Walker prelude vs. Audio Intelligent

 
To quote myself from an earlier thread:

I spoke with Lloyd today about the Step 4 final rinse and was told it is composed of ultra-pure water, a teeny bit of alcohol, and 1% of a secret ingredient. It replaces the second pure water rinse in the Prelude regimen and Lloyd suggested it made a 10%-15% improvement.

I've tried a bunch of different cleaners over the years, though not the AIVS. And I trust my ears. I can tell the Walker is the best I've tried because its results are clearly audible.

After using the original Prelude regimen for many months, I then tried the new Step 4 Final Rinse. It was better than I expected and again, results were clearly audible. After rinsing records previously cleaned with Prelude, results were not subtle. I heard less surface noise, but more impressive was the real, substantive increase in harmonic and overtone information. Record after tediously cleaned record, I continue to be impressed with the Prelude system.
 
Tim
 

... but AI seems to present less of a problem in terms of what is left on the vinyl at the end of the process than step4 of Prelude (although there appears to be a method to Lloyds madness). Any chemists have an idea as to whether a small amount of alcohol in last application can lead to any dryout or breakdown of vinyl?

Please excuse, I don't mean to be contentious but I'm not following. What is it that AI leaves less of? I thought you had not tried either cleaner?

Tim
 

If you have LLoyd's ear Jtimothya, I'd love to hear the theory as to why the final rinse is something other than pure filtered de-ionized H2O. What's the upside and downside (if any) to additional ingredients?

The final step of the Prelude system had been 2 pure water rinses. I found that very effective, and inexpensive, especially if you buy reagent grade water in bulk. (I'm using NERL.)

As I understand it Lloyd's rationale for the composition of his new Step 4 rinse is grounded in hearing results of its use. As I noted above I hear less surface noise which I attribute to a *cleaner* record rather than otherwise. I attribute hearing more music information to the stylus more directly riding the ridges of a now cleaner groove. When I bought the additional Step 4, Lloyd remarked 'listen for yourself'.

So, to respond to your query about "why is it what it is" finds an answer suggesting "because it sounds better".

Is there a downside to the specific formulation of Prelude Step 4? Since I have been using it I find no evidence of that. My stylus certainly stays clean. This is not to say it has no downside, but it is hard to prove a negative over a very long time period.

While chemist's speculation might be of some value, if someone has access to an electron microscope that might prove more definitive of physical change.

In the meantime I'm accepting that: a) there are no guarantees, and b) I'm willing to trade whatever theoretical risk there may be for the beneficial results. **At this time I believe there is no more risk in using Prelude than there is in actually playing the record.**

Wrt mold release agents, my understanding is that the modern vinyl press does not use such a compound, with vinyl released from the previously heated polished mirror-like surface of a stamper by cooling it. For older records, the most effective product I've found is MicroCare Premier which I vaguely recall employs Dupont Vertrel as its solvent.
 
Tim