Paul,
I have yet to receive my samples for testing.... |
Hi Paul,
I too would like a larger quantity and would be more than happy to reimburse you for any/all costs. Thus far I am very impressed with the promise your product holds. Thanks again. |
Paul,
Just wanted to let you know I recieved the box of audio Ninjas you sent ;) Unfortunately, they arrived in rough shape. It appears some suffocated, and several others killed each other fighting over food, water and air in the box.... |
Here are some VERY EARLY initial impressions of Paul's cleaning solutions. Disclaimer: I have no connection to Mr. Frumkin other than to try his product and offer my observations. Also, keep in mind that this first impression is based on using the samples for the first time.
The solution samples come in two bottles, with written instructions for application, which I have followed.
The first solution to be applied is an "enzymatic" which I assume is a "crud buster" pre-wash. This is applied to the LP then vacumned off.
The second solution is an LP washer. Applied with a different brush than the first fluid and vacumned off. The directions specify NOT using a natural bristle brush for the enzymatic fluid which I followed.
Now- for the results: The first LP I tried it on has quite a bit of surface noise due to age and perhaps prior abuse (I bought it used). I cleaned one side with my usual RRL fluids on my 16.5 RCM and played it. Then I recleaned it with the sample cleaning fluids and played it again. The surface noise was significantly lower and the run-in and run-out groove noise was much more silent and black.
Next, I played a recently cleaned disc that is in really good shape with very low surface noise, taking note of string tones, stray pops and clicks, etc. Then I treated it with Paul's two-step cleaner and replayed it. The pops and clicks were gone and it seemed to me that the rough edge I have always heard on the violins on this recording were much less strident and more rounded and "rosin-ness".
As another test, I cleaned an LP my usual way, then recleaned it with the new stuff. Even though the LP was thoroughly clean, a re-cleaning showed more grunge in the runoff after using the review samples.
These observations are very early in the game for me, and, I am interested to see if there will be any changes to the vinyl over the long term due to the use of the "enzymatic" solution. Time will tell. This I will say: the stuff works people! It cleans great, it reduces surface noise greatly, and it seems to add a certain "sweetness" to the music on the discs I experimented with thus far. These were orchestral and jazz trio works. I will experiment further and report more findings as I get more use of the product. My impressions thus far are positive. |
Some further observations: using the enzymatic 1st stage, then using my usual RRL as the wash stage rather than the 2nd stage wash STILL results in a much more dynamic sound.
The "edginess" being gone I spoke of in my previous post should not be taken to mean that there was a rolling off of HF information ala Gruvglide or even LAST. Both those products tend to leave a film on the LP (Gruvglide is a lubricant). The enzymatic does not film up, comes up very well with the RCM making the LP very receptive to the wash cycle. Both with Paul's washer solution and with RRL. At this juncture, I think I prefer Paul's. For the next round of testing, I intend to treat the LP's, play them, then rewash in my traditional way with RRL and see what develops. Perhaps also begin throwing a distilled water rinse into the mix as a third step. Any testers doing this yet?
Anyone interested in what music is being used during my testing can follow my posts on the "What's On Your Turntable Tonight?" thread: [url]http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?gmusi&1078448878&openusid&zzSlipknot1&4&5#Slipknot1[/url] |
Dopogue,
Play one of those "pretty darn clean records", then clean it with Paul's two-step (kind of sounds like a dance), and play it again. I've been cleaning my very clean records with this stuff and am hearing a big improvement. Like you, I also just picked up some used and dirty LP's to test with this stuff, and am anxious to see how it does on records that have not been well cleaned prior to this. |
Rauliruegas,
What makes you think the people using the test formulas don't know what the recording is supposed to sound like? Are you saying the testers are unqualified? Are your comments directed at hearing acuity, the quality of the playback system, the condition of the vinyl? Quite frankly, I don't understand your point. Why would any of the industry people mentioned in your post be any better a judge of whether or not the product works than anyone else? Does their "stamp of approval" make it any better? What matters is if the people who choose to use it, like how it works. I doubt very much that anyone of the above would submit the product to any more of a rigorous test than the average user with a record cleaning machine and a large vinyl collection.
You keep talking about people liking an "equalized" sound, and this product is an equalizer. Have you used it? Do you use any record cleaning products? Don't presume to pass judgement on this or any other record cleaning product unless you have tried it yourself. Further, do not presume to pass judgement on what people in this thread or this forum like or don't like. You speak in generalities. Your opinions are welcome here, but keep them in the context of what is being discussed. Have you spoken to every one of the testers? It would seem that you have in order to make the conclusion that everyone has heard an improvement and that everyone likes an equalized sound. That conclusion cannot be gathered from the comments thus far in this thread. |
Raul,
Are you suggesting that only the engineer can understand how a recording is supposed to sound? I guess my assumption that the purpose of this hobby was to enjoy the music contained in the grooves rather than fret over whether or not we hear it as the engineer intended, is incorrect. Any component, cable, tweak, setup, etc. imparts it's own sonic signature. Each of us assembles a system based on our own personal listening biases. Ideally, we listen through the sonic signature imparted by the equipment for the heart and soul of the composer's intention not the engineer's. Do we like what we hear? Does the music move us? Or, are we dissatisfied because we are unable to appreciate it because we are unsure that the playback is not like it was the moment it was commited to tape.
Your "point", or your mission is of no importance to me, and I dare say of any of the testers who are posting to this thread. I am not "angry" that I don't understand what you are getting at. What I am angry at is the fact that your post represents nothing short of a troll, with nothing of consequence to add to the context of this thread or it's intent. This thread is about a new formula of cleaner for vinyl, and whether or not the users feel that it works better than or worse than what they are currently using. If your intent is to start some kind of argument, I would suggest you take it over to AA, where there are plenty of paranoid folks who like to fight in the anonymous world of cyberspace. Otherwise, please stick to the subject at hand. If you have no experience with the product we are discussing, you have nothing to add and are therefore irrelevant...
If you do not think this is the case, it is YOU who doesn't understand. The title of the thread says it all.
MY posts to this thread prior to your intrusion dealt with MY perceived impressions of Paul's products, they will also return to my impressions of the product from this point forward. |
Ok, so here is what we got going on tonight:
I pulled out 4 LP's, all of whom have known "issues" with noise. All of them have been in my collection since I was a teen/college student. They are:
Beethoven "String Quartet, Op.131" Bernstein/Vienna Philharmonic (DG 2531 077)
Bill Evans "New Jazz Conceptions" (Riverside RLP-223)
Santana "Caravanserai" (Columbia KC 31610)
Al Stewart "Year Of The Cat" (Janus JXS-7022)
The Bill Evans LP was cleaned using the two solutions several days ago and has been played twice since then. Before playing tonight, dry swept with Decca brush while on the table. All the other Lps were cleaned (both sides) tonight prior to playing.
There is no question that these formulai (formulas?) are very effective at reducing surface noise. All of the air and detail is restored to the LPs, and I think the reason we are hearing this is really very simple: CGMCM Clean Grooves Mean Clean Music. This two step process does a very good job of getting deep down into the grooves and lifting the grunge and getting it off the disc, allowing the stylus to track a nice clean groove. My stylus is staying cleaner, and in the case of the Al Stewart LP, I hear stuff again on it that I have not heard since the day the seal was broke on it in 1977. It's not changing whats on the vinyl, but it's cleaning the vinyl to a degree that allows me to listen to the music, and not the dirt and dust and junk that has gotten into the grooves over the years.
The Evans disc sounds just as quiet and good with just a sweep of the dry brush prior to playing.
I have treated/cleaned over 20 LPs so far and as long as long term vinyl degradation does not become an issue, I am convinced of the efficacy of this stuff. |
Paul,
Just a thought, but have you tried a cryo treatment on the ninjas? Maybe a little deep-immersion just prior to shipment might get their fiesty molecules to better line up, resulting in a more consistent behavior during the shipping process. It works for my kids, as in: "you better get in line mister". |
Mrkidknow,
Some interesting ideas you have there. It makes sense that the longer the enzymatic sits on the surface, the better the chances are for loosening up the proteins and other assorted nasties that get into the grooves.
Never thought about about the gentle heating idea. What method(s) would you suggest to use? Further, should there be a concern about the breakdown in the efficacy of the enzymatic due to repeated heating and cooling of the solution? |
for my next round of testing, I'm following Jphii's lead and allowing the enzymatic to sit for a spell before scrubbing. Thanks for the detailed report Jphii! |
Spencer,
Last night, I started leaving the enzymatic on the LP ala Jphii for about a minute and a half after spreading it out, then a good scrub and vacumn. I am still amazed at how much cleaner the grooves are. The reduced surface noise and much cleaner groove also means I am not having to do my stylus cleaning regime as often since I started the testing.
I have yet to hear any kind of rolling off off highs and I am testing records I know very well. I am impressed with the levels of detail in the now clean grooves which seem to have also resulted in a much better sense of center image focus. I don't know if this is the case of center focus improvement due to cleaner grooves, or, if it's a case of percieved improvement due to greater inner detail from much cleaner grooves.
So, I apply the enzymatic, spread it out, allow it to sit for 60-90 seconds, scrub well, then vacumn for more than the usual 3 rotations (5 or 6). Next I apply the cleaner, scrub, vacumn, then place on the TT and give it a sweep with the dry carbon fiber brush before dropping the stylus into the lead-in groove.
Looks and sounds mah-vel-ous.. |
Sign me up with a standing order for the stuff Paul! |
Paul, I guess I should learn to read more thoroughly.I went back and re-read MrKidknow's post, and - sure enough- it's all there. I'll try the heating method with a small batch and see what happens.
Still getting consistently positive results. LPs are cleaner, quieter with no loss of fidelity or dynamics. Clearly attributable to much cleaner grooves. |
|
