I clean new LPs as well. MoFi gets pretty high quality results from RTI- I suspect they have some extra steps in place on QC, though generally, RTI is OK (aside from the Classic Records 200 gram problems which really had to do with the thickness and profile). Some 'new' records come dirty--some of the plants have been mentioned here on more than one occasion. I don't see a downside to cleaning a new record as long as you are doing no harm in the cleaning process. I often think the biggest problem for people using cleaning agents (and I include those that are pre-made solutions intended for record cleaning) is failing to get the contaminated fluid off the record. This can make a "cleaned" record worse than one that is left untouched.
Users like @The FRiNgE suggests there is possible harm to wetting and putting cleaning solutions on new records as it might increase surface noise. While I encountered this after first using my Okki it seemed to mostly be static and go away with proper rinsing.
I think cleaning new LPs really makes a difference. I never cleaned my new vinyl before cause I was lazy. This changed recently when I got my Klaudio which makes the process really effortless.
There is no possibility of doing this if you know what you are doing and cleaning vinyl properly. Having wet cleaned about 5000-6000 over the past 14-15 years and refined my cleaning process over the years I can tell you this: some new vinyl will play quite well and the cleaning process will result in marginal improvement. With other new vinyl the improvement after a decent cleaning will be dramatic. I came to this conclusion many years ago after almost trashing a new purchase that sounded awful, literally awful. Following a proper cleaning the record sounded remarkably good. The improvement was dramatic. But this is a hit and miss situation and I certainly will not say that all new vinyl will sound dramatically better post cleaning. But that one record was so dramatic that it solidified in my mind the necessity to clean all new vinyl before it permanently enters my collection. That's not to say that I don't play uncleaned new vinyl as soon as I receive it, as I do sometimes in moments of excitement. But ultimately they get cleaned after the first play as most of the time there is a benefit and sometimes it is very significant. Will ultimately depend on a number of factors of which I am totally unsure: cleanliness of pressing facility, possible (this is contentious) mold release agents, vinyl formulation, etc. I don't honestly know what the main contributing factors are. But I know what I've heard, pre and post cleaning with some new records.
You can't have perfect vinyl forever when you are dragging a diamond across it to play it. It's only perfect once.
I’d like to take a step back and discuss what it takes to make a vinyl record sound its best. This content is a contracted version of the material presented during my Master Class seminar at AXPONA 2018. First, we need to adopt a “process mentality” and change our thinking that an all-in-one machine or cleaning solutions alone will deliver the ideal results. Highly effective record cleaning requires a multiple step discipline to get the best results. For our process to be effective, we need to define our goals: 1. First, we do no harm. Process must be inert to the physical properties of the record. 2. We must remove all contaminants. This includes: a. Oils (from fingertips) b. Saliva (from blowing dust off of records) c. Dust (from air, attracted by static surface charges) d. Cleaning fluid residue e. Manufacturing residue (“mold releases”)3. We must leave no residue 4. Eliminate static charges The good news is to achieve these goals, neither magic nor highly complicated explanations are needed. Careful application of a little chemistry and physics, in the right order, will deliver very good results. Next - a breakdown of the process.
Perfect Vinyl Forever was built around a process. Two processes, actually. I’ll generically discuss the processes, then provide details on how best to perform them. This is the basic process for records in new or like new condition without deeply embedded contaminants: Step 1: Physical removal of surface dust and paper fragments. Step 2: Mechanically and chemically clean the record. You can use vacuum-based record cleaning machines (VRCM) or ultrasonic cavitation-based record cleaning machines (URCM). Warning – Never wet a record unless you have a URCM or VRCM to remove the moisture and contaminants. Second Warning – Never use detergents or other cleaning solutions on a record unless you very thoroughly rinse using a URCM or VRCM.Step 3: Mechanically rinse the records. Use ultra-pure water with a VRCM or URCM. Multiple passes yield better results. Step 4: Thoroughly dry the records. Air drying in a rack is OK but filtered warm air at a gentle flow rate is better. Step 5: Protect the records with good handling procedures: A – Place clean record in a new anti-static inner sleeve B – Use a dry brush to remove surface contaminants before playing C – Don’t blow dust off your record D – Don’t touch the grooved surface with bare fingers E – Don’t use wet cleaning solutions unless you use the whole process F – Promptly place records in the inner sleeve when done playing If you deeply clean your records once and follow proper handling procedures, you shouldn’t have to repeat the deep cleaning process again! If your record is older with built up contaminants or has a lot of residue from cleaning fluids, we recommend the following process: Step 1: Physical removal of surface dust and paper fragments. Step 2: Pre-treat records with enzyme activated cleaning solution. Step 3: Mechanically rinse records. Step 4: Mechanically and chemically clean the record. You can use vacuum based record cleaning machines (VRCM) or ultrasonic cavitation based record cleaning machines (URCM). Step 5: Mechanically rinse the records. Use ultra-pure water with a VRCM or URCM. Multiple passes yield better results. Step 6: Thoroughly dry the records. Step 7: Protect the records with good handling procedures (see step 5 above) Next – best practices for each step.
C – Don’t blow dust off your record Why not? I often thought of getting one of those Rocket Blowers that are meant to clean camera lenses and use that to remove surface dust before playing....
Correct. Don’t blow dust off your records using your breath. You are very likely to deposit viscous saliva, full of nasty organic materials.
Cleaning new records absolutely makes a difference. A brand new RSD album I brought home had some loud-ish clicks on it. I was worried these were pressing flaws, but I sent it through an ultrasonic bath and then a rinse in a Knosti Discomat filled with purified water (the ultrasonic bath has some cleaning agents in the water). On the next play the clicks were gone. By the way, the records looked clean before the first play.
Here are some thoughts on best practices and suggestions for some of the steps above. Step 1: There is a number of ways to remove surface dust. I have good results with a brush with carbon fiber bristles and a very light touch. In my case, since this is the beginning of a multi-step process, I also use a microfiber towel damped with ultra-pure water to remove light surface contaminants. An air puffer has been suggested and makes good sense. I’ve also used filtered compressed air as well. To support our commercial cleaning system, I’m developing a spray system that will rinse 8 records while in our carrier, but that is not reasonable for most home cleaners. Step 2: Pre-clean with enzymes. A thorough discussion of enzymes will follow in the next section. Step 3: Mechanically rinse the records. I like using a wand style VRCM with ultra-pure water. I can use as much water as I need to thoroughly remove all enzyme activated cleaning fluid and loosened debris. I use a squirt bottle and really dredge the surface of the album, use the brush to disperse the water across the entire surface, then use the vacuum wand to extract all the fluids from the record. I find the more generous I am with the amount of ultra-pure water, the better the results. Step 4: Mechanically and chemically clean the record. A cleaning agent is needed to effectively break down contaminants on a record. If you have a consumer URCM that recommends only using distilled water, you are only rinsing your records, not truly cleaning them. A VRCM can deliver good results but you’ll need to apply more hands-on time to get good results. Use dedicated wands and brushes for each step where you use your VRCM (enzyme deep clean, clean, rinse) to avoid cross-contamination. Step 5: Mechanically rinse the record. A URCM that only uses purified water works well. A VRCM (wand or point-nozzle) also will work well with a little more time and effort. The more diligent you are with rinsing, the better your records will sound.
Here are contributing factors and suggestions that can help you achieve optimal results. Water – The more thorough your regimen, the greater the impact water purity has on the results. If I didn’t have to install an expensive mixed-bed RODI system for cleaning records, I certainly wouldn’t have made the investment. But the results of my testing determined I needed ultra-pure water for every step of my process, so the investment was warranted. You can take control of your water purity and determine what works best for you. The Ohaus ST20C-A conductivity pen meter for roughly $80 on Amazon will very accurately measure the purity of your water (resolution of 0.1 microsiemens). With this information, you can do your own testing and make a judgement call if you need something better than distilled water. Ultrasonic Record Cleaning Machines – If you consulted with manufacturers of ultrasonic cleaning equipment other than record cleaning machines, they recommend using detergents and surfactants. It greatly enhances the cleaning action of cavitation. The reason many URCM manufacturers do not recommend cleaning agents has to do with the limitations of their equipment and nothing to do with best practices. However, if you do have a URCM that uses detergents, it does not rinse the record after cleaning, leaving a residue on the record. So, to support the ideal process, you should have: A URCM that uses detergents for cleaning and a second URCM that uses pure water for rinsing A URCM that uses detergents for cleaning and a VRCM with pure water for rinsing A VRCM for cleaning with detergents and a URCM that uses pure water for rinsing Parts Cleaner Based URCM – A popular approach to cleaning records is to buy an ultrasonic parts cleaner and buy or build a system to suspend and rotate the records through the bath. This can be highly effective, but many factors will contribute to your success. Most focus on ultrasonic frequency and wattage. While important, this is misleading. Even and consistent cavitation action in the tank is the most important characteristic. Unfortunately, this can’t be distilled down to a simple specification. Frequency is similar to the grit of sandpaper. 28 kHz is very coarse, like 100 grit. 40 kHz is moderate, like 400 grit. 80 kHz is fine, like 800 grit. 132 kHz is very fine, like 1200 grit and 170 kHz is like 2000 grit for polishing. They all are good at specific tasks, but if misapplied, will either be ineffective or destructive. 28 kHz will easily erode metal and therefore not suitable for cleaning records. 40 kHz is popular but can easily erode soft plastics like PVC. 80 kHz is fine enough for safe cleaning of vinyl, but quality units can be hard to find. But even 80 kHz can damage vinyl if you are not very careful. Higher frequencies than 80 kHz can be hard to find for home use. 40 kHz is a popular general-purpose parts cleaning frequency. Most inexpensive units have either one or two transducers. This generally results in uneven coverage with hot spots that will damage vinyl. More expensive units will have additional transducers and higher quality generators. But unless you can carefully measure and adjust the intensity of the transducers, I would stay away from 40 kHz machines unless they are of very high quality from a reputable brand. At PVF, we built our own ultrasonic tanks using nominal 80 kHz transducers (87 kHz at resonance). We took a cue from the medical instrument cleaning industry. We have six transducers in each tank for very high coverage, but we drive them at a low or moderate intensity. This is why the wattage of an ultrasonic system is an ineffective measure of how well they will work for cleaning records. We use 300 watt generators but only run them at 1/3rd their capacity for a total of 120 watts. This results in high density, moderate intensity cavitation which is very save for soft plastics like vinyl and yields excellent cleaning results. You can test your ultrasonic cleaning equipment to see if it will damage records. On Amazon, you can buy a blank record, meaning, a 12” vinyl record without a groove. This is commonly used to set anti-skate adjustments on your tonearm. If cavitation damage or burn is happening, it will be visible on the perfectly flat, shiny surface of the blank record. If you can adjust the intensity of your ultrasonic cleaner, start low and work your way to higher and higher levels. You may also want to leave the record in the tank for an extended period of time without it rotating. That can help identify how long you can expose your records to cavitation and by examining the pattern of pits, what your cavitation coverage and hot spot activity is like. Tank Circulation and Filtration – When using a URCM, having a constant flow of water with fine filtration is necessary. Once cavitation removes contaminants from the surface of the record, if not fully dissolved, they can be easily suspended within the standing ultrasonic wave form. You can see them “dancing” or bobbing in place. An adequate flow of water is needed to whisk the contaminants away, so they are not re-deposited on the surface of the record. PVF uses four stages of filtering in each of our tanks. There are two gravity filters, a surface skimmer and a .35 micron particulate filter in line with the circulating pump. Our pumps exchange the water in each tank four times during each cycle. Lastly, each tank is completely drained and refilled when we advanced a carrier of records to the next stage. However, more is not always better. Too much flow through a tank will disrupt the cavitation cleaning process. You’ll want to be able to control the amount of flow through the tank. A small clamp around a soft section of tubing works well for a home solution. Regarding filters, never use a filter with carbon or charcoal. Carbon will induce particulates into the tank. These will be deposited on the records and will not come off. I have 32 records with a continuous low-level crackle because I tested a carbon filter in my rinse tank. Enzymes - We source "pure" enzymes from the same manufacturers that supply enzymes to companies that make cleaning solutions. They also provide application expertise, which helps foster thinking separate from commonly held perceptions in our industry. Enzymes are amazing agents for cleaning records. Enzymes are biological catalysts. They help break down organic materials. A good example is Lactaid. Lactose intolerance is when a person does not naturally make enough of the enzyme Lactase in their small intestine. However, if they take a Lactaid pill, they can process lactose comfortably (I know, my wife and one of my daughters is lactose intolerant). Lactaid is nothing more than the Lactase enzyme with a carrier. It breaks down lactose into easily digestible compounds, allowing intolerant people to enjoy ice cream or pizza when they choose. Enzymes only work on organic materials, and very specific ones at that. This is perfect for vinyl as it is an inorganic material. Enzymes really can't damage vinyl unless misused. You can't buy "pure" enzymes (the reason for the quotes above). They need a carrier whether in liquid form or powered form. You don't want these carriers drying or leaving a residue on your record. So, never let an enzyme solution dry on your record and make sure to rinse very thoroughly. One of the challenges to cleaning records is we never _really_ know what the contaminants are on any given record. Since enzymes only work on very specific organic materials, a blend of enzymes is needed. We use three enzymes to break down organic materials that are likely to be found on an album. It is still not quite that easy. Under ideal conditions, enzymes have about a 12 month shelf life when refrigerated. Furthermore, I can't take a cocktail of enzymes and have it in an all-in-one solution. Enzymes will neutralize each other when active. So, we add our individual enzymes into our soaking tank just before using and recharge them every 4 hours. Regarding enzymes and working temperature. Enzymes like heat, moisture and time to be their most effective. Enzymes perform best between 85 and 125 Deg F. They also benefit from time for their biological catalyst action to work. If you warm your consumer record cleaning enzymes before using, keep them wet and on the record for 10-15 minutes, you should see better results. Especially on those records with a lot of built up contaminants. As part of PVF Archival process, we pre-clean the records by completely submerging a rack of 8 records in a vat of enzyme activated fluid, with surfactants and detergents, for 15 min at 90 Deg F. This is very beneficial to records with a sordid or unfortunate past. It is not necessary for records that are new or like new condition.
Please accept this information as it was intended. This is truly not a "Ron Popeil" infomercial moment where I set the stage that cleaning records is impossible and of course, you should have PVF do it. We at Perfect Vinyl Forever are first and foremost an advocate of cleaning records for your maximum enjoyment. While at AXPONA, at least a third of my conversations centered around how to get better results at home. I've stated that because we are commercializing record cleaning, we can take steps and measures that are not practical for most home cleaners. The last several posts I made contain tips that could help move you along the spectrum of going from good to great results. And, of course, PVF is just one new option you have to consider if you'd like to outsource this task. -Steve
Steve- Some of your observations and tips are very thoughtful and ought to be helpful to people who do their own cleaning at any budget. I've been a big advocate of DIY US (even though I've only owned the commercially made for LP ones so far, e.g., AD and KL). I had a lengthy discussion or two with a long time manufacturer of ultrasonic machinery meant for factory lines (not LPs)- who convinced me that a surfactant, rather than just water, did a much better job in ultrasonic cleaning by enhancing cavitation-- the key (at least to me), as you point out, is removing the residue. Though I got good results from Lloyd Walker's 3 and 4 steps processes and later moved to AIVS No. 15 in connection with vacuum, which eliminated the first two steps (enzyme and surfactant/detergent in one bottle with no need to mix fresh batches of enzyme), I've often wondered whether it was the enzymes or simply a good detergent/surfactant that was easily removable from the record surface. I don't find much organic contamination on records but it's hard to say what it is- every record is different: decades of accumulated grime, bad cleanings with inappropriate chemicals, stuff ground into the grooves through playing with no cleaning back in the day, cigarette or other fumes, etc. As a practical matter, I've found that once pre-cleaned, I can get good results using the AIVS No. 15 as one among several steps if I agitate it-- something that borders on scrubbing with delicacy. (One of the reasons I pre-clean before doing this is to remove any grit or particulates that I would not want to scrape into the record surface). I have a lot more comments mostly congruent with your approach, but no need to burden this thread. I would suggest that anyone who isn't invested in, and spent time experimenting with, various cleaning methods including the combination of vacuum and ultrasonic, try one or two important (but noisy) records with you. I commented on your thread on Myles' site as well, and wish you success. What did you do, professionally, before you got into this?
- YES! A surfactant reduces the surface tension of water, allowing it to get "closer" to materials. With out a surfactant, water tends to bead. With a surfactant, water tends to sheet and evenly cover a surface. Since cavitation activity needs to contact the surface of the record to be effective, surfactants help tremendously in this regard. Detergents enhance the cleaning power of cavitation by helping to breakdown contaminants and binders. Thank you, sir. I enjoy your contributions to the topic. My entire career has been in industrial and facilities automation industry. This requires the ability to understand electrical, mechanical, chemical and software engineering concepts. My experience transferred nicely to this project . With the basics now covered, I'm itching to add automation to my processes and equipment.
These are very interesting and thoughtful posts by both PerfectVinylForever and Bill Hart. My own experience also reflects these observations. Briefly: Originally I had a VPI 16.5 (still have it) but I was never extremely happy with it. Then I jumped on the AudioDesk bandwagon, but I found it disappointing. It wasn't cleaning as good as the audio press had me to believe and it was leaving a residue. I sold it after a few months. Then I got the KLaudio that I thought was doing a better job than the AD but let's be honest. Water by itself doesn't have the ability to clean well without a detergent and/or a surfactant in the water. This is the biggest problem with the KLaudio that just uses water. What I do now is this. I pre-clean the record on my VPI using my regular methods and fluids and then I use the KLaudio for a final, just distilled water, rinse. It works very well.
Thanks @5-String for your independent confirmation of the process. You invested in quality equipment and it is nice to hear you are getting the results you expect. When I put together my presentation for AXPONA, my informal advisor / mentor thought I was sharing too many insights into how we get our results. I assured him these aren't "secrets", just best practices that are seldomly discussed in the context of a process. I contend, PVF wants informed customers. We want customers who choose our services based on sound principals and a thorough understanding of how we get our results. Add to that setting realistic expectations, a high convenience factor and a solid value proposition for most, and that becomes my mission statement for how I intend on building a service company.
Worth it for me. Don't have the time/patience/space. This is one part of the vinyl "ritual" that I find a total PITA to do *properly*. Sent a batch to PVF and had varying results ranging from "fair improvement" to, in the case of my original UK pressing of Talk Talk Spirit of Eden "miraculous" improvement.
Steve/PVF: I would certainly agree with Bill that, in particular, your last two posts contain a lot of very good information for those really wanting clean records. And by clean records, I not only mean records that play with no/drastically reduced clicks/pops/noise, but records that play with simply much more information apparent post cleaning. I'm in pretty much full agreement with what you have very concisely put forth in those two posts. I've harped on a couple of things you've talked about over the years, namely soak times with enzyme and the necessity for extensive rinsing with very pure water. I don't have any hands on experience with ultrasonic, apart from having a friend with the Audio Desk, but was very disappointed in a record that I purchased about a year ago that had been cleaned ultrasonically. When I inquired with the Seller what kind of water he used, he informed me that he'd simply used tap water. It took me 3 very thorough cleanings (AIVS 15 plus 2-3 rinses x 3 with a couple of plays in between each cleaning) to bring that record back. If I'd only paid a couple of bucks for the record instead of close to $50, I probably wouldn't have put the effort in. Using ultra pure in an ultrasonic would, I'm sure, provide much better results. But I'm a bit of a cheapskate so I persist with my basic RCM, which is clearly more time consuming. For a regular RCM cleaning I like the fact that the AIVS #15 contains both surfactants and enzymes and I have not noticed any deterioration in its efficacy over a fairly length of time; a bottle of 15 may last me anywhere from 8-16 months now as I am not buying as many records at this stage. FWIW, I've been using ultrapure water since 2005, which I believe may have actually been before any of the commercial record cleaning fluid manufacturers started marketing it. I asked my wife (who was a research tech at the time) one day what she felt would be the best thing to use as the final stage (after a stage using surfactant/detergent-enzymes as a cleaning agent became more popular a few years later) in the cleaning of a record and she replied (pretty much instantly) that ultrapure water would be it. She then brought some home from the lab and I've been using it, thankfully, ever since.
AAAARRRRRGGGHHHH!!!! Shame on that seller! Never, ever expose records to tap water. Yes, I'm hollering at this point! You were fortunate to be able to remove most of the mineral deposits. I have yet to be successful. Thank God for smart wives! Water quality, as illustrated by @blakep 's posts, is essential.
What exactly do I get for "under $150"? If it's one record cleaned - count me out. If it's your machine to take home - count me in. I'm being serious on both counts.
