Best Practices Record Cleaning

Discussion in 'Audio Hardware' started by Bill Hart, Nov 4, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. HiFi Guy

    HiFi Guy Forum Resident

    Location:
    Lakeland, FL
    My regime is very similar to John's.

    Before starting, I use one of those rolling lint cleaners to clean the Spin Clean pads and the vacuum lips on my EV1.

    I use the Nitty Gritty Pure Emzyme cleaner as a first step. This is critical, as it seems to pull more dirt from the grooves, even on LPs that have previously been vacuum cleaned.

    I put the LP on the EV-1 and I wet a Nitty Gritty cleaning pad with Pure Enzyme and then put more on the LP. I spread the fluid over the entire LP, then go over the LP in sections of about 1/3, scribbling back and forth. Then I let the LP sit for about 90 seconds to let the Pure Enzyme to attack any deep down dirt. I don't want the fluid to begin to dry on the LP. 2 minutes is max for me on this step.

    Flip the LP, and vacuum off. I rotate both directions 3-4 turns slowly. Do the same thing on the top side (the bottom side is now the clean side) and step one is done. Off to the Spin Clean.

    I have the big refill bottle of Spin Clean fluid. It says to use 1 capful, I use 2. I fill the cleaning vat with reverse osmosis water (Aquafina- although some store brands are RO as well- check the label.) 4-5 spins in each direction in the Spin Clean and vacuum dry on the EV-1. I use the Spin Clean cloths to make sure the outer lip pg the LP is dry. Re sleeve in rice paper sleeves, and it's done. I write the date on the sleeve, so I know when the LP was last cleaned. Anything in my collection in rice paper without a date did not get the enzyme treatment, soot will need another cleaning. I'm shocked at the difference the enzyme step makes, and it will always be part of my cleaning regime from this part forward.

    I've not done a final water rinse, and although my albums look spotless and sound exteremely quiet, I'm starting to rethink that.

    Yes it's time consuming. I get maybe 10-12 records per batch of Spin Clean fluid before I feel. It needs to be changed. I rarely clean more than that in a session anyway.
     
  2. WntrMute2

    WntrMute2 Forum Resident

  3. vlds8

    vlds8 Forum Resident

    It would be nice, wouldn't it? In a perfect world, but not on this planet... Unfortunately, new records need cleaning too, if only to get the bits of paper and other debris from the sleeve out, not to mention leftover chemicals from manufacturing (mold release compound etc). Also, some of the stuff I am looking for, in order to buy new sealed I would also need a time machine, and I can't afford one right now ;)
     
  4. The Pinhead

    The Pinhead KING OF BOOM AND SIZZLE IN HELL

    Vale güey ! Pero el ¨mold release compound¨ es un mito.
     
  5. Dentdog

    Dentdog Forum Resident

    Location:
    Atlanta
    I have a Chemistry degree but surely am no chemist. In general though, heat increases the molecular activity and would surely help the surfactant cleaners. Enzymatic, maybe. I would like to express my appreciation to you and those like you who look into things to help the music lovers improve their listening. I can tell you enjoy the intellectual challenge, we enjoy the benefits. Thanks
     
  6. Analogman

    Analogman Well-Known Member

    I see and read this constantly
    "mold release compound"
    Yes, Virginia, mold release "compounds" are real and do exist..........BUT, they are an INTRINSIC component of the "vinyl" biscuit or pellets and forms a surface that will allow for clean release from the stamper without tearing or deforming the grooves (if everything goes as it should)
    In other words, it is cooked into the record, same as RCA's "miracle surface" additives intended for the elimination of static charges
    Release "compounds" are not something you can wash or "spin clean" away.................no matter what Michael Fremer or anyone else tells you
    (unless you've got one hell of a defective record and in that case it would need to be either returned or discarded: the press' temperature, or duration down wasn't correct, either that or the batch of pellets had a problem)

    You ain't going to wash it off folks just like you ain't going to wash that carbon off they put in the mix to "paint it black" either

    You can start your quest for the Truth here:
    United States Patent 3960790
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2015
    The Pinhead likes this.
  7. Analogman

    Analogman Well-Known Member

    As for "best practices"?
    Water and a good surfactant(s) mixed in the proper ratio with a judicious dash of mild detergent, suitable for use with plastics
    Can't do it any more effectively
    You can (it is possible) figure out and find ways to do it that wastes more time, makes for more physical work and nets you no more positive results, if any however
    AND lightens your wallet
    You can even make a career or build a "business" of it if you are so inclined

    More than a few already have
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2015
    The Pinhead likes this.
  8. Analogman

    Analogman Well-Known Member

  9. Bill Hart

    Bill Hart Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    Austin
    Analogman- I like your style, but there are any number of ways to approach cleaning, as the contributions to this thread bear out. I don't like the expense of the commercial ultrasonic machines, but they do a great job on new vinyl (usually) and are a marvelous complementary step in cleaning old vinyl. The difference between a point nozzle machine and wand-type vacuum machine is also significant in what the vacuum step removes from the record. For years, I treated the whole issue pretty casually, used a basic VPI, a few different fluids as were available at the time and assumed 'clean' meant 'clean.' As I dug in more in the last couple years, I learned several things; one, that as much has to do with method as it does with fancy machines and fluids. I do wish there was more information available about commercially marketed fluids, but I also recognize their business need to keep that information proprietary. The whole point of the thread-- and I don't think you disrespect that-- was to try and collect in one place here, sensible, effective approaches to cleaning vinyl. Since I've been a member here, "how do I clean a vinyl record" or variations on that theme are a constant thread topic that pop up constantly. Thus, this thread.
     
    blakep likes this.
  10. Bill Hart

    Bill Hart Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    Austin
    Yep, I visited the Culpeper, Va facility in December- it's the archival-restoration facility located in an old cold war bunker in the hills of Virginia; I wrote about it in an article published in February, along with a companion piece on record cleaning involving an interview with one of the restoration specialists there. I don't want to "flog my blog" but if the mods are OK with it I can post a link to that article.
     
  11. patrickd

    patrickd Forum Resident

    Location:
    Austin TX USA
  12. Bill Hart

    Bill Hart Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    Austin
    Thanks Patrick, I wrote to the mods, if OK i was going to link directly to the interview with the LOC restoration specialist.
    Is 'flog the blog' a term of art, or did i invent that? :)
     
  13. Analogman

    Analogman Well-Known Member

    That is because 99% of them, 99% of the time, are nothing but water with the addition of readily available (off the shelf) surfactants added..................those same chemicals I keep harping on
    Anyone who actually believes that there are any chemists, or a "company" of "chemists" or "scientists" or what have you actually working on this "problem" (the cleaning of vinyl records) is, well uh, "kidding themselves" to be kind about it
    There MAY BE a hobbyist or two, turned RECORD CARE PRODUCTS BUSINESS OWNER & DISTRIBUTOR giving thought to these things and trying out various "formulas" at his kitchen table/laboratory; doing "research" in his "lab" (i.e.: "Google" and MSDS sheets) but that's about the extent of it
    There is no problem to solve; it was solved years ago
    How to effectively wash plastic and avoid static charge
    It's called "soap", water and a surfactant (and using the appropriate types of both obviously)
    The only objectively QUANTIFIABLE differences in "methods" or approaches are those for the marketing departments to come up with...............and the designers of the the various "delivery systems"

    Do I want "Tide" or do I want "All" in my A. Top loader B. Front loader or C. Down by the stream on my favorite rock? (you know, right after a heavy rain, the stream is moving VERY quickly and I get a MUCH better rinse of my clothes) I could swear they smell better too.................

    As for us? The end users and collectors? Well that's the same matter as how one showers; do you start at the top and work down or do you start at the bottom and work up?

    In the final analysis the only thing that I feel (and can substantiate) is that the most important thing to do (besides keeping your work place and all tools IMPECCABLY CLEAN) is to perform all processes WET when cleaning plastics, ANY plastics

    No matter how you do this or with what, store bought or homemade, purpose built or "off the shelf" it is the same process:
    You introduce some vehicle and suspending agent containing some form of solvent (if using more than God's greatest solvent of them all: H2O) for what you want to remove from the record's surface, you agitate or smear it around and then you remove it from the record's surface, hopefully leaving little or no damage along the way

    Loricraft, Monks, VPI, Nitty Gritty, Okki Nokki...............or the kitchen sink with a wash rag and a bottle of Dawn.............it is all the SAME damn thing.....................just a matter of level of refinement (of the machines themselves, not necessarily their respective efficiency or effectiveness at performing the task at hand) and degree (the vacuum versus evaporation/wiping or "other" removal/drying solution) Even that is the same from a purely mechanical (as in engineering) perspective; just the vacuum wand is making things occur in a more "concentrated" and focused fashion

    Just the level of refinement.................

    ...........and what the market will bear

    Yes, it should be done thoughtfully and carefully
    Yes, good quality materials should be used
    Yes, avoiding cross contamination should be avoided as best possible and rinsing is not a bad idea

    And most importantly, YES it SHOULD be done!

    Above and beyond that? This is a long lived "conversation" that has outlived any quantifiable usefulness except for those selling the newest and "latest and greatest" bottle of re-packaged water and toys with which to apply it.................and when folks start making claims that they can "hear" the difference between scrub brush "A" and scrub brush "B", then I feel REALLY sad..............

    I use my patented "Hydro-Blast" kitchen sink technique for the first layer of funk (used records, played while frying chicken or who knows what) followed by a thorough scrubbing (using my private blend) and drying on a "16.5" and into a nice RTI style sleeve (like the old Discwasher type, "VP" I believe) and that's IT..............'cause that's all you CAN do

    Folks who claim otherwise, or "poo poo" RCMs or whatever are in denial (or have some other "issue"); 'cause they're doing EXACTLY THE SAME THINGS I just described and EXACTLY THE SAME THINGS and RCM does; they're just doing it in a more labor intensive fashion

    If they feel "more at one" with the record, feel like they're doing a better job of it or are more "authentic" about it, then that's FINE.............whatever gets you going baby

    I'm not attacking this particular thread, it's creator or anyone who has posted here; I'm just beside myself wondering how in the world this "conversation" (or whatever it is) is STILL GOING ON, every day, every where for YEARS??????

    'Cause I'm asking; what's the end game? I mean what can possibly come of any of this?

    Blows my mind
     
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2015
  14. Bill Hart

    Bill Hart Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    Austin
    Analogman- I have found the enzyme-based fluids to be effective. I have also found that the point nozzle machines seem to be less dependent on a particular fluid, perhaps due to the fact that the vacuum action is so effective.
    The end game to me is clean, quiet records that don't have sonic artifacts that tell me I'm listening to a reproduction. Obviously, that is an 'ideal' -since many records are not well recorded, or the pressings or masterings are compromised in some way. But, when it all lines up, it can be magic- a greater, more involving 'illusion.'
    Some of it, I grant, you, borders on fetish. But, I have heard differences in results based on different cleaning methods. For the basic 'wand-type' RCM, e.g. VPI, the combo of AIVS No. 15 plus a pure water rinse is very good at relatively low cost. The Monks is a far better machine though, at much greater cost. I have tried a variety of fluids for it, including Monks' own (which I'm not even sure they recommend be followed by a rinse stage). The Hannl fluid was recommended to me by the notable 'Syntax' (an A-gon guy who is a vinyl-eccentric). You can't get it here in the States, except as a concentrate, which I mix with reagent water to use. It applies very nicely, no foaming action (the Monks 'hates' foaming cleaners according to their literature) and it comes up off record very nicely as well. I think it retails for 17 or 20 dollars, to make a fair quantity of the stuff once mixed. That's been my 'go-to' fluid on the Monks for a while; I still use the AIVS on records that need more help. And then plop into the ultrasonic to finish.
    PS: a propos your comment that vacuum or hand-wiping doesn't matter (I thought you said otherwise earlier), I believe that effective vacuum to remove the contaminated fluid is essential. And that's why I prefer the point nozzle machines.

    And, as a footnote (I like footnotes), I started the thread to begin a conversation that would try to put all the discussions about the topic in one place. I'm not really in a good position, therefore, to judge whether it has outlived its usefulness, and I'm not saying that in a snarky way. If it serves the purpose for which I intended it, great. If not, that's ok too. (I find sometimes, that 'crowd sourcing' information, e.g. some of the threads here on decoding deadwax, are very helpful). This topic, not as much 'hard info' that is verifiable other than through anecdotal experience. I did a search through the entirety of the AES database for articles and monographs on record cleaning, vinyl formulations, etc. and was surprised at how little was there.
    Out for a bit- going to go wash my wife's car. (Don't ask what method I use- it's a secret) :)
     
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2015
  15. Analogman

    Analogman Well-Known Member

    You know, don't you, that you can Rube Goldberg just about anything (to death)?
    This is definitely one of those times; but worse than that, some of these great "options" involve unknown variables that we are expected to accept, based on nothing but someone else "said so" (but, I'll play along and give things the benefit of the doubt...........so, in the case of these "proprietary formulations" and supplies, which may not always be available (someday).................what do you do then with your machine that only "likes" one sort of secret formula, or whatever, when the same said are "no longer available" for sale from your "exclusive" distributor"? Wouldn't be the first time)
    Guess we'll cross that bridge when we get to it................and another "manufacturer" will be born to fill the need.............?
    But I digress
    I love too, when someone says; "first I did this with this and it was good, but then I did THIS with THIS and it was GREAT!"...............I'm "OK" with that.........but how does one know with certainty that the "GREAT" results weren't simply the result of the second pass...............................hmmmm?

    Like I said, blows my mind
     
  16. Analogman

    Analogman Well-Known Member

    Please re-read; that is not what I said (or meant to convey)
    I said the only difference was one of refinement (method(s) employed, being that of a "machine" by hand what have you)

    That when one consider's what the ultimate goal is there is no difference; to clean the record's playing surface
    Put the solvent on
    Move the solvent around to loosen the contaminants and place them in "suspension"
    Remove the solvent, hopefully with the contaminants as well
    Dry the surface
    All while avoiding additional damage to the disc
     
  17. Analogman

    Analogman Well-Known Member

    Not surprised on either count
    JVC's gonna take the best their ever was recipe with them to "their grave", or so it seems and as for the topic at hand...........well, I think that's been pretty much addressed already

    Can't find what ain't there, same as can't "fix" a problem that doesn't exist (or has already been solved) from a scientific or engineering point of view

    But if you still crave more "information" on that topic you'll need to research those big glossy magazines that peddle "hi-fi" "stuff"
    I think "Stereophile" has a free on-line archives now; sure you could find plenty on the subject there............but I fear it will be just more of the same "anecdotal" sort of references you just mentioned, but the prose will be flowery sure enough
     
  18. vinylbuff

    vinylbuff Forum Resident

    Location:
    North Port Florida
    Thought I might "lighten" the moment with something I saw after cleaning a record not too long ago. I use a VPI 16.5 RCM, a old VPI record brush, and Mo-Fi record cleaners. They always come out looking pristine. One day I used a 30X jewelers loupe to try and find a pesky pop that wouldn't go away even after 2-3 cleanings. I was amazed at what I saw through the loupe. It looked like a million tiny metallic "splinters" all over that shiny pristine vinyl. They are extremely difficult to remove, tape works a little, and I'm thinking of actually trying wood glue. I couldn't imagine how good a freshly cleaned lp minus a million micro splinters might sound. Skeptical? Buy yourselves a lighted 30X loupe, ( they're cheap on eBay ) and have a look. You will never be satisfied with your clean lp again..........
     
  19. Rolltide

    Rolltide Forum Resident

    Location:
    Vallejo, CA
    If the record plays well I'm not worried about what it looks like under a magnifying glass. The less I know about those million tiny splinters the better :)

    I once read a long record cleaning thread on another board. Person A kept telling Person B he wasn't doing it right. Person B, a respected member of the forum, kept trying to explain to the guy that he knew what clean records were supposed to sound like, and trust him, his records were clean. Person A wouldn't relent. You're not using Fluid X. Only Fluid X, followed by three rinses in super lab grade ultra-pure water is good enough. You'll be able to tell an immediate difference. Person B: But again, my damn records are as clean as they're going to get!

    Just a reminder there's multiple ways to arrive at clean records. If your records don't make noise, they're clean. I think some folks have convinced themselves that this is harder then it is and do extra things that are more articles of faith then necessary steps, but as long as the records are clean when they're done, no worries here.
     
  20. Bill Hart

    Bill Hart Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    Austin
    Agreed, repeated cleanings make a difference up to a point; what I found was a synergistic effect between using different methods in the multiple steps, e.g. conventional wash(enzyme)/rinse, followed by ultrasonic, and sometimes, vice-versa. Better than repeated cleanings using one method or another.
     
  21. Bill Hart

    Bill Hart Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    Austin
    Right- I thought you might be taking things to an extreme simply to make a point in that statement, but the question of 'degree' is a large one in my estimation, because wiping doesn't effectively remove the contaminants and a good vacuum system, particular point nozzle, does a pretty good job (especially compared to a 'wand' type RCM).
     
  22. Bill Hart

    Bill Hart Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    Austin
    The UHQR records were beautifully made and I still have many of the 'old' MoFis- very few I listen to these days, but that vinyl formulation was magnificent. The only mainstream audio 'rag' I read is largely for Fremer-who I find amusing, and whose dedication to the medium is undoubted. I'm bored stiff by most gear reviews, and since I'm usually more interested in older pressings than the latest reissues, there isn't much of interest. I used to like HiFi+, but it's been a while. Probably still have all The Absolute Sound issues from the old days in a couple cartons in the basement. When I read an old issue, I'm always impressed by how ambitious that magazine was back in its heyday. Not dissing modern reviewers, but the focus seems to be largely on modern gear and newly reissued records.
    There are a few folks out there who dig deeper- e.g. Myles Astor, who has a a Phd in chemistry, has written about fluids and the chemistry behind cleaning, but it is still largely from the outside looking in.
     
  23. Analogman

    Analogman Well-Known Member

    This is another relatively current "trend" in record cleaning for which I can find no meaningful basis, that being this near fascination with "enzyme" cleanings and cleaners
    Just how significant would you think, and expect me to believe, are the contaminants on the surface of your typical Lp to be substrates of the nature for which "enzymes" would even have any meaningful degree of efficacy in "cleaning" (altering or changing in order to facilitate their removal)
    I know that records often do have a variety or organic garbage on them, but it is hardly of a nature requiring a biochemical treatment to remove.............things like body oils, food debris from dirty hands, bits of dried products resulting from expectorating...........but hardly anything of a nature, or quantity, that a brewmaster might have to deal with to clean his vats.............I mean come on, "enzymes"?
    Enzyme cleaning is only effective on protein based substances and primarily on stains on difficult to clean surfaces like textiles, wooden floors and work surfaces, clothing..........you got big time mold and mildew stains on your records? Blood stains? Grass stains?

    Using them certainly shouldn't hurt anything, but "they" aren't doing anything, or doing anything better, that soap, water and isopropyl can't do just as well if not more effectively

    And I'd also like to know; how do you know which enzyme you need to use, as their actions are very specific?
     
  24. Analogman

    Analogman Well-Known Member

    It wasn't an extreme
    The parts used by the hand job crowd and the parts making up an RCM are the same from a purely mechanical/engineering perspective, as in, inclined plane; a cork screw compared to a polished brass, slotted head wood screw...................it is only a matter of the level of "refinement" (for lack of a better word)

    All the "moving parts" are the same, only the execution (manifestation) of the tool is different

    That's a big part of why I don't get the vehement resistance to RCMs by some; they're doing exactly the same thing but just doing it less efficiently, less effectively and much more labor intensively (and in the long haul, more expensively)
     
  25. blakep

    blakep Senior Member

    From my perspective only Analogman, so take it with the proverbial grain of salt (I'm sure you will based on what you've written so far :laugh:).

    I've cleaned about 4000 records in the past 10 years or so (and I'm sure that there are others who have cleaned many more) and I really do wish what you're saying was true but alas, it has not been in my experience. I've done the DIY experimental route with isopropyl, dish soap, water etc. and found it to be sorely lacking when compared with an almost identical cleaning regimen with decent commercial fluids (which admittedly do vary significantly in quality-I've tried a few) and high purity water. Including enzymatic first stage cleaners. In addition to that, my experimentation over the years has in fact led me to a conclusion that is almost entirely the opposite of yours with respect to isopropyl: namely that it is pretty useless and ineffective as a cleaner of vinyl records in almost all but the rarest of situations.

    In short, I think you're oversimplifying a bit here based on my experience, which is that there is a huge range in the efficacy of various fluids (from DIY to commercial) touted for use in record cleaning and that technique is very important. I don't claim to have the silver bullet and certainly believe that there's more than one way to skin this cat. For me, however, that would not be washing records with a DIY combination of dish soap, isopropyl and water having tried it quite unsuccessfully compared to the products I use now.

    Only my experience of course, but it is very different from yours.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine