Send any and all you have my way, Joe! |
I'm not sure I want to give up RRL completely. I have some AIVS coming and can't wait to try it based on the results posted by the testers. But I suspect that after a good cleaning with the two step AIVS process that the RRL will work fine for maintenence cleanings and I trust it to not put anything back on the vinyl. It will be interesting to see how the RRL SVW compares with the AIVS RCF when used as a rinse. |
I'm with Dan_Ed. I'm going to try AIVS of course, but I'll probably always use RRL as the final step. I *know* it won't leave anything on my records.
Joe, when you get the Wally (should be today/tomorrow they said), feel free to put some RRL in the box and wing it back to me! ;-) |
Let me ask this. If, on the one hand, there was Product A and you were not certain whether it "left anything on the record" and, on the other hand, there was product B in which you had full confidence that it left nothing on the record, why use Product A, at all - at least on a record that wasn't anything but a testing candidate? |
4yanx,
I understand your point. I did not intend to imply that I have this concern with the AIVS second phase cleaner, just that I know RRL SVW is a very good last step. But I do intend on testing this very thing between the two products. Maybe, as DougDeacon said, that the RRL will be the thing to use after the AIVS treatment. But all of this is predicated on the expectation that the AIVS products will further reduce the surface noise over what RRL has done on my LPs. |
I understand where youre coming from Dan. I appreciate and share your pursuit of clean vinyl. We are all only too aware that noisy vinyl (from crud OR residue) can be the bane of an enjoyable listening experience.
I also know that your trust in the RRL fluids is well-founded. Before Brian Weitzel brought the RRL fluids to market, he conducted very extensive research regarding the properties of vinyl record composition and the interaction of certain agents with these compositions. Among other things, he sent tens of samples of vinyl (different labels and different eras within labels) to a lab to have them tested for composition and their expected reactions with ingredients that he considered for use in his formula. Some ingredients passed the "test" while others did not. I cannot speak in specific detail regarding individual ingredients because I was not personally privy to the test results. Maybe Mr. Weitzel will chime in on this some time. I do feel, after speaking to him on a few occasions, that he did his homework, and more. Bottom line is that I can use the products with utmost confidence.
David |
David,
Fair question.
The known safety and purity of RRL will keep it our primary solution, for now and possibly forever. If RRL cleans a record thoroughly then that record never sees anything else. I'd guess that's about 80% of the records we clean. But what about the other 20%?
As good as they are, SDC and SVW are not universal solvents, at least not in our experience. RRL does not get every record 100% clean, even with multiple applications, vigorous scrubbing and soaking. What to do? Throw a record away just because the safest cleaner can't remove whatever's on it? Playing the record dirty is riskier than trying a different cleaner IMO.
Currently we use Vinyl-zyme, Smart Developments foaming cleaner and Micro Care Premier for these problem cases. AIVS will initially join this stable of fallback products. Time will tell whether it deserves to advance to a more primary position. |
I'm not going to sell or give away my supply of RRL. I've got a quart of each. My circumstances and needs are different from a lot of audiophiles, I think. Here's a great example. I purchased a collection and much to my surprise Cowboy Junkies "Trinity Sessions" was in the batch and looked wonderful. At the time I was using my home brew and there was a constant crackling (granted, at very low levels) surface noise. After reading so many postive things about the RRL products I stepped up and purchased some and recleaned the record again. The noise was reduced but not by a wide margin. After receiving my order of AIVS I pulled this album, cleaned it again in the same manner I used the other products and was shocked to hear no surface noise at all. My wife who was preparing dinner at the time put the meal on simmer and came in to join me. Honestly, she almost never takes the time to sit and listen. She commented about how great it sounded and how she was just drawn into listening.
4yanx has made some valid comments regarding his concern for the AVIS treated records and the future. Who knows, maybe my records will degrade from this product. I don't know. But I do know that those difficult to quiet used LP's that I otherwise wouldn't play are now quiet and I'm happy. I've got so much software that re-cleaning everything I own isn't going to happen in this lifetime. I will use it on difficult to clean albums for sure and really don't have any reason to be concerned for the future.
My turntable is a Linn which uses a felt mat to decouple the vinyl and I've found that I can't improve upon it with any other kind of mat. I live in a dry environment so without some type of anti-static the record will lift the mat with it. That's a major pain in the ass. With the AIVS and it's inherent anti-static properties I no longer need to use Gruv Glide. So, for me it's a double win situation. I couldn't be happier. YMMV, there is more than one way to skin the audio cat and to each his own. |
Doug, a fair response. :-) You should have a few records on which to test these products right now! ;-) Let me know how that works out!
"Playing the record dirty is riskier than trying a different cleaner IMO."
Depends on the definition of dirty. I suppose you refer to stylus damage. If a record, once thoroughly cleaned by most any of the many available cleaning fluids, still has the remnants of a greasy fingerprint or two, I'm not sure that is of a greater risk than possibly damaging the entire record. But, yes, if it is a "lost cause" otherwise, what does a guy have to lose?
Actually, my answer to Dan's post was not really intended to pit one product against another but, rather, to reinforce the virtues of the RRL fluids. I know that Brian Weitzel went to considerable effort and expense in the pursuit of due diligence in making a proven and safe product - and that counts for a lot in my book (though there will likely never be sales of my book). :-) |
"You should have a few records on which to test these products right now!"
Do I ever! Damn things will probably take me weeks and a whole roll of thread for the RCM. I'm thinking Brillo pads. ;-)
"Depends on the definition of dirty. I suppose you refer to stylus damage."
Well, I suppose any grunge left behind after RRL + Loricraft vacuuming is likely to be pretty tough stuff. My chief concern is having the stylus grind it permanently into the vinyl. I worry less about damaging the diamond itself.
BTW, did you get my postage refund? Are we square? |
Oh, we're square! I think that's been proven. I know, I know, speak for myself! :-) |
I tried some of the Vinyl Solutions record cleaing fluids the other day, and they worked very well, and were easy to use. I liked them. |
Well,
I'm having major problems with my records. There are noise, pop... etc... on all the records. I used some cleaning fluids but it didn't improve at all... :(
Well, for now I stick to my CD player. |
Just another rave for AIVS which, IME, leaves absolutely nothing on the stylus that I can detect. I've now done about 75 records with the stuff using a manual Record Doctor (Nitty Gritty) RCM, and find it really amazing. Caveat: I've never tried RRL, but it's hard to imagine that it would produce better results. |
Dopogue,
I was a dedicated RRL fan before AIVS. Not anymore! After cleaning a ton of records with AIVS I've seen nothing but a clean stylus also. And still have noticed no degradation of the vinyl, at all, sonically or otherwise.
Looks like a winner to me.
Joe |
