Results from Beta Testers of New Formulas

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.

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 filter

I 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,

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

Somebody please remind me never to get into a water chemistry debate with psychicanimal ... with whom I hope to be speaking soon.

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

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?

***

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.

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

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.

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 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

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!

Jphii

How long are you letting the enzymatic cleaner stay on the lp before scrubbing?

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...

***

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!

I left it on for a couple of minutes. Don't let it dry.

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 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

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

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 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

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".

"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."

Oh, yeah!

I posted that it dissolved the nose grease out of my glasses! I went for a week of training at DuPont plant that outsourced the ultrapure water to this company I worked for. The guy training me told me that DuPont started using ultrapure water in their pressure washers. It simply ate them. As I said, ultrapure water will strip ions from the water, and will usually become acidic.

The use here it's just to *quickly* remove "loose stuff" from the records either as the second step cleaner and/or final rinse with the use of a vacuum machine. No big deal when compared to actually riding and constantly accelerating a little diamond chisel on the grooves...and with "stuff" in between.

I've been using just ultrapure water all this time on my Discwasher (just a few drops) and stylus and am very pleased with the results. My records stay clean with just the ultrapure water after being given my proprietary "Purple Death" deep cleansing treatment. I am concerned about the aluminum stylus cantilever being 'eaten' by the water, so I've backed off on that a bit.

Let me go! I've got to get the UHaul!!!!!!!!!

***

Testers,
So do we have any accumulated learnings as to how long to leave the enzymatic on an LP during step one? I've been brushing it in for only 20 seconds or so.
Have you testers reporting good results been leaving it on for longer than that?
Just want to make sure that I don't short-change the formula through my own process.
Nonetheless, I'm already impressed with the reduction of surface noise I'm hearing, as well as much less dust accumulating on the stylus during play. The stylus is obviously riding through cleaner grooves.
One area I'm hoping for more improvement in is in elimination of ticks & pops in garage sale beater LPs. While I have heard some elimination of ticks & pops, not as much as I had hoped. Thinking longer time with enzymatic on the LP could potentially have a impact here. Thoughts? Thanks, Spencer

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..

First, many thanks, Paul, for sending the second, larger samples.

I figured I could now afford to "waste" a little and went to my stack of unplayable-but-can't-bear-to-throw-them-out-discs and found a Herbie Mann album with arrangements by Oliver Nelson ("Latin Mann - Afro to Bossa to Blues"). It's a two-eye Columbia that had clearly led a hard life before winding up at Goodwill.

Long story short, it's not only playable but sounds sensational. Sure, some of the surface noise and clicks are still there, but they don't interfere with my enjoyment -- it's left my purgatory stack for good. And if you don't look too closely (especially at all those marks around the spindle), you'd almost think it was new -- very shiny indeed.

Earlier I had used your fluids to clean a REALLY old copy of Reiner's performance of Pictures at an Exhibition (Italian RCA label, mfg. in Germany!). As I noted on some posts re the new SACD version, this LP definitely waxed (sorry) the SACD. Also, while our comparison tests of two copies of the same records were less dramatic, tho still in favor of your stuff, these were all near-mint to begin with and treated first with "conventional" RC fluids.

Following comments here, I left the #1 fluid on the Herbie Mann disc for well over a minute. I've been using Last brushes for this exercise and wet them down first with distilled water, primarily to "ration" your fluids, though I think it's a good idea regardless.

I think these fluids have DEFINITE sales potential. Just received the new KAB catalog -- you might send Kevin Barrett a sample (www.kabusa.com).

Great stuff. Thanks again, Paul.

Something that you folks might find interesting. Sean
>

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

Non-tester jumping in here, just to offer thanks to all who are giving of their time, energy, knowledge and beater vinyl. It seems like you're getting excellent results so far and there's potential for even better ones with that water quality improvement in the works.

Joe quoted a comment I made about how often we use our stylus cleaner. We frequently play 10 or more sides with only a dry brush swipe between sides to relocate the cat hairs. I've gone 20+ sides without needing to clean. Paul's doohickey is the best stylus cleaner I know, but not needing to clean the stylus at all? Priceless. Record cleaning is orders of magnitude more important than stylus cleaning.

While a need for stylus cleaning clearly correlates well with dirt in the grooves, IME a stylus often comes up clean even after playing a noisy side. If the grunge is stuck to the vinyl... Listening is the ultimate indicator, as usual.

We do have stubborn LPs that resist repeated applications of RRL, Vinyl-zyme, Premier, alchohol-based solutions, brillo pads, etc. If vigorous scrubbing with DD brushes and repeated Loricraft sweeps won't clean these things then maybe Paul's solutions will. Can't hurt to try, so I'll be ordering a batch - once he gets some decent bottles and clean water of course! ;-)

BTW, some of the irretrievably noisy LP's in our collection were ruined with tap water and a GroovMaster. No amount of subsequent cleaning has helped. I caution everyone: avoid using tap water on anything but a beater record. I don't know what's in your water, but ours often contains high levels of manganese oxides (I think that's what Paul found). Once something like that gets ground into the vinyl, enzymes, alchohol, deionised water and juju juice are all useless. Metal oxides probably aren't much good for the stylus either.

BTW, it makes perfect sense to this non-chemist that leaving Paul's enzymatic solution on the LP for a bit would help. Enzyme reactions take some amount of time, right?

BTW #2, I don't know about the inventors/providers of other cleaning solutions, but I'm pretty sure the reason Brian Weitzel (RRL) hasn't chimed in on this thread is simply that he is a gentleman. His chemical knowledge and practical experiences would undoubtedly be beneficial, but commenting on a thread devoted to a competitor's product would be unprofessional and provocative. Brian is neither of these things. Even in private conversation I have never known him to be other than a model of propriety.

RE: ULTRA-PURE WATER

As promised, I contacted AquaFX, a Divison of Aqua Engineering & Equipment, Inc., in Winter Park, Florida. These guys are the ultra-pure water gurus whom Psychicanimal suggested that I contact.

The first reaction of the guy I spoke with (Bob) was that ultra-pure was too aggressive for vinyl LPs: it has the potential leach plasticizers and other large chain molecules out of the vinyl ... even though it doesn't do so with food storage safe plastics (e.g., PET, MDPE, HDPE and Nalgene). Bob thought there would be a point where, when enough other stuff is added to the ultra-pure water, this doesn't occur, and he's going to get back to me on what that point is.

However, unlike most surfactants, detergents, soaps and cleaners, the surfactant I use is a single molecule. The benefit of a single molecule surfactant is that it can be effective at very low concentrations. This is a good thing when it comes to removing the cleaner by vacuum or rinse and vacuum. (Of course, the wetting agent adds another molecule, so we're at a 2 molecule soup).

So while I wait for Bob to get back to me, I'm a little leery of going down this path. Yes, ultra-pure water is a good solvent. But perhaps it's too good of a solvent. More later.

Best regards,
Paul

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
>

Sean and all,

I don't dispute the need to break surface tension with some materials, but without knowing what stuff came off Jphii's records I would hesitate to say that heavy does of surfactant is the answer to all cleaning issues. Perhaps it is the enzymes or surfactant or the combination of the two. Just like setting up a system, there are trade-offs. Surfactants can be your friend but they can also work against you when trying to get everything back off the vinyl.

I just want to echo the thanks to all the testers out there. The results so far have me salivating for this PRCF solution as well.

I do have a question for you testers. Especially those, like Joe, who are seeing lots of stuff come off of what you thought where clean LP's. That is, do you see any deposits on the brushes you are using?

Dan_ed,

I started out with new Last brushes which are white for applying Paul's cleaning formulas. I first cleaned the records in my usual fashion which, IMO, is very thorough using brushes which were not new. When cleaning with Paul's stuff, I did notice more grunge on the new brushes. Understand, I don't have a lot of this fluid to waste and followed the directions to the letter. The ammount of dirt on these new brushes was not as great as you might believe from reading the above posts but it was noticeable, no doubt. I've understated my findings for fear of appearing as a shill for Paul. Again, I have no affiliation with Paul other than being a voluntary Beta tester, nor will I be entering any business relationship with him. I'd buy this stuff in a heartbeat and use it without fear but I can understand completely the concerns raised by others as far as leeching is concerned.

Unless I make some new discovery while using these fluids I'm going to end my postings to this thread with the following summary:

This stuff is good. It beats anything I've used by a wide margin. There are sonic benefits beyond reduced surface noise. The anti-static properties are a definite benefit. A little bit goes a long way. I've also found that used albums that are marginal in condition (visible scratches, poorly handled, very dirty, but don't look like they would skip) become very listenable. I've yet to clean any of my perfect audiophile pressing that I purchased new. I will do that without hesitation at some point but the excitement of otherwise noisy albums being quieted so much is where I'm concentrating my efforts. Remember, I've only got about one ounce of this stuff to play with.

For full disclosure to this group I offer the following also. I have contacted Paul requesting to buy the concentrate in whatever large quantity he would be willing to sell me. If the price was something I could afford at the time he would sell retail, I will try to buy a gallon of each. That would probably last me the rest of my life. Of course, with that kind of quantity I would be tempted to occassionaly gift a small amount to others along the way for them to try like has been done for me by other kind Audigon members.

If anyone has any questions for me I will be happy to respond to any emails or phone calls. I hope I've not appeared to "go over the top" with my recommendation but the temptation is there to do so. Again, it's that good.

Dan_ed,
So far, I'm not seeing any gunk on my brushes, however I am seeing more "dry fuzz" after a cleaning session on the velvet portion of the vacuum arm tube( VPI 16.5). More stuff is getting sucked out of the vinyl.
This, the lower amount of dust accumulating on the stylus and the shinier surfaces lead me to conclude that records are just "darn cleaner".
I do still have clicks & pops that aren't disappearing with some of the LPs, but some are definitely gone. Background groove noise is reduced, resulting in apparent increased dynamics.
I've got enough left to clean about 3-4 more LPs, so I want to take my time and look for the best candidates...

Sean, welcome back from your vacation. It's always nice when friends return home.
Cheers, Spencer

Hi Sean,
I'm not sure why you addressed that to me. I'm no chemist, so engaging me in a theoretical discussion of surfactant behaviors would waste my time and your brains! Confused here, as usual...

After doing about a dozen discs, the Last brushes I'm using show absolutely no discoloration. Better yet, my styli (two vinyl setups) stay clean as a whistle.

Put me down for a gallon, too, Paul. This stuff is dynamite. Although it's a bit depressing to look at 3,000+ Lps and think what's ahead :-)

TALLYING THE RESULTS & ULTRA-PURE WATER

Hi everyone,

So far, 10 beta testers out of 20 have reported their results. They are: Brashgordon; Thafler; Jeffloistarca; Slipknot1; Lugnut; Nghiep; Jdodmead; Jphii; Sbank; and Dopogue. I think it's fair to say that they have reported very good results with the 2-step process. Thank you, guys, for your testing and for providing us all with your results. I guess at this point, I'm fairly encouraged to open a commercial account here on the 'Gon and make the formulas in the 2-step process commercially available.

I'm thinking that for 'Goners who wish to buy the concentrate and add their own distilled or ultra-pure water, I'll package the formulas in your choice of 4 oz. amber glass or 8 oz. Nalgene containers. Because the concentrate will be formulated to be diluted 7:1, the 4 oz. isn't as ridiculous as it might seem on first blush -- 4 oz. will make 32 oz. (one quart) of ready-to-use formula. Of course, 8 oz., once diluted, will make twice as much -- 64 oz., or a half-gallon.

Bob at AquaFX, a division of Aqua Engineering & Equipment, Inc. (telephone: 407-599-2123 or 877-256-3467), has kindly given me much of his time over the past couple days. He also had his engineering department do an analysis to make sure the ultra-pure water would be safe for vinyl LPs. Their conclusion is that ultra-pure water is only aggressive with LONG TERM contact; it is very safe for short term contact, such as the 1 minute or so the cleaner formula (step #2) is on the vinyl.

Therefore, I have purchased AquaFX's Barracuda unit ... a 4-stage reverse osmosis and deionization unit. Here's the link:

http://www.aquariumwaterfilters.com/RODI/Barracuda.html

I will make available to 'Goners the cleaner formula in a ready-to-use, diluted with ultra-pure water. Ultra-pure water, and the ready-to-use ultra-pure cleaner formula, may be safely stored in plastic containers which are food storage-safe; e.g., PET, LDPE, MDPE, HDPE, and Nalgene. I'll ship the ready-to-use, ultra-pure cleaner formula in 16 oz. and 32 oz. HDPE squirt bottles.

There's no point in making the enzymatic formula with ultra-pure water. The enzymatic contains several complex molecules, and is too much of a "soup" to benefit from ultra-pure water. The concentrated enzymatic should be diluted with distilled water. Thanks to Psychicanimal for suggesting that I look into making the cleaner formula (step #2) with ultra-pure water.

Currently, I'm sidetracked with an appellate brief due in the Michigan Court of Appeals this week. (Now there's an audiophile speaking for you -- my real work is "sidetracking" me). But I hope to be up and running in a week or so, and I'll have pricing information available then, too (I promise it will be affordable). The products will be sold under the "Audio Intelligent" brand name, here on the 'Gon.

This has been a group project of sorts from the beginning, with the beta testers literally having the collective power to veto this project. So if anyone feels that I have not fairly summarized the feedback, or if anyone dissents from the intentions expressed above, please feel free to speak your mind.

Thanks, everyone.

Best regards,
Paul Frumkin
(302) 836-0453

HURRY UP, PAUL! I want to place an order! :>)

Some observations from using Paul's formula on about a dozen records:

First, A/B comparison of cleaning formulas is clearly inherently difficult - you can't ever make it dirty again and try the other cleaner. Using one cleaner on one side and another on the the other also doesn't work as the sides can be as different as night and day. The approach I took was first to use the cleaner on records that were already cleaned with my home brew and/or RRL super vinyl wash (I usually double clean but not always) and then to try it on uncleaned records. For the first test, I used records which still had some evidence of noise after cleaning.
Results:
First, I can say that this is not a miracle cure for your noisy records. Of 6 records all showed some improvement but only one showed more than the roughly 5% (slight) improvement that I would expect with a second cleaning. This may not be due to inadequacies of the cleaner as much as the fact that the records were already cleaned as much as possible. One record seemed to show a much more noticeable improvement in overall quality and dynamics. Again, it is difficult to assess this as you can't flip back and forth between the before and after and I tend to get so into the music that I forget I'm supposed to be listening to the sound but there seemed to be less "whoolyness" and much more focused sound.

I next tried cleaning several uncleaned, used records with the solutions. The result was excellent but again, I cannot say whether it would have been better or worse with RRL.

A couple of other observations - The enzymatic cleaner smells like the stuff I used to use on my contact lenses for overnight cleaning. You can't clean contact lenses with a few minutes immersion in cleaner and I wonder if the same is true for records. (and the contacts have only accumulated crud from one day, not 50 years!)

The cleaner also seemed to clean finger prints in the dead wax better than other cleaners. Finally, I liked the flow and dispersion over the record better than RRL fluid which seems to bead up on the surface. I know that the RRL people say that this helps "lift" the crud out of the grooves but I prefer to have the fluid get down in the grooves and let my 3hp custom record vac do the "heavy lifting" - it can practically suck the label off so there is no need for the fluid to do lifting.
In conclusion, I would purchase this product if reasonably priced to have an alternative to my current cleaners. My results suggest to me that alternative formulas and record cleaning strategies may work better on different records with different problems. No harm trying as many as I can. As for the potential of record damage - I'm not too concerned as my 50 year old ears will probably degrade far faster than the vinyl.
Paul - thanks for the samples and your contributions to record cleaning efforts

Sign me up with a standing order for the stuff Paul!

Paul, the in-line TDS meter is a MUST. I'm glad I was of use. I'm doing fine--don't worry--Im appreciate your concern...

Psychicanimal ... glad you're doing well with your difficult move to Orlando.

I'm getting the in-line TDS (total dissolved solids) meter! It can be moved from post-reverse osmosis stage to the post-deionization stage to monitor the ultrapurification process. (TDS should = 0 post-deionization). Thanks for helping me make a better product for all of us 'Goners!

Best regards,
Paul

I used Paul's samples to clean about ten older records from the 1950's through the 1970's. These were records that looked to be in good condition without much visible surface scratches, but were afflictd with a constant low level of surface noise, along with occasional more dramatic ticks and pops. These are fine records which were purchased used over many years, and obviously have been played when not specially cleaned before.
I removed some dust with Audioquest carbon fiber brush, so there would not be physical particles to get stuck on the plush of the VPI 16.5 cleaning wand.
I used step one, and step two cleaners, each for about two to three minutes before the VPI vacuum up step, and I used different applicator brushes to spread the two different solutions over the record surface.
Results: reliable 80% reduction in the continuous background surface noise, and more clarity, detail, and texture to voices, and instruments. Much more enjoyable listening. Easy to hear this wonderful improvement.
Most of the louder, occasional, ticks and pops, some of which were seen to correspond to visible scratches, were not changed, as these were actual vinyl damage. Some were reduced in amplitude, presumably where the cleaning solutions modified the most severe imbedded debris, while leaving behind the physical groove damage which cannot be magically erased.
Conclusion: Very worthwhile improvement for those of us with older records that have passed through other hands on the way to our own collection. I do not have time to wash records with more than one company's products, so this is not a comparison, but rather a confirmation of excellent results.
Listening to the same records both before and after cleaning is sometimes startling, when the stylus tracking seems to bring out more of what the microphones captured in the way of detail, and even soundstaging.
A thank you to Paul Frumkin for providing free product for beta testing. I am relieved that the results are positive, as it is more fun to be able to give justified praise, without having to express any disappointment when a thoughtful fellow Audiogon member does his best.

A suggestion on soak time for the Step 1 Enzyme formula.

Several people have been asking "How long should I let the enzyme solution soak the record before removing and proceeding to the next step?" I feel that you should let the enzyme solution soak for at least 5 minutes if possible. There is nothing wrong with occasional brushing during this 5 minute interval.

Enzymes require time to do their work. They are catalytic cleaning agents, i.e., they participate in the chemical reaction of chopping-up proteinaceous soils but they do not get consumed in the process. Without the enzymes, it is nearly impossible to chop-up protein soils without introducing chemical agents that are corrosive to people and probably damaging to the record itself. Enzymes take time to get the job done because of the temperature limitations (it takes energy to drive the reaction) and the dilute nature of the cleaner and low quantities of soil present (it takes time for the enzymes to find the dirt in order to do the work).

It is possible to enhance enzyme activity by warming the enzyme solution. A general rule of thumb for chemical reactions is "For every 18°F temperature increase, the rate of a chemical reaction doubles". First, you would need to be careful on heating so that the solution doesn't get too hot. Excessively hot solution has the potential of warping a record. On the other hand, placing a few milliters of warm enzyme solution on the cooler LP may cool down the enzyme solution fairly quickly (evaporation also cools the solution) such that the heating effort may be a waste of time. If you choose to try heating your enzyme solution, you will need a thermometer and I suggest that you do not exceed 100°F; I personally will never heat my cleaning solutions unless they are really cold (below 70°F). Finally, if your enzyme cleaner consumption rate is very slow, repeated heating may shorten shelf life enough to cause a degradation in performance. Degradation in enzyme performance may take several months to show-up after several heating cycles. Enzymes do not have indefinite shelf-lives so try to make sure you use-up your enzyme solutions within 1-year to be safe.

So, the general recommendation is "Soak at least 5-minutes if you can" in my book. Paul has already proven to himself and me that daily soaking for 30-minutes over a 6-week period showed no detrimental effects on vinyl. Clearly, using 30-minute soak times is excessive because we would be spending more time doing the cleaning process than listening to the records.

Mr. Kidknow

I noted that with my home made and Paul’s cleaners that some surface noises still present after cleaning; but few days later when I listen the same LPs again the surface noises were significantly lesser than before. I assumed that over time the remaining dirt got loose and got cleaned off the record with the needle without causing a noise. When I used the enzyme #1 solution alone, the sound seemed smoother and laid back. I guessed that some of the enzyme still coated the groove and acting as a lubricant. The #2 alcohol solution is to further remove the enzyme. I normally dip the whole record into distilled water to rinse the cleaning solutions before vacuuming. I definitely have Paul’s cleaning solutions around for dirty records.

Paul, given that, as several have suggested, the first solution may be left on for several minutes, I find that I tend to use more of it on the record to make up for evaporation. Would it make sense for you to sell the first solution in twice the quantity as the second to account for this?

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?

Slipknot ... yes, Mrkidnow remarks on that issue. Repeated heating will break down the enzymes, rendering them less effective. Rather than heating your whole supply, just heat the portion you're going to use.

Placing the enzymatic formula in a container, and then heating it gently with hot water, would work well. Don't get the formula hot: you don't want to melt any modulations. Warm to the touch will work well.

Jyprez, the formulas will be sold under the "Audio Intelligent" brand name. They will be available as concentrates in both 4 oz. glass bottles and 8 oz. Nalgene bottles. Their concentration level is set to be diluted 7:1 with distilled water. So the 4 oz. bottle will make 32 oz. of formulas (1 quart), and the 8 oz. bottle with make 64 oz. of formulas (1/2 gallon).

I will also make the cleaner available in a ready-to-use formula made with ultra-pure water ... sold in 32 oz. HDPE squirt bottles. I hope to set up my ultra-pure rig in the next couple of days.

But specific to your question ... don't be stingy with the cleaner formula: it's what makes sure you get all of the enzymatic, plus oils and grease, off your LP.

Best regards to everyone,
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.

Okay, let's cut to the chase. When will it be available? I've started rationing again :-)

Dave

Paul I finished testing your samples and want to thank you for including me in the test and for the samples.
My findings are similar to the other testers.
Ticks and pop's were reduced and on one record they were completely removed. After using the products the albums took on that "new shine look".
I would purchase the product and use it.