Record Cleaning Machine Fluid

1. It is my understanding, Doug, that your experience with AI was limited to the beta testing period, and the formulas have been greatly refined and improved since then. I believe we talked about this a few months ago.

Your understanding is incomplete, Paul. You sent me two lots of AI, one from the beta test and a new one several months later - after we discussed the foaming and rinse-ability issues. Both lots behaved essentially the same way.

If the formula was changed a THIRD time you never told me and I admit I haven't tried it. Are you putting version numbers on the bottles? ;-)

***

2. Out of all the audiophiles who have used AI, only three ever complained of difficulty in rinsing it.

It's good to see you admitting the problem. Out of all the audiophiles who have used RRL, exactly zero have ever complained of difficulty in rinsing it. :-)

***

When M. Fremer did his shoot-out, he personally called me and said AI could remove grunge and things no other product could, and that he detected NO sonic signature at all.

So what? I called you and told you about problems. Do you only give credence to those who offer news you want to hear? If Fremer had a different experience that's okay with me, but it doesn't change mine.

***

Also, Jim Pendleton and his company Osage Audio recently became the sole distributor for the AI products. As part of his due diligence, Jim had an experienced chem lab check the LPs after they had been cleaned using the AI three-step process. The chem lab found NO residue.

Again, so what? A lab test doesn't change my experience either. When a cleaning fluid twice leaves foam on my brushes (even the rinsing brush), I don't need a lab test to know there's a residue.

BTW, why wasn't this chem lab testing done BEFORE the product was offered to the public.

***

3. It doesn't really make a lot of sense to claim that a water-based product's beading-up is a "carefully selected design feature" because beading-up is a natural property of water that contains no surfactant. It's like saying that canned air has oxygen as a carefully selected design feature.

If the canned air contains a non-naturally-occuring percentage of oxygen, or a cleaning fluid has a surface tension different from pure water, then it IS a design feature.

The designer of a cleaning fluid should seek to achieve an effective balance between cleaning ability and rinse-ability. More surfactants increase the former but impair the latter. Maximum effectiveness requires a balance, which requires the right mix of water and cleaning agents.

The designer of the fluids I prefer did that analysis, using a chemist's understanding of chemistry. You didn't do that analysis, presumably because you have a only lawyer's understanding of chemistry. You relied on beta testers, which is fine, but at least three of whom (by your own account) are not satisfied with the results. I'm one of them.

***
Regarding RCM's: my Loricraft gets a record completely dry in one pass. Every single time. Does your VPI do that? Spare us the red herrings.

***

Paul, a large number of users are very happy with AIVS. What are you seeking? A monopoly? That is very short-sighted of you. I tried your product. Twice. I didn't like it as well as a competitor's product. Twice. Suck it up and move on.

Doug

stevecham, great post. Bottomline the customer is pleased with the product results. Results usually win out over hype in the longrun!

If the canned air contains a non-naturally-occuring percentage of oxygen, or a cleaning fluid has a surface tension different from pure water, then it IS a design feature.

Well, what's pure water?

ASTM standards I, II, III, IV ? Too wide a margin for its parameters. Wonder how surface tension changes as we go up or down...

Nuclear grade? All nukes have different standards, even those owned by the same power companies.

Nuclear lab grade? Now we're getting somewhere. Wait! It doesn't last too long because exposure to air makes CO2 dissolve in water and change it's pH. Shit.

The safe way is to use a good soap and rinse it thoroughly. At least that's how I take showers (don't want incomplete cleanup nor sud deposits in hard to reach places). That's how I like to clean records, too. Hell, I even put a few drops of Purple Death in my heavy duty home brewed cleaning solution!

***

Using a loricraft I have found the following works well for me:

0. For a record that I have not yet cleaned, new or old
1. If really dirty (usually old) start with RRL Deep Clean, then vac
2. Spread Enzyme Solution (I'm using Bugglewhatever...)
3. Let the enzyme solution sit for a minute or two
4. L'art Du Son step: clean forwards and back, then vac
5. Rinse w Double Distilled Water then vac
6. Rinse w RRL Wash, then vac

For what it's worth I find the enzyme step has made a big difference since I added it. Detergent step 4 appears necessary but must be rinsed well. I am not sure yet if I need to do both 5 and 6. I am still experimenting. Safe to say that skipping 5 *might* be ok but time will tell.

I find that RRL is removed from the vinyl better than distilled H20 i.e. record is dryer. I have to be careful in speading the RRL since as noted, it tends to bead up. If I am not careful in spreading, it will fly off the record onto my loricraft!

For rinsing and solution make up my H20 is quite pure. It measures <2ppm per a Hanna meter. However the RRL rinse is always my last step.

Walkers' recommendation to make the enzyme solution in small batches is a good one. Proteins (which enzymes are) denature (fall apart) in solution and lose activity. I made a mistake making a big batch of the buggle-stuff but life is learning from experience...

Each solution has it's own brush. Fluids are stored in amber glass bottles with glass eyedrop. 1-2 eyedrop of fluid is placed carefully on the record and spread with the appropriate brush. Spray bottles did not work for me - fluid got all over the place and on the record label. I also like glass bottles, mostly cause they look cool. I use to worry about plastics leaching into my solutions but you have to understand that I am an audiophile...

Consider also that I am use both a conventional TT/TA/Cart and an ELP (laser player). The ELP has positive attributes but playing dirty records is not one of them. The ELP is an excellent measure of how clean your vinyl is... you will hear it if it's not!

When I follow my system, developed by trial and trial, I can get dead quiet (occ pop/tick) vinyl with the laser. Omit a step and I pay an aural price. Again, the enzyme step has proven to be particularly important. So mostly I am doing step 2,3 (yes letting it sit makes a diff!), 4, vac, rinse, vac. Note that I don't rinse or vac between the enzyme step and the detergent step. It does not seem to make an audible difference. I do have to be careful not to put too much fluid on the record though.

This takes more than a few minutes but the final result is well worth it to me.

BTW, I have some very old beat up jazz records that I love - in some cases Klymas treatment has helped reduce surface noise to a more reaonable level. When necessary I use it after cleaning. Stuff is expensive though.

Once the record is cleaned this way for subsequent listening I just use RRL Wash, vac and play. Storing records carefully - plastic sleves with open end inside the album cover - keeps the records clean for months. I cannot yet speak to years. If I use the regular TT I can just dry brush with good results.

Another comment: try as I may I cannot make a home brew cleaner that works as well as RRL. And I have tried. Given the comments here I would like to evaluate Walkers' product (he's the man) and the AI stuff. When I do I'll post my experience.

Nice thread. I find record cleaning interesting - some chemistry, some physics, some bio. Mikey would have done us all a favor by taking this more seriously - but we love him anyway!

Doug, I've not found a product yet which everyone prefers to all others. Having a choice is a great thing, and I support your having a preferred brand. I do not doubt that RRL is a good product that many people like.

To suggest that a little company like Audio Intelligent is seeking a monopoly is plain silly and far beneath your intelligence level. And yea for your Loricraft, but I don't have a VPI. I built my own RCM--it's identical to the one I built for John Grado. The suction power of an RCM is highly relevant to a discussion of how well cleaning fluids are removed from vinyl; it's no red herring, as you suggest.

Doug, if you followed the beta testing thread, then you know that I experimented first with various products, and then with the ratios of the best products, for more than three years before offering the beta product for testing. To say I relied on beta testers to make the product is therefore quite misleading.

I have never denied that three people, including you, didn't like the product; this is not the first time I've acknowledged that, and you know it. But BFD, Doug (see the second sentence, above). I'm sorry if my citing Fremer's experience upset you. But the fact is that every reviewer has liked the product, and most have said it's the best they've ever tried. And by the way, how would you know whether no audiophile ever complained about RRL's rinseability? That's an absurd statement. However, I do think you should continue stating that three people didn't like the Audio Intelligent products. Out of what is approaching 1,000 sales, that's the best advertising I can think of.

Finally, you mention that I'm a lawyer and suggest that, on that basis, the products were not properly chemically engineered. Actually, I'm a research lawyer, and in my nearly 28 years in the practice, I've had to learn a number of technical fields of study. Perhaps on a more basic level, have I ever suggested that you don't know much because you buy furniture for a living?

Peace, brother,
Paul