Cleaning records: Demineralized water or distilled water?

Distilled water from a pharmacy.

 

It seems there is a bit confusion between demineralized and distilled water. At least here in Belgium, distilled water from the supermarket (grocery store) is actually demineralized water (sometimes even both names on the label). Distilled water from the pharmacy is different (uses another method of distillation), should be more pure and is more expensive (about 7 euro for 5L). To be sure I guess I will try the pharmacy and see how it works.

 

Still no love for the wire brush and Dettol approach on this site...???

 

Right. The point of the second link I posted above, aside from summarizing what the different grades of water were, was to emphasize that labels can be misleading and that there are few real 'standards' to how various types of 'pure' water are graded. Also, in Europe, you undoubtedly have different branding practices for these various grades, even for what we call 'lab water' here in the States (which itself can mean different things). Grade 1 Reagent water here in the States is now about $70 for a 5 gallon 'box,' delivered, by an online scientific supply house, just to give you a rough idea.

 

Nothing clever, just the records are rinsed more thoroughly.

 

Fortunately for me, I work in a water quality lab, so I can get my hands on reagent grade water.

Itsa nice.

 

In Japan so far I can only find purified water. Trying to get distilled water is driving me nuts.

 

Just to clarify (no pun intended): if someone recommends distilled water and you can't get it, is purified water a decent substitute?

 

I would think that you would be fine. Just don't let it dry on the record.

 

Distilled H2O + Spin Clean = happy LPs

 

Thanks. Some people recommend vacuuming but I don't think I'll be able to do that or afford a special device.

 

I have a reverse osmosis water tap in the utility room, produces very large qtys before the filters need replacing. This seems as pure as distilled water and I also use this in a high pressure steamer along with my vinyl RCM. The steam further 'distills' the already pure water

steam slowly rotating LP for around 20 seconds
rotate/brush
vacuum off
rotate/steam again
add mix to wet LP surface - 80% isoprop/20% RO water/drop of surfictant
rotate/goat hair brush
vacuum off
rotate/steam again
vacuum off
rotate/steam again/velvet brush
vacuum off
Pure RO water/velvet brush
vacuum off
=> poly lined sleeve

 

That would take months to clean every LP.
I dont notice any noises whatsoever with a simple Spin Clean and Distilled water

 

It takes about 3-4 minutes per LP & I do batches of 6-8 at a time (one steamer tank full) - it really cleans out everything from the groove. Worth the time in my opinion because many 2nd hand purchases become virtually 'mint'. The process is actually quite therapeutic in a funny (OCD) way!

I also have a Spin Clean but the fluids progressively become dirty and leave residue on LPs cleaned later

 

Too much brushing for me. The least I touch the LP the better IMO

 

I only buy clean records now. I have about 1,500 in my collection so I've stopped shopping the $1 bin at flea market etc. Back then I had an entire system w disc doctor fluids, steam, and an RCM. Now I simply use Aquafina and an RCM.

 

I frankly don't get the perceived need to rinse a record after cleaning. I currently use three different fluids with my VPI 16.5, one of the L'Art Du Son mixed with distilled water, but after I clean them, I'm done. I do dry them for an extra three or four more revolutions of the machine after they look dry, and then air dry them for a few more minutes, but I've never heard or visually seen any need to rinse them one more time with either distilled or demineralized water.

 

G- I think part of it depends on the fluid, and on other considerations described below.
Some fluid suppliers require that use of particular fluids be followed by a water rinse-e.g., if you use AIVS No. 15 as a primary cleaner and don't follow it up with other AIVS cleaners, users are told to do a water rinse step- this may be because that fluid is fairly strong, standing alone and for the other reasons described below. I believe the Disc Doctor Miracle Fluid maker also urges a rinse step to remove fluid residue.
Here are the 'other' considerations:
is there a fluid residue left on the record after drying?
remember, the fluid, to do its work, contains the loosened contaminants that are suspended in the fluid.
If you accept the premise that vacuum drying may not fully remove the fluid from the record even if the record is 'dry,' then what is left on the record is a residue that includes remaining contaminants.
My concern here is that this residue may be worse if left to harden.
When I do a rinse, I am getting another 'shot' at removing what fluid and contaminants are left.
A machine like a VPI dries very fast; the Monks is much slower and gradual (and I think probably gets the stuff out of the grooves better because of its point nozzle design). I have both machines, and do a water rinse with both. Monks' own fluid (the 'standard' stuff for vinyl, not the 'mold buster') does not specify whether to do a rinse. I also use a Hannl concentrate fluid from Germany mixed with lab water. I have not tried L'Art nor Disc Doctor.

 

The one you buy at gas stations to put into your radiator.

 

I've had to wash just one of the many sealed record I bought (had dust and little short hairs)

 

I have been using distilled water in my ultrasonic cleaning machine with excellent results. After reading the info in the Audiogon link courtesy of Bill Hart in post #21, I may try using reagent grade water from the lab at the university where I work. Sounds like overkill to me, but the difference between tap water and distilled water is greater than you might think. (probably depends on the quality of your tap water---it can vary greatly) The lab grade stuff may be worth the extra effort, especially as I can get it for free. I will try it and see if I notice an appreciable difference. That will be hard to verify as each record is different.

 

All LP's coming into the collection, new or old, get a very thorough cleaning on a VPI 16.5 (and I do use Aquafina for my water source, both for mixing the cleaning solution and the rinse step). Depending on the quality of a used LP I might clean it twice. After that I don't clean again unless I see a specific need. Also, all LP's coming into collection get a new MOFI inner sleeve and a heavy mil outer bag. But that's just me.

 

Another vote here for the spin clean. It's simple and effective.
I'm sure a vacuum would pull a bit more out of the grooves but I haven't noticed any dirt issues with any records that I've cleaned so far.
The stylus is staying clean as well.

 

Thanks, Bill. This helps.

Since what I do works, I'll stick with it. There is always a new cleaning fluid in my future, though, so my technique might change.

Somehow I think water and buffing the record do most of the work. All this other stuff, while important, is at the margins.

For me, it all gets down to an old stereo salesman's joke: Bill, back when you used a Discwasher and there were the various generations of Discwasher fluid, what was the difference between them?

D1 was water. D2 was watered down D1. D3 was watered down D2. D4 was...

 

The word I got, and don't quote me, was it was really just meant to help facilitate picking up the surface stuff and may have had some kind of preservative for the water but wasn't any kind of cleaning agent or surfactant to break surface tension/detergent, etc.* I don't really know for sure, but my impression was that it was never intended for the kind of cleaning we now think of when we talk about 'cleaning' records, i.e. 'deep cleaning.' I do know somebody that does know, and can ask. I always liked the convex shape of that thing, and it did a good job in picking up the surface detritus.
I still have records in my collection that were from that era- the only Monks was at the fancy salon in the city and back in the 70's- there were a lot of other things, 'parastats,' those little plastic tone arms with the roller, 'preeners' (parastats?), the polonium brushes meant for camera lenses, Decca/Hunt brushes, etc. Somehow, I guess we managed in the dark days with far dirtier records.... But, i gotta say, having a serious cleaning set up at this point has made significant improvements in listening, largely because I'm buying old records- stuff from 40 years ago that has seen its share of contamination. Back then, all those records were brand new for the most part, right?
*
A quick web search revealed a reference to a British patent and some anti-bacterial/surfactants, but that is anecdotal and referred to D3, I think.