The "Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation"

Dear Wizzzard, You might start by taking a look at the topics of long-lasting threads here on the Audiogon Analog forum.  You probably would note that the same or very similar issues arise over and over again.  For some topics there is seemingly an insatiable appetite for commentary or for making comments.  Any of those is a good bet.

Is methanol doing anything useful to the task? Perhaps EU regulations permit that much methanol in the preparation, but if I were making up a replica of the Clearaudio cleaner, I’d delete the methanol, or wear laboratory gloves whenever handling it.

The VPI RCMs may be relatively crude looking, and the vacuum motors may make a lot of noise (mine does), but one cannot complain about a product that has worked flawlessly for more than 25 years, most of the time holding mildly corrosive liquids in its two tanks. The HW17's vacuum motor not only still works but remains "very powerful". (Data that were missing not only from my foregoing statement but also from the above assertion that vacuum cleaning leaves 10 or 20% of the original moisture on the LP:  power of the vacuum, time spent under vacuum, etc.)

As mentioned several times above, I have been using 25% IPA in water plus about 0.1% Triton X100 for many years before now. About 10-15 years ago, I started to worry whether the mixture left an undesirable residue on my LPs, even after vacuum drying (not air drying) on my VPI HW17. I then instituted a rinse with pure deionized distilled water, to follow vacuum drying after the initial cleaning with the above solution. I had and still have the distinct impression that the pure water rinse makes a very audible difference in the positive direction. I think, back when this happened, my experiment was to clean both sides of one LP and follow up with water rinsing only one side of that LP. Then I listened to both sides. Results were in favor of the water rinse, decidedly, and I haven’t looked back.

Dear Wizzzard , I am very sorry that you are plagued by your illness. I wish you well, and I also hope your wife will soon conquer her medical problems. As for me, I release you from any perceived obligation to respond to any of my real or imagined questions. Probably, when the effects of your affliction and the medications you are obliged to take in order to combat it are stripped away, you are a very decent chap. At the moment, however, we should not take this any further. The odd part is I haven’t disagreed with anything you wrote as regards chemistry or record cleaning solutions. Carry on.

cleeds, Now I am a bit confused.  Above, you wrote, "As I mentioned @lewm , I use a Klaudio US cleaner and have a conventional OG Nitty-Gritty. I don’t find that either cleaner requires alcohol to remove common contaminants."

Here you are saying you do use a solution with a water base (e.g., the VPI RCM concoction, whatever that may be) with your NG.  If so, we are in accord.  My earlier point was that US RCMs don't or certainly may not require anything but water in the tank because of the very nature of how US works.  Whereas, I mentioned I do use a water plus alcohol plus nonionic detergent solution with my VPI HW17.  So, no problem.

cleeds, Have you really experimented with mixtures such as the one recommended by Wizzzard, for your Nitty Gritty, and compared such a mixture with plain water? If you find no difference between the two, using the NG, then I am surprised.  And can only say good for you, or something like that.  I have no US RCM.  I use a VPI HW17, and have done for the past 25 years at least.  My go-to mixture has been distilled deionized water plus IPA plus Triton X100. (Despite Wizzzard's antagonistic attitude toward my posts, I may change the formula thanks to him.) I do find a big improvement with that solution vs water only. I do buy mostly used LPs, but my standards for purchase are very high.  I only buy LPs that appear perfect to my visual inspection and/or are "A" rated by the seller, and I really only buy from one local vendor who has been reliable or from Disc Union, in Tokyo, on occasions when we are visiting our son who lives there.  Which is to say I don't buy junk from Goodwill or sight unseen off eBay.  And yet the alcohol and nonionic detergent containing solution obviously works better than plain water.  I do also rinse with plain distilled water after the first wash cycle.  That clearly makes a difference too.

cleeds, You are apparently using an Ultra Sonic RCM. That’s a completely different approach from using a conventional RCM that relies upon "scrubbing" using a solution that can solubilize typical contaminants and which makes the water wetter to facilitate deep cleaning. In a US cleaner, the ultrasound itself (ideally) does what the additives do in a conventional RCM. ljgerens said it best. So, yes, you don’t necessarily need alcohol in your US RCM.

Contrary to what you say above, Mijo, most realistic audiophiles, myself included, do agree with the notion that high quality digital copies of LP content is or can be as good as the source LP and that hi-rez downloads on average compete or are superior in SQ to what you can get out of an LP.  Some of us vinylistas just don't want to be bothered.  Others of us are fascinated by the pleasant surprises to be had with each incremental improvement of LP reproduction in our home systems.  It's a part of the fun of the hobby for those of us who think that way.  But this thread is not about the endless boring analog vs digital debate.  I'd rather throw in the towel on that one.

On US cleaning, somewhere back in the earlier years of US RCMs, I thought I read that the US process per se, if done at the "right" frequency and wattage, substitutes for the additives to water (e.g., alcohol and a nonionic detergent) that most think are de rigeur for use with conventional RCMs, because the cavitation effect acts as if to reduce the surface tension of plain water sufficiently to permit efficient cleaning.  Where did that idea go?  (Will I be excoriated by the Wiz for this possible heresy?  I am on the edge of my seat.)

Wow!

Wizzzard, you are a bit quick on the trigger. You seemed to be saying that someone must have complained about one of your previous posts, thereby causing it to be deleted. I was only saying there are anonymous persons who monitor all these threads and who appear to be empowered to delete the occasional post that that censor thinks might be offensive to others. Most of us have experienced this at one time or another. In other words, you need not imagine that one of us is your enemy. I’m really hesitant to post further, because I’m beginning to think you’re paranoid.

Wizzzard, the sad fact that your post was deleted does not necessarily indicate there was a complaint from someone monitoring this thread. It seems there is an independent authority endowed by Audiogon with the power of censorship.

Mijostyn, You wrote, "The Degritter pulses a sweep of 120 to 125 Hz @ 300 watts." I am guessing that was a typo and you really meant 120 to 125 kHz.  But that is a high frequency for a US RCM, is it not? (I am no expert, either.)

ljgerens, Thanks for your response.

ljgerens, You cannot possibly have access to those sophisticated techniques, knowledge of how to analyze the results therefrom, and the costly instruments needed to implement them just for the sole purpose of examining LP surfaces. Are you at liberty to say where you work and on what you work? I’m only curious.  For example, I am a retired molecular biologist/MD. I ran a laboratory at NIH and FDA, where we studied certain viruses.  This gave me access to an unlimited supply of distilled, deionized water, various nonionic detergents, and lab grade alcohols.

As a movie buff, I cannot resist making a minor correction.  Paul Newman as "Cool Hand Luke" did not utter the lines, "What we've got here is a failure to communicate".  Those lines were spoken TO the Newman character by the prison Captain or warden, after one of his sadistic punishments failed to "improve" Luke's rebellious behavior.  I think the Captain's role was played by Strother Martin.

Mijo, Where is the chlorofluorocarbon in the formulations we have been discussing? Is that compound (BAK?) you use for anti-static a CFC?

Thanks, Antinn.

Just to be clear about my own position. I have no reason to criticize Wizzzard’s recommendations, and I do respect that in the field of analytical chemistry his knowledge is much greater than mine. However, before he laid down his wisdom here, I have been using 25% IPA plus about 0.1% Triton X100 exclusively for more than two decades. Any LP I have ever washed was washed with the foregoing solution. So naturally when Wizzzard implies that IPA is potentially damaging, I want to know why and how and what would be the consequences. It is not enough, at least for me, just to be told that only Ethanol among all other alcohols and water do not damage vinyl.  If Wizzzard does not have the information, that is OK by me, and he only needs to say so. But I object to being excoriated for asking.

Dear Wizzz, Here is what you wrote on June 6 at 6:25 PM, at the end of your tirade: "All materials including resins and resin blends, whether natural synthetic, have many characteristic parameters. I have correctly restricted myself to include the parameters that are of relevance. Because we are using solvents (and diluents) one of our primary objectives in not to alter or damage the substrate (vinyl recording). We want something that will clean the record the very best without causing harm, hence, "The Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation".The parameters are: Hildebrand Parameter , Dipole Moment, Dielectric Constant, Polarity, Fractional Polarity, and Hydrogen Bonding (van Der Waals forces).As we review ALL the alcohols available and other ingredients, only 2 ingredients have NO detrimental effect to vinyl records, and they are, distilled water and ethanol."

In the above passage, you clearly do imply that IPA is harmful to a vinyl LP. I guess you think that answered my question. But my question is and always was as follows: Exactly what is the nature of the harm that IPA (at about a 25% concentration at room temperature and with an exposure time of approximately 2 minutes) could do to a vinyl LP? This question you have not answered. But as I also wrote many times, you are under no obligation to provide any response. As noted previously, I do take umbrage that you excoriated me on June 6 in your post of 6:25 PM for claiming that the stylus exerts 300 lbs per square inch pressure on an LP. For the second time, I am not the individual who made that obviously and patently erroneous claim. And most any of us would know how to calculate the stylus pressure per square inch, given the dimensions of the contact patch and the VTF.  Including the individual who made the innocent error in the first place. It would behoove you to keep in mind that your audience here on this forum is not a bunch of idiots.

Can you describe exactly how you did these experiments?

As noted, I am only concerned about very short term exposure to 22% Ethanol vs 25% IPA.  I certainly don't expect you to repeat your work to appease me, but it would help to better understand your methodology for studying the effects of lower concentrations of various short chain alcohols.

Yes, I was thinking after my last post that photoelectron spectroscopy might do what I asked for. Have you identified molecules that elute with IPA? In this regard, is ethanol safer? Thx.

Ljgerens, please define “dilute solutions” . Also, in an earlier post you mentioned your analytical techniques. I don’t recall a procedure that permits detection of “additives “ in vinyl, before vs after cleaning, whatever those additives may be. Thx for responding.

I should add that in my procedure, the LP is exposed to 25% IPA for about 2 minutes. Then vacuum-dried. Then the surface is flooded with unadulterated distilled, deionized water and vacuum-dried again.

Speaking for myself, I wash newly acquired "pre-owned" LPs, only. I buy only pristine copies, when I do buy pre-owned LPs. (Of course, I also do buy new LPs.) I wash newly acquired pre-owned LPs just once. Then I put a circular sticker on the album cover to indicate that the LP inside has been washed. In addition, I discard old paper sleeves in favor of new static-free sleeves, after washing. Lest my response be lost in the details... buy mint used LP, wash once, be happy.  I don't wash brand new LPs; I can't ever recall doing that.

As I hoped to convey, I have no problem with Wizzzard's recommended approach, but it does differ from what I have been doing for at least 20 years, in that his formula uses ethanol, and I've been using isopropanol, specifically lab grade 98% isopropanol diluted to a final concentration of ~25% (v/v) in deionized, distilled water.  I add Triton X100, but I have no allegiance to that particular nonionic detergent; it was the most common reagent in my lab, used for fractionating mammalian cells, back in the day.  We had more esoteric NIDs on hand but only for specialized procedures.  Over all this time, I have detected no damage to any LP that could be ascribed to my wash solution, but we all know that we are very good at kidding ourselves on issues such as that one.  If you do a search on isopropanol (or 2-propanol) for cleaning vinyl, there are many conflicting opinions but none of them is accompanied by any related facts regarding the interaction of IPA with vinyl.  Maybe Wizzzard can provide some, since he deems IPA to be potentially harmful.

Dear wizzzard, while I agree that you did hint that the reason not to use IPA has to do with its capacity to damage vinyl, my point in rehashing the issue is simply to learn the mechanism by which e.g. 25% IPA might damage vinyl, because I can find no relevant info on line. You never did get around to specifying the nature of the danger.

I mention this next item because it sticks in my craw; it was not I who incorrectly claimed the stylus pressure on vinyl is only 300 lbs/sq inch. And I’m perfectly capable of calculating the correct value, if I cared to do so. Finally, thanks for correcting me; ethanol doesn’t evaporate, it’s hygroscopic. But the difference is moot if you need a 70% solution in water to be stable. And before I’m misunderstood, that was to precipitate nucleic acids, not to clean vinyl.

Please forgive me; I’m using a cell phone on a moving train. I’ve been doing some research on how alcohols affect surface tension of water, here on the train. I found this publication from 1995: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/je00019a016

The tables therein suggest that for a given concentration (by weight) and temperature both 1- and 2-propanol are more effective at lowering the surface tension of water, compared to ethanol at the same conditions. For example, at 25 degrees C and 25% concentration (w/w), the surface tension of ethanol:water was found to be 35.51. Whereas the respective surface tensions of 1- and 2-propanol:water solutions was 26.64 and 28.78. In this study they did not look at 22% ethanol:water and so may have missed the minimum inflection point that Wizzzard noted. But at both 20% and 25%, the propanols were superior at least with respect to lowering surface tension of water. So I am still not clear what’s wrong with IPA or propanol. Thanks for any guidance.

I am suggesting nothing for anyone else but me. And I do not own or ever use a US RCM. As previously noted, I use a VPI HW17. Good point if those other two stipulated they were using US. My bad.

Rich, Wizzzard explained why he recommends 22% ethanol, and his data support his choice. I’ve been using 25% isopropanol. Maybe I’ll adopt Wizzzards recommendation.

Except where are the data or at least a description of the results comparing very low concentrations of an alcohol to more typically recommended concentrations that hover around 25% or precisely 22% if you follow Wizzzard? You may say you use 5% or “a splash”, and results are excellent, but that proves nothing.

And what is “distilled” Triton X100?

No knees is good knees.  (Even a bad joke can help.)

My wife is a Rheumatologist named Cali. She does prefer Doctor, and she uses her own family name, and I’ve owned an HW17 for about 30 years. My only RCM.

FWIW, and as someone else noted, you certainly can purchase TergitolS7 in the USA. Just google it. Cost ranges from about $70 to about $110 per 100ml bottle. Which would last most of our lifetimes at our respective ages.

Cleeds, the point is that unadulterated water is not wet enough to get into the grooves. The surface tension of water by itself is too high. So some sort of wetting agent is useful to reduce the surface tension of the washing solution, so that it truly can get into the record, grooves, and actually lift whatever grunge you might imagine is lurking there. that isn’t only wizzzard’s idea. That is the philosophy behind all of these record, washing solutions, other than using pure water. Those who believe that a surfactant is advisable would tell you that you really aren’t doing much with pure water, perhaps.

Can ultrasonic cleaning obviate the need for lowering the surface tension of water? Good question. I don’t know.

In Europe, the PhD is generally regarded as superior in academic achievement to the training required of clinical physicians. In the UK and maybe in Germany and elsewhere on the continent, clinicians are addressed as “mister”, and only PhD recipients are addressed as “doctor”.  In the US, some law schools hand out “doctorates” in jurisprudence after only 3 years and with no thesis requirements. This is all much ado about nothing.

Dear Wizzzard, of course osmolality does not describe the level of “particles”, and I never said it did. I did say that osmolality is used as a measure of the degree of deionization of water. Then Mijostyn conflated ions with particles, and I corrected him. In our labs (collectively) osmolality was automatically monitored by measuring electrical conductivity of water passing the outlet of the deionizer, on the premise that the lower the conductivity, the lower is the concentration of metal ions.  As you might imagine, deionization of the water used in in vitro reactions is more important for biological experimentation than it is for record cleaning.

I don't apologize for asking about deionization, because in your earliest presentations you said more than once that only distilled, not deionized, water should be used, or words to that effect.  This left the impression that there is something wrong with deionized water, when you really only meant to say that the water must be distilled, whether deionized or not.  You make a point of your own precision, yet in that regard your original directive was not precise.  I do thank you for the clarification.

Wizzzard, sorry to say you did misunderstand me, not that it’s any obligation of yours to deal with every idea here. What I am trying to ask is whether there’s any problem with deionized water, if and only if it’s also distilled. I get that you’re strongly advising distilled water. I don’t have any “supplier”. I am a retired MD and molecular biologist, and I have many liters of distilled and deionized water from my lab at my former workplace. Every lab at NIH has its own source for distilled and deionized water. I’ve never had to buy water for record cleaning.

Mijo, I wrote that deionized water is commonly evaluated for the degree of deionization by measuring its osmalility. Note the root word, “ion”. Ions are in solution by definition. So what has this got to do with particles, which are not in solution? My question to Wizzzard is whether he really meant to say deionized water is per se to be avoided. I think he meant to say that distillation is critical whereas deionization is optional but not verboten. We shall see.

Just to say that deionization and distillation are two different processes.  You can have one without the other.  Hence my question to Wizzzard. (Careful to get those 3 Z's in there.)  You (Rich) make a good point regarding store-bought distilled water; it comes with no data.  The purity of deionized water, that is to say the degree to which it is deionized, is usually measured in terms of its osmolality, the lower the better, obviously.

Dear Wizzzard, as regards water, I gather you would approve of water that is both distilled and deionized. I think what you’re trying to convey is the notion that deionization alone is insufficient. Is that correct?

Distilled and deionized water is standard in any molecular biology lab, to be used as a medium for enzymatic reactions, and etc, so I have to believe it’s ok for washing LPs. 
 

As regards your typing issue, I often dictate into my cell phone, because I have a hard time typing on the tiny keyboard. Is that a possibility for you?

Pindac, I was not giving you advice; I was merely trying to point out that the world of nonionic detergents can be confusing because sometimes the different chemical companies use different names for the same molecule. Ergo I thought you might want to check the relation between the product you’re using, made by BASF, to Tergitol 15S7or 9, made I think by Dow. I did so in the interim. Turns out your NID is at least very similar to 15S9. But you’ll probably get definitive advice you seek from Wizzzard or Antinn or both.

Pindac, very often identical nonionic detergents are sold under different names, depending upon the manufacturer or patent holders. You might check to determine the chemical relationship between your preferred preparation and either tergitol S7 or S9. Maybe there is chemical identity to one or the other or maybe there are only small differences in properties that are of little consequence.

Seems to me that except for the disagreement regarding the danger of heating 22% ethanol in a US machine and the competition over who is the more brilliant analytical chemist, Antinn and Wizzzard offer very similar recommendations. So there is no need for such hostility between them and among their assorted acolytes.

Maybe if you would state your area of disagreement with Antinn, that would be more helpful to him and the rest of us, compared to another insult with vague implications.

By the way, the ethanol will evaporate away over time on a shelf at room temperature. Wizz didn’t mention that. So if you’re anal about the ethanol concentration, you’d best make a fresh solution for each cleaning session. I personally will continue to use isopropanol or propanol. 98%. At a final concentration of about 25%.

Here ya go...Everclear

To be both truthful and scientific, I wouldn't advise it.

When you’re back on line, my question was why do you insist on ethanol vs propanol?

300 lbs (or whatever and actually has to be based on size of the contact patches and would vary according to stylus shape and stylus wear) would be the force if the contact patches were one square inch.  However, the contact patches are actually a few square microns in area, so.....

Is Wizzard serious or is he mocking some of us for our pretentiousness?  If the former, why not isopropanol (vs ethanol)?  If based on "science", as insisted, it must have taken a couple of years to do all the experiments necessary to arrive at such a high level of conviction.  If he is being facetious, nice one.