Paul, when are you going to have a website for these products? I've been impressing the heck out of friends by doing before-and-after comparos. Dave
171 responses Add your response
Where are the mamis, Albert? The concierge looks kind of worn out--I had a prettier Norwegian in entomology class!!! Nordic women have their own particular type of *curvaceous* body (I call it the Nordic body). Ah, wish I had an 'ethnically diverse' harem... Paul, did you get my e-mail? You need to get your ultrapure water system baseline data ASAP. I'll walk you through the motions, it's simple and the service life ( and consistent quality ) of the system will be greatly enhanced. I am at an extended stay place and have DSL--also got a Verizon walkie-talkie. As I figured, there's plenty of work in my field but the four hurricanes have messed things up. |
Thanks Paul, I appreciate the opportunity. Psychic, here they are and two more to come. http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/events.pl |
You're very welcome, Dopogue! Glad you're consistently obtaining such good results. Hbarrel ... absolutely. New LPs often have residual silicone compounds on them left from the stampers. We think new LPs look clean because they have shine ... but that's exactly what a thin coating of silicone does: it makes things look shiny. And that silicone holds dust and dirt like glue (besides being a microbe's idea of fine souffle). Albert, not to worry: I doubt you'll be "dead last." A number of people haven't reported back yet. Actually, my thanks go to the Audiogon members who gave the formulas a fair and thorough trial, and whose positive results were literally the deciding factor in whether I would offer the formulas for sale or not. Many thanks, guys! Best regards, Paul Frumkin |
Paul, First of all thank you for the samples. I regret that I am dead last in responding to this thread as I have been covering audio shows in Europe for Audiogon for almost a month. I will do testing this next week after I purchase suitable water and will post results. I have no doubt my findings will mirror others here, so my posts will likely be redundant. It appears Paul has hit a home run in record cleaning formulas. Thanks for allowing Audiogon members to play a role in this important new product. |
I've been reading this thread with more than just a passing intrest. After twenty-five years I'm delving back into vinyl. New TT, phono stage and only a fleeting memory of my pre-play routine. I've only about twenty albums left (the rest were stolen many moons ago) and they've NEVER been cleaned. The last component (new needle) will be in this week and the vinyl system will be ready for play. Abeit on dirty albums. Everyone seems to be pleased with the results of this two step process and to my way of thinking the basic concept makes sense. I'd like to get some, I'll pay for it. How? Also, should new (as in just out of the wrapper) albums be washed prior to use? |
Thanks, Psychicanimal ... and welcome back! Hope your move went smoothly. Must have been difficult getting into Florida, with all those other folks trying to get out! The 4-stage water purifier is now plumbed and installed. So the CLEANER FORMULA with ULTRA-PURE WATER is now available! Thanks to Psychic for suggesting that I make the CLEANER FORMULA available in a ready-to-use solution made with ULTRA-PURE WATER. Best regards to everyone, Paul Frumkin p.s. Ads now posted under Turntables and Tweaks. |
Enzymes (biological catalysts) usually have very narrow temperature operating ranges. If the temperature goes up beyond a certain point the enzymes break down. That's one of the main reasons fevers are so dangerous for the human body. The tap water in Florida is horrible! Smells like swamp water (it *is* processed swamp water). There's a lot of sulfur and other organics in the water--nasty. At my parent's house they get the water from a mountain rain forest--it's a big difference... Well Paul, you're on your way. I'm happy for you. *** |
Thanks, Sean and Lugnut! Viggen, regarding heating the Enzymatic Formula .... First, I think only the amount that will be used immediately should be warmed, because repeated heatings will degrade the Formula. Therefore, a good approach might be to put the amount you plan to use in a small container for warming. Second, warm the small container with warm/hot water until the Formula is warm to the touch -- about 100 degrees. This will double the rate of chemical activity (over an 80 degree base), yet will be safe for the vinyl. Mc5baby, glad you also obtained good results with the Formulas. Sean's post, above, contains a link to the classified ad here on Audiogon -- it's currently posted in the Turntables section. Perhaps next time it will be under tweaks or accessories. (Maybe 'Gon needs a new category? Cleaning equipment & supplies?) I had previously said I wanted to make the Formulas affordable. The concentrates work out to a price which is about half the cost of other products. Best regards, Paul Frumkin |
Well i finished using the sample bottles. I recieved them about a month ago and cleaned about 15 albums. I did some side a/b comparisons and some a/b tests with doubles of a couple of albums. I feel that the two step process left my albums clean and clear. I cleaned a copy of chet baker sings that i bought used, covered in dust and gunk and crud, filthy, and after it was very close to silent. I would say the two step is a little better at fishing out the deeper junk. So I guess I'm saying i like it and would use it again, so Paul, How much? |
Just supporting what Sean contributed. Enzymes are used during the digestiion process. And, there are many types of enzymes from protease to lactase (one which I lack). One major factor that leads to greater effectiveness of enzymes, as Sean has already described, is temperature. One of the main reasons mammals are warm blooded is because we can supply our own "furnace" when digesting; a distinct advantage over cold blooded organisms. The other two factor would be how concentrated the enzyme is and how much velocity/viscosity, agitation, is involved between the enzyme and what is being digested. So, warming up the enzyme a bit might prove to increase its effectiveness on your records. Dunno if that will harm your records though but doubt it as the type of enzyme being used here seems to be protease which doesn't have chemical reaction with anything other than protien. dislaimer: i am not a biologist just a charlatan as i am with audio. |
The information that Mr Kidknow posted is consistent with the information that a NASA employed chemist once told me. That is, i was told that every increase in temperature by 20* effectively doubled the cleaning power of a solution. Given the variables involved in each solution, i would call that "close enough" to the 18* mentioned above. Given my past experience with active enzyme formulations, they typically work best if left on for a longer period of time, they are agitated during that time and airflow is kept to a minimum. Not only does reduced airflow lower evaporation of the liquid agents suspending the enzyme allowing it to travel more freely and cover more area, it also helps to retain the original operating temperature of the solution, which increases efficiency as mentioned above. In extreme situations, a thorough enzymatic cleaning and rinsing along with a repeat enzymatic treatment and rinsing at a later date may provide the best results possible. The more thorough that one can maintain a higher operating temperature of the enzyme once applied ( by covering the LP with a large pan or bowl that was possibly even pre-heated, etc.. ) and agitate the enzyme on the first application, the less effective the secondary treatment will be though. This would be a good trick though as you have to have LP exposed to ambient air temperatures in order to get at the surface to agitate the grooves. Given the information presented within this thread and the "cleaning power" of Paul's solution, it's quite possible that one could devise a somewhat complex cleaning ritual for specific discs that they value. It's possible that one could restore heavily soiled / barely playable LP's to easily played / highly enjoyable records. While i have not tried Paul's solution as of yet, i don't doubt the results that others have had using it. I think that it would be of great value to those "record hunters" that frequent used record stores and / or garage sales & flea markets. With all of that in mind, i guess Paul has now officially made the transition from a "civilian" to an "industry professional". Congratulations to him and i hope that his time & effort that he's put into this product will reward him handsomely : ) Sean > PS... While i'm all for ethical participation of manufacturers / distributors / dealers within these and other forums, they need to disclose their business affiliations. Having said that, I think that Paul has been up-front about the whole situation, so he deserves a little help marketing his product since he's new at being an "industry professional". As such, here's his one time "get out of jail free" card and a more convenient link to the Audio Intelligent Vinyl Solutions products : ) |
Hi everyone, I'm pleased to announce that I've posted a commercial ad for AUDIO INTELLIGENT VINYL SOLUTIONS. Here's the URL: http://cgi.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cl.pl?anlgtabl&1101803723 A big "THANK YOU" to all the beta testers, who so carefully tested the products and posted their feedback. Truly, this was an Audiogon collective group project. The beta testers literally held the power to approve or disapprove of any marketing of these products. Prior to their testing, I did not know any of the beta testers. Their uniformly very postive reviews were gratifying. In addition, the offering of a ready-to-use product made with ultra-pure water was the result of an Audiogon member's (Psychicanimal) input. Again ... thank you for taking the time to test and post your objective results. AUDIOGON: hosting some of the most knowledgeable and nicest people in the world! A great place to hang out. Warmest regards, Paul Frumkin (302) 836-0453 |
Hi All, First of all, I would like to thank Paul for sending me samples and including me in the test group. Secondly, I have to apologize for taking so long to post my results. I received the samples some time ago, but I was out of town for a while and never really had the spare time to perform thorough testing as planned. I have used his formulas over the past couple days and the immediate impression that I have gotten is that extensive testing is not as necesary as expected. The results are far from subtle. For reference, I am currently using a homebrew solution of about 12% isopropyl w/ a couple drops of soap. I have used a few of the commercial cleaners in the past, and I came to the conclusion that the results of my mixture was "close enough" to the commercial stuff to not justfy the prices charged (Yes, Im a cheapskate) I wasnt expecting much out of Paul's cleaner, and likely would not have tried it if it was not free. I am not going to go into to much detail about my trial and the results, because I can see from the above posts that others who are undoubtedy more qualified than myself and have higher resolving equipment have done much more thorough testing. I can say, however, that my experience is similar. Noise floor and clicks & pops are dramatically reduced, while dynamics have increased. Those microscopic Audio Ninjas kick some serious tail!! I look forward to this formula being available for purchase. Thanks Paul, and I hope my little review is helpful to any lurkers out there who may read it. Regards, Andrew |
I'm late to the party here--I've been traveling, and haven't had as much time as I'd like to test. But I've also been quite impressed with the fluids. I've been using Disc Doctor fluids and brushes on my VPI 16.5, and getting excellent results. But I noticed that the DD stuff was unable to lift all the appearance of fingerprint residue off thrift store records. Paul's stuff, on the other hand, wipes these discs clean. I have the sense that background noise is correspondingly reduced, maybe not by huge amount, but enough to be noticeable. So far, I recommend Paul's stuff highly. |
Zilla ... thanks for posting your results. It's gratifying that so many people are obtaining such good results. Dopogue ... I hope to have a classified ad up within a couple days. The Formulas will be sold under the Audio Intelligent brand. I need to rig up the 4-stage water purifier I bought so I can make some of the Cleaner Formula with Ultra-Pure Water. Thanks to everyone for their testing and feedback. Best regards, Paul |
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. |
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. |
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 |
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? |
I noted that with my home made and PaulÂ’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 PaulÂ’s cleaning solutions around for dirty records. |
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 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. |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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. |
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? |
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 > |
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 |
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. |
Something that you folks might find interesting. Sean > http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/vinyl/messages/345630.html |
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. |
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.. |
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 |
"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!!!!!!!!! *** |
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". |
