Results from Beta Testers of New Formulas

"Boris, we must get moose and squirrel, each one have half of secret formula!!!!"

Meanwhile our two intrepid heroes, having arrived in Frostbite Falls......

I have an idea. Admittedly, it's my idea ... and therefore it's likely a scam (see above). But it's a simple idea. How about if we leave room here for those who have actually tried the formulas to post their results?

Holy, jeez. Is there blood in the water, or what?

This reminds me of the whole HRS Cables fiasco. Remember that one? Christain Brower posted here for months like he was going to determine the best cables, only to distribute, market and sell HRS here at Audiogon later. It was a scam.

He used Audiogon.

I know first hand from past e-mails with both Disc Doctor's Duane Goldman and RRL's Brian Weiotzel that they both had paid outside labs to test various vinyl formulations. Both mentioned that while it was expensive, it gave an idea of what would harm the entire vinyl formulation, which may explain why both shy away from alcohol entirely.

We as consumers need guys like Goldman and Weiotzel that take the extra precaution to insure that we are not ruining our records. What concerns me is the long term effects. I saw above where someone mentioned the Armor All mess where it etched the CD's years down the road and made them unplayable. I've got to admit, I liked the sound of the AA treated CD's at the time. The AA seemed to make the discs sound more analog. But when it made my discs unplayable years later I was upset that I whoever suggested it didn't do enough research and suggested it anyway. I was even more mad at myself for doing it anyway. If someone had mentioned the possible risks at that time, I'd have an additional 500 CD's in my collection. At $15 each that's a lot of money.

Mrkidknow mentions his connection with this fluid and also the expense that Goldman and Weitozel paid to insure that they had safe fluids. It seems that this new record fluid was designed without this information.

Is it safe or is it not?

I am not one bit surprised that you've taken the approach that you have, Mr. Frumkin. But please, go ahead, berate me, berate my past views. It is evidently transparent that yours is an attempt to shroud your inability or unwillingness to answer the questions I posed with respect to the research that went into your product (which you NEVER answered, in spite of your FALSE statement to the contrary). To name but a few, I asked what your research (if any) showed with respect to the various plasticizers in vinyl records, what they were, and whether your product was developed to specifically avoid the degradation of those plasticizers. You DID NOT answer. I asked specifically about your experience with a particular phthalate - one of the most common plasticizers in vinyl records (do you even remember which one I mentioned?). You DID NOT answer, nor even acknowledge its existence. I asked if you had done research with respect to the composition of vinyl among different records labels and from different production eras within those labels. You DID NOT answer. To say that you have answered fully, meaningful and cogent questions, is being nothing more than disingenuous to prospective customers. But, yes, it is easy to say that someone is really not looking for answers when you’ve no answers to give. Too, it is so easy to say you won’t respond to me in the guise of avoiding the issue. Now it looks like there are perhaps others with similar concerns. Gonna answer them? Or, maybe, go dig up something they’ve said in the past to discredit them and take the attention away from you? And please, look up the definition of the phrase “empirical results”, it might help you in the event you decide to conduct and/or report on your development research.

OK, if you must label this as “busting in with an aggressive rant” (I thought you said this was an open forum), let it be such. I’ve said all I have to say on this subject. I think it is ultimately clear where you stand, or don’t stand. Let the buyer beware. Too bad it is often that way for all of us.

Best Regards,
David

Oh, and Jeff, I understand where your coming from in your response to Viggen, I really do. But, you mention RRL fluids. Try contacting Brian Weitzel at RRL or the folks at VPI, or the Disc Doctor and ask them the same questions I've posed. You may or may not agree with or fully understand all that they have to say, but you'll find that there is a basis, a process, and a background from which they've formulated their product. Nothing here, though.

Viggen,

You can point to all sorts of empirical data and testimonials that are often touted by PhD's but frankly I'm in no position to evaluate the validity of the claims. Since I'm far from being an expert in such things I am quite willing to give something a try, especially if the records are considered lost causes. Call me lazy if you will but I don't have a clue what's in the Record Research fluid I use either. No idea at all. Zilch. Nada. I'm totally clueless. The RRL fluid was recommended to me, I tried it out, and I'm quite happy with the results. Paul's stuff seems to restore records that I thought I'd have to junk, even after careful cleaning with RRL. If over time there's no apparent donwside to using Paul's cleaning fluid then I'll expand the use of it. My point to all this: why not approach this with an open mind, and why would anyone dismiss the product without trying it out? End of my contribution to the thread, there's certainly more important and interesting things to worry about. Remember folks, this hobby is supposed to be fun.

Before this thread gets yanked, I'm going to jump in on Paul's defense concerning the questions posed by 4Yanx on knowing vinyl compositions and measuring affects on plasticizers;

It is impossible to know all the plasticisers present in records as well as the base polymer blends. We are talking about formulating cleaners that will be used on vinyl records made over the last 50 - 60 years. There have been numerous reformulations and this doesn't take into account the affect of recycling of rejects. Manufacturers do not reveal what they use in their "vinyl" compositions except when they choose to patent the formulation. Even when they patent the formulation, the patent makes wide ranging claims on what polymers and plasticizers could be present. It is also impossible for Paul or anybody to track down a sufficient number of current and former vinyl record manufacturing employees to do interviews to find out what was in a sufficient range of vinyl compositions. Even if Paul could get ahold of these people, very few would remember the formulas exactly unless they wrote down/stole manufacturing documents. Furthermore, it is financially impossible for Paul to go to the effort of having all the variations of vinyl records submitted to a testing lab to break down the formulas. Trying to deformulate polymer blends is brutal. Let's assume that Paul could get samples of all relevant vinyl compositions and submit them to a laboratory for chemical analysis. Such testing would easily blow past $10,000 and very likely would exceed $100,000 due to the number of samples. The cost could even be considerably higher since I haven't consulted any laboratories on what it would cost to answer such a question on a per vinyl formulation basis. High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) and Mass Spectroscopy (MS) and Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) testing is not cheap; often ~ $300/hour or more.

I guarantee you that none of the current cleaning formulations and record treatment products currently sold on the market were tested on every permutation of vinyl composition made over the last 50 - 60 years. I've read the U.S. Patents on Discwasher, GruvGlide, and Last Record Preservative and they definitely didn't test everything in sight. They tested a few select records until they were convinced that they could proceed to beta testing, reformulate if necessary after beta testing, then commercialized. If they had to do exhaustive testing to prove their cleaner was safe on everything, the product would never make it to market because they would be bankrupt and it would take decades unless they had a large laboratory support staff. The record playing industry is too small to make enough money to fund the kind of research to answer these questions and still be profitable at selling record cleaning formulas.

I could go on-and-on about all the permutations someone would have to go through to answer the questions about product safety.

The bottom line is that LP record cleaning formulas are formulated in similar fashion to glass cleaners. The total non-volatile solids level has to be low to minimize residue that will show up sonically on records (analogous to minimizing streaking on glass). The sonic signature part is also dealt with by finding the surfactants that have the least inherent noise. I have often wondered that when current record cleaning formula vendors talk about their formulas having low inherent sonic signature, are they confusing this with the surfactants ability to quench static charge and its efficacy on removing soil. After finding the correct surfactants and keeping them at a low concentration, all you are left with is using sufficiently high purity water and possibly blending with ethyl or isopropyl alcohol. The alcohol content shouldn't be run too high because of flammability issues. Alcohols probably can leach some plasticizer as well as the surfactants but it will likely be very minimal because the cleaner ingredients cannot penetrate into the polymer network.

Let's get real for a minute here. If we are so worried about the potential to leach a trace amount of plasticizer from a record's surface, why are we even playing the records to begin with. The wear and tear of playing the record is far worse than what will happen with Paul's cleaning formulas (well, I can't vouch for Shellac or nitrocellulose-based records).

Mr. Kidknow
Note: I am a chemist who formulates water and solvent-based cleaners for aerospace and occasionally janitorial/sanitation applications.

I know Paul and have discussed record cleaning formulation ideas in the past. I don't know if his test formulas incorporate some of my ideas/suggestions but it is OK with me if he has done so in his latest cleaner formulas.

Hi everyone,

I have asked A'gon why the prior thread was pulled. I haven't received an answer. If it's against the rules to give free product and ask for feedback, then I'd hope A'gon would tell me, and I would refrain from doing so. Yes, I could have asked people to e-mail me with comment and copied and pasted those comments into a subsequent advertisement, but I feel that an open forum -- over which I have no control -- is the most honest. I'm surprised that level of openness and honesty offends some. If the feedback from this expert group is positive, I will open a commercial account; but at this point, nothing is offered for sale!

If anyone read the prior thread, they would see that I did not ignore 4yanx. I answered 3 of his postings fully. But he became more demanding and belligerent with each subsequent posting, and it ultimately became clear that he was not interested in answers, but in polluting the thread with venom and slamming something he had not tried ... exactly as he does again here. While he owned up to previously recommending washing LPs in Dawn Dish Detergent, he didn't 'fess up about also recommending DIRECT Vinyl Floor Cleaner for LPs. I have little doubt that 4yanx will again bust into this thread with his aggressive rant. I will not, however, again respond to his postings. His invective means little against the empirical results being reported and which will be reported ... and it is upon those results which I think we should focus.

But free publicity? It costs only $3 to post a commercial ad. It has cost a significant amount in boxes, containers, postage and product to provide these samples. But a commercial ad would not provide a feedback forum over which I have no control. I felt, and still feel, that this open forum is in the highest spirit of our community and shared hobby. I hope A'gon feels likewise, and will let this thread survive.

Best regards,
Paul

I don't understand Jeff's logic at all. Just because he is not a chemist; therefore, he is not interested in tests conducted to ensure the safety of his records and argues others should also not care as well?

I agree with 4yanx that this thread seems to be nothing more than a marketing tool and free advertising. The last thread was likely pulled for that reason and this one will likely meet it's same demise.

Since paulfrumpkin had asked for interested parties to phone or e-mail him for his generous offer, he HAS their contact info as well as their address, right? If all he was after was their opinion, he could have done so directly. Instead, he posts a thread asking for users to share their opinion. Why? Free publicity? Hmmm, is that not a violation of the rules? Perhaps someone with more knowledge could answer that? Common sense tells me that it appears to be a violation ...

Secondly, Paul refused to answer questions about his fluid. 4 yanx has every right to ask whether or not Paul has done his homework and if he has even done any real chemical analysis or analyzed what is in a vinyl record. He has the right to ask if tests were conducted to determine whether or not harm can occur with the use of his fluid. This is not mean, this is not spiteful, not in the least. To me it appears as nothing more than asking for info. I can't understand why Paul didn't answer, unless no tests were conducted or he doesn't understand the question.

Paul has agreed to replace any damaged records at face value, but to me, the value of a record is not determined by replacement value alone, but also by availability. As an example, I'd paid $300 for my Fred Jackson "Hootin' and Tootin'" Blue Note original. It took me 5 years to find a NM copy. Would I risk cleaning it with a fluid when the chemist that made it refuses to tell me the tests conducted to determine it was actually safe? In today's market, via eBay, I might be able to find one quicker, but do I risk it when less than 500 copies were made?

It would be nice to know what tests were done to determine that this cleaner is safe and if there are any long term effects (remember the Armor All CD treatment fiasco? It took 5 to 7 years to make my CD's unplayable) . I'm with 4yanx on this one.

4Yanx,

Like I said... I'm no chemist so whatever answers or explanations a developer would provide would be meaningless to me anyway. I would imagine that would apply to you as well, although as you pointed out in your rant you have some active interest in the area so perhaps you're better informed than the rest of us. It's certainly obvious you have a burning desire to be right about this issue. I tried the stuff and it works well, as for any long term effects I'll have to monitor the records and see if there are any untoward changes. The records I used the two-step process on were lost causes and they sound very good now, so what's to lose? I view this as a pleasant hobby, not something to get all worked up about.

Paul,
I have yet to receive my samples for testing....

I read through the entire thread in some detail. Your interest in the topic is obvious and in playing devil's advocate perhaps was meant to stimulate more discussion, BUT your tone is antagonistic and uncalled for. If you developed a formula that you intended on marketing, would you go into any detail as to the composition? Intellectual property is always closely guarded, it's the differentiator that makes your customers buy your product over a competing product (or simply copying your invention).

Well, Jeff, if you actually did read the entire thread in some detail, you should understand that my obvious interest was centered upon the claim and the GUARANTEE that these fluids would not damage vinyl records. As such, I politely questioned about the research and study that had gone into the development of the product, visa vis its impact on plasticizers and the degradation of these components by cleaners. I also specifically said that I was asking for NEITHER the formula NOR a list of ingredients. My initial questions were then summarily dismissed by the developer (but your reference to “marketing” is most illuminating). But, if I WAS marketing a product I’d be happy to show that I had more than a basic knowledge with respect to interactions between certain chemicals and vinyl (which is NOT shown), answer relevant questions (which were NOT), and demonstrate that I’d done my homework on which to tout my product and guarantee (other than to say that I’ve been listening to vinyl for a long time and have a friend who works at NASA). IMHO, THAT is the differentiator which would hold me in good stead with potential PAYING CUSTOMERS, but thanks for your take on customer service.

Anyway, after I pressed for answers, I was met with derision by the developer who attempted to berate me based on the content of one of my previous posts – which had NOTHING to do with the question at hand. THAT was an antagonistic and uncalled for approach that you seem to either forget or choose not to mention.

I don't have a degree in chemistry and certainly don't work in the field myself; as such I rely on what I hear rather than speculate on how or why the fluid does what it does. I've tried Paul's two step process and it works very well. Paul was kind enough to send me some samples, that's the extent of my stake in this whole thing. I also know that Paul went to one helluva lot of trouble to put together a system for a girl that was paralyzed when hit by a drunk driver. Many folks here chipped in with gear and whatnot, but Paul put a ton of time and effort in helping out Leslie. I really doubt you'll gain a lot of points with people on the 'Gon for taking potshots at a truly stand-up guy.

I don’t have a degree in chemistry, nor do I work in that field, either. Yes, you have to rely upon what you hear. In the case of these fluids, I haven’t heard much – at least not what I’d like or need to hear before risking it on my vinyl. Granted, there was a time when I would not have insisted upon such information, but no more. After doing a good bit of my own research, I have keen interest in the development of such products and the developer’s grasp of complex chemical interactions BEFORE I use a cleaning fluid – free for now, or not. It is, obviously, anyone else’s decision as to what they do and how the proceed. As far as making points, get real. I’ve been on this board for some time now and have taken both popular and unpopular stances on a variety of issues. In my mind, the idea of this board is to ask, answer, and comment - in the spirit of exchanging ideas and information upon which to base decisions or to further our enjoyment. Period. If one is looking to make “real” points I might suggest anonymous charitable contributions.

Your point about helping the young lady is truly heartwarming, and I mean that sincerely. Too little of such goes on these days, and usually it does so only after the request of others. However, it has nothing to do with the matter at hand. Mother Theresa was a wonderful woman but, with all due respect, I’d have the same questions for her if she came out with a vinyl cleaning fluid.

At the end of the day an informed opinion is what counts. Take Paul up on his offer, try out the stuff and report on your findings. Costs you nothing and all of us will certainly listen to what you have to say.

At the end of the day, you are absolutely correct about informed opinion. But, one cannot be informed, as a matter of definition, without adequate information. I don’t feel the developer has provided anything close to that, which is why I posted my questions. It is still odd to me why he has chosen to avoid these questions. Surely, if he is a “stand-up” guy, he can get beyond his personal distaste for me and provide meaningful information to potential future customers. Then again, if he cannot answer them or feels the questions unimportant, that tells us all a lot, too. Performance in terms of how the fluids clean gunk from records is only part of the overall story. I hope they work for folks and that they do not damage their records with a product that was brewed without adequate knowledge of and background in chemical/vinyl reactions.

Oh and, BTW, the previous thread was certainly not “yanxed” as it was so flippantly stated. Nice try at yet another diversion, though. If I had to guess, I’d say that the moderators looked at its purpose and intent – offering a product for free that would later be sold on Audiogon. Even this thread was started by the developer to garner comments on his product that will later carry a price tag. It’s called marketing and it’s called advertising. Last time I checked, it was also against the rules here.

David

I am one of the 20 testers and find Paul's solution to be exceptional. I heard nothing but improvements when I cleaned both new and old vinyl. I took many albums that I would consider VG condition and cleaned them with another well known brand. I listened and then used Paul's system. I heard improvements in all areas-music came out of a blacker background,surface noise was decreased, dynamics were increased etc. I do not want to publicaly discredit any other well known brands which I own but in my experience Paul's system bettered them. I have no financial interest in this product but I hope it succeeds because it's hard to go back at least for me after you hear it what it does.

Have known Paul for a number of years and please don't mistake his point blank attitude as in any way showing him as being less than humble. He is very dedicated to the pursuit of high quality sound and has been , as many of us have, "ripped" by overblown claims of sonic nirvana. I have used the first stage of his two step process to excellent advantage for some time. I was given a chance to use his second phase which was developed to remove "proteins" that become hardened deep into the groves and have to be dissolved. While I only had a brief opportunity to experiment with this solution due to the destruction of my tonearm wand...(long story involving dog...ok I had it off while doing a tweak and needed it out of the way...enter dog...end of story), the two ancient records I used as subjects were dramatically "quieted" by the use of this 2nd step of Paul's process. I'd certainly recommend Paul and his two step process and even if you don't like it, there's a chance you'll develop a friendship as warm as the one I share. There is a thread somewhere outlining the work Paul put into making a home theatre available to one of his clients...and as I recall, he donated the fees he would have ordinarily received to this project as well...MORE than a stand up guy....one who gets down on the floor and rolls around with the dust bunnies when needed...

Paul,

I've yet to receive my samples but will post my findings as soon as practical. I'm glad to be a part of the beta testing.

Hi everyone,

I don't know why the prior thread was pulled. I have written A'gon, but have received no reply. That's why I began this separate thread for posting results. Maybe the thread got "yanxed?" At any rate, this is an open forum for the testers to post their results.

For those new to this and the prior thread, I am sending samples of 2 formulas for a 2-step vinyl cleaning process to 20+ people who "signed up" for the testing. I'm sorry, but I can't send out any more samples at this point. If the collective judgment of this expert group is that these formulas work well, then I open a commercial account with A'gon and make the formulas available to A'gon members at very reasonable prices.

Because the prior thread was pulled, I would appreciate it if anyone who posted results on that thread could repeat their results here. Thanks ... and sorry for the inconvenience.

I thought it was odd that I couldn't find that thread! Guess the audiogon cookie monster got another one. :-(

4Yanx,

I read through the entire thread in some detail. Your interest in the topic is obvious and in playing devil's advocate perhaps was meant to stimulate more discussion, BUT your tone is antagonistic and uncalled for. If you developed a formula that you intended on marketing, would you go into any detail as to the composition? Intellectual property is always closely guarded, it's the differentiator that makes your customers buy your product over a competing product (or simply copying your invention).

I don't have a degree in chemistry and certainly don't work in the field myself; as such I rely on what I hear rather than speculate on how or why the fluid does what it does. I've tried Paul's two step process and it works very well. Paul was kind enough to send me some samples, that's the extent of my stake in this whole thing. I also know that Paul went to one helluva lot of trouble to put together a system for a girl that was paralyzed when hit by a drunk driver. Many folks here chipped in with gear and whatnot, but Paul put a ton of time and effort in helping out Leslie. I really doubt you'll gain a lot of points with people on the 'Gon for taking potshots at a truly stand-up guy.

At the end of the day an informed opinion is what counts. Take Paul up on his offer, try out the stuff and report on your findings. Costs you nothing and all of us will certainly listen to what you have to say.

The "latest and greatest" vinyl cleaning fluids about which the developer refuses to answer questions - questions that went unanswered in a previous thread - a thread that has somewhat less than mysteriously disappeared.

New formulas of what?