Hi Raul,
You say "Paul has to answer." Actually, I don't, but will do so now as a courtesy to you. I didn't respond earlier because I thought that what was already posted adequately responded to you.
Your suggestion that should send the fluids to the original recording engineers (studio engineers? mixdown/mastering engineers? lacquer cutting engineers?) makes no sense to me whatsoever. They don't have hard drives for brains; they can't "replay" sounds once heard years ago for comparison. And even if they did, how would they listen to the vinyl cleaned with these formulas except on their equipment ... which necessarily has its own sonic signature?
The reason for this thread is really quite simple: whether the knowledgeable, experienced and technically-oriented vinylphiles here on A'gon think the vinyl sounds better -- or not -- after using the formulas in my 2-step process. None of us need anyone else -- whether a recording engineer or our mothers -- to agree or disagree with us when we listen to something on our system and say "that sounds better," or "that sounds worse."
Having now responded, I respectfully ask that if you want to continue this debate, please start your own thread to do so. People are using the thread to post their feedback on using the formulas, and others are coming to this thread becaue they want to read that feedback ... and not debates on whether we should or should not have recording engineers tell us what sounds better -- or worse -- on our own systems. Thanks, Raul.
Best regards,
Paul |
Dear Lugnut: An equalizer is a device that can change the frecuency response in music reproduction: all the testers told us that they hear something different ( that they like it ): this " something different " is a change in the frecuency response, my point is if that changes are in the recording or not: the only people that know about it are the people that were at the live studio recording, if these people told us that after the formula treatment the reproduction sound is more accurate to the recording then and only then Paul can say that the formula really works in favor of the music reproduction, if these people told us that the treatment it does not help for " accurate to the recording ", then the formula is an equalizer. That is all.
About the tube electronics that work like a very expensive equalizers I agree with you that this is not the moment to speak about it and I apoligize for that.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Slipknotl: First than all my post was to Paul not to you. I ask to Paul to give and answer and he is silent till now.
You still don't understand about it and yes I know that it is not important to you. So don't loose your time answer me for something that you can't understand and that I don't ask you: Paul has to answer.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Paul,
I listened to a record I love earlier this afternoon which has some annoying surface noise yet no apparent reason for it. It has been cleaned previously using two well respected products. I used your products and there is a noticeable improvement. It's not an audiophile pressing and I can't say that anything has improved beyond reduced surface noise but I can say that the music was as detailed as before. So, in this one case I enjoyed a benefit. More cleaning and postings to follow, good or bad. Of course, time will tell, as others have suggested, if your formula degrades the vinyl. If a 12 1/2% solution containing alcohol will degrade vinyl then my entire collection is headed to the trash heap some day because most of the previous solutions I've used contained alcohol. For the record, the EQ remains the same, FWIW, IMO, YMMV, etc. |
Raul,
Are you suggesting that only the engineer can understand how a recording is supposed to sound? I guess my assumption that the purpose of this hobby was to enjoy the music contained in the grooves rather than fret over whether or not we hear it as the engineer intended, is incorrect. Any component, cable, tweak, setup, etc. imparts it's own sonic signature. Each of us assembles a system based on our own personal listening biases. Ideally, we listen through the sonic signature imparted by the equipment for the heart and soul of the composer's intention not the engineer's. Do we like what we hear? Does the music move us? Or, are we dissatisfied because we are unable to appreciate it because we are unsure that the playback is not like it was the moment it was commited to tape.
Your "point", or your mission is of no importance to me, and I dare say of any of the testers who are posting to this thread. I am not "angry" that I don't understand what you are getting at. What I am angry at is the fact that your post represents nothing short of a troll, with nothing of consequence to add to the context of this thread or it's intent. This thread is about a new formula of cleaner for vinyl, and whether or not the users feel that it works better than or worse than what they are currently using. If your intent is to start some kind of argument, I would suggest you take it over to AA, where there are plenty of paranoid folks who like to fight in the anonymous world of cyberspace. Otherwise, please stick to the subject at hand. If you have no experience with the product we are discussing, you have nothing to add and are therefore irrelevant...
If you do not think this is the case, it is YOU who doesn't understand. The title of the thread says it all.
MY posts to this thread prior to your intrusion dealt with MY perceived impressions of Paul's products, they will also return to my impressions of the product from this point forward. |
I'll put my cable against your DSL any day! |
Raul,
I apologize if I offended you BUT you were out of line with your tube comment, IMO. I was really jokingly referring to the situation at hand with my law firm comment. I would like you to understand that I do consider myself having an open mind. Otherwise, I wouldn't be trying Paul's potential product. I fail to see how cleaning a record could be equalizing such. Some products stand in the way of the information and others let allow it to come through. I'll post my findings in an honest fashion. However, I will not insult Paul in the way I do it. I'll probably piss off a lot of people with the following comment but here goes. I get tired of attacks for no good reason. While I'm a current user of RRL products and have no ill will toward any manufacturer of record cleaning products I've not been convinced that the base water is as good as they say. Bottom line is, I don't care. If it sounds better, I'm an owner. Maybe this isn't an anal enough thought process for the superior audiophile but it has served me well for the over 35 years I've been in this hobby. Why don't we just see what the thoughts of the testers are while this thread evolves? Or, is the point of being an Audiogon member just to stir the shit? 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. |
Dear Lugnut: Like Slipknotl, you don't understand anything about.
You have to be more " open mind ": it is the only way to learn in every day life.
Best regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Slipknotl: "....what the recording is SUPPOSED to sound like ?, this is the point: the testers only can suppose but they don't really know about: only the people that were at the recording sessions knows about it.
"....that the testers are unqualified ?, you told it I never mentioned about it.
"..........the quality of the playback system,....?", again you told it I never mention it.
I ask: this formula is an equalizer or it really works?.
Yes, you don't understand my point. I hope you can do it in a near future. ( Don't be angry for something that you can't understand ). Be happy.
Best regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Paul,
I received your products yesterday and will try to set some time aside today for testing. I'm looking forward to this exercise as I have two problematic albums I would like to make more listenable.
Rauliruegas-I have not, nor would I ever allow Wilson, Faulkner, Harley & Atkinson to make any audio decisions for me. Sounds way too much like a law firm. Besides, I've got some tubes and my own ears to go by. Just take your odd order harmonics and hum them to yourself all day long. |
Paul,
I got my samples today, many thanks again. I fired up the system to do a little pre-cleaning warm-up listening, and damned if there isn't a blown channel in my Audio Note! Changed all the tubes, but no joy. So, I had to reconfigure everything using a Belles 150a I have lying around. I'm just about done setting the electronics back up, so I should be doing some serious listening over the next few days. I think I'll leave the amp & that thing that plays the little silver things running overnight to get the amp up to speed. I really need to get reaquainted with the SS amp before I can do any real world comparisons. I'm even going to give up my afternoon golf tomorrow!
Slipknot,
Once again you've gotten it right! But I figure if all of those guys mentioned in that other post were there when "it" was recorded, I need something to "equalize" the differences in their ears. Thanks God I'm having tube amp problems at this time. That way, there is one less thing to screw up the sound of Paul's formula! I seriously hope I can enjoy the non-live music.
Remember all, blanket conclusions are like assholes: We all are, I mean have, one, usually.
Joe |
The enzymatic formula contains: (1) enzymes; (2) surfactants; and (3) distilled water. The cleaner formula contains: (1) surfactants; (2) a wetting agent; and (3) distilled water.
The formulas contain no plasticizers (e.g., LAST Record Preservative), nor does it contain lubricating agents (e.g., Gruv-Glide and RRL). It is not possible for the formulas to act as "equalizers" and alter the sound. Any differences perceived are due -- strictly -- to cleaner vinyl.
Best regards,
Paul |
Rauliruegas,
What makes you think the people using the test formulas don't know what the recording is supposed to sound like? Are you saying the testers are unqualified? Are your comments directed at hearing acuity, the quality of the playback system, the condition of the vinyl? Quite frankly, I don't understand your point. Why would any of the industry people mentioned in your post be any better a judge of whether or not the product works than anyone else? Does their "stamp of approval" make it any better? What matters is if the people who choose to use it, like how it works. I doubt very much that anyone of the above would submit the product to any more of a rigorous test than the average user with a record cleaning machine and a large vinyl collection.
You keep talking about people liking an "equalized" sound, and this product is an equalizer. Have you used it? Do you use any record cleaning products? Don't presume to pass judgement on this or any other record cleaning product unless you have tried it yourself. Further, do not presume to pass judgement on what people in this thread or this forum like or don't like. You speak in generalities. Your opinions are welcome here, but keep them in the context of what is being discussed. Have you spoken to every one of the testers? It would seem that you have in order to make the conclusion that everyone has heard an improvement and that everyone likes an equalized sound. That conclusion cannot be gathered from the comments thus far in this thread. |
Dear Paul: I agree with 4yanx, Motdathird and Sean. I don't want to talk more about, I thing almost is saying.
I'm a little worried about an important issue with your formula: it's works like an equalizer or it really works ?,
all of your beta testers experienced what they thing was an improvement and they like it: after using your formula the sound was more accurate to the recording?, nobody knows it: they like it ( but in this forumm I learn that at least the 90% of the people likes the equalized sound, they use tube electronics: equalizers. ).
I think that you have to test your formula, too, with the people that can know if what they hear is accurate to the recording or is not: ask to David Wilson ( Wilson speakers ), Tony Faulkner ( Green Room Production ), Joe Harley ( Audioquest/Groove Note Recordings ), John Atkinson ( Stereophile ) if your formula it is an improvement and accurate to the recording and let us to know their answers: all those people were at the live
recording and they really knows about it and only they can tell us the true. This is a critical issue for the people that loves the music and that cares about music sound reproduction at home. So, do it you a favor and do something for us and for the people that you ask for a free help. I'm stay tunned for your answer and effort in this way.
Best regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dopogue,
Play one of those "pretty darn clean records", then clean it with Paul's two-step (kind of sounds like a dance), and play it again. I've been cleaning my very clean records with this stuff and am hearing a big improvement. Like you, I also just picked up some used and dirty LP's to test with this stuff, and am anxious to see how it does on records that have not been well cleaned prior to this. |
Hi, Paul. Just received it, and realized that all my records (anything I care to listen to, at least) are pretty darn clean already. Need to hit a used record store to pick up some candidates, I'll report back. Thanks, Dave |
Hi Dave,
The last group of samples were mailed out on Thursday or Friday of last week, so you should be receiving your samples soon. If they don't show up by Thursday, please let me know, and I'll re-ship samples to you. Thanks for your interest and I look forward to your feedback.
Best regards,
Paul |
Haven't received my sample of the cleaning fluid yet. Hope I'm still on the list to get some. Best, Dave Pogue |
REGARDING GRAIN ALCOHOL (VODKA)
This is a subject I've discussed with Duane Goldman (a/k/a the Disc Doctor) a couple times. 100% pure, 200 proof grain alcohol (ethyl alcohol) is a good cleaner. However, Duane says that vodkas have numerous impurities which may not be safe for vinyl. (All vodka sold in the U.S. is charcoal filtered. Perhaps some of the impurities are carbons and hydrocarbons from the charcoal?)
Bottom line: using vodka on your vinyl may not be a very good idea.
Best regards,
Paul
|
That's funny, the vodka never makes it as far as the vinyl in Helsinki, though I believe that after enough of it the surface noise goes away, or no longer matters...;-) |
Paul...The Oxyclean is just an idea, but Vodka has been used for years. It is a darned pure alcohol/water mix. If it doesn't work for you, other uses can be found, and I guess that goes for the Oxyclean too.
Playing records wet is real. Radio stations, especially in the days of 78s, did this, and audiophiles picked up on it. |
Yikes! I hope Eldartford's comments are tongue-in-cheek. |
Go for it, Eldartford! Let us know how the Oxyclean works out. I guess if we see you pop up on one of those tv commercials we could take that as a sign that it worked for you! :)
Or you could just crack open that wallet of yours, brush back the cobwebs, dodge the escaping moths and plunk down $10 for a small bottle of vinyl enzyme cleaner that has been around for several years now.
Just kidding here! |
Use of enzymatic cleaners is the latest greatest thing for getting grass stains off your kid's jeans, but I would not think that the kind of dirt that gets on LPs is an appropriate application, but it would be worth a try. Why not use Shout, Oxyclean, or others available at low cost?
Drying the LP seems to be another fine art! This amuses me because in those old days (which I keep mentioning) audiophiles washed their records before playing, and played them wet. Of course our phono pickup VTF ran around 5 grams, and HF response to 20 KHz was wishful thinking, but the water did seem to lubricate the stylus and minimize surface noise. When playing a few very old LPs(50+ years)that have been through the wars and which I once played with a 5 gram pickup, I still do this with my Shure V15MR pickup with VTF at 1.5 grams. It still works. |
Re: Distilled Water Rinse
It's hard for me to say whether improvements will result from a distilled water rinse as a third step. That's because my self-designed RCM (photo available under "systems") uses a powerful 1 hp. vacuum motor, and I am confident in its suction power. (Prior to deciding to build my own RCM, I e-mailed VPI 3 times asking for the rating of their vacuum motor. VPI never responded ... which helped me to decide to build my own).
Certainly, I would recommend removing as much of the cleaner fluid -- now laced with the grunge it dissolved or lifted off -- as possible. If you are less than confident in the suction power of your RCM, then perhaps it would be best to either (1) use a distilled water rinse as a third step, or (2) if the record is still damp at all, use lint-free cotton toweling or a lint-free woven cotton pad to sop up any residual cleaner fluid.
BTW ... does it drive anyone else buggy when, by the time you get your cleaned LP over to your turntable and get ready to cue up, dust has landed on your LP? For a time I used canned compressed air (sold in office supplies for cleaning keyboards, etc) to blow the dust off the LP. But the stuff would frequently spit some kind of liquid on the LP with the compressed air. I have found an alternate solution. Here's the URL address to a page at American Science & Surplus' website:
http://www.sciplus.com/category.cfm?subsection=5&category=58
At the top of this page is a PC cleaning kit for $4.95. The REAL attraction of this item is that it includes a little battery operated vacuum/blower ... which is perfect for that last second dusting-off the LP before you cue up. It's not powerful, but it is sufficient. If the link doesn't work, it's their item No. 34158.
More samples were shipped out on Wednesday and Thursday, so more feedback should be available soon.
Best regards to everyone,
Paul Frumkin |
Some further observations: using the enzymatic 1st stage, then using my usual RRL as the wash stage rather than the 2nd stage wash STILL results in a much more dynamic sound.
The "edginess" being gone I spoke of in my previous post should not be taken to mean that there was a rolling off of HF information ala Gruvglide or even LAST. Both those products tend to leave a film on the LP (Gruvglide is a lubricant). The enzymatic does not film up, comes up very well with the RCM making the LP very receptive to the wash cycle. Both with Paul's washer solution and with RRL. At this juncture, I think I prefer Paul's. For the next round of testing, I intend to treat the LP's, play them, then rewash in my traditional way with RRL and see what develops. Perhaps also begin throwing a distilled water rinse into the mix as a third step. Any testers doing this yet?
Anyone interested in what music is being used during my testing can follow my posts on the "What's On Your Turntable Tonight?" thread: [url]http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?gmusi&1078448878&openusid&zzSlipknot1&4&5#Slipknot1[/url] |
This is very interesting. The vinyl enthusiatsts are all worked up about a method of reducing surface noise, which, I was told in a previous thread, doesn't exist. |
Hi Kurt,
We must have posted almost simultaneously. Yours wasn't there when I was writing.
Great minds thinking alike perhaps? Naw, we even missed the entrance exam!
Doug |
Hi DougDeacon,
That was one of my points - do it both ways, all ways...for the reason you mentioned. |
Would it also make sense to clean some records with Paul's formulas first, listen to them, then re-clean with RRL and listen again? You might learn if the benefits change or if they're due to double cleaning vs. particular solutions.
Just some suggestions from a lazy guy in the cheap seats! |
I have just finished reading this thread for the first time, and as such am not one of Mr. Frumkin's Dirty Dozen testers. Wish I were!
As a suggestion, Slipknot1 et al, if there was a way of recording to analog tape or CD the results of each version of cleaning, well that might be a good aural archive of sorts, perhaps one which could be offered to others here.
It seems odd to me that the current and more prominent LP RCM and RCFluid manufacturers don't provide this to their prospective clients.
Of course this is not a truly scientific method, but at least it presents *some* proof of what is claimed. I know the maker of the lasar TT does this (At a cost, IIRC).
In any event, and to put my suggestion in context, I have read so many raves about LP cleaning methods, new and old, only to be sorely disappointed when attempting to replicate those results on my own collection (which is 8000 LP's strong).
Meanhwile, I will be reading this thread some interest; I wonder if a "New Formula" LP will improve sonically when treated subsequently with DD or RRL; and if those changes are as dramatic as the initial reports when the opposite occurs.
Thanks,
-Kurt |
I'm waiting too, and it does sound promising. I planned on using the same method as Slipknot for the test. I have 6 albums waiting, one of which I can't stand to listen to, even after my RRL cleaning regime. |
Slipknot1, this makes me anxious to receive my samples. It sounds promising. |
Based on Slipknot's report I am left wondering which of the two parts had the most impact on cleaning the record. This is purely a guess on my part but I would suspect that the enzyme solution may give the greatest improvement since enzymes are reported to get those nasty protein/mold deposits. I suspect this based on what I have read from users of other enzyme cleaners. Would any of you guys with the samples do a comparision test using the enzyme solution on both and a different second cleaning solution? |
Thanks for the input Slipknot. I have a lot of old LPs that might be in need of such a solution. I just don't have an LP player at the moment to test the stuff out with. |
For sake of clarity, when i mentioned "air drying" the disc, i didn't mean to apply the solution and let it dry on the disc via exposure to air. I meant that one should clean the disc as one normally would i.e. applying the solution and removing it as best possible and THEN letting it air dry. My thoughts about this were that if someone were to clean the disc and then put it back into a sleeve while still damp / wet, "bad things" might happen. A paper sleeve could bond to the moisture and / or a plastic sleeve could trap the moisture, producing what would probably be a warm, dark, moist area for bacteria to grow. Allowing the disc to dry thoroughly prior to inserting it back into the sleeve would remove any chance of either of these happening. By no means did i mean to leave the solution & "crud" on the disc to dry by the air. Sorry if this caused any confusion. Sean
>
|
Here are some VERY EARLY initial impressions of Paul's cleaning solutions. Disclaimer: I have no connection to Mr. Frumkin other than to try his product and offer my observations. Also, keep in mind that this first impression is based on using the samples for the first time.
The solution samples come in two bottles, with written instructions for application, which I have followed.
The first solution to be applied is an "enzymatic" which I assume is a "crud buster" pre-wash. This is applied to the LP then vacumned off.
The second solution is an LP washer. Applied with a different brush than the first fluid and vacumned off. The directions specify NOT using a natural bristle brush for the enzymatic fluid which I followed.
Now- for the results: The first LP I tried it on has quite a bit of surface noise due to age and perhaps prior abuse (I bought it used). I cleaned one side with my usual RRL fluids on my 16.5 RCM and played it. Then I recleaned it with the sample cleaning fluids and played it again. The surface noise was significantly lower and the run-in and run-out groove noise was much more silent and black.
Next, I played a recently cleaned disc that is in really good shape with very low surface noise, taking note of string tones, stray pops and clicks, etc. Then I treated it with Paul's two-step cleaner and replayed it. The pops and clicks were gone and it seemed to me that the rough edge I have always heard on the violins on this recording were much less strident and more rounded and "rosin-ness".
As another test, I cleaned an LP my usual way, then recleaned it with the new stuff. Even though the LP was thoroughly clean, a re-cleaning showed more grunge in the runoff after using the review samples.
These observations are very early in the game for me, and, I am interested to see if there will be any changes to the vinyl over the long term due to the use of the "enzymatic" solution. Time will tell. This I will say: the stuff works people! It cleans great, it reduces surface noise greatly, and it seems to add a certain "sweetness" to the music on the discs I experimented with thus far. These were orchestral and jazz trio works. I will experiment further and report more findings as I get more use of the product. My impressions thus far are positive. |
Hi Jyprez,
Carbon fiber brushes have advantages and disadvantages. On the plus side, carbon fibers have incredibly small diameter. They are therefore capable of going deeper into the grooves. But even carbon fibers are not capable of brushing most modulations in the grooves -- high frequency modulations are so small that they're measured in the same units as are lightwaves: microns (one one-millionth of a meter).
Further, carbon fibers are so soft that they provide very little "scrubbing" action. Further, most of the cleaning occurs because of the agitation of the cleaning fluid, and not because of direct brush-into-groove contact. The softness of carbon fibers makes them not very effective agitators.
I tried using a carbon fiber brush for a while with the cleaning solutions, thinking (as perhaps you are thinking now) that their small diameter would allow better penetration into the grooves. I concluded that their drawbacks outweighed the advantages; it also didn't let the fluid flow on the LP very well, and acted more like a squeegee than a brush. I used the Audioquest carbon fiber brush. Perhaps another brush -- such as the Hunt EDA Mark 6 (whose fibers are "backed up" by a velvet-like bar) -- might be more effective.
Certainly, nothing was harmed by using the carbon fiber brush that I could tell. If you try one or more carbon fiber brushes, I think all of us would be interested in your results. FYI, I contacted Audioquest with this very question before trying their carbon fiber brush with the solutions. Their terse response was that their brush was meant to be used dry.
Best regards,
Paul Frumkin |
Do you recommend a carbon fibre brush? If so, which? They all seem to be intended for dry brushing. |
ANOTHER PRECAUTION:
This was on the prior thread, but I should repeat it here.
1. Do not use the formulas on 78s. They are made of shellac, and the isopropyl might dissolve them.
2. I also have no experience with acetates, and therefore cannot comment at all about the formulas' safety on acetates.
3. Lastly, do not use a natural bristle brush with the enzymatic solution. Natural bristle = hair = protein ... and the enzymatic is designed to dissolve protein deposits. Hence, over time, the enzymatic would dissolve the natural bristle ... and perhaps leave its remnants on your vinyl.
Please feel free to write with any questions or concerns. Again, I look forward to the testers' feedback. Thanks!
Best regards,
Paul Frumkin |
Jjmali,
As you can see, Mr. Frumkin himself is open to suggestions and ideas from others, and has just explained some of his safety testing in response to Sean. If the thread starter is willing to respond constructively then by definition the post was useful.
I will of course honor your request by never offering any thoughts or suggestions on any thread of yours. Now that I understand your sensitivities, I wouldn't dream of intruding on your private space.
Hope you enjoy talking to yourself,
Doug |
Regarding the safety issue ... I tested the solutions on a few LPs, all from different labels. I allowed the solutions (one at a time) to sit on the vinyl for a half-hour (something I don't recommend you do with ANY vinyl cleaner), and then removed with my vacuum RCM. I did this just about every day for about 6 weeks. Given that, with normal cleaning, the fluids should be on the vinyl for a minute or less, I figure this was more than a lifetime's worth of "fluid on" time.
Every week I examined the LPs with illuminated microscopy, and played them. I found no degradation in appearance or sound of the vinyl ... and this result maintained throughout the testing period. I also found no accumulation on the stylus, other than the typical dust that falls on the LP while it's played. One LP I sacrificed to a thumbnail scratch test ... to see if I could detect any increased brittleness, or at the other end of the spectrum, softening of the vinyl. As crude as this latter test may be, I could detect no changes in the vinyl ... and after the tests, the LP made a great (albeit dangerous) frisbee. This testing was mentioned in the prior thread, but in more summary fashion. After this testing, I tried the fluids on my UHQR "Crime of the Century." It sounded excellent.
Sean's appeal to common sense is, appropriately enough, good common sense. For example, when testing these formulas, I hope no one would use their prized $300 (used) Fred Jackson Blue Note original LP (per jes45). But I disagree with one thing Sean said (which I think is a first, Sean). Sean suggests that if you don't have a vacuum RCM, then let the LP air dry. I believe that would allow the gunk you've loosened-up or dissolved to re-deposit into the grooves. I think it would be better to absorb the fluids and the gunk with lint-free cotton toweling (used in photography) or lint-free cotton pads. In fact, if your LP is heavily soiled (or has something strange or really sticky on it), using lint-free cotton toweling or pads is probably a preferable first step. It will keep the fabric surrounding your suction apparatus from getting fouled.
I look forward to the feedback from the testers.
Best regards,
Paul Frumkin |
How abot this... if you don't want to try the product - don't. Don't waist your time and everyone elses trying to show us how smart you think you are. I look forward to receiving my samples. I will use common sense in trying them out.
Thank you for the samples Paul. I will respond soon on the results.
John |
Sean,
Thanks for a well reasoned addition to a thread that has gotten a bit heated, unfortunately.
The protocol you advise seems like a prudent one. It offers the possibility of sample-testing the safety as well as the efficacy of Paul's solutions over a larger array of samples, situations and observers than one person could easily manage.
I'm also concerned about the vinyl safety issue raised by 4yanx. Since Paul has declined to specify what if any safety testing he's done, prudence forces us to assume that he has done none before this test. That seemingly puts the onus on the volunteer testers, to report not only their immediate cleaning results but also to report the ongoing condition of the cleaned vinyl for some length of time.
Since Paul (apparently) didn't perform safety testing before making his offer, it would have been best if he'd included a request for that, with a warning not to test his solutions on valuable records. That would have made the situation clear from the beginning and prevented much regrettable bloodshed. Having failed to do that, no doubt innocently, Paul could have responded to 4yanx with a simple followup request to his volunteers for a protocol like the one described by Sean.
I hereby move that the volunteers adopt a long-term vinyl-safety test as described by Sean, and that they include as many non-valuable LP's from different labels/eras/countries as possible. Meaningful results will of course require weeks/months/years depending on the degree of uncertainty each of us is willing to accept for the (presumed) cleaning benefits received.
Do I hear a second? |
Just to reiterate, there's absolutely nothing wrong with asking Gonners to try an untested vinyl solution. Chances are nothing bad will happen to the vinyl, and, as Sean stated, just try it out on your junk records. However, what alarms me is the Paul's inability to state a disclaimer stating no test has been done to test the safety of his product, and that the beta testers are the ones testing not only the effectiveness of the solution but also the ones finding out if there are any potential drawbacks.
I never read the initial post, so maybe Paul stated some disclosures in there that I missed. However, seeing his replies to 4yanx leaves gives me a less than confident impression of Paul's practice as a businessman (I see him as a vendor and not as a fellow Gonner). It's a shame because 4yanx is obviously an interested party. |
What is the difference between buying a "branded" product off of the shelf in a fancy package and "trusting it to work as described" or being given something as a test sample and being asked to see how you like it? The difference is that one "assumes" that the marketed product is put out by a reputable company that has performed rigorous testing to come up with that product. As we all know, this is not always true. If it was, we wouldn't have product recalls, lawsuits resulting from false claims / health hazards / damage to property ( even if used as directed ), etc....
You take your chances with ANY product that you've never used before. While having recommendations from reliable sources ( friends, co-workers ) may ease the tension and / or guide one towards more reliable products, there are always instances where one will try a product that they aren't happy with in terms of performance and / or think that it is not suitable for what it was marketed / recommended for.
Paul simply asked for beta testers for a product that he himself thinks is worth giving a try. He's covering the shipping, the chemicals, the glass containers ( NOT cheaper plastic ), etc... and in return, simply asking for honest feedback. I don't remember HMS ( or anyone else for that matter* ) offering "free samples" to anyone, so that comparision is moot.
On top of that, anybody that would think of using an unproven ( by the public ) and unfamiliar ( to them ) product on one of their prized possessions is a fool. Common sense would dictate that one would want to use a disc of little to no retail or personal value for obvious reasons. This disc should be of a known condition i.e. noisy even though cleaning has been attempted on several occassions with several different formulas.
Here's the kicker though. There's no guarantee that anyone in the world could make for this either. That is, what if one of the previous cleaning agents used left a high level of residue on the disc? What if that residue caused a negative reaction to occur with the chemicals that Paul ( or anyone else ) provided? Would this be Paul's fault or liability to cover? While i don't think so personally, it really wouldn't be a big deal IF someone had the sense to use a test disc that wasn't worth anything to begin with.
Another factor here is that if something like a "vinyl molten mess" were to occur due the afore mentioned chemical reaction, who would be responsible for the potential damage done to a stylus? After all, the degradation of vinyl could result in a bonding of foreign material to the stylus itself and / or "wicking" of chemicals into the cantilever ( in extreme cases ). Once again, common sense would dictate that specific precautions with ANY unknown substance be taken into account. Given that not everyone thinks this far in advance, Paul should have issued some basic suggestions with this product.
My suggestion when trying out a product like this is to clean an old junk record as you normally would. If you don't have a record cleaning machine, let it air-dry in a clean area. Put it back in a clean sleeve and let it sit for a few days. If the disc appears to be normal i.e. no visible signs of chemical reaction ( clouding or discoloration of vinyl ), no "softening" or "stiffening" of the vinyl, etc.... give the disc a spin using the TT / cartridge combo that you care the least about. Before doing so, make sure that the stylus is spotlessly clean and properly aligned. If after several plays over an extended period of time the stylus is still spotless, you have reasonable assurance that the vinyl is still stable and that there is little to worry about in terms of potential cartridge damage.
Over this time, you should have been able to formulate an opinion of the effectiveness of this cleaning agent AND protected your expensive and personally valuable investments ( both vinyl and stylus / cartridge ). Should you feel the need for further testing in order to confirm your previous thoughts, you can now play this on your primary TT / cartridge combo for full evaluation.
Outside of all of that, i've spoken with Paul several times over the years. He's been nothing short of a gentleman. The fact that he's gone well out of his way to help fellow human beings in a less than advantageous situation, along with the help of many other Agoner's, speaks volumes of his nature and integrity.
Outside of his personal mannerisms, i know that he's been actively pursuing the goal of coming up with what he feels is the best method of record care that he can find. Several years ago, he forwarded pictures and info to me pertaining to his own vacuum based record cleaning machine. As such, i know that this is not some "shot in the dark, last minute entry" into what he thinks is a viable solution to the problems he's been working on solving.
Having said that, let's keep this in perspective. I'm not saying that i know for certain what Paul has, how well it works or if it will / won't damage your vinyl. All i'm saying is that this fellow Audiogoner thinks that he has something that works well for not only himself, but also for others that may have similar problems. He's willing to share his findings with others, foot the bill for letting them try it out at his expense and asks for nothing more than their honest opinions. I'm sure that he'd like as much specificity as he could get, but if all one told him was whether or not they think it solved their problems, did nothing one way or the other or created more problems, he would probably be happy.
Given that EVERYONE here on Agon is typically looking for "the next best thing" at the best price possible, and one of the "regulars" here has gone out of his way to GIVE AWAY something that he thinks could potentially be such a product to a small group of people, i find some of the attitudes here rather disheartening. Given the other "random" and potentially damaging formulations that others have promoted and / or attempted to use on this and other vinyl related forums, how can this be any worse? That is, so long as proper / common sense precautions are taken.
While it is true that one should always proceed with a certain sense of caution, but when we are talking about NO investment and the common sense use of materials that are of little to no value for the testing to be performed, what does one really have to lose? If one was truly concerned, they could treat a disc or small selection of discs, pay attention to them for an extended period of time ( several months of normal use ) and base their use / opinions of this product over that period of time. Paul didn't tell anybody that they had to buy this product, treat all of their discs at one time and then hope for the best. He offered it up to those that were willing to try it and hopefully, had enough common sense to use it in what most would consider an intelligent manner. Maybe that's asking too much. Sean
>
PS... Compare this to buying a "home-brewed" power cord that could be mis-wired and have the potential to kill you or severely hurt you when tried out, i think that the above points are pretty much "moot".
*JPS Labs gave away free samples of the materials that they use in some of their cables. While the circumstances were completely different, i didn't want to overlook the only exception that i'm aware of to the comments that i made above. |
I don't believe anyone asked for the 'secret formula'. In the first thread about this new product 4yanx asked what research was done concerning plasticizers. No answer was given. |
|
Nyet!!! Unless you are Fearless Leader! |
Fatparrot .. I vill gif you halv ... if I get Natasha. |
