Record Cleaning Machine Fluid

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

Dougdeacon

My experience is that AIVS went too far. Its rinsability is clearly inferior to RRL's. It left audible residue that took multiple rinse/vac cycles to remove.

When using my VPI, I found that if I have a strong light shining on the record, and I watch the run out area, I can see when all the flud is picked up. It's usually more than the 2 revolutions that VPI suggests.
If you're using a Loricraft I can see how you might have a problem since you only get one pass per cycle.

I have used the AIVS stuff myself along with three of my compadres who have about 6,000 records to clean between the four of us. We keep alot and sell some on E-Bay. Our results were about the same as the Doug Deacons. I guess that makes seven of us then who don't care for the stuff if Paul Frumkin will give audiophile labels to us. I been spinning vinyl for over thiry years and have gone from cheap stuff to a very expensive rig to a sensible priced rig and I can hear the difference between a record that has been left with a bad after taste from cleaning and one that has not. Does that make me an audiophile?

One of my guys read about the whole starting of this fluid on this forum and that record of what was said and claimed and argued does not seem to match closely with what the current distributor posts on that site.

We had been using a home brew that still does a good job but we had some that had mold and greasy finger prints and stuff that we all see. We tried the AVIS enzyme stuff and the record looked clean and pops and ticks were mostly gone, but it sounded like somebody threw a towel over the tweeters and was holding the woofer cone with their finger. It consistently took three or four passes with a VPI 16.5 and flooding it with distilled water before the sound started to clear up. We tried the Bugtussle stuff on advice and it rinses off with no problems. I would not really use either of these things on records unless they could not be saved otherwise and I could not afford a different copy but if I had to I would use the Bugtussle because it is so much easier to use and rinse off. We threw the rest of the AVIS stuff away.

Can cleaning fluids permanently alter the sonic qualities
of vinyl? which ones cause more 'damage' which ones cause
the least 'damage' to a record