The "Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation"

The Last line of record/stylus/tapehead products were not available in 1969. They were introduced in the early 1980's. Just the facts, mam. ;-)

I for one am sticking with Neil's (@antinn) method of LP cleaning, and his usc formula.

@antinn 

Thank You for asking me not to waste any more time on you - I won't!

@wizzzard , Could you please respond to my last post, I think you might have missed it. 

I want to spend as little time cleaning records as possible. Antinn's method IMHO is either for extremely bored people or the neurologically deranged. 

Subjecting a record to any heat source is a potentially destructive thing to do. Records do not dewarp themselves. 

Ultrasonic cleaning is an unfortunate fad. Using the same solution over and over again is a great way to contaminate records as is air or fan drying. Do any of us live in clean rooms?

A good record cleaning method or machine should use fresh fluid with each cleaning, agitate the fluid so as to loosen debris, vacuum dry the record and be as fast as possible. Doing both sides at the same time is a big plus halving the cleaning time.    

@mijostyn,

If you ever took the time to read the book you would find a multitude of methods, beyond the in-expensive manual process; not everyone has your wealth. Also, its rather inexpensive to filter US tanks to 0.2-micron absolute keeping the bath clean (and the book has a table that lists all the parts required)  generally for 3-4 weeks until TDS/resistivity (that is easily measured accurately -Amazon.com: HM Digital 716160 COM-100 Waterproof Professional Series Combo Meter, 7", White/Purple : Industrial & Scientific) increases above levels where there is a risk of scale (using ASTM & MIL-STDs for guidance).   

Regarding your question of the possible benefit of Tergitol 15-S-7 (or 15-S-9) over your current Triton X-100 if you took the time to review the book Table X Nonionic Surfactant Performance Properties, as an educated individual you should see why the Tergitols are vastly superior.to Triton X-100 for the application you are using.

In the meantime, I recently did a quick deep dive into anti-statics such as BAK-50 and in the process, I came across this NASA Report you may find of interest 19890016725.pdf (nasa.gov); cationic surfactants can be corrosive to some materials.  The rest of the information and details I determined given your distain of me, I see no reason to share with you.  But overall, if you optimize your process, with the right surfactant at the right concentration and BAK-50 at the right concentration there is no reason you should be seeing any residue build-up on your stylus.

@mijostyn 

I have already prepared a detailed response for you (hand written) including the graph I promised for all.  Unfortunately today I am entering a "cycle" corresponding to my autoimmune condition, and, I will probably not be able to post my response until much later today, or, most likely tomorrow.As a Physician you most certainly understand.  So, please bear with me, I will respond as soon as possible.   You are first on the list.

@ mijostyn

I have prepared a detailed response including the graph I promised for all for you (hand written). However, I am entering a cycle related to my autoimmune condition, and will not be able to post my response until later today, or, most likely tomorrow.  As a Physician I am certain you understand.  You are first on the list. 

@wizzzard,  another sincere 'thank you' for a very interesting topic and amusing as well (considering the vast array of responses). 

Perhaps a topic for another day, regarding LAST (not the STYLAST) as a record 'preservative' in that it claims to change or preserve the record surface to extend the record's life.  I used it on a number of records in my collection back in the 80's and have found no ill effects, while keeping fidelity intact and reducing surface noise.

I would understand if this is not a topic you'd even want to breach.  Just thought I'd tap into your vast array of knowledge if you'd care to take this on.

@ drkinkfish

I am sorry I did not understand your use of the word "us" believing that it somehow related to an Ultrasonic Cleaner.  I have never come heard this expression before.  I am very familiar with Ultrasonic Cleaning baths.  I first used one is in 1961, and in every lab I have involved with has always had one or two baths available.  Today I have two at home (one is in storage), but they are not for record cleaning.  Please do not be concerned with other thing you may have read.  Reviewing charts and graphs is one thing. Understanding  what they mean is another.  The azeotropic effect mentioned does not even initiate until a Temperature of 173.3 degrees F.  I will respond in detail to your post most likely tomorrow du e to related medical issues that are just initiating.  Please be patient!  Thank you!

To all others I will respond to your to all you'r questions, and correct the errors of others who have decided to confiscate my forum, rather than creating their own.

But then again, my is based on truth, facts, and Science only.

I appreciate your understanding and having to wait longer for answers that you expected sooner.

Thank you again for your understanding!

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.

@lewm 

You just caught me as I was turning off my Computer and preparing myself with my wife's assistance for an anticipated difficult period that will incapacitate me for a considerable time.  I just wanted to clarify a few things.  From my perspective no hostilities exist on my part.  and, yes I read what Neil Anton had prepared and presented in January of 2022 immediately after it was brought to my attention by someone else some time ago.  I assure you there are vast differences that you may not be aware of, and, more differences exist that similarities.

I was willing to point out his inconsistencies at a future date, but he no longer has any interests in what I have to offer.  And, that is O.K. by me.

I simply asked what his Academic Qualifications were, and, he never responded.

If he took offense because of my request that is unfortunate.  However, when someone makes a statement, such as, "the earth is flat".  By nature I feel compelled to respond, and, if that somehow comes across as an insult, because of my method of responding to such statements and those of comparative implications, I am truly sorry.

I have no ill feelings, nor, should I towards Anting.  And if others can not see that as well, I am sorry.  And, I was hoping that those contributing to these posts understood and appreciated somewhat humorous and sarcastic remarks.

I will not change however, simply because that is my nature, and. the way I respond to certain statements.  Perhaps others appreciate my remarks, in that case, they can stay tuned in and expect many others.

I hope you understan. And, now my "medical.demon" is demanding my presence.

Farewell for now and thank you.

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

@whart , Overall I agree with you. However, it is important for knowledgeable people to point out errors when they see or hear them. Avoiding errors is a very important part of the learning process.  am extremely good at making them. For me the learning process is like bumper cars. Fortunately, I usually wind up at the right exit. You be right scientifically but very wrong from a functional basis. A great example of this is the Kirmuss method. The time involved in cleaning 3000 records that way is prohibitive. 

@wizzzard  Please take all the time you need. Please be well. 

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,

@whart 

👍

I think an alcohol is a very important part of a proper record cleaning formula. I do not care for ultrasonic cleaning. It is messy, inconvenient and of questionable effectiveness. However, I do not think a 25% mixture of any alcohol in water is easily flammable if at all. Over 50% no question but 94 degrees F will not do it. I think most people will be in far more danger at their stovetop. 

My idea of a good record cleaning machine is the Clearaudio Double Matrix Sonic Pro. You put a record on it, clamp the record down and push a button. Come back 2 minutes later to a clean and dry record, both sides, with nary a drop spilled. There are many less expensive machines like the Nessie that are just as effective one side at a time.

There is plenty of methods seen in use to clean a Vinyl LP.

My methods for the Cleaning of  Vinyl LP, have evolved, and I can categorically state, that when adopting the Manual Cleaning Method as advised in the attachment, the end product, using the outlined mixtures for producing a solution, has by far, outperformed any other past cleaning methods that involved producing a solution to act as a cleaning agent.

PACVR-3rd-Edition

The outcome being, I now view a Vinyl LP as having been 'purified', that has undergone the PACVR Manual Cleaning Method, using a outlined mixture mixture to produce a cleaning solution.

It does seem there is an alternative mixture proposed by @wizzzard, to produce a cleaning solution, that can offer similar capabilities to the mixture to produce a solution found in the PAVCR from @antinn. I don't doubt in any way the capability of the solutions for lifting contaminant from within a LP's Groove.

Where I struggle, is with the notion, if I were to use either of the mixtures I am now aware of. One being the mixture in use produced following the @antinn guidance, or the solution under discussion and presented by @wizzzard.

Would there an an audible difference, that one could claim to be a betterment, as a discovery made from a subjective evaluation of listening to a Cleaned LP using either of the solutions and adopted cleaning method.

@antinn I once again thank you for your excellent support offered, that has lead to a transformation in how I perceive a Cleaned Vinyl LP.

@wizzzard Thank You for bringing this new to me and alternative mixture, to produce a cleaning solution. Curiosity of how it will impact on a cleaning process is now raised.

@wizzzard : thank you for your reply to my question! I have been suspicious of the claims by LAST since their appearance decades back. I will stick to cleaning my styli using Magic Erasure. Also A.J.van den Hul recommended using some vodka on a fine brush for stylus cleaning. That I have on hand!

@jasonbourne71 , just don't smoke while your doing it:-) Really, what I use is a fine artist brush which I trimmed the bristles back about 1/2 way to make them a bit stiffer. The longer handle makes it easier to use than brushes with short handles and you can brush any old which way without hurting anything. Having lost one stylus to the ozone, using anything but water or Lyra's stylus cleaning fluid makes me nervous as you do not want to do anything to weaken the glue.

@pindac, @whart, and any others reading,

Thank-you for the kind words. 

Keep in-mind that what I present is a process - not a single chemistry.  My aqueous process is centered around pre-clean, rinse, final-clean, rinse and is the industry standard for precision cleaning with aqueous cleaner and as the book states Chapter II: 

The manual precision aqueous vinyl record cleaning procedure detailed by this document began with the cleaning process used by the United States Library of Congress to clean delicate lacquer records. That procedure was then modified following the fundamentals developed for MIL-STD-1330D Precision Cleaning and Testing of Shipboard Oxygen, Helium, Helium-Oxygen, Nitrogen, And Hydrogen Systems and MIL-STD-1622B Standard Practice for Cleaning of Shipboard Compressed Air Systems.   

To refresh:  I developed MIL-STD-1330D and MIL-STD-1622B as well as the jointly patented cleaning agent - Navy Oxygen Cleaner (NOC), and if you were to read NASA procedures for aqueous cleaning of high-pressure oxygen, you would see similar pre-clean, rinse, final clean, rinse processes.  

So, I present a 'process', not a single chemical.  The book presents various options for pre-cleaner and final cleaner chemistry, and as the book states:  All cleaning procedures specified herein are presented as only “a” way to clean a record. No claim is made there is only one way to approach the process. All methods & procedures specified here present opportunity for experimenting with different cleaning agents, different cleaning brushes, different drying cloths, and different cleaning equipment.

So, this whole hoopla has nothing to do with someone else's chemistry which the concept of alcohol + nonionic surfactant is nothing new.  If you read VIII.15.1 London Jazz Collector™ (LJC) LJC home recipe for vacuum record cleaning machines | LondonJazzCollector (wordpress.com) he indicates it's for vacuum record cleaning machines and does not recommend allowing to just evaporate to prevent leaving dissolved contaminants.  And if you analyze his formula (by volume), it's as follows: 25% IPA & 250 ppm nonionic surfactant (likely at 8 x CMC).   

The formula provided by @wizzzard is by weight 22% ethanol and 0.038% Tergitol 15-S-7 which ~380 ppm which is 10 x CMC.  If you review and understand Table XIII Hansen Solubility Parameter Record Polymers & Solvents, you will see the differences between 100% IPA and 100% Ethanol.  Based on @wizzzard  'credentials' it should be child's-play for him to do a comparison of two formulas - IPA + Tegitol 15-S-9 (which are inexpensive & easy obtained) and Ethanol + Tergitol 15-S-7 (which may not as inexpensive or as easily obtained); and hopefully he could put this in both 'by-weight' and 'by-volume' to make it more accessible to the average person and let people decide for themselves.

But, because I have a name, and you can find me, for liability reasons I will not make any recommendation for use of alcohol above 2.5%.  Additionally, I am not here to formulate cleaning agents - I let others do that.  Otherwise, my background in some of the most intensive quality assurance programs in world (Navy SUBSAFE The U.S. Navy’s Submarine Safety Standards (bsee.gov) & Deep Submergence Diver Life Support) and my development of the MIL-STDs to clean high-pressure oxygen and life support systems and the need to have every final cleaner approved by a three-panel medical board (toxicology, internal medicine & industrial health) have left me acutely sensitive to being protective of human health.  If I am to be criticized for being overly protective - guilty as charged. So, I will advise of the risk - beyond that you are free to take as many risks as you wish but you are at least fully aware; that is my policy.

So, myself and @wizzzard are fundamentally different - he is presenting a chemistry, I am presenting a 'process'; and it's my experience with developing and implementing (world-wide) precision cleaning processes - that to effectively clean a record - you need a process, and every process be it manual cleaning, manual-cleaning with vacuum assistance or ultrasonic cleaning, and combinations thereof require a variation of the chemistry for best results. 

Beyond that, I am not here to defend or promote my process.  The book goes into excruciating detail trying to explain the whys behind the process including a deep dive (Chapter XI) into just how clean the record needs to be to extract all the music it contains.  If you agree, that's great, if you don't, that's OK.  I am selling nothing and make no income from the book, and it was a good exercise to keep my skillsets high when I 'was' retired - no more, back to work and I really do not have the time anymore to expend as I have in the past.  So, this is likely my last post on this forum.

Take care and stay-well,

Neil Antin

PS/Given the state of affairs in cyber-space, I have adopted the 'zero-trust' cyber position, and consequently, I am now being very careful as to just what personally identifiable information (PII) I disclose.  

Due to my location, I have used BASF™ Dehypon® LS 54 nonionic surfactant. as a substitute for  Tergitol 15-S-9.

I see that  Tergitol 15-S-7 is the recommended substance within this thread.

As previous experience showed it was going to be expensive to acquire Tergitol, and it is not readily available in the UK. The acquiring the alternative Dehypon came with a large proportion of monies outlaid for the assembling the materials to enable the Manual Cleaning Method to be put in place.

I would be happiest if the Dehypon was identified as being usable with the mixture being proposed by @wizzzard. Acquiring the Ethanol as per the Purity suggested, is looking relatively easy, and is available at a fair cost. 

I invested in a accurate weighing scale, and would like to know the mixture in weight of grams of Dehypon per 220 grams of Ethanol, if this is considered a mixture worthwhile producing.  

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.

mijostyn

I do not care for ultrasonic cleaning. It is messy, inconvenient and of questionable effectiveness.

US cleaning is just about all I've used after buying a Klaudio US machine. Its one-button simplicity just can't be beat, imo. Nothing could be easier or more tidy.

I think an alcohol is a very important part of a proper record cleaning formula.

That's a remarkable statement from someone who until recently insisted nothing other than a conductive sweep brush was needed to ensure a clean LP.

I can't help but wonder what contamination these LPs have accumulated that require substantial amounts of alcohol to remove.

@cleeds , I was given a large collection of 78 rpm and old LPs. In order to deal with them I had to buy a record cleaning machine and deal with the peculiarities of  of record cleaning. Had this not happened I would still be merrily plugging along with my sweep arm. 1st off, I have to qualify the alcohol comment. It is limited solely to PVC records. If you use alcohol on old 78s you will melt them. 

In the mean while I discovered that vacuum clamping generates large static charges on the bottom of the record, strong enough to jump sparks to the head shell when removing the record. In playing with cleaning solutions I stumbled into the use of ionic agents to prevent static accumulation. BAK does exactly this and the effect is lasting. 

I looked carefully at the KL Audio and  Degritter units before going the way I did. It is a mistake to air or fan dry a record. Doing so leaves whatever is in the water on the record. Reuse the water in an ultrasonic cleaner and you will wind up with a lot of garbage on the record. Filtering is not good enough because many contaminants will be in solution and will not filter out. In short you would have to buy a vacuum drying machine in addition. The Clearaudio Double Matrix Sonic Pro not only uses fresh fluid with each cleaning it actually rinses the record three times each cycle before drying and it is doing both sides at the same time. 2 minutes and the record is clean and dry both sides. It is expensive but I stumbled over an open box deal for a 20% discount. Sometimes you have to be lucky. Unfortunately, whoever opened the box put some ungodly fluid in it, unknown to me that caused the water pump to fail. Musical Surroundings asked if I though I could take it apart and sent me a new pump. I opened it up and there was white junk all through the water lines and water tank. I cleaned it all out, installed the new pump and it has been perfect ever since. I can also take it apart with my eyes closed. The pump was covered under warranty.

Sometimes life drives you in funny directions. 

The Wizzard's Formula was strikingly close to the one I landed on. It is obvious to me that he knows in detail exactly what he is talking about and I plan on incorporating some of his changes. I suspect he is of eastern European origin and culturally they are a bit on the gruff side. So am I.

@lewm There are two very experienced individuals now commenting on this thread.

I would like to be advised by either of these contributors, as I do intend on doing a trial between the two mixtures for a cleaning solution. The idea, that each constituent and ratio for it used in the mixture is recognised as acceptable.

It seems to me that only this type of preparation will cut it, and as long I use a repetitive cleaning method without creating cross contamination on the implements used, will be the next discipline, to offer an assurance control measures are being addressed. 

The option on the Vinyl to be cleaned can be done as two methods.

One is to purchase 2 x the same Vinyl LP as a New Item Purchase.

The other to search out 2 x same 'used' Vinyl LP and hope they have a similar timeline of usage, with being out of the protective cover for a similar period of time. This one will be very difficult to verify.

I also have Vinyl LP's that have been owned for 40ish years and have become very usable following the manual cleaning method. I do believe the PAVCR method successfully removed all residuals embedded into the LP from previous method used to carry out cleaning.

It would be interesting to learn if a change of solution, along with the same cleaning method, is able to produce a 'purification' that is perceived as being improved on the already very impressive condition achieved. Bearing in mind, after experiencing the end product of my most recent cleaning activities, I have completely abandoned the idea of a US Tank final rinse following the manual method, as I sense it can not add any further improvement, that would be audible.

@richmon 

On the surface the product you have been using called "Shaklee Basic H", which I previously have not been aware of until you mentioned it in this post, appears to be a very good product for what you have been using it for, especially as a car wash because it is pH balanced as well, which is very important.  Many car washes sold, unfortunately, are not pH balanced properly for use as a car wash.  But, that again, is yet another story.

And it only contains nonionic surfactants, and, is truly safe for the environment.  My complements, an excellent choice of cleaner, and, thank you for making me aware of its existence.

And yes the surface tension achieved by its’ use is no were near as low as the formulation I presented.  Keep in mind, that the concentration of "cleaning agent" in my formulation is established to clean the minor concentration of contaminants that a record  would acquire.

Not saying that you keep a dirty car or have dirty widows, but, even though the surface tension is less the prepared solution you will use will become contaminated more rapidly, and you may simply need to apply more, or, perhaps not.

I am interested in the results you will achieve.  Please keep me informed.

Thank you,

@moonwatcher 

Thank you for trying.  I can assure you that by abandoning the isopropyl alcohol you will not be prematurely de destroying your records, and you will discover that the ethanol does provide better cleaning.  You may not be able to discern this at. first, but I believe you should begin to notice improvements.

Thank you for your input and trying the formulation.  Best wishes

@elliottbnewcombjr 

Your comment of 7 June 2023 ended in ....

May I finish your statement for you.  After they overcame the smell from the pyridine, and the bitterness due to the denatonium, they became blind due to the high (about 4+%) of methanol that was incorporated.  After becoming blind they died within a matter of time.  Depending upon how much and how often they drank.

Not a pleasant way to go!

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.

In the interest of accuracy, in my last post I stated - " The formula provided by @wizzzard is by weight 22% ethanol and 0.038% Tergitol 15-S-7 which ~380 ppm which is 10 x CMC."  I made an error, the concentration of Tergitol 15-S-7 is 38 mg, and for the resulting volume of about 1-L is + ~38 ppm which is the CMC for Tergitol 15-S-7.  Apologies for any confusion this may have caused. 

Note that the 2-drops specified appears too much for 38-mg noting the conversion mg = ml * 1000 * d.  The smallest near calibrated drop from the Nalgene Dropper Bottle is 0.04-ml/drop - Factors to consider in accuracy and precision of Nalgene Dropper Bottles (thermofisher.com).  Two drops = 0.08ml x 1000 x 0.91 (spg of 15-S-7) = 72.8 mg.  Standard eyedroppers can deliver as much as 2X that amount.  

I recollect, It was an edge of the seat ride producing the mixtures, the wanting to get the ratio as correct as my 'inexperienced person could' was high up the chain of importance. Hence, I bought a weigh scale that I believe does .001 or definitely .01 increments of a Gram.

Hopefully a new mixture ratio will be supplied for Ethanol and I get to carry out another procedure.    

@wizzzard 

Why only store distilled and not D/I water?

@wizzzard 😞

What about drying?  How long do you dry, or let sit, before you re-sleeve?

Further proof that AudioGon forums are without equal.

@mijostyn 

You are at the VERY TOP of my list no respond to, however, I have been waiting to hear from the administrator on how to post graphs and pdfs.  I have yet to hear back from him.

I believe I will need to respond in a different way.  Your response has been written by hand many, many days ago.

I should inform you that I do not have the ability to use use ten fingers as most, for the simple reason, that I have only 5 and a half fingers to key with.  I write all my "lengthly" responses by hand first, and then it takes me a considerable time to keyboard my responses.  I can not use dictation. because I have to use a Dvorak (Left Hand) keyboard on my Mac.  When dictating, the system defaults to QWERTY, which results in a bunch of gibberish.

I also needed to adapt to writing with my left hand.  I am originally a right-handed individual.  But, on the "Bright side" 5.5 fingers represents a majority - so I have nothing to complain about.  As in "Brian's Song", "Always look on the bright side of life".  But I do need to apologize to you for the delay.

I will try to respond to you today, if not, then Wednesday, because I am going to Hospital to have an scheduled MRI tomorrow.

Till later!  Thank you very much for your understanding.

@wizzzard , please take your time. I believe you can copy and paste the graphs.

I thought I had trouble with 9 fingers and a fused wrist. You might check out Dragon Dictate. I have used the Medical version and it is really quite good now. 

As a typist I am down to two fingers:-)

@rich121 

Not only store bought distilled water, but also laboratory grade distilled, and laboratory grade double-distilled.  

But store bought distilled water is just fine.  Deionized water is no where near the purity of distilled and will affect the surface tension as well. as likely also leaving residue behind.

Thank you! 

@mojo771 Air or fan drying a record is never a good idea. The water evaporates leaving whatever was in the water on the record. Even distilled water has some residue in it. Vacuum drying is the state of the art at this time. It removes the bulk of the fluid and residue. People who use an Ultrasonic unit should transfer the record to a vacuum drying machine which admittedly is messy as only one machine I know of will dry both sides at the same time. I think the best value in a vacuum unit is the Nessie which you hardly ever see mentioned here. The Clearaudio Matrix is also a fine machine. It uses the vacuum motor from the Double Matrix which will suck your fingernails off. 

@mijostyn 

I tried copy and paste and everything else I could think of including singing several different applications.  Nothing seemed to work.  Never heard of Dragon Dictate -  will investigate.  I am committed to Dvorak (Left Hand), however, because it drove me crazy switching between keyboards, and I gave that up several years ago.

Appreciate the typist humor!  We all must need to retain our sense of humor.  And, I  am sorry that nefarious forces have overtaken my forum posting. However, there is nothing that I can do nor do I intent to.  I mention this at this point because it relates to the necessity of humor which is apparently lacking in the "nefarious force group", but provides amusement to those who do not belong to the group.

Soon!

@mijostyn 

I tried copy and paste and everything else I could think of including using several different applications.  Nothing seemed to work.  Never heard of Dragon Dictate -  will investigate.  I am committed to Dvorak (Left Hand), however, because it drove me crazy switching between keyboards, and I gave that up several years ago.

Appreciate the typist humor!  We all must need to retain our sense of humor.  And, I  am sorry that nefarious forces have overtaken my forum posting. However, there is nothing that I can do nor do I intend to.  I mention this at this point because it relates to the necessity of humor, which is apparently lacking in the "nefarious force group", but provides amusement to those who do not belong to that group.

I resubmitted because my Dvorak spell-check took over again.

@waytoomuchstuff 

Sorry, I do not understand, please expound.  Thank you!

I should expand my question with some details... I have a record Dr. cleaner that vacuums while cleaning.  But i feel like there may still be moisture deep in the grooves even after the vacuum anda microfiber cloth.  So I usually wave them in the air or let sit for a few minutes after cleaning and drying before placing them back in the sleeve just to make sure I'm not locking in the moisture which could lead to mold or other? bad stuff.  So, how does everyone dry?

@mojo771 

I do not mean to sound as  derogatory or evasive, but drying depends upon many factors.  Temperature, Relative Humidity, Air movement, etc.  But the simple answer is that " when it is dry "

You need to make a judgement call.

But, it is always better to error on the side of waiting "a bit longer", than being eager.

Does that answer your question.  I hope it does, if not please post back, I will try harder and better if necessary.

Thank you.

@mojo771 

A good vacuum machine will not leave any water in the groove. If you do not see any water or humidity on the record you are good to go. The other approach would be to continue vacuuming a little longer. Mold will grow on the record and record cover under conditions of prolonged moisture with records stored for long periods. Records stored in damp basements are a good example. I saw several severe examples when I lived in Miami, FL. I was given an old collection of records that was stored in a basement near Boston and they were riddled with mold. If your records are stored in a living area where the humidity does not exceed 60% for prolonged periods you do not have to worry about it. If your humidity does exceed 60% air conditioning or a dehumidifier will fix it. If your record looks dry go ahead and put it in the sleeve. I only clean a record before I intend on playing it, so it is out at least another 20 minutes. If your record is still wet after vacuuming there is a problem with your machine. 

@wizzzard 

"The secret to a successful life is learning to have fun in spite of it." 

Michael Jonathan Stein

" If you don't get hurt once in a while you are not having enough fun."

Ditto

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?

@wizzzard
"Deionized water is no where near the purity of distilled and will affect the surface tension as well. as likely also leaving residue behind"

Just so you know... the purest lab grade of water, Type 1 (Ultrapure) is made using RO/DI. The impurities in Ultrapure water are measured in parts per trillion.

Years ago, I tired of buying distilled water from the store to make record cleaning fluid for my Keith Monks RCM, so I made an investment in a 7-stage RO/DI system.
This is as pure of water as needed to make a record cleaning solution. I have fairly uncontaminated tap water to begin (it tests in the mid 70’s ppm with my TDS meter) with and after going thru the system I have never gotten a reading higher than ’0’ and that is measuring in parts per million.

The bottled water in the store has no rating, no history... no information of the amount of impurities, so your comment is not ’fact’, just a generalization.
A few years ago I added a Degritter ultrasonic machine (now on my 2nd) and this Thursday I pick up my new Klaudio US machine.
I can’t imagine getting a cleaner record.

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.