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 |
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. |
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. |
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. |
Oh, we're square! I think that's been proven. I know, I know, speak for myself! :-) |
"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? |
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). :-) |
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. |
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 understand where youÂ’re 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 |
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. |
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? |
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! ;-) |
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. |
Send any and all you have my way, Joe! |
I agree, and switched also. The beta test of AIVS went very well, I'm impressed! So, anyone want some RRL? |
I've switched to Audio Intelligent Viny Solutions two step cleaning system. This stuff is really, really good. A big bonus is that it's more affordable than anything else except home brew. Great anti-static properties too. |
I expect they will find substantial sales resistance without a demonstration. For the vinyl and lp treatments this would be easy, but for the contact treatment it would be difficult. |
No - I understand. I just couldn't bring myself to dish out $150 for a bottle of solution. |
Granted the AudioTop Vinyl is expensive, but how would you react were it to make what you thought was a cleaned record sound incredibly better? I did not expect this great of an improvement despite the claims of the U.S. importer who I have known for some time. When you get an improvement that sounds like you went from a mediocre cartridge to a great but expensive cartridge, I don't think the price is too high, but I certainly wish it was lower. |
"Records cleaned with the other cleaners once recleaned sound like they had not been cleaned with the others."
Huh? Who's on first???
At $150 a bottle - this stuff had better do more than clean my vinyl!
I've been seriously considering using the RRL solutions. Currently my method is as follows:
1: Apply liberal amount of 2:1 Disc Doctor fluid with the DD brush
2: Gently scrub with the Nitty Gritty Bristle Brush (back and forth scrubbing - about 10 times)
3: Gently scub with the DD brush (back and forth scrubbing - about 10 times)
4: Wipe dry with 2-ply toilet tissue
5: Rinse with steam-distilled water applied with clean DD brush (back and forth scrubbing - about 10 times)
6: Remove rinse water with Nitty Gritty machine - about 4 revolutions
I've gotten satisfactory results using this method - adding the step with the bristle brush helped with some of the more stubborn records. |
There is a new guy on the block; watch out. The AudioTop Vinyl cleaner cleans the others' clocks. Records cleaned with the other cleaners once recleaned sound like they had not been cleaned with the others. |
I have now a VPI 16.5. I can not hear the difference between the RRL and the VPI cleaner, but I certainly have now clean records.
Thanks guys.
Styx |
E-6000 is the name of the glue, that I used to glue the fabric to the crevice tool. |
Thanks Guys for the hints.
I'll go with DD, when our house still stands after this hurricane.
Shasta, I tried VTA but I am not ready yet. The Denon DL-103 has only 20 hours. And I guess it should be driven in before.I tried the VTA on the MMF-7 and could not hear anything. I gave the MMF-7 back, because of quality reasons, anyway. I still have a TD-318 but huntig for a Thorens 2001/5020. In the meanwhile I give my best with DD. I can hear some pops after cleaning but it mostly disappears after 2-3 times playing. Thanks
Styx
|
Hey, it was a show. He was probably a bit alchohol-based himself when he said that! |
jes45: That's no reason to stop liking Mikey, it's just a reason to remember that we're all human, can make mistakes and sometimes operate under pre-concieved albeit false notions.
Ten bucks says that Mikey won't make that mistake again though... : ) Sean
> |
I loved Mikey as much as anyone until I heard him state that RRL was alcohol based during his turntable seminar at the Stereophile show. RRL's distributor, Garth Leerer of Musical Surroundings was assiting Fremer (because he was using Clearaudio tables), told the crowd that RRL has never used alcohol. Fremer had a puzzled look on his face.
How did this excape Mikey? He's Mr. Analog. He helped save LP playback. |
Colitas,
Glad you got it working. I agree about the amount of RRL, less is more IME. Typically I dribble one row of almost-touching drops across the grooves, excluding the runout grooves. That meters the # of drops relative to the amount of groove space to be cleaned. If I use any more it actually cleans *worse*, and costs more of course.
If you want me to test clean a few records no problem. No charge except return postage. Drop me an email and I'll give you my office address to ship to (safer for receiving than my unattended front porch).
Shasta,
I love Mikey as much as anyone (20 minutes/side?!) but there are two music lovers in my home who will politely disagree with your view on VTA.
If all lacquers were cut at the same angle, all records pressed on the same vinyl then you'd be right. But they weren't and they aren't.
Whether you choose to ignore those facts or optimize for them is up to you of course, but don't assume that someone gets less pleasure from music than you because they take a few seconds to adjust their rig for each record. Do violinists enjoy music less than clarinetists because their instruments need constant tuning? You do whatever your sometimes imperfect tools require. |
I finnaly got my DIY working right after the same plight of lifting the record off the base. Dan ed is right for me one hole did the trick on my mini 1hp Shop Vac. I also found out that I was using too much RRL fluid. I found that three small drops evenly spaced then smeared across the width of the record works best(using a Carbon fiber brush). Don't give up on it styx, it's worth the effort. Styx, try a fabric store and look for(if I remember right) a glue called: I can't remember, something 9. I'll have to get back to you on that name, I don't have a computer at home, just work. All in all it does a job, but I still wonder if I am getting all the gunk out? hey, Doug how much to clean one of my records with your Loricraft? |
Styx: The answer is to experiment, and let your ears decide. And, it may very well vary from record to record.
Strongly suggest a RCM, even the lowliest.
Just read Mikey F's Compleat Guide to R-C'ing, and yikes...talk about A-C disorder. At what I'd estimate at 20 minutes per side, 1 record per day, several man-years invested here...
Strongly suggest a RCM, even the lowliest. At the least, using DD per instructions, you'll be ahead.
Congrats on trying vinyl again...
And please ignore the Famus Audio Revuer, who's wound up so tight that he says it's required to adjust VTA before playing each record. |
Has anyone tried L'ART DU SON record cleaning fluid that is available from themusic.com? I've been using RRL but saw this stuff and was curious. |
I used self-stick felt or velvet (forget which). Vacuum felts need to be changed regularly as they get contaminated and this made it easier.
I vacuumed with my GroovMaster on the record. That protected the label and gave me something to hold it down and spin with. Full Shop Vac power, no problem. It was slow though. I'm sure most of the DIY machine-based ideas others have published would be quicker, though I doubt they'd suck any harder! |
Styx,
Just drill two 3/16" holes on either side of crevice tool. These will allow for vacuum release and you can easily cover them with your thumb and finger if/when you need to boost the vacuum. As to sucking up the velvet, did you glue velvet strips on either side of the slit on the crevice tool? These methods have worked very well for my on my DIY RCM. My only complaint is that the thing is so damn loud.
Dan |
Styx: A simple solution is to install some type of adjustable pressure relief valve into the vacuum system. This will allow you to achieve the highest levels of suction without actually lifting the disc off of the platter. If you don't want to get fancy, you can simply drill a hole in the vacuum hose or a plastic fitting and cover part of it with your finger. By varying how much air is sucked through the "controlled leak", you'll vary the amount of air ( suction ) at the disc. This allows you to adjust for the weight of the disc, as some discs are noticeably heavier and can sustain higher levels of suction whereas others are very light and flimsy and want to get pulled up very easily. If you have enough hose / fittings to experiment with, you might be able to find just the right sized "bleeder hole" i.e. a happy medium for all discs without the need for manual manipulation to regulate the suction. Sean
> |
Doug,
I did create the DIY RCM but had some problems. The 'machine' was finished the velvet nicely lined up on the crevice tool. Than I used it with our house vacuum system, I shouldn't have done this. First the vacuum sucked the velvet in. Velvet gone. Than it sucked the record from the table. I used an old record for testing of course. That is one of the main problem. Even with a small vacuum it does suck the record up. First I have to find a weak vacuum. I almost feel like Gyro Gearloose. Thanks for the help. |
Styx,
Regardless of what cleaning solution you use, removing contaminated solutions from the record before they evaporate is essential. Otherwise, when the liquid evaporates all the gunk that it's holding in suspension ends up right back in the grooves.
In fact, I'd say that a liquid + DD brush procedure without vacuuming is worse than no procedure at all. You're breaking the dirt and contaminants down into smaller pieces and spreading them evenly around the record, making it easier for them to lodge deeply in the grooves. They'll be much harder to dissolve or suspend the next time. It's easier to pick up a lump of coal than a layer of coal dust.
If you can't afford a new RCM there are plenty of threads here and even more on Vinyl Asylum about how to DIY one. Most DIY RCM's cost under $100. Any vacuuming is better than none. I used to use a $25 Shop Vac from Walmart. Served me well for nearly a year before I got my RCM. |
For the one who are interested in how good the removal of our machine is, here is a link :
http://www.purewaterinc.com/html/frequently_asked_questions.htm
Go to the 'Can I see Lab test results for your distillers?' section where you can download a PDF with the lab test results.
Back to the topic. As I do not own a RCM yet, what am I supposed to do with the RRL ? At the moment I apply 3-4 drops on a DiscDoctor brush. Wipe it in the LP. Wipe it off with a soft cloth. Than I wipe with another DD brush distilled water on the LP. Wipe it off with another cloth. Let it dry. Clean it with a carbon fiber brush and put it in a new sleeve. Should I skip the distilled water part ? As I do not have a vacuum should I just wipe the RRL off or let it dry ? I used before DD with the same technique, but was not satisfied with the result.As I just stared with vinyl, after 20 years absence, I appreciate some help here.
Thanks. |
4yanx I couldn't remember where I read the first time! Sorry to steal your thunder.
To he original poster - It's my understanding that Brian @ RRL has access to higher purity water than most of us can get our hands on. Hence my reference to 4yanx's comment of gargling with pepsi. |
TGB & Styx,
Reverse osmosis is a great method for filtering water to the levels you enjoy but many molecules less complex than water get through the membrane. You probably have somewhere around 1 ppm total desolved solids in your water. This is very high quality for human consumption. Assuming you live in a city whith chlorinated water you will notice that you have an activated charcoal filter in your systems. The purpose of the charcoal is to remove the chlorine out of the RO water just prior to dispensing. Chlorine is less complex than water and therefore passes through the membrane. Surprising as it is, the charcoal improves the taste of your water far more than the membrane.
Industrial grade pure water goes through multiple steps to achieve a very low TDS. Chlorine may be introduced to kill bacteria. An iron filter may be needed to remove very high concentrations of iron that would overload conventional water softeners. Water softening would be used to remove most of the remaining minerals. Reverse osmosis is then used to further reduce (mainly salts) the mineral content prior to multi-stage deionizing.
Your products are very, very good as the life expectency is longer than a refrigerator, therefore producing high quality water very cheaply. They don't compete in a scientific comparison to deionized bottled water though.
I also own an RO system and love it. Be aware that in order for the membranes to last the water should first be conditioned as salts are easier on the membrane than hard water minerals. The only reason I know this stuff is because I designed several systems for food processing plants and each plant had specific needs based on the incoming raw water.
If you can find KDF filled replacement filter cartridges instead of charcoal you will only need to replace the KDF once every five years instead of every six months or so. It also removes some nasty chemicals that can pass through an RO filter. |
I suspect we have the same. Our area has high sodium. As you say, coffee tastes right. I know the sodium, mercury, organisms, etc. cannot get through the membrane, so it probably is the same as distilled water where water is brought to a boil and the steam then condensed. |
Tbg, we have a water purification system from the Pure Water Inc.
It makes 1 gallon of distilled water in 4 hr.
We usually take this water for drinking and cooking.
The coffee now tastes like coffee, especially with Lavazza.;) |
Styx, Do you mean a reverse osmosis machine? I too have one and am uncertain whether steam distilled or it would be more pure water. I did try distilled water and it as rinses but heard no difference. |
Sean, "Anything that isn't neutral (pH) will leave behind some type of residue" There are gases that will disassociate in water and alter it's pH. HCl and NH3 are two that come to mind. The first will give a very low pH, the second will be somewhat basic. Remove the solvent (water) and there will be no residue. Window cleaners tend to use surfactants that are volital and will evaporate; hence the 'no steak' claim. |
Aroc, you stole my line..... :-) |
Mmmhhh... interesting. What I don't understand is why is distilled water not clean. I have to point out that I use or own distilled water, we have a Pure Water machine which distills water. And this water is supposed to be free from anything. Some evidently information would be great.
Thanks |
Yes, rinsing with DiH2O after using RRL is like brushing your teeth then gargling with Pepsi. :-0 |
> Using a distilled water rinse *after using RRL is a distinct no-no.
I do not have a cleaning machine yet. But I use RRL.
Should I just leave it on the record after cleaning and not using destilled water ? |
I use DD pads, the vac is an old NittyGritty (I think a 2.5 Fi). Operating surface is an orginal rubber mat from a Kenwood TT.
IME, using supermarket sourced, steam distilled water rinse, post RRL was not a good thing.
Post DD cleaning, I *do use the distilled rinse, per the mfgr's instructions, with very good results.
The only area I consider DD products to "win hands down" is in the amount of instruction and guidance provided with the products. The DD is contactable (?) via email, as I recall. The mfgr. of RRL is, AFAIK, invisible. I consider both products nearly equal.
Not being a chemist, but I'd guess the RRL products are a bit more "dilute" with a lot more very HQ distilled water; the DD has a bit more surfactants (more sudsy).
The last job was a 1965 45rpm ("Harlem Nocturne/ The Viscounts)to be given as a gift. Utterly garbage vinyl...the RRL just beaded up, like the record had car wax on it. The DD flowed smooth onto the surface.
Different strokes for different vinyls. It's easy to experiment... |
I'm working today so I'll put this off until I get some input and more free time. There's no sense in doing this unless others are interested. Perhaps I'll just soak the albums for a month or so, clean them and note any audible differences. But then, maybe my system isn't capable, in the minds of others, to resolve any differences. One last note on this. I'm not trying to be a smart ass or start any barbs between members. I'm genuinely curious as my findings differ from others. Honestly, I think the hardest part will be gaining access to a really high powered microscope without breaking my bank, not to mention a desire to photograph the resultant images. Should this become cost prohibitive I will need some ideas on how to evaluate on the cheap. |
