Enzyme Cleaners specifically for LPs...Really?

Thanks

 

I drop my records in the KLAudio now. Done.

That said, I have some used vinyl that needs an enzyme cleaning to get the gunk out. And I actually want to clean new vinyl for mold release just in case. I figure a good initial cleaning for new records and a good enzyme cleaning for older records is a pretty easy one-time exercise worth doing.

I just seem to have a hard time wrapping my head around how you all are doing the soaking and using the brushes. My other RCM is a NittyGritty and it doesn't seem like the best way to let anything soak. Since I don't have experience with other RCM's (other than the KLAudio), I just can't picture the soak & brush cleaning.

Do you just squirt the fluid on the vinyl and use the brush to spread it out evenly? How much liquid is used? How do you keep it off the label? You just use the t-shirt to blot it dry? You must have a lot of old t-shirts!

If you think about it and don't mind, take some pics or a short video the next time you do one.

 

The 1-step is perfect for new vinyl. It's actually a combo of the 3-step in one formula.

I just basically put the cleaning fluid on the record and make sure the brush is in contact for the full 1-1.5 minutes...it spreads evenly naturally this way...repeat.

For longer enzyme soaks, I would just lay it on a soft cotton shirt and make sure it's covered excessively in fluid using the brush to help spread and agitate and let it sit there soaking.

I don't typically use too much fluid on my regular cleaning methosds but if I do the longer soak, more fluid will have to be used. In measurements I'm not sure...maybe 1 tsp for typical and and 1 tbsp for longer soaks?

It's usually pretty easy to keep off the label. If I get out of hand, a little drop can get on the label, I just wipe it up with a paper towel, no harm done.

In my older method, longer soak method, I did just use the shirt to blot the enzyme dry before putting it on the RCM. Now, it's on the machine and vacuumed.

I will try to remember to take some pics. It is hard to describe in words. I try not to obsess about it too much. I think my current method is much similar yielding excellent results. I just think all of the record cleaning can get out of hand, most don't go as far off the map as us in this thread. I know, we are just trying to get it right.

I personally think the Spin Clean is all anyone needs but I prefer a vacuum machine as many do. I'm sure the ultrasonic is one the best but I've started to measure this whole "audio" thing with a POV of law of diminishing returns. I've likely already went a little too deep.

 

I've never used the #15 but assume it's really good. I typically stay away from dirty vinyl, too much of a headache for me. I already spend too much time cleaning vinyl. Sounds like a pretty smart method you have and it gets great results.

 

The great thing about the KLAudio is that I can get so many records in pretty much pristine shape just during the course of the day. I've gotten really good about dropping a record in pretty much anytime I walk by the machine. I can get 3-5 records done just in the morning as I'm letting the dogs out & fed and getting myself ready for work. Another 2-3 as soon as I get home and I've got 5-8 clean records per night to listen to, typically more than I'll get to in a work week evening.

The key is that I can start it, but don't need to be around when the KLAudio finishes. I can't do that with my NittyGritty or a standard RCM where I need to be around from start to finish. That's not diminishing returns in my book. It's a whole new paradigm. A costly one, true, but worth every penny. For someone like you who wants clean records without obsessing over it, it might be even better.

There's certainly no reason I'd have to do an enzyme clean (that's the obsessive in me coming out). In fact, I've found that running an older record through the KLAudio twice does produce noticeable improvements if some gunk is still present after the first cleaning.

 

I use the AIVS 15 and typically do soak times in the 3-5 minute range. With outrageously dirty records I've done 15 minute soak times with excellent results.

My cleaning system and technique is a bit different though. I use a KAB EV1 which is simply a generic Nitty Gritty "box" that you attach your own vacuum to.

As you know and mentioned though, applying fluids on the Nitty Gritty manual RCM's is a bit of pain and I thus set up from the beginning not to do that. What I did do was source a junk turntable (a dealer that I do business with gave me a cheapo plastic Sanyo belt drive that they had taken on trade) and rip the arm off it. Fluids (first stage and rinse) are applied on that table at 45 RPM using carbon fibre brushes which are non-invasive/non-aggressive and do a great job of getting the fluid down into the grooves.

I use about 2.5 millilitres of either the 15 or ultrapure water when I'm rinsing, which is not very much but with the #15 is just enough to create a solid film of fluid on the record adequate for "soaking". Longer soak times might require a bit more fluid (maybe another 1/2 ml) due to evaporation over the longer period of time. I have a cleaning station set up in the basment of my house; relative humidity levels are ususally in the 45-50% range there. Someone in a lower humidity environment might need to use more fluid because of the evaporation effect.

How does he know he uses 2.5 mils you ask? My wife was a researcher for about 27 years and brought home some disposable pipettes, which is what I use to apply the fluid. When she was working she used to bring ultrapure home from the lab as well-now I have to call in a favour from her friends who are still working to replenish my supply every couple of years.

I find the junk turntable thing to work very well (but I realize that kind of set up is not for everyone, especially those with space constraints). 45 RPM seems to be an ideal speed to apply fluids at: it's fast enough to make the application relatively efficient and allow a bit of non-invasive brushing but not so fast (like the Monks IMO) to have fluid flying all over the place and off the record. Also, with a steady brushing hand there's virtually no risk of damaging labels with excess fluid.

Once I re-agitate a bit after the soak with the 15 (as recommended by AIVS) or do the rinse I simply flip the record onto the KAB and vacuum.

Mind you I wouldn't mind having the KL Audio or an Audio Desk kicking around . I'm just too cheap to buy one.

 

"Enzyme cleaners" really sounds deeply scientific. I hesitated years ago with the concept. Enzymes! Eek!

I have come to the conclusion that they are really nothing other than simple compounds that can be made from natural products that are good at breaking up a lot of gunk that alcohol and water can't handle. Really nothing more than a modification of those "orange clean" products hawked by Billy Mays all those years ago. Tweaked to clean vinyl and remove the oils, smoke residue and other organic "stuff" that results from being handled and exposed over the years. I let my new bin buys soak for a bit and brush to loosen up that stuff, vacuum and then rinse with water based solutions with a touch of alcohol to listen.

I get really confused when I read of members using carbon fiber brushes to wet clean records. It makes my brain hurt.

 

This seems pretty workable actually. Too bad I gave my "junk" table to a friend.

So you soak one side, rinse and then vacuum? For the rinse, do you just put the ultrapure on top of the fluids that have essentially evaporated and then vacuum that off?

 

You never want to let the first stage cleaner evaporate or dry on the record. So you soak, ensuring a solid film of fluid (in my case the AI #15), then vacuum off. Then apply the rinse water (ultrapure preferably) in exactly the same fashion on the revolving turntable for about 30-40 seconds and then vacuum off.

AI #15 really requires two rinse/vac cycles as far as I'm concerned. I have heard the Disc Doctor cleaner is very effective as well but also requires thorough rinsing.

 

I definately find Disc Doctor requires 2 rinses, and also not mixed at maximum strength, I found out recently.

 

Why isn't one rinse sufficient?

 

In my experience, two rinses are better and yield audibly better results. Not just in terms of reduced noise/clicks and pops but more importantly in terms of how the record actually sounds. Dynamics, detail retrieval and overall sonics will be improved.

It's because the record is cleaner IMO. I have stated for a long time that the rinse cycle(s) must be viewed as being at least important as the first stage of cleaning. It is a continuation of the cleaning process which removes and lifts residue left from the first stage cleaner which needs to be aggressive in its own (and different) fashion, in terms of cleaning the record.

You can actually see this when cleaning/rinsing many records with ultrapure water as it has very high surface tension as a result of being virtually free of any impurities. When you do the first rinse with ultrapure it tends not to bead up as much as the second rinse on most records because as soon as it is applied to the record it tends to "absorb" what is on the record (residue from the first cleaning stage including surfactants, perhaps some dirt/detritus that the first stage cleaner did not quite take care of, etc) and that surface tension is somewhat diminished.

Vacuum that up and, at least in my experience, the second application of ultrapure will retain higher surface tension, bead up more quickly and generally kind of pop up off the record more quickly as there are less impurities which it is absorbing because the record is becoming cleaner. With some records this is more noticeable than others and I am not 100% certain that it is always related to actual dirt on the record or in the grooves-it is quite possible that it may be related to vinyl formulation and impurities on the surface of the vinyl relating to the formulation. Mold release perhaps, or something similar that might have migrated to the surface following pressing or simply been removed by a good clean. But different records have exhibited different "levels" of this over the years to me.

It would likely continue along the same lines (but probably be slightly less noticeable) with a 3rd rinse but two is enough for me at this stage, although I do find that the very odd record will benefit from a complete second cleaning.

Although I have no experience with the Disc Doctor cleaner, someone who I tend to trust who has a lot of experience with it told me many years ago that it was critical that it be rinsed thoroughly (or more than once) to really be effective (tim185 agrees above I see) and work to its potential and I tend to put the AIVS #15 into the same category.

 

Wouldn't that kind of ruin someone's carbon fiber brush?

 

It sounds like a great machine and you have a nice easy going routine there! I can see it being a new paradigm. If I ever come across one for the right deal, I might bite. I did invest in a the VPI 16.5 early on (6 years ago) in my vinyl consumption, less than 50 records deep. At that point the machine was worth more than my collection but now my collection is worth 50 times the machine. Early on, I wanted to make sure I could get the best results for my money at the time. I went from VPI fluids to Disc Doctor and now Audio Intelligent for the last 4 years.

I basically clean 10 records or less a week with 10-20% being used vinyl. So, it's not a huge chore but I don't love it. I'm at about 1,200 records now and I'm trying to slow down. I mainly listen to records on weekends. After a long work day, gym/training and then preparing dinner, vinyl playing rarely exists for me during the week. I get in a total of 10-15 listening hours a week. At this point, I've developed an effective method but it's great to come on here and see others perspective.

Please understand my diminishing comments wasn't meant as an insult. I also try to put as much thought into every future and past purchase of mine even if I have to be critical of myself. This is why I recommend the Spin Clean as far "bang for buck" for the average vinyl listener. I'm glad I have the 16.5 and I'm sure I'd be even happier with the ultrasonic machines but if someone new to vinyl was reading this thread, I'd like them to feel they could get great results from something as simple as the Spin Clean. I typically try and stick to the music forums, it's where I belong.

 

One more thing about all of this and I wonder if others have the same thought. When we purchase a VG+ record from the 70s that has very mild wear but we know it's a bit dirty. Do you ever ask yourself, what is the 40 year cleaning history of this record? It's likely non-existent unless it was owned by an audiophile. Or it may have been cleaned with God knows what. So no matter what, as long as the record isn't trashed or filthy beyond belief, any of the cleaning methods can work in a variety of ways and even if our cleaner dries a bit on the record, that's likely not the worst thing to ever happen to this record.

 

Actually it does not. CF brushes are cheap, under $15. So it's easy to dedicate a couple of CF brushes solely to wet cleaning, one for the first stage cleaner and one for the rinse. After a cleaning session they get a quick rinse off in a bit of ultrapure water and then a run over the vacuum slot to remove excess water.

I've wet cleaned about 4000 records over the past 11-12 years with CF brushes and probably only purchased 2-3 replacement brushes in that time period. If you want to push the fluid down into the groove in the least invasive/aggressive manner (I felt that I defenitely ruined a decent record scrubbing it with the Nitty Gritty Brush very early in my wet cleaning days so am not a fan of scrubbing) , there is probably nothing better than a CF brush to do it actually.

Which is why Brian Weitzel who developed the Record Research Lab Fluids (which are now Mobile Fidelity fluids) recommended using CF brushes for wet cleaning many years ago when he brought the RRL fluids to market. See the link below.

If you use cleaning fluids containing a lot of alcohol, deterioration of a CF brush might occur more quickly I suppose. But I've never been a fan of alcohol for cleaning records and use no alcohol at all so that's not much of a concern for me.

http://www.dedicatedaudio.com/inc/sdetail/6638/6512

 

Oh, no worries. I didn't take it that way at all. There are diminishing returns on everything in life. Although, honestly, I haven't really found them in HiFi yet. I feel the improvements I've made to my system at pretty much every stage (perhaps early tweaks aside) have pretty significant.

I'll have to try the Audio Intelligent stuff given everyone's comments here. I switch to the l'art du son record cleaning fluid awhile back and was floored at how much better it was than the various other solutions I was using.

Going forward I think I'll try this method...

New Records and Minty Used Records:

1. Clean with Last Power Cleaner for mold release
2. Rinse with UltraPure water
3. Run thru Ultrasonic using UltraPure on 5 min cycle

For most used records, I'll probably just follow what's above. But if it is a record I really like & know I'll listen to a lot, I'll try this:

1. Clean with Last Power Cleaner for mold release
2. Rinse with UltraPure water
3. Run thru Ultrasonic using UltraPure on 5 min cycle
4. Follow the 3 step Audio Intelligent process noted above
5. L'art du son cleaning
6. UltraPure rinse
7. End with 4 min in the ultrasonic

This will obviously take some time, but I'd only do this for my most coveted vinyl.

 

Any particular brushes you recommend?

 

Interesting, it never crossed my mind. I like the Mofi/Disc Doctor type brushes along with the VPI brushes to provide a variety of agitation. I guess a CF brush could work just as good!

 

They're all the same to me. I just looked and the two that I have in use for wet cleaning right now are simply a generic (labelled Carbon Fibre Cleaner) and a Tonar that is identical but branded. Those two look identical to the Audioquest which is $15 I think and the Clearaudio, the Clearaudio selling for $35.

The Tonar and generic sell for $13.95. So that's what I use .

 

I could be wrong, but it really does seem like there's one company that makes all these CF brushes and just OEM's them out. I've never seen one that didn't look like all the rest of them.

 

Well, I am trying a (slightly) new procedure. I am not as uh, uptight about cleaning as some here, but I do take it seriously. However, I don't want to devote 3 hours or 30 or even 5 minutes to each record - I have way too many for that. And while the ultrasonics are tempting, they are still a bit pricey and a bit too tweaky or possibly unreliable judging from reading various forums.

So basically for new and used records that aren't especially dirty, I am doing a two-step process using my VPI16. First, enzyme wash, squirt a bit on, rub with brush for 20-30 seconds or so while the platter rotates, then vacuum for a 2-3 rotations. Then, rinse, same process, but using a different brush, and then maybe 3-4 rotations for the vacuum cleaning. So an LP takes about 2 minutes tops for both sides. Obv very dirty used LPs may need a longer soak with the enzyme cleaner/deep clean/etc.

The real new bit is my cleaning formula, I wanted to make my own. Currently I am trying a bit of Sporicidin mixed with distilled water. At normal strength you use 2 oz Sporicidin per gallon, I am doing about 1/8 of that strength or so. It seems effective, you can still tell there is cleaner there (slight foaming), but it vacuums and rinses fully -- much better than formulas with alcohol and wetting agent which take a lot of rinsing to fully get off a record (I can always tell when a record has been previously cleaned with such formulations as distilled water will spread instead of beading) This seems as good or better than commercial formulas I have used in the past -- I haven't heard or seen any detrimental effects at all yet. Then my rinse cycle is just using standard distilled water which is very cost effective.

One 32 ounce bottle of sporicidin at this concentration is gonna last forever, but it has a 3 year shelf life according to the manufacturer. Has any one else tried this stuff?

 

Anyone familiar with using Alconox protease enzyme called Tergamyzine? I just ordered 4 pds. box to use for cleaning LPs. Among the 4 types of enzyme cleaners this company sells, this seems to be the most appropriate for the type of organic materials deposited in the records groove. Its main use is for industrial cleaning of kitchens. Safe for plastics. (THEY have an enzyme cleaner which is too strong to clean medical lab equipment). Any one have used it?

 

I considered tergazyme too, it will probably work well. However the smallest box is way more than you will ever need. Alconox said it has a 2 year shelf-life, so 4 pounds is a lot, enough to make 52 gallons of solutin at full strength, which you probably don't wanna do. also make sure it is fully dissolved before using.

If you use it don;t forget to report back here about the results...

 

Any good results using Tergamyzine detergent? what about using Alconox Liquinox detergent with water in a ultrasonic machine?