The "Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation"

There was an apocryphal story about Percy Wilson's working group (that eventually led to the Keith Monks machine) using high octane vodka. It's sold in the States under a few brands, best known as Everclear-- basically grain alcohol. I guess it could keep record cleaning amusing until you fall over. 

@Wizzard- I’m fascinated by archival techniques including those used for LPs (not shellac). Most of what I did was compare sonic results using different commercially available fluids and methods. I met Neil Antin (@Antinn) on these fora - he is the author of that tome on record cleaning methods, chemistry, materials science and the like. (His background is engineering based and he developed the Mil-Spec for use by the Navy in cleaning life critical o2 systems).  Neil is also an audiophile and during a brief retirement period put together his thoughts on cleaning LPs in a methodical way, starting with the basics.

One thing that Neil confirmed in his extensive studies was the value of a pure water rinse step to remove residue, including the contaminants left by the cleaning fluid itself. You might find it an enjoyable read.

One other thing of note- Certain cartridge manufacturers warn against any liquid stylus cleaner (Ortofon, for one) as it can loosen the glue that is used to bond the stylus to the cantilever shank. There is at least one commercial manufacturer who is offering a stylus fluid (proprietary, of course) that is supposed to be safe even for these types of cartridges.

Best,

Bill Hart

Thanks @mijostyn and I absolutely agree that it is part of the process- the science is never "settled" in a sense. What struck me as odd is that the potential hazards of using alcohol in a US machine are well known- an open web search (not relying on scientific papers behind paywalls) reveals this by a simple search: "alcohol and ultrasonic cleaning." If that's the issue, I don't see much room for debate but there may be more to this that I'm missing. 

regards,

I was a student of intellectual history long before I became a lawyer and am now retired from that and have been back in academia for the last ten years. One thing I learned along the way was that most successful learning processes were collaborations and despite the personalities involved, most of the successful collaborations were amicable. This particular discussion is an offshoot of a hobby for most of us-- the chemistry of record cleaning-- which is a niche within a niche.Presumably, this thread was begun by someone who wanted to contribute knowledge to the community. For some reason, it is turned into a pi**ing match. That is not the spirit in which I like to see the quest for knowledge pursued.

If you look at the history of scientific societies, they were non-profit enterprises that involved like minded individuals, sometimes from different fields of endeavor, sharing knowledge, conducting experiments and engaging in study that was not necessarily offered in the more formal institutes of learning at the time. This became a core principle in what we consider to be science today-- applied learning. In the field that we are discussing there is very little attention devoted to the topic by industry or the trade, including the AES. It is not taught in schools as far as I know (such as graduate courses on preservation of media in archival studies). I learned what I did by exhaustive study of old papers, spending time with archivists and visiting the Culpeper facility of the Packard Campus of the Library of Congress where intake is done for the collection- to meet and ask questions of the various specialists there.

I met Neil several years ago because our interests converged on the topic of record (LP) cleaning. I was honored to work with him as a publisher of several editions of his work on Precision Aqueous Cleaning of Vinyl Records. He is knowledgeable, has enormous cross disciplinary knowledge of applied science and developed the Mil-Spec for cleaning 02 systems on submarines, a life-critical function of the U.S. Naval Fleet. He brings a lot to the table and does so without arrogance or rancor. He is inquisitive and quite thorough in his approach. He is also a nice man, pleasant to deal with and willing to spend the time to discuss and think through various processes and challenges in this area.

I would suggest to Mr. Wizard (unless he insists on being addressed by the honorific "Dr." which I find to be pretentious except when applied to medical doctors), that he find a way to discuss his findings without acrimony. Wizard is new here, and while I have no role as moderator, I can tell you that it is counterproductive to argue based on appeals to authority or snide insults. You can share your knowledge and can disagree in the pursuit of knowledge without rancor. That is, to me, the level of professionalism one should exhibit in any serious endeavor.

Respectfully,

Bill Hart

@rich121- are you the gent who had the older Monks double and we talked about sourcing parts? If so, I’m glad you got it fettled.

One the issues that came up on the SH Forums when Neil’s first edition was published was that distilled water was not commonly available in the UK and perhaps other countries.

When I visited the Culpeper facility, I asked them about water purity:

Q: You also suggest using “deionized water”- what properties does this have over “distilled” water of the type you buy in the grocery store?

A: I can’t speak to the quality of grocery store distilled water. In general, distilling removes organic and inorganic impurities from water. In deionization, the emphasis is more upon removing minerals. Deionization tends to be less expensive than distillation. For the purposes of cleaning records, there is less need for the purity of distilled water because the primary concern is to not leave any mineral residue on a disc, which can happen with tap water.

Quote from Hart interview with Larry Miller, Recorded Sound Preservation Specialist at the LOC’s Packard Campus, in Cleaning and Archival Standards of Care, TheVinylPress, Feb. 2015.

My suspicion is that the LOC was doing its own water purification given the volume of material they process.

Millipore, who makes all the fancy equipment for labs to purify water, has a great chart that explains the differences among different grades of water: https://www.emdmillipore.com/US/en/water-purification/learning-centers/tutorial/purification-techniques/M42b.qB.QHEAAAFAVVZkiQz9,nav

Neil’s book goes into this in some depth as well because he encountered questions (over a thousand as I recall) on various fora about issues including sources of water for rinsing.

Bill Hart

@drkingfish- fair. Just a personal thing for me. I recently finished reading a book on the history of surgery and the differences between the doctors (who were educated and held titles) and the barber/surgeons, who were treated as barbarians. Obviously, a lot has changed in the medical field since then (anesthesia, antiseptics, the ability to control blood loss and a better understanding of the human body). I do applaud people who know things well.

I was meeting with a person today at UT (where I teach part-time) and of course, there are a hell of a lot of Ph.ds among other heavily credentialed individuals running around there. I was spending time with a head of department (I don’t want to get too specific here) and asked him about his background. It turned out he had worked in the field, took the job at UT and worked his way up. He didn’t have any advanced degrees. Truth be told I’m thinking about a Phd myself at this point, so I guess I shouldn’t be so snarky about them. At that point, I will demand that folks address me as Herr Doctor, not to be confused with the Hair Doctor.

All taken in good spirit. Thanks, Mark.

Bill

Neil (@Antinn) is good because his approach is cross-disciplinary- materials science and chemistry, applied. I don’t use alcohol to clean records and would certainly advise against it in a US machine due to risk of vapor explosion.

There is no "best" in my experience. I am, I guess, a collector of LPs, an audiophile and have spent more than a little time dealing with the practical realities of getting a record clean to play cleanly -since most of my buys are older copies. Dr. Wizzard can claim what he wants.

I vote for what works in application. I play back over a good system where I can hear small differences. I can hear the gremlins in vinyl manufacture, which no amount of cleaning will resuscitate. I’ve also had the experience, using a combo of Monks + US of reviving old copies that would have been written off as damaged due to groove chew.

I’m open to new methods- most of this is method, not fancy machinery- but certain constants remain- whatever fluid you are using to bind and remove contaminants must itself be removed, since it is, itself, a contaminant.

That means a rinse step.

Ultrasonic adds an additional dimension to cleaning. I’ve been using it since pretty early on, starting with the Audio Desk and still have the KL.

If I had to choose one machine and one commercial fluid, it would be the Monks (with string) and AIVS No. 15, followed by a rinse.

Some of Neil’s observations go far beyond that, and include an acid wash to address what US does, and also involves multiple steps for those who are relying primarily on US as their method for cleaning.

My ultimate test is playability over a highly sensitive horn based system using quality components, tubes, and cartridges throughout the chain.

Sorry, Il Dottore, I am a copyright lawyer, not a patent lawyer. Yes, I can read a patent, but do not profess any expertise in the area. There were a few long time members here that did have patent expertise- I think Fred Crowder was one. 

My main area of concentration was the protection of artistic content, and not inventions, per se. 

Good luck.