The "Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation"

When purchasing Tergitol 15-S-9, remember it has a shelf life of 24 months.

https://ehslegacy.unr.edu/msdsfiles/34840.pdf

Apologies to @wizzzard for going a little off topic as I was responding to @ljgerens post earlier.

@noromance 

"You are missing the boat"

This is interesting. I’m going to hand over my X100!

Unlike Triton X-100, TERGITOL™ 15-S-9 is biodegradable and has lower toxicity. Triton X-100, on the other hand, is classified under REACH as a substance of very high concern and can now only be used in the EU with authorization.
TERGITOL™ 15-S-9 (Triton X-100 replacement) (itwreagents.com)

@wizzzard I never said "distilled". I said dissolved. The reason being is that the X100 will not dissolve well in the US bath and is best dissolved in a separate container, and then added to the bath. In fact, there are instructions on my bottle to that effect.

Distilled water / 39C / a splash of 91% isopropanol / few drops of previously dissolved Triton X100.

@ericsch 

I should have just stated, that in your case, that would be Approximately 11 to 12 drops.

Sorry!

To all,

It is Good Night for now until my next opportunity.

I thank all those who have expressed serious concerns.  I apologize that I have not been able to respond as I would have wished.

Please, accept my request to re-read some of the original postings in a frame of mind that takes the time to understand what I actually stated and posted.

Thank you all again.

@peporter 

The "Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation" is the very best record cleaner of any manner.  We are discussing the abilities of the cleaner.  It is the best regardless if you brush it on, spray it on, dip it in, apply with microfiber cloth, use vacuum cleaning device, etc.

I personally prefer the ease and convenience of using a vacuum cleaning machine.  And, if feeling lazy, even a simpler method will do to a reasonable extent.  Recall, the evaporation rate is rapid due to the azeotropic characteristics.  And, accumulation of residue has more to do with evaporation rates than any application characteristics.  Assuming you are using distilled water and pure Ethanol and the proper amount of surfactant.

The cleaning characteristics are independent and a separate issue with regard to methodology.  Six shots of Tequila will get you just as drunk whether you are at home or in Istanbul, or Ashtabula, Ohio. It is independent of location.  Well, correct that, altitude plays an important factor as well.  Poor attempt at an analogy late at night. 

@ljgerens 

Thank you very much for your post.  Another one that I truly admire and respect.  I have extensive knowledge in Ultra Sonic Baths, but, not as you would think.  My knowledge is more Industrial and on much larger scale.  Nevertheless, the fundamentals are the same as you have also demonstrated.

I sincerely appreciate your post, and it deserves considerable attention as does my response to @mijostyn .

I will need to get back to you as soon as I possibly can.  A few adjustments, and a bit more understanding of the Chemistry and you will be on a much better track, and, I assure you more pleased with the results.

In the interim, is it possible to inform me of the Surfactant that you used that is similar to the Tergitol 15-S 7.  It would assist me.  And, by the way DO NOT use Dawn, I will explain.  The residue is from 6 of the 8 ingredients incorporated in Dawn.  Also Dawn contains significant amounts of anionic surfactants as well.

Hang in there, I admire you, and I will get back to you.  My time is not in my control.  You are next after my modified presentation that is already prepared and my response to @mijostyn .

Take care! And, thank you again.

@noromance 

"You are missing the boat"

@ericsch 

Sorry, I should have also stated that please do NOT use isopropyl alcohol, it is imperative that you switch to Ethanol.  Again, explanations provided in other previous posting.

@ericsch 

I refer you to my response to @mijostyn in a previous posting.  I provided him with the exact amount that he is required to use of Triton X-100 if he chooses to continue to use Triton X-100 rather than switching the Tergitol 15-S-7.

It should be clear, if not, please inform me that you need additional information.

@rich121 

I refer you to my response to @mijostyn with regard to the graph.  It is EXACTLY the transition point where the slope changes dramatically.  This is simply mathematical calculations determined as to the relationship of Surface Tension in dynes/centimeter and the WEIGHT percentage of ethanol.

Nothing to discuss, just simply to examine and understand the significance of this exact amount of Ethanol.

Anything else?

@noromance 

Triton X-100 is a Non-ionic Surfactant made by Dow Chemical Company.  It is Octylphenoxy polyethoxyethanol glycol tertoctylphenylether.  9.5 Moles of Ethylene Oxide are utilized.  It is, what is referred to as an OPE Surfactant.

Distillation has no part or meaning.  Do not understand your statement.

@mijostyn ​@rhg3 ​@lewm ​@cleeds ​@dogberry ​@pindac ​@jasonbourne71 ​@richmon ​@whart ​@rich121 

Good evening to all,

Our original plans made for us have be readjusted for us again.  We need to go to another Hospital Tomorrow.  Then again leaving for yet another Hospital quite some distance away for a few days.  I may choose to leave, Sunday night and stay overnight at a Hospital related Hotel, or leave very early Monday morning.  Nevertheless, in either case, my wife needs to be away for two full days.  I am informing you of this because I will try to get some matters attended to until and when it does becomes possible to complete more.  So, you will be receiving my responses in "dribs and drabs" in as unspecified manner.

I am doing the best I can under all the circumstances, but, that has been our lives for some time now.  I occasionally question, whether or not I should have started something like this or not.  I hope you can relate, and I thank you for your patience and understanding.

Based on some recent comments, and on those awaiting answers especially @mijostyn , who now has to depend upon morphine to overcome his pain and suffering awaiting a response to his questions to me.

I considered and determined that I would employ an alternative method to be able to satisfy most, if not all, regarding my posted formulation and my intents.

Although the very original post is VERY CLEAR in every respect, it obviously, was not to some.  It may have been beneficial to some if a prologue of sorts was provided as well at the onset.  This, did now become more clear to me especially when @rhg3  posted (now, post #18) a link to what he described as a "tome", which I did read in its’ entirety,  before responding.  My response to @rhg3  is now recognized as (post #21) in the Forum.  (I state "now" because the Administrator blocked and removed  many postings, and, shall I say, justifiably so.  The Administrator was correct in His or Her actions.)

If all would please take the time to re-read my response to @rhg3 (posts #21), you will note my gratitude and appreciation, and my kind words, along with my applicable position that it differed to my "exclusive design selection method".  Again, another posting written in a very clear manner, however, many had taken this response as an affront to an almost "god-like admired contributor" and in an effrontery manner on my part for saying as much.  I shall refer to this individual in future writing as "Mister Wonderful" to keep things simple.  Now, Please do not make the same mistakes as in the past - that I am suggesting that this individual is "simple", and any associated derogatory implications that may be inferred.  Let us not start again!.  However,  the author of the "tome" (not my word), chimed in with his admirers, and included himself in this "self-admiration", which did not assist the misunderstandings.

An undeclared "war" was essentially initiated both against me and any additional comments I made, but, also against others, that acknowledged the value of my input, and requested further information.  Many deviated immensely from my good intention, and the forum spiraled into abuse, contempt, and further deviated entirely from any truly related matters, and sent the forum down a"rabbit-hole" of absurdities at times.

A clearly presented and simple formulation that contains ONLY THREE ingredients, and, precisely stating the exact amounts of each component to within three decimal place accuracy - upset the entire pre-established "Apple Cart" of understanding for many.

Absolutely Incredible!  And, beyond comprehension.

Since water has already been mentioned many times, and ethanol as well.  Only one ingredient remains that has not been discussed.  And, I would like to mention some attributes about the determined Tergitol before proceeding with my altered and modified approach to this matter for those with apparent difficulties.

And, before I cover some points about the Tergitol in the formulation, I would like to address those who "think" they know everything there is to know about water and ethanol.  And the answer is very simple indeed  -  YOU DON’T!  Otherwise, to this day, thousands of individuals would still not be studying and continuing research concerning water, and, the same applies to ethanol.

Now, to discuss the last and only remaining ingredient - Tergitol 15-S-7.  Tergitol is a Registered Trademark name belonging to The Dow Chemical Company to differentiate a particular class of surfactants from others that they also produce, as well as other Companies.

Tergitol 15-S surfactants are first and foremost "Non-Ionic Surfactants".  Non-Ionic Surfactants are THE ONLY TYPE of surfactant to be used for cleaning records.  Period!

Dow Chemical designed the 15-S series to be very high performance Secondary Alcohol Ethoxylates (S A E) to be used in place of Primary Alcohol Ethoxylates (P A E) and Nonylphenol Ethoxylates (N P E), and Octylphenol Ethoxylates (O P E).  Triton X-100, which was also developed by Dow many years ago, is an example of an (O P E) surfactant.

The "S", or, as written earlier above as, S means it is a Secondary Alcohol.  And, what that means is that there is a Hydroxyl group along the mid-section of the hydrocarbon chain to connect it to the "Hydrophilic Chain" of repeating Ethylene Oxide units.  The "15" was selected because it represents the maximum number of possible "Hydrophobic Hydrocarbon" atoms in the alcohol chain of the series.  Note, it represents the maximum, not necessarily, the exact number.  The actual number may be from 11 to 15 depending upon the specific product.  This is all in accordance with the "designed intentions".  I could be more specific at this point, but, I do not wish to go "deep into the woods", at this point.

The 7 in Tergitol 15-S-7 represents the number of Moles of Ethylene Oxide used to make the end-product, which  relates to the Equilibrium Surface Tension Relationship intended by design again, which is a specifically calculated amount, which is extremely significant.  All of the above mentioned criteria essentially indicates that it is the best and wisest choice to be used on a hard surface substrate as the vinyl records, with which we are most concerned.

In the interim, also keep in mind, that ONLY four types of surfactants exist in the world.  This will be important to remember when I provide my "modified approach presentation" later on.  The four types are:  A.) Anionic.   B.) Cationic.   C.) Non-Ionic.   D.) Amphoteric.    Amphoteric surfactants have both a positive and negative charge on their Hydrophilic end.  The dual charges cancel cancel each other out, that is why they are, at times, referred to as Zwitterionic, and then the pH of of a given solution will determine how the Amphoteric surfactant will behave and react.  This is very interesting Chemistry, but, it will not concern us and record cleaning.  The important thing to remember is that ONLY NON-IONIC SURFACTANTS can be used for cleaning records.  This also will be further explained.  I do NOT intend to get "deep into the woods" with my later adaptation, I intend to "walk around the edges" of the forest and occasionally "peek" into the deep wooded areas, and "label each peek" with a number that can be referred to if someone requires additional information, or, further explanation.

The Dow Chemical Company designed the Tergitol products with Specific intentions.  Dow further designed the Tergitol 15-S with additional specific intentions.  Dow then further designed specific items  within that designed criteria.  All very specialized with specific intended end usages.

And many of you thought that Tergitol 15-S-7 was just "some number designation" that was picked to simply differentiate it from other Tergitols.  If you did, do not feel bad, many, if not most chemists, would easily make a similar incorrect assumption.

When I selected a "Specific Scientific Methodology" and "Determined, and Selected Modalities" within the selected "Specific Scientific Methodology", I designed  a cleaning formulation with water, which then determined the incorporation of ethanol exclusively, and then determined the exact concentration of ethanol, I was left with the challenge to determine the best surfactant to utilize, and then to calculate the precise amount of surfactant to produce "The Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation".  And, to verify the anticipated results to determine if it matched All the Parameters desired, and fulfilled all the criteria required to be certain that it is "The Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation" as intended.  This was all accomplished by "Design" !

I am assured that the formulation is the "Very Best", and, I hope that you would at least attempt to acknowledge my knowledge and my efforts.  And, at some point, be as assured and as confident as I am.

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.

@lewm 
Both noromance and lilgerens are using UltraSonic cleaners and the alcohol was adjusted for such.
You are suggesting using 22% ethanol in an UltraSonic bath?

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.

Since Triton x100 has been mentioned again, I have a question. My amateur mix has been 80% distilled water, 20% isopropyl alcohol and 4 or 5 drops of X100. I mix this in a one liter container.

I have never been sure if I should be using more or less of the X100. Would appreciate any input. I use an Okki Nokki vacum RCM. I rarely clean very dirty records.

"dissolved."

And what is “distilled” Triton X100?

@lewm 

25% in US?

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?

@ljgerens Great stuff. Good to see your methodology aligns with my amateur endeavors in that I use minimal alcohol and keep the time to 5-9 minutes depending on level of soiling.

Distilled water / 39C / a splash of 91% isopropanol / few drops of previously dissolved Triton X100. SpinClean rinse in distilled water. Remove excess water with lint free microfiber cloth and air dry. You're right—once cleaned, they don't need to be done again. 

I just came upon this thread so I figured I would provide my experience with ultrasonic cleaning of vinyl records.

I studied the effect of ultrasonic cleaning of vinyl records back in the late 70s when I built my first ultrasonic record cleaner. In my laboratory, we routinely used ultrasonic cleaners for many laboratory applications. Before I actually cleaned any records in an ultrasonic bath, I wanted to be sure that there were no detrimental effects. To evaluate the effectiveness of ultrasonic cleaning of records and to determine if there were any detrimental effects, I used several analytical techniques. My primary analytical techniques were Photoelectron Spectroscopy (HP 5950A Photoelectron Spectrometer) and optical microscopy (Olympus Laboratory Microscope at about 10,000X). Photoelectron Spectroscopy is sensitive to the top 5 nanometers of a sample surface and can determine the chemical structure of the record surface and the chemical composition of contaminants on the record surface. I also employed several supporting techniques for certain experiments including; Mass Spectrometry (MS), Liquid Chromatography (LC), Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) and Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR).  These experiments were all done on sacrificial records that were cut into 1 cm squares. These 1 cm square samples were analyzed before and after various cleaning procedures. In some cases, the test samples were purposely contaminated with finger prints and various greases and oils to simulate a heavily soiled record.

The variables Investigated include:

Ultrasonic Bath Solution:

1 - Triply distilled water prepared in my laboratory

2- Deionized water  prepared in my laboratory

3 - The addition of either 2.5% or 5% concentration of an alcohol (either isopropyl or ethanol) to each of the above.

Surfactant - I experimented with several different nonionic surfactants which were in use in my laboratory. I settled on several alcohol ethoxylate surfactants with the general structure R(OCH2CH2)nOH where R is the alkyl chain and (OCH2CH2)n is the ethylene oxide (EO) chain. Their chemical structure varied with the length of the alkyl chain and/or the ethylene oxide chain. For reference, the alcohol ethoxylates I used are similar in structure to Dow’s Tergitol 15-S series of surfactants which are secondary alcohol ethoxylates.

Time in the ultrasonic bath - My experiments demonstrated that longer than a few minutes in the ultrasonic bath had little beneficial effect on the overall cleaning process and the possibility of a detrimental effect. Most of the cleaning took place in the first few minutes in the bath. I did observe that extended time in the bath would leach plasticizers, stabilizers or other additives from the bulk of the record test samples and eventually pit the record test sample surface. So I tried to keep the time in the bath to a minimum.

Summary of experimental results:

1. Both trtiply distilled water and deionized water in the ultrasonic bath worked surprisingly well at removing much of the contaminants on the test samples in many cases. Testing on UHV prepared Si wafers in the ultrasonic bath indicated that deionized water did leave some residue while triply distilled water left little to none that could be detected. The small amount of residue left by the deionized water is probably not a major concern.

2. The addition of the surfactant to the ultrasonic bath solution improved the overall contaminant removal efficiency compared to only water.

3. The addition of an alcohol to the ultrasonic bath solution had little effect on the contaminant removal efficiency except in a few select cases. For these few cases, ethanol was slightly better than isopropyl at contaminant removal.

4.  All the surfactants that I tried exhibited similar contaminant removal properties and did a reasonably good job of cleaning heavily soiled record test samples. The biggest difference between the surfactants was the amount of residue left behind after the ultrasonic bath. In general, the lower molecular weight surfactants were found to leave less residue on the record test sample surface and were removed more easily with a distilled water rinse after the ultrasonic bath.

5. I will mention that I did try Dawn detergent just to see how effective it was at cleaning records and whether it had any detrimental effects. Dawn was very good at cleaning the most heavily soiled record test samples but left considerable residue which required an extended rinsing to remove. I would only recommend Dawn detergent for heavily soiled records and not for regular use. Dawn does contain as many as 17 ingredients, some of which may cause issues with records after long term exposure.

6. When I finally set up my ultrasonic cleaner for my records, I only used distilled water and the appropriate amount of the alcohol ethoxylate surfactant in the bath. I typically had it set at about 2 RPM and a run time of about 6 to 9 mins. That corresponds to actual exposure times of ~ 2 to 3 minutes (~1/3 of the record surface is in the bath at a given time). For my setup, between 1 to 3 RPM worked fine. The 6 min time was for my records purchased new which had no obvious contamination and the 9 min time was for previously owned records that exhibited some surface contamination. For records with significant visible contamination, I would add some ethanol (2.5 to 5%) to the bath solution.

The spindle assembly on my DIY ultrasonic cleaner could hold up to 10 records and had a variable speed motor attached.  The assembly rode on a track with a lock nut so the spindle assembly could be raised and lowered into the bath. I actually employed 2 ultrasonic baths both fitted with a track to attach the spindle assembly. The second bath was only used with distilled water. Primarily I used this second  bath to spin rinse records that had been cleaned in the first ultrasonic bath. In some cases I did a followup ultrasonic cleaning with distilled water in the second bath for heavily soiled records. After a distilled water rinse in the second bath, I would raise the spindle assembly and spin dry the records at a faster rate. This left no visible water marks on the record surface and only some residual water droplets on the record outer edges which I removed with a clean room wipe.

I used this ultrasonic cleaner for over 30 years with excellent results and never any issues with my records. Even new records exhibited an improvement in SQ after ultrasonic cleaning. Typically once a record is ultrasonic cleaned, it will need no further ultrasonic cleaning if handled properly. The total time to mount, ultrasonic clean, rinse and spin dry 10 records was typically about 20 minutes. Heavily soiled records might take a few minutes longer.

To All!  Please recall I am away, out of Town, with my wife at Hospital. Possible one or two more overnights.  This is regarding my wife's condition not mine.  Uncertain of timing.

Will get back A.S.A.P.  Already, have prepared statements.  Need to be home to do, and I, obviously, need to tend to other matters of priority first.

Till later.  Hopefully not too long.

Thank you for your understanding again.

@engineears 
Reminds me of Eugenie Scott's Gish Gallop. 

Didn’t Steve Bannon coin the phrase, "Flood the zone with $H!†" to refer to spraying out an intense amount of information (see: dissembling)? Specifically in the hope that highly rational people will judge the crank too crazy to deal with and leave them be. In Bannon’s case he wanted to exhaust those who would contest his claims as well as lower the intellectual defenses of those he hopes to persuade. I have no idea why I’m thinking of this just now.

Dear Wizzard, I have been following this thread for some time now, and my question to you is would you describe your cleaning process from beginning to end and listing all of the components you use? I have ordered an ultrasonic cleaning system and would appreciate your thoughts pro and con on using your solution in the ultrasonic? A great bit of reading, and thank you to all who have contributed!

Best,

Phil

@wizzzard 

I had an Oracle back in 1978 I think it was. It is a beautiful thing. Back then the suspension was not well sorted out and it was unstable. I wound up selling it I can't remember if I went back to an LP 12 from there or into the SOTA. Once I had the SOTA Sapphire I was in love. Nothing phased it. Since then Oracle has made great strides and I could easily envision getting another. I am however very happy with the Sota Cosmos. It is not as pretty as the Oracle but I can't do without vacuum clamping. It takes pitch consistency to a whole other level. The Oracle's reflex clamping is a close second although you have to be a little careful with 200 gm records. I have seen them crack around the spindle hole. Do you have a spindle hole drill? Do you ever have records that are a tight fit?

I think in order to get anything done we should take this over to the message section. I will set it up if you are agreeable.

Dear Wizzard,
I've also been using the high-quality vinyl cleaning services from the company established near Glasgow, and they operate in this way.
1. They have three align of 3 washing/cleaning machines which can also up to 5 records each time.
2. The washing is in 3 stages: In the 1st stage, the five records run for 5 minutes in an ultrasonic bath with tap water and a solution of dishwasher liquid. The concentration of dishwasher liquid depends on how dirty the vinyl is. Then the hub with the records is moved to the next machine in the line, that rinses the records in tap water. Afterwards, the hub is moved to the 3rd machine that rinses the vinyl records in an ultrasonic bath in the demineralised water.
3. From what I can understand, the process is made so that every 5 minutes, a set of 5 records exits clean. 
4. So, any dishwasher solution is good enough. You can use demineralised water if you don't have good-quality tap water.
I've asked why they don't use the demineralised water for the whole process, and they said that this is a bunch of nonsense because any chemical added to the water, without a final dipper rinsing in clean water, will leave some residues in the vinyl's groove. This comes from someone who does it professionally for different customers and works for profit. 

 @lewm 

Any humor and 10 mg morphine are greatly appreciated.

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

@wizzzard 

i am waving to remind everyone that I am here, in a lot of pain, waiting. 

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.

To All!

In moments I am off to Hospital for the day.

Tomorrow, we are leaving later to a distant Hospital again for my wife.

I will be back when I can.

@bdp24 

Who knew, another item in common.  I was given a (at that time) a brand new VPI-HW17 Vacuum Record Cleaning Machine from an individual from whom I had purchased other items from.

He was moving to China to make his fortune.  Nevertheless, that is the machine I use for cleaning all my records with my "Very Best Record Cleaning Formulation", obviously, that I presented an the beginning of this forum.

Next, you will be informing me that your wife is an Immunologist, and her first Name is Valerie.  And, that she prefers not to be addressed as Doctor, as my wife does not as well.

We need to stop this and get back to "Bitching" -  we do not need to disappoint the "others" much further! 

Regards,

@wizzzard: As far as I know there was no connection between AR and either Watts or Discwasher. But back in the 60’s and 70’s there weren’t the number of record cleaning products available that there are now. The only other serious cleaner---and it was a VERY serious one---was the Keith Monks RCM (the machine that used a suction arm and thread, still available. Audiogon member Bill Hart @whart has one), which is made in England (as were the Watts products). J. Gordon Holt reviewed it in Stereophile, but it was very expensive.

And then there was---and still is---the Decca carbon fiber brush, but it’s intended use is to merely removed dust from LP’s, not deep clean. Similar brushes are available from many other companies, including Audioquest and Hunt, the latter with a velvet pad between its’ two rows of bristles.

I bought my VPI HW-19 from Brooks Berdan, who was also an Oracle dealer. He in fact came up with the famous mod for the Delphi (eventually incorporated into the table by Oracle themselves): a round block of stainless steel bolted onto the bottom of the table’s floating sub-chassis, done in order to better balance its’ mass. Brooks had training in automobile race cars, and knew a lot about suspensions. With the Berdan mod installed the Delphi's sub-chassis bounced straight up and down; without it not so. He sold a lot of Oracles, often with Eminent Technology linear-tracking air-bearing arms mounted on them. Brooks had a Keith Monks RCM in his shop, and a VPI HW-17 RCM. I bought my HW-17 from him, a great machine imo.

@bdp24 

And here you thought that we would never have something in common.  And shared the same interests in as well.

And, by the way, my original lengthy reply to @jasonbourne71  also mentioned the Watts and Discwasher.  Do you remember if this was some joint promotional relationship with the AR Turntables, or, was it just a coincidence that these products were available at the same time?  My memory is now blank about the relationship.  Perhaps you remember.  Just curious.

I just fell for the Oracle Delphi.  I am certain the Design played a significant role in my original choice, and, since that time I never considered anything else.  When Oracle made available a "Kit" to upgrade the Mk III to a Mk V, I was at their facility within days to pick up my kit in then Sherbrooke, Quebec.

Anyway, thank you for your understanding! 

@wizzzard: Ah yes, confusion clarified! The bottle of D3 you received was included with the Discwasher record cleaning brush, which was introduced in about 1972 if I remember correctly, though it may have been ’71. I adopted the Discwasher as my choice of LP cleaner, replacing the Watts Disc Preener I had been using since ’68.

I too had the original AR XA table, bought new in 1969. And I also bought the improved ES-1 when it was introduced in the mid-80’s, mine without a tonearm, mounting on it instead a Rega 300. That table served me well until I got a VPI HW-19, the first table I was really satisfied with.

@mijostyn 

Does this mean you are waving Goodby!, or, Hello!.

It is very important to me.

Do you have no comprehension the relationships between England and France over the Centuries. Have you forgotten all your History lessons.

1066.

Once again, we need an ignore button.

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.

@mijostyn 👋

As much as it may not be wanted, but at this stage not going to be obtainable to have.

This Thread is a being used by a proportion of contributors, including myself, as an    "in conjunction with content", to be used as an addition to other info attained for the purposes of Cleaning/Purification of a the Hard Medium Vinyl.

Prior to this Thread I had abandoned all previous used methods, which I substituted with the PAVCR Manual Cleaning Method, using the recommended volumes of substances for the mixtures to produce solutions to enable the cleaning to be achieved.   

This Thread focuses intently on a particular solution, made up from a mixture of very specific volumes of the recommended substances.

The Solution being presented has now brought about a situation where some fully comprehend the ideas behind it, as it has been a type of solution already put to use by a limited few contributors to the thread.

Others like myself do not fully grasp the reason for the specifics associated with the substances needed for mixture to produce the proposed Solution.

Speaking for myself I have a trust in the content and accept it to be a Solution that is optimised to perform a particular role, especially for penetrating deep into the Vinyl's groove and being able to release micron sized contamination.

Having this as a Solution to be at hand and used in conjunction with other clearly defined and easily understood methods that can be used, as advised in the PAVCR from Neil Antin, will in my view only add to the positive experiences that are attached to using Neil's advisories, which have proved to be extremely successful.

When it comes to cleaning Vinyl and achieving that moment, when it is realised, that a long owned LP, that was once relegated to sentimental ownership only, is now once again usable, without any concerns for it when being used as a replay medium.

All Solutions proposed to be capable of achieving this are met with a curiosity and attraction.     

@bdp24 

Regarding your post 17 June 2023 at 6:28 PM

Know that this clearly relates to an earlier post on 10 June 2023 at 9:24 PM, and I recall that post vividly, and have been meaning to respond as soon as I could.  If you can recall some other postings to others, I am limited in my functioning abilities.  The significant delays being related to keyboarding my responses.  Which also relates to previous statements made that I often write my extended responses by hand, and key them in at a later time.

Such was the case when I was responding to @jasonbourne71  who had several questions.  I started to respond in a handwritten to him when I realized that it was far too lengthy and I eliminated significant portions of my intended response.  In the process I managed to convolute the story, and in my haste to at least get back to him, I failed to notice my errors until you so kindly pointed it out to me.  Afterwards, I. wanted to concentrate on @mijostyn  and others to respond to them, and get to you afterwards.  I am still sorry that he @mijostyn  has only received a small portion of my prepared response.

Since you bring this up at this time, I will deviate from the schedule I have prepared regarding my order of responses.  Remember, I am functioning with limitations.

Yes, I did purchase my first AR-XA turntable in December 1969.  I was not able to listen to the table until either December 1970 or January 1971, I only recall that it was around the Christmas period.  I did not purchase the 10 additional AR-XA turntables until late 1971.  Buy the way, the first table purchased was damaged in a move, that is why I later purchased other turntables.

Afterwards, I was captivated by the AR ES-1, and I had purchased a total of three of those.  The First, was one of the very first available, and the final AR ES-1 in July 1989 which has the aluminum tonearm board and is fitted with the AudioQuest Tonearm and Audioquest MC Cartridge, as it was supplied as a package..  When I purchased the AR-XA turntables I was given small case of something called D 3.  It came in a red plastic bottle with white writing.  When I purchased the AR ES-1 turntables is when I was supplied with a small case again of the product made by the LAST Company.

Afterwards, I became committed to the Oracle Delphi.  My first Oracle Delphi was the MK III.  I have owned 6 Oracle turntables in my lifetime.  I presently have 4, one is boxed away, and the other three are in use all affixed with SME V tonearms.  Two AR-XA are boxed away, and two AR ES-1's are also boxed away.

So that is the complete story, and in the intended chronological order.

And, I sincerely do thank you for pointing out the mistake made, otherwise, it would have gone un-noticed.

I believe that I also stated that this is my very first evolvement in any forum, and that error was made at the very beginning.

Thank you again.

@cleeds 

Regarding your post 17 June 2023 at 6:06 PM

The PURPOSE of this (my) forum is clearly stated in my very first posting.  It is located at the very beginning.  It is also automatically reposted at the very top of every subsequent page thereafter.

You are only required to read it to understand.  There is nothing to question about its' intent, you simply need to read it!  If, at that point you still do not understand, there is nothing further I can do to assist you.

Thank you for your expressed interest.

@wizzzard

"what is so amazing?"

Your quotes:
"I have stated, and stated frequently. I DO NOT CARE what anyone does or uses. This forum is not intended as a debate. If you wish to debate find another forum, or, start one of you own.
And I ask everyone, if you have opinions, to voice their opinions elsewhere."

Might I suggest the best way for you to get the Self Gratification you so obviously crave, is to read your "facts" to yourself while in the shower.

THIS Forum exists for the EXACT purpose of Debate AND Opinion.
"

@bdp24

Totally agree... also other mistakes... and when he makes it clear " Distilled Water ONLY. Do not use deionized" and "Check labeling to be certain that it is distilled and not deionized" but can’t/won’t explain why and says he doesn’t know what RO/DI water is... that’s a big hit in the credibility dept.

"That I for one am sticking with Neil Antin’s formula for ultrasonic cleaning: Tergitol 15-S-9 surfactant (and in some cases Alconox Liquinox detergent) added to plain ol’ distilled water. For used LP’s I do a pre-cleaning in the kitchen sink"

Also use the same... Liquinox for the records needing extra cleaning first, then follow with Tergitol solution...then filtered RO/DI water rinse...

How did I get dragged into this? ;-)

What I DID say is:

1- @wizzzard stated he had used Last Record Preservative back in 1969. I offered the fact that Last was not developed and put on the market (by Walter Davies, owner of a great high end shop in the ’70’s---Audio Arts, in Livermore, CA) until the early 1980’s. I didn’t say so in print, but that put a chink in wizzzard’s credibility (or perhaps just memory. Who amongst us hasn’t gotten a date wrong?).

2- That I for one am sticking with Neil Antin’s formula for ultrasonic cleaning: Tergitol 15-S-9 surfactant (and in some cases Alconox Liquinox detergent) added to plain ol’ distilled water. For used LP's I do a pre-cleaning in the kitchen sink.

@wizzzard 

Pardon me, kind sir.

@rich121 

Your post 17 June 2023 at 5:47 PM

What is so amazing?