Sean and Jphii: now that Jphii has said "Don't get me wrong, the RCM outflow tube isn't turning black," I am much more comfortable with his use of and results from the enzymatic. Still, I suggest leaving the enzymatic on the vinyl for no more than a couple minutes.
Also, from my conversations with "el brillante," the Psychicanimal, it appears that if ultra-pure water is used in the cleaner formula (which I think will be made optional with the user), it will even more effective as a solvent ... including as a solvent of any remaining enzymatic.
Best regards,
Paul |
Where's TWL? I just came from doing my last laundry in Toledo and guess what? One of the *mature* waitresses was doing laundry, too! NO abdominal fat, WOW!!! Get that BMW 'cycle ready, Tom...Sistrum should give you an 'entertainment' allowance!
I'm going off the air until who knows...best to everyone. I found a one liter bottle of ultrpure water among my things. If any of you testers is interested I could send it next week. Let me know via private e-mail.
Anybody heard from Raoul?
*** |
Sean,
If I thought I could hear any degradation of sound, I might start to worry. But so far the opposite has been true. As we speak I am playing the Orbison disc, and I still can't believe how good it sounds. Also, I remember Paul stating that he had left it on for half an hour. I beleive that the enzymes just clean that much better.
I understand your concerns, and a do share them a little. But once the enzymes are gone from the record, they can do no damage. And if they did in the first place they should be obvious on first play. If the plasticizers were leeched out of the vinyl, the first play should ruin it.
Don't get me wrong, the RCM outflow tube isn't turning black. But there is substantially more dirt in the fluid than with RRL. Not so much on a disc that has been sink-cleaned, then done with RRL.
I have to say it again: I think PRCF just works better, and leaves a disc cleaner. I've got about enough left to do 2 more albums. I plan on leaving it on those two for as long as I can before it starts to dry. If I think it causes a problem, you can count on me letting all of you know.
Joe |
I left the enzymatic on a few different LPs for 1/2 hour every day for about 6 weeks. If the enzymatic began to dry, I added more. During, and at the end of the testing, I played all the LPs, and found no damage or degradation under illuminated microscopy. I continue to play these LPs (some 4 months post first application), and continue to find no damage. Because of this regimen, enzymatic was left on the LPs for a total of some 1,200 minutes (20 hours) ... certainly many, many multiples of the amount of time that should ever be necessary: unless you subsequently get grease or fingerprints on your LPs, I don't think you'll need to use the enzymatic more than once.
I did not get as much grunge off my LPs as Jphii reports ... which did cause me some concern. However, nearly all of the LPs had been previously cleaned with the cleaner formula, variations of which I have used for a few years now. (More recently, I played with formulation of the cleaner formula to find the combination which seemed to be the best solvent for the enzymatic).
While I let the enzymatic sit on my vinyl for the noted extended periods (1/2 hour at a time), I can't say I recommend that others do so as well. I only know what my results were, and that based on my LPs being fine, after leaving the enzymatic on 1/2 hour x 6 weeks, I have a high level of confidence that the enzymatic is safe when left on for much shorter durations.
BTW, the enzymatic I sourced is supplied containers made of HDPE (High Density Polyethylene) ... which is a variety of vinyl, and I personally use HDPE squeeze bottles to apply both cleaner and enzymatic formulas to the LPs I am cleaning. Now, I am not a chemist, but it seems to me that the chemical structure of proteins and vinyl are very different. Proteins are made of amino acids. Vinyl is made from ethylene (derived from natural gas or petroleum) and chlorine (derived from salt). Maybe someone with more chemistry knowledge than I could jump in an explain the structural differences.
Tomorrow I'll find out more about making ultra-pure water, and report back.
Best regards,
Paul |
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
> |
I left it on for a couple of minutes. Don't let it dry. |
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! |
Jphii, you will also need a small pump. As I was explaining Paul, resin tanks/cartridges need minimum flow/pressure throughputs in order to avoid channeling and optimize laminar flow down the bed. Channeling happens when there is not enough flow/pressure and the water flows down a narrow funnel path, using only a small portion of the resin and prematurely exhausting it, causing breakthrough. This is readily visible, as I had tanks channel on me when the customer gave me insufficient water flow/pressure.
The people at Aquatic Ecosystems are a competent staff and will be able to give you all the technical support you need. They flew me for an interview in Orlando back in May (but didn't hire me). Their technical manager, a civil engineer w/ a PhD, didn't know I was there and was forced to interview me on the spot. He started asking me questions about fluid mechanics, pumping systems design and stuff I have absolutely no knowledge of! Oh well, I didn't see me in call center 8 hours a day anyway...
The technical info I've given is not to brag, but necessary to understand and operate a little system like the one I recommend. Paul is right about gases--they will diffuse back into the water and make it "not ultrapure", especially CO2. The anion resin will be the first to exhaust, since CO2 hydrolyzes into carbonate, bicarbonate and carbonic acid (the water will tend to become acidic then). As the resin exhausts it will be unable to adsorb the heavier/more positively charged ions and will dump them, favoring the lighter/less charged ions.
This little system will be able to deliver water of a purity that's pretty close to that one used for nuclear reactors in submarines: they distill seawater and then run it through resins. Do not use any activated carbon, even if tempted. That will clean the water but load it with organic carbon compounds ( NO! ). When the system is started in needs to be flushed till water reaches proper conductivity/specs. At Beaver Balley nuke they use stationary & mobile equipment with the carbon/hydrazyne deoxygenating rig prior to the resin trailer and on a Monday it takes two-three hours of flushing to bring the organic carbon levels down to spec. In the mobile trailers I have used (fed with tap water) spec will usually be reached within 5 to 7 minutes. If using distilled water I'd give an educated guess of around 3 to 5 minutes. That means it's more practical to make smaller batches of demin water and fill them to the top, airtight. Using the system often and making small batches will prolong the service life of the resins.
Is it worth it? I think so. Doing a final rinse with ultrapure water will extract what's left on the record surface and the results will be more worthwhile than using this or that $700 power cord, for sure. I have talked about this with Jena Labs (Jennifer Crock) and she gets better results as the water gets purer and purer. On another note, once the record has gone through a two step cleansing an occasional cleansing with ultrapure water might be all that is needed if there's no fungal growth and/or fingerprints on the record surface.
Well Sean, that was a very short "self imposed vacation". Now you understand how I feel when you start getting technical and I state that I don't know how to read! I have no electrical/electronics knowledge but I *do* know my water. It takes all kinds...
*** |
Jphii
How long are you letting the enzymatic cleaner stay on the lp before scrubbing? |
Okay, here are some observations from last night's listening session. First off, With 1 exceptions, I used albums that had already undergone my normal routine, and just used PRCF. I also allowed #1 to sit on the albums for a few minutes before proceeding. One thing first: Leaving the fluid on brings more crap off of the album than you can believe. I thought they were clean! I see now I was mistaken. Wait till you see the picture from the outflow tube. The lineup: Cat Stevens: “Catch Bull at Four” A&M SP4365 Genesis: “Trick of the Tail” Atco MSFL-1-062 Eagles: “Long Run “ Asylum 5E-508 Volume 2, “Classic Blues” Bluesway BLS-6062-A Roy Orbison: “Black & White Nights Live” Virgin ST-VR-897531 Neil Young & CH: “Everybody Knows This is Nowhere” Reprise MSC2282 The Blues album was the exception, it was SS. Got it for 2 bucks, how can you pass that up? All of the others are NM. You still would not believe the crap that came off. This applies to every album I’ve used PRCF on. I feel that the enzymes are doing something right. Leaving it on helps to loosen crap buried in the grooves. Then, this time I left them under vacuum for about 6 revolutions, instead of 2. I was a little concerned about static, but using the Gruv Glide styrofoam peanut, there didn’t seem to be ANY. I’ll hold judgment as Patrick is, and see how long this lasts. The real surprise here was with the Roy Orbison. I think this is an excellent LP, but I always thought it was poorly mastered. You can barely hear T Bone Burnett’s guitar on most of the tracks. Well, guess again. I’m still going to stay away from all of the adjectives, but I hear things now I never heard before. And I thought his album was clean. Now, there is ABSOLUTELY NO SURFACE NOISE AT ALL. While there was a reduction in surface noise across the board, nowhere was it this dramatic. And while all of the LP’s sounded better, again, nowhere was it this dramatic. I had to listen to it several times to be sure! And it was better every time. By the third time I could hear JD Souther’s strings buzzing, the rasp in Bonnie Raitt’s voice, and levels of detail that I never knew were there. And yes, you can tell whose guitar is doing what. Amazing. I also have this on DVD, and I do not think I can listen to that copy again. I’d rather have the level of detail than the “live” experience. This effect was nowhere near as dramatic on the other albums I tested. But it was still there. I don’t think it is at all a subtle difference. But one thing that I consider essential is to leave the #1 solution on the lp, to allow it to work. Also, forget about the 2 revolution rule on your RCM. You need to get that crap up! After using it in this way, I noticed no more crap on the stylus. Doug said it all in an email: Glad to hear yours is still working. Ours is too, though in truth it's rarely needed. Clean records don't dirty a stylus. I can’t say it any better. So here is the process I used: 1. Apply #1, and use the brush to spread it till it covers the lp. 2. LET IT SIT! 3. Use the brush to scrub. 4. Vacuum, vacuum, vacuum. 5. Apply #2. 6. Use the brush to scrub. 7. Vacuum, vacuum, vacuum! 8. Carbon fiber brush for a couple of revolutions. 9. Enjoy! So in summation, I’d have to say what happens using PRCF is the availability of a new level of detail, making the MUSIC more enjoyable. That’s what I want out of a clean record. And IMHO, PRCF does it best, so far! |
Psychic,
I checked out that site you posted for the water filters. I'd like to get one, but don't know what I would need besides that filter, or how to hook it up. I hope it's not too much to ask, but, could you help a brother out?
Paul,
I'm working on Part 2 of my review right now. It should be up in a few hours, detailing last night's listening session. Quite frankly, I'm amazed at the way it went. I think those following this thread will be too. I need to get it posted so I can finish up today.
Joe |
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 : ) |
Here's my report for today. I replaced the vacuum pad on my Nitty Gritty and used two new Last brushes. I also transferred Paul's two formulas into new plastic bottles with drip spouts.
The records for this test were purchased today at an estate sale. They are:
Tony Bennett "Who Can I Turn To", Columbia CS 9085
The Doors "The Soft Parade", Elektra EKS-75005
Otis Redding "The Dock Of The Bay" Volt S-419
My usual cleaning ritual begins with wiping the records with an old cleaning brush wetted with distilled water. I then follow the directions provided by RRL with the Deep Cleaner and the Vinyl Wash using the Nitty Gritty. I did this with all three albums and listened to each very carefully, making note of areas that were problematic.
I then used Paul's formulas and followed his instructions again on the Nitty Gritty with new brushes. Additional residue was visible on the new brushes, especially the brush used to apply the enzyme fluid. This surprised me since I was very careful with the first cleanings using the RRL products. Any reasoned person would assume that there was a chance I didn't get all the grunge out of the grooves with the first cleaning. I just don't know for sure but suspect the enzyme cleaner was doing what it is supposed to do.
The results were better than I would have imagined. No, it doesn't fix scratches or vinyl defects. But, beyond a lowered noise floor more information came through. I don't think this was an imaginary phenomenon or wishful thinking on my part. It's real. The Doors album was in near perfect condition. After using the RRL products there was some (although very little) crackling in addition to the stylus in the groove noise associated with a generic American pressing of that era. After cleaning with Paul's formula there was no crackling at all. Zip, nada, nothing but stylus drag on generic vinyl.
I normally use Gruv Glide because of the felt mat lifting with the record. For these three albums I decided not to introduce Gruv Glide in the process assuming I would just deal with the hassle of a lifted felt mat to give the fairest of comparrisons. Yes, the mat lifted with the RRL products and surprise, surprise, it didn't lift with Paul's formula. Only time will tell if this is a lasting consequence of this potential product.
Small things make a difference in this hobby. A perfect example is the Tony Bennett album. On the first listen and being very familar with this album I was very pleased that I had found such a nice copy of an album that was made circa 1960. I have plans to give it as a gift. With the second listen using Paul's formulas I discoverd there were three instruments that stood out from the full orchestra more than before. They were the piano, bass and drums. This was The Ralph Sharon Trio who was Tony Bennett's touring band. It's not surprising that they were more pronounced than the rest of the musicians since it was probably recorded that way, being as they were the basis of his sound inside and outside of the recording studio. This gave the recording a layered effect in depth that we all try to find in better recordings.
I've posted many times about purification of water and believe that this formula would benefit from ultra pure water. I have access to such water locally due to friends in the computer chip manufacturing business and used it with my home brew solution prior to embracing RRL products. For the record, RRL is great stuff. I've been using their stylus cleaner for better than 15 years and consider their record cleaning products to be top drawer. Paul's two step cleaning fluids have the edge in my opinion and not by a small amount. The difference is significant but not what I would say is huge.
I have no affiliation with Paul whatsoever. I'm not going to invest in his company or attempt to become a distributor. I would like to buy some of the concentrate whenever it becomes available. I would like to use a few drops more than he suggests but since I have so little I'll continue to apply as sparingly as he suggests. I will report back on one of our dryest days to tell the crowd if the anti-static properties remain. |
Psychicanimal's knowledge of water chemistry is amazing. He convinced me of the benefits of ultra-pure water, and I can pursue using ultra-pure water for the small amounts of water which get added to a cleaner formula concentrate.
But because of the relative unavailability of deionized ultra-pure water, folks who want an ultra-pure water based cleaner formula will need to either (1) purchase the concentrate AND their own dionizing equipment, or (2) purchase the cleaner formula in non-concentrate, ready-to-use form, and incur the expense of shipping water, albeit ultra-pure water.
I'll look into deionizing equipment on Monday, and report back.
Best regards,
Paul |
I just wanted to add one thing that I am trying tonight. Since the #1 solution is an enzymatic formula, and Paul has left it on albums for extended periods without harm, I have decided to leave it on after I spread it on the lp, but before brushing, for a couple of minutes. I figure this may help loosen the debris that is in the grooves.
I did this on an lp, and it seems to make the runoff even dirtier. So I am assuming this is a good thing. Said lp does sound very good, too, which is after all the whole point.
I wonder if the wonder water would help loosen this stuff and make it easier to remove? I know the difference between distilled & RO water, after so many years around boats. Boaters love RO water, but I can see your point here, Psychic. The ultrapure stuff is beyond me! So, I called a buddy of mine who runs the steam plant at East Carolina University, and he confirmed what Psychic said. Now, remember, this was not because I doubted what you said. It just never hurts to have a second opinion. I have no problems deferring to experts (except Raoul, of course).
More to come as I finish my testing and finalize the review. |
Just talked to Paul Frumkin on the phone, courtesy of MCI's The Neighborhood program...
From our conversation (and posted results) I can tell that Paul is definitely on the right track on how to achieve proper record cleaning. Making ultrapure water is a specialty subject indeed, but I convinced him that using it in the mixing of his #2 solution would improve results by no small margin. Clean water IS better, Jphii. The thing is that ultrapure water does not behave like reverse osmosis nor distilled water. There comes a point in purity where the water turns into a powerful solvent (that's why it's used in steam blows in plants). Just ultrapure water in steam form is a powerful cleaner. Maybe in a cleaner future you can Beta test two batches of #2 mixed w/ distilled water and ultrapure water, respectively. We'll see, things look good.
Where's Raoul?
*** |
Psychic,
I think you said "clean water is better" but damn if I can tell!!! Thanks for the compliment, too.
Paul,
I hope you know I was kidding about the bottles (sorta!). I think the frugal use may be the culprit. I am using more RRL, just because I have more. I think I've got enough left to finish the sonics test. I've been listening all day today, and finally got through the first 9 albums.
I may be getting ahead of myself here, but I do have a definite opinion on one of the albums. I bought the CBS Mastersound Pink Floyd Wish You Were Here new in 1980. I paid $14.95 for it, the sticker is still there. I can honestly say that the album has never sounded as good as it does now. I tend to dislike most of the adjectives used to describe sound. But here, I guess the one I would use is, it just sounds more right. For the rest of my opinions, wait and see....
Joe |
Somebody please remind me never to get into a water chemistry debate with psychicanimal ... with whom I hope to be speaking soon. |
Jphii,
Thank you for your thoughtful, detailed and careful review. Using small sample bottles was one of those things which seemed like a good idea at the time. I should have realized this technically-inclined group would want to do more testing than the small samples permitted. Hence, my sending more (and larger) samples upon request. Sorry about that, Jphii!
I have not encountered accumulation upon my stylus. These different results may be due to: (1) your use of test LPs which were more heavily soiled then mine; (2) frugal use of the cleaner formula -- understandable in light of the small samples sent; (3) the VPI's suction power compared to my self-designed RCM with 1 hp. of suction power. But I would think that (3) would be overcome by addressing (2), and making more liberal use of the cleaner formula. Your larger samples are on their way, and I'll be interested in seeing if more liberal use of the cleaner formula does, as anticipated, reduce accumulation on the stylus.
Thanks again for your very thorough testing and review.
Best regards,
Paul Frumkin |
Excellent, Jphii! That's good, thorough work, fair within the practical constraints of such a test. Right on. Paul, I am in the process of moving to Florida early next week and could not take up your offer to test your product. I have been, however, paying attention on your test and what exactly the Record Research products, which rely on ultrapure water, do. Professionally, I hold a degree in Aquatic Science, so I can get pretty technical, except when someone like Raoul ticks my nerves...and then I start giving my "prescriptions". The subject of resin chemistry can get complicated and demands time and thorough thinking to understand. When I went through corporate training everybody had BS degrees and was having a hard time (except the chemists). What goes on is that as a resin begins to exhaust, the heavier ions ( SiO2, Ca+2, etc, ) are released in favor of the smaller, lighter ones. This is a broad generalization, as an anion resin will exhibit a Silica dip before actually breaking through--just to get a broad picture. Final polishing stages should be devoid of bivalent atoms and ions in order to assure the highest purity. The system I used to run would have gas transfer membranes followed by activated carbon + hydrazine to remove CO2 + O2 past the reverse osmosis unit, which delivered the water @ 8 to 9 uSiemens. A softener followed the degassing units and then on to electrodeionization stacks which mainly removed monovalent ions. After that were two mixed bed polishers in series which brought the water to specs (0.055 uSiemens conductivity, TOC < 20 ppb, SiO2 < 5ppb, DO < 5ppb). Why am I saying all this? 1) Because the water coming out was as pure as the laboratory reagent water and I could clean my glasses of all grease with just a Kim-wipe and ultrapure water. I think ultrapure water has applications to remove stuff from records AFTER initial cleansing and perhaps might benefit being the mixing agent for concentrated solution. 2) Because ultrapure can be made relatively inexpensively in the home if distilled water is available. Considering the price (or pricelessness) of a record collection, this deionization cartridge is more than affordable and simple to use: Deionization filterI think it would make ideal rinse/mixing water for the hobbyist. If anybody is interested I can compile a bibliography of scientific articles on the subject of resin chemistry and demineralized water (after I move & get settled). With psychic power and primal intensity, |
Ok, it’s time to start putting some results down as I go, so this is round one. Right now, 11:33 am Saturday morning, 18 September, 2004. Let’s start with a list of LP’s I’ve cleaned this morning with Paul’s formula. The couple of albums I did last night are not going to be included here. I used them to get a feel for the amount of formula to use. All were cleaned on a VPI 16.5 VPI. I used new felt on the pickup tube, and new Last brushes. The Denon 103r was cleaned before the play began with Last #9, and in between each LP with a Zerodust. All albums were cleaned with a carbon fiber brush when they went on the platter. Any reference to pictures here means that before the weekend is over, I’ll have a page on my site with them on it. Also, this is a comparison to RRL fluids, which I have used for the past 6 months. The only other cleaners I have used in the last 6 months are the Premier spray, and the Gruvemaster (or however he spells it) in the sink, with a little Dawn. I am not using them in this test. Also, if I have to include the “I have no connection, yada yada” disclaimer, you have misunderstood the purpose of this thread. 1: Warren Zevon Asylum 7E-1060 VG 2: Yes, Close to the Edge Atlantic SD-19133 G- 3: Elton John, Captain Fantastic MCA 2142 MCA (734) G 4: Joni Mitchell, Hejira Asylum 7E-1087 VG 5: Stan Getz, Focus Verve VE-1-25-28 VG 6: Eddie Harris, Electrifying EH 4MWB 4M106 NM 7: Kingston Trio Capitol T-996 VG 8: Frank Zappa, Apostrophe Discreet DSK-2289 G 9: Pink Floyd, WYWH (HSM) Columbia HBL-43453 NM All grading is visual, before cleaning, and I tend to be very conservative. For example, the Electrifying Eddie Harris is new, played once. The Yes album had some mold or some crap on it (otherwise it was ok), so that rating may be generous. Nasty Yes Normally I would use the sink for this, but I figured this might throw a curve ball here, so I just used the fluids. One thing first: Paul, if you sell this formula in those bottles, I’ll have to hunt you down and kill you. For the freebie samples, OK, but they were a pain to use. If the formula were a concentrate they would be OK, because you would not have to try and pour it on to an album. Well, I guess the first thing you need to know is the way I’ve gone about this. The Stuff! First, for this round I ONLY used RRL and Paul’s formula (hereafter referred to as PRCF, for Paul’s Record Cleaning Formula), playing after each cleaning. I can honestly say that doing this was a tremendous pain in the ass. After about the second record, I realized that it is almost impossible to make direct comparisons if you clean with RRL, listen, then clean with PRCF, and listen again. Too much time goes by for a valid comparison, IMHO. Per Doug’s suggestion, I also did the reverse, PRCF then RRL, to which the same PITA addendum applies. So, for a couple of albums I did the side a, RRL, side b, PRCF thing. I also kept the volume and other settings on the electronics the same, and made no adjustments to anything EXCEPT the VTA. For round two I am going to try using albums I have 2 copies of. This presents another set of problems, such as the condition of each album, but I’ll address that issue when it happens. Round one is going to address the surface noise and grading issues EXCLUSIVELY. Sonic improvements or degradation are set for round 2. One more disclaimer here: Only the Zevon, Mitchell, Getz, Harris, Kingston Trio and Pink Floyd albums have been played on my TT. The other 3 were in too bad of shape, which is why I bought them for this test! Right up front, I have to say one thing: Surface noise is greatly reduced using PRCF. This is not a subtle thing, but glaringly obvious. Even using PRCF first, then RRL, the results are the same, less noise. I attribute this to the enzymatic cleaning, since watching the output tube on the 16’5 shows dirtier output using it. No matter which order you clean them in. As I stated in my last post, PRCF also makes the LP’s LOOK cleaner. Six of the nine albums I am very familiar with, and know EXACTLY how much noise they have on them. Just to be sure, I played them again before running the test, without cleaning. They have all been cleaned with RRL, just not recently. Now, after cleaning for the test, every one has improved. It may sound like I keep repeating myself, but this stuff works, and works well. Also, the visual grade of the albums has improved. The Elton John, Zappa, & Yes albums were a mess, but second copies I have. Each one is now at least a VG-, maybe VG or better. RRL has never improved surface VISUAL CONDITION like this. PRCF took that shit off side 2 of the Yes album like it was never there Clean Yes. Normally I would spend 10 minutes in the sink with something that looked that bad, and then go to town on the RCM. The other interesting thing I’ve found is that the stylus seems to pick up more crap after using PRCF. The Zerodust has all kinds of stuff in it now See what I mean. I think that the process may loosen some old junk in the grooves that the second stage is not strong enough to remove. This happens when I clean with RRL then PRCF. Going the other way it does not seem to happen as bad. It may be possible that the RRL Super is a little stronger than PRCF’s second stage. Interesting, but not conclusive. More testing is needed to see if this is primarily due to the filth on some of these discs. But, for the next round dealing with the sonics, I am going to pay special attention to the stylus. I plan to give it a good cleaning with Paul’s funky little stylus brush. That thing works! So, for now I would have to say I’m very impressed with the PRCF. I do have some preliminary opinions on the sonics after cleaning, but I am going to do many more hours of listening over the weekend before I make any comment. It’s taken me 4 hours to write this up so far, and I’m just getting started. Be prepared for another long post before the weekend is out. |
Hi Psychicanimal,
It was my understanding that: (1) distilled was preferable to deionized because it removed both ions and organics; (2) deionized substituted polyvalents, such as Mg+, for Na+ and Ca+, which maybe didn't really advance the ball all that much for our purposes; and (3) your water basically become re-ionized when exposed to the air.
Also, if the group concensus is that these formulas work well and I am therefore encouraged to offer them for sale, I had planned on selling them in concentrated form (dilutable in the range of 4:1 to 8:1) -- I don't want folks to have to pay shipping for water, at 64.4 pounds per cubic foot. To maintain purity if I use deionized, and assuming most folks have ready access to distilled but not deionized, I would have to ship in dilute, ready-to-use form, which would undermine one area of cost savings.
But both formulas would contain some water, and since you have worked in the industry and garnered expertise, I would like to discuss this with you either directly via e-mail or through a telephone call. Thanks!
Best regards,
Paul
(302) 836-0453 |
I have a question for Paul Frumkin regarding the water.
RRL boasts about their "quadruple deionized water" used in their formulas. I still don't know what "quadruple deionized water" is, though I have worked in the ultrapure water industry. I take that term as a marketing buzzword for [ cation resin + anion resin + mixed bed resin + mixed bed resin ] purification train, like what is used for laboratory grade instrument calibration water.
My question is, do you think using ultrapure water might improve the performance of your products? It seems to me that so far the Beta testers are very satisfied with the results. Now ultrapure water is an entirely different animal. With about $50-$60 you could buy a small mixed bed resin cannister and run the distilled water through it, converting it into decent quality ultrapure, conductivity in the less than .060 uSiemens or so...and add a SECOND beta test round!!!
*** |
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". |
Rauliruegas....
Either you have a difficult translation issue....
or you need to back off....the crack pipe....
Try it, use the product....offer trial results....
No one here expects ghosts in a machine....but ....from time to time.....we locate ...
and struggle to eliminate one or two....
Ghost busters.....EH?
If you're still on X-Box....that's OK....
My suggestion....
cut and paste better responses....
No international offense....intended.... |
Paul,
I've begun listening after cleaning 4 LPs today. My methodology was similar to others. 2 LPs were purchased (used) yesterday after a trip to Academy Records in NYC. The others were garage sale purchases from a year or so ago. I used the 2 step process on side A and my normal RRL Deep Cleaner & Super Vinyl Wash process on side B. I did use separate brushes for each.
One question for all regarding brushes: Any learnings? I use a VPI nylon brush for step 1, and the disk doctor brush for step 2...
Too much commotion in my house to do serious listening today, but I can say that I noticed a difference immidiately on the first LP, King Crimson-Beat. This is one I just purchase NM to NM-, with a few paper scuffs, but no major scratches. The side with your 2-step definitely had less surface noise. This LP has good dynamics, and it was nice hearing notes attack cleanly and quietly. I'm looking forward to more serious listening over the next few days...
Cheers,
Spencer |
Hey Raoul,
Yesterday I ran into a box w/business cards and I found the one belonging to my beloved Mexican model (lives in Tlaltenco Tláhuac, Xochimilco). I thought my then South American *amiga* had thrown the card in the trash! Anyway, this model was one of the Puro Loco TV program models. Forget about audio for a moment...she's about five feet-seven, dark brown skin, curvaceous body, long brown hair, a six pack PLUS a very *fleshy* mouth!!!
My girlfriend, the exotic dancer in Monterrey is a whole different *animal*...and also has a six pack!!!
Viva México.
With psychic power and primal intensity, |
Paul,
I'm testing as we speak. As some on this thread were getting a little ridiculous (not the ninja's, I was laughing my ass off over that one!), I was holding off posting until I had a good feel for the results. Given the temporary loss of my tube amp, I've been spending some time getting used to the Belles. While I like the amp, I like the Audio Note better. So, I've been playing a loy of lp's to get the sound down.
In the preliminary usage of your formula, I am impressed. Not only does it get albums visibly cleaner, but I believe there to be a sonic improvement as well.
Note, this is preliminary. I will spend quite a few hours over the weekend doing comparisons. The other thing I want to try is using DD brushes compared to the Last brushes I've been using. They won't be here in time for this evaluation, but I may take you up on your offer for more fluids when they get here.
Be ready for a detailed report, probably Sunday night.
Joe |
Sometimes I feel like I'd like to crawl through my DSL line just to see how big some of you audio bullies really are. Thank God I'm not involved in this!!! Lugnut and Slipknot (sounds like a MK & BM together..) Please forgive Raoul. He hasn't done the internal organ cleansing I prescribed him a few weeks ago. Neither he has cleansed himself in the ocean. He's going to keep knocking till he gets the *flush*... *** |
Joe ... I apologize for the unruly ninjas. I'm currently performing an advanced microscopic ninjactomy on the remaining brews, and hope to replace the ill-behaved rascals with better trained microscopic audio ninjas in the near, if not microscopic, future.
On a more serious note, we've yet to hear from many of the folks who received samples. Kindly post feedback when you can. Thanks!
Best regards,
Paul Frumkin |
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.... |
Paul,
At least you didn't implement my idea of using nanoprobe robots equipped with phasers to do the cleaning. LOL
Mr Kidknow |
Dear Paul: ¡ Viva for the ninjas !.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Today I shipped more samples as requested. I appreciate the offer to pay for the extra samples, but when I posted this I agreed to a protocol: that I would not offer the product for sale unless this expert group agreed that these formulas were good.
While the initial feedback is very encouraging, there are many more people who have received the formulas who have yet to post their results. The jury, as they say, is still out. So thank you for the couple "orders" I've received, and the offers to pay for the formulas, but I can't accept any payment at this time -- I will abide by the protocol I established.
Hopefully, more will post their feedback soon, and we can see if there is a consensus. Have a good weekend, everyone.
Best regards,
Paul |
The ninjas are just red herrings to the real truth.
Audiophile gnomes are the real culprits. They go to work after you go to sleep...
http://faerie.monstrous.com/gnomes.htm |
Microscopic audio ninjas...
An Audiogon classic for sure! ROFL. |
Gregm: I agree with you.
Tks, best regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Hi Jyprez,
You certainly should have received them by now, especially since you're close by. The Post Office strikes again! I'll send you another set of the samples today.
Best regards,
Paul |
Paul, I have not received my samples as yet.
JYPrez |
|
I tried the sample and it worked. It definitely removed finger prints and cleaned dirts deeply from the grooves. It even salvaged worn LPs because the wider grooves allowed the stylus digged deeper into the dirty grooves. I rinsed before vacuum the cleaning solution to ensure minimal residue left. I am ready for more of your great product. |
Damn. Raul figured it out. The formulas contain (1) microscopic-sized audio ninjas and (2) microscopic-sized electronic parts to build an equalizer.
Once the microscopic audio ninjas are deployed via the first formula, they dig-in and camouflage, waiting until the microscopic electronic parts are stealthily delivered via the second formula.
At that point, the microscopic audio ninjas load up their microscopic audio ninja backpacks with the microscopic electronic parts, and bivouac their way (microscopically, of course) through the stylus, through cartridge, through the tonearm wires, through the interconnect, through your phono stage, and then through another interconnect, to the preamp, where they unload their gear, download microscopic audio ninja schematics, and build (and integrate) a microscopic equalizer into your preamp. Pretty nifty, eh?
Regards and enjoy the humor.
Paul |
Raul -- while I'm not doubting your kind intentions (nor anyone else, surely) I still fail to understand why & how the application and subsequent removal of a cleaning agent+rinsing liquid (distilled/de-ionized water) on a rotating surface (LP) will affect the electrical properties of the upstream system (=equalisation). That's what you're inquiring about, at least that's what you're saying.
The stylus-groove is a mechanical contact so, the better the contact the better the ultimate result.
If you're wondering whether after the rinsing there is residue left which, in turn, compromises this contact affecting certain frequencies (hence "equalisation" effect)... it really doesn't seem to be the case: most people report less surface noise (removal of particles deleterious to stylus-groove contact) while no-one has reported a reduction of high frequency content after the "cleaning" (which could be an indication).
Ultimately, calling upon the mastering engineers is, I would agree with others above, a somewhat nebulous proceeding for the reasons already offered -- likewise with speaker manufacturers. Rather, you could experiment along the following lines:
Find an original master-tape--> cut two LPs; store 1 LP leave the other out (to collect dust etc). Later, perform a spectrum analysis of each LP. Apply cleaning to dirty LP. Perform spectrum analysis. Listen to "cleaned" LP vs stored LP vs master tape. If game, "clean" stored LP. Spectrum analyse it "cleaned". Listen again, comparatively. Of course, take notes all along.
Copious and difficult proceding, indeed.
At the end of the day, however, this is all just about cleaning the surfaces of a cut vinyl disk and comparing results before & after (i.e. that's what the thread is about). The "testing" conditions, while not rigourously scientific, seem adequate enough for the experiment: same downstream system, same cleaning machine, etc; the application and removal of "cleaning liquids" is the only "before & after" point. It doesn't seem like anyone has reset their riaa equalisation curve...
Cheers |
Dear Paul: Tks for your courtesy.
I think this is an " open thread " and everyone can post an opinion: if you or anyone agree or not with that opinion is another history.
I don't give my opinion for to start a debate, I post my opinion because it is what I think is usefull for to know ( for sure )if there is a true improvement in the music reproduction through your formula treatment or if it is only another equalizer. If you really care about the music reproduction at home you have to try what I'm suggesting you. If you close the door to my suggestion maybe will be because you are more interested on the comercial value of your formula and not on the music reproduction value of your treatment.
Anyway, what do you loose if you can have the answers of the original recording people?.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
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. |
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. |
Yes, Paul, I'd be happy to pay you for the larger quantity, too, and thanks for offering. Dave |
I received my samples on Saturday. The first album I tried was my Johnny Hodges, "Blue Notes" which has some scratchiness that drives me crazy. I was expecting a miracle cleaner. After cleaning album still has the same scratchiness. In other words this is not a "miracle" cleaner(it won't fix worn out albums). I will keep looking for a better copy of Johnny. Other albums that I used for my test were from garage sales that I purchased that day and needed cleaning. I first used my normal popular solutions, which is also a 2 step process, on one side and Paul's solutions on the other. Visually I could tell that Paul's would remove all of the fingerprints and the other solution would only remove a portion.
I have tried this method on a few others and the results seem to be the same, Paul's visually look cleaner, which should mean cleaner sound. There is definitely less surface noise. I also have been very conservative on how much I have been using, so maybe I am not seeing the full benefit of these solutions. Would it fix my Johnny hodges? Who knows.
Paul I would like to try a larger sample 6-12 oz of each and I would like to reimberse you for the expense of the materials and postage. |
Hi everyone,
I wrote to Dave and asked to go ahead and be liberal with using the formulas -- I'll send more if he needs more to complete valid testing. I make the same offer to everyone else. If you need more fluid, let me know and I'll send you more.
Best regards,
Paul |
Well, this testing process is turning out to be harder than I expected. I bought some used records this afternoon, tried to get a handle on the "before" and then listened to the "after." Yes, a nice improvement, but not one I swear I could pick up in an A/B test. But a friend has another copy of one of the discs and this weekend we'll see if we can hear a difference between your products and whatever he uses with his Nitty Gritty/Record Doctor RCM (same model as mine).
One of the problems is that I may be too stingy with your stuff -- want it to last, and there's not a lot to play with. Another "problem" is that my own cleaning regime works very well -- Harry Weisfeld's formula (not the VPI concentrate, which I don't like at all) plus a distilled water rinse. More later, Dave. |
