) and repeat the distilled water rinse.

While some may find this a bit "over the top" and "costly", it really isn't. You only have to do this to a disc one time, so it's not really a big deal. As far as the high expenses involved with having three RCM's, through careful shopping i've only spent about as much on these three machines as someone would on a brand new VPI 17. Given that a VPI 17 ( or any other commercially available machine ) could not compete with the results obtained from this method, the cost is actually quite low. If one has a large LP collection that they value, such a set-up is simply a small investment to protect the much larger investment that one has in irreplaceable vinyl.

Paul's cleaning solutions seem to be working well and the feedback so far seems to be very positive. Given that i've had to resort to two different types of "cleaning agents" that weren't really designed to work together, Paul's approach of complimentary solutions may offer the best of both worlds. Once i can make further headway on some of my other projects, i hope to purchase some of this from him and give it a go. I have quite a few used LP's that i've accumulated since my last "cleaning session", so it would be a great opportunity for me to see just how well it works in comparison to the above method. Sean
>

PS... I really appreciate the time that you folks, especially Dopogue, Jphii and Lugnut have put into both testing and reporting their results. It's made me want to keep checking into this thread. As far as Psychic's comments go, he should know that us simpleton's can't understand all that technical jive. All those technical spec's go right over our heads : )

Psychic: I'm still on "vacation". I'm just taking a vacation from my vacation : )

Actually, i just set up a new computer as the old hard drive was taking a dive. Just putting the new one through the paces. That's good info that you contributed and i will be buying some of the filtration gear that you referenced.

Jphii: It almost concerns me that you are getting SO much "dark grundge" off of what you thought were previously clean records. At this stage of the game, i'd be very careful with what you are doing and how brave you are with your "babies". While i'm certain that Paul has done his homework and would not be foisting anything that he was less than confident in upon the Agon public, pulling an extreme quantity of "gunk" out of records that were previously cleaned reasonably well does leave room for concern. It almost sounds as if plasticizers are being leeched out of the vinyl.

Paul: What is the longest period of time that you've left the enzymatic on the record? Did you experience anything similar to what Jph mentioned? How long has it been since you've cleaned your first record with this specific combo of cleaning solutions and have you inspected / played it lately? Sean
>

Joe: I was concerned with your comments about the recovery tube being very dark / black. Seeing a cleaner surface is one thing whereas seeing "gobs of black sludge" in the recovery tubes is another. Thanks for the clarification.

As far as the discs being "ruined with the first play" if the plasticizers were being leeched out of them, that is not true. Plasticizers are used to increase flexibility. As such, removing them from any substance that makes use of them would simply result in a stiffer, more brittle material. That's why i questioned Paul as to the length of time that these records were exposed to this solution, both in terms of application and time since first applied. Given his response to those questions, one would assume that the discs themselves were still in excellent shape.

Paul: Ultrapure water can be quite aggressive depending on what it is being used on. You should read some of Jon Risch's comments about it over at AA. Jon used to work for Discwasher back when they were a force in the vinyl cleaning industry some 25-30 years ago.

It sounds like you're really onto something here and i wish you all the best should you choose to market this product. If it works as good as is being reported, you might want to think about obtaining some type of legal documentation in terms of the formulation. That is, it might not take a too much effort to reverse engineer your product if one had funds or access to a lab. Sean
>

PS... I find it kind of interesting that some of the other "record cleaning solution manufacturers" haven't jumped in here to correct all of the "disinformation" that is being spread in this thread. Either they aren't aware that it exists ( and i bet that they are VERY aware of it ) or they are hoping that it will just "go away".

Something that you folks might find interesting. Sean
>

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/vinyl/messages/345630.html

Doug: I've commented on the "beading up vs surface penetration" area of this discussion in threads where Brian did respond. As far as i know, neither he nor anyone else has refuted the comments that i've made about a lack of penetration below the surface resulting in a lack of deep cleaning. Besides learning about this type of stuff from a Chemical Engineer that used to work for NASA, it would seem to be a matter of common sense. After all, if you can't get below the surface, you can't clean below the surface. Since most of the "grundge" resides in the "nooks & crannies" of a disc, a solvent that lacks proper penetration below surface level can only do a superficial job of cleaning. This is probably why Joe aka Jphii was still pulling "gobs of grundge" off of what he assumed were "previously cleaned" discs. They might have been "cleaned", but to what extent was up to the previous solvents & methods used. Sean
>

The information that Mr Kidknow posted is consistent with the information that a NASA employed chemist once told me. That is, i was told that every increase in temperature by 20* effectively doubled the cleaning power of a solution. Given the variables involved in each solution, i would call that "close enough" to the 18* mentioned above.

Given my past experience with active enzyme formulations, they typically work best if left on for a longer period of time, they are agitated during that time and airflow is kept to a minimum. Not only does reduced airflow lower evaporation of the liquid agents suspending the enzyme allowing it to travel more freely and cover more area, it also helps to retain the original operating temperature of the solution, which increases efficiency as mentioned above. In extreme situations, a thorough enzymatic cleaning and rinsing along with a repeat enzymatic treatment and rinsing at a later date may provide the best results possible. The more thorough that one can maintain a higher operating temperature of the enzyme once applied ( by covering the LP with a large pan or bowl that was possibly even pre-heated, etc.. ) and agitate the enzyme on the first application, the less effective the secondary treatment will be though. This would be a good trick though as you have to have LP exposed to ambient air temperatures in order to get at the surface to agitate the grooves.

Given the information presented within this thread and the "cleaning power" of Paul's solution, it's quite possible that one could devise a somewhat complex cleaning ritual for specific discs that they value. It's possible that one could restore heavily soiled / barely playable LP's to easily played / highly enjoyable records. While i have not tried Paul's solution as of yet, i don't doubt the results that others have had using it. I think that it would be of great value to those "record hunters" that frequent used record stores and / or garage sales & flea markets.

With all of that in mind, i guess Paul has now officially made the transition from a "civilian" to an "industry professional". Congratulations to him and i hope that his time & effort that he's put into this product will reward him handsomely : ) Sean
>

PS... While i'm all for ethical participation of manufacturers / distributors / dealers within these and other forums, they need to disclose their business affiliations. Having said that, I think that Paul has been up-front about the whole situation, so he deserves a little help marketing his product since he's new at being an "industry professional". As such, here's his one time "get out of jail free" card and a more convenient link to the Audio Intelligent Vinyl Solutions products : )