I gave no thought to it as a reviewer but from a purely engineering perspective. Would you be curious to test out the methods in your book firsthand? To see if the process could be further refined or improved? To witness the results? You added the disclaimer "Disclaimer: I do not own a vacuum RCM, and therefore no performance comparison has been made between the manual cleaning process of CHAPTER V. MANUAL CLEANING PROCESS: and vacuum-RCM. However, since the first edition of this paper, I have assisted a number of people using vacuum-RCMs with the successful use of Alconox™ Liquinox™ as the pre-cleaner and Dow™ Tergitol™ 15-S-9 or BASF™ DEHYPON® LS 54 as the final cleaner; and the lessons learned are discussed herein." It would be a great boon to the community to have you work with these machines and test your hypotheses firsthand.
Neil - many thanks for turning your attention, experience, and knowledge to this topic, and for sharing the results of your investigations with the rest of us in such an accessible form. I have slowly been working through this with an eye toward using your method on problem discs, and look forward to the results (once Amazon stops losing my packages in transit, anyway). A few questions, more out of curiosity than anything else: Are there any contaminants that you would suggest collectors be wary of, due to their posing a particular danger to the integrity of the vinyl? Various types of smoke (cigarette, wood, etc.) and fragrances came to mind as possible candidates, but if there are types of sleeves or other storage media that should be avoided due to potential outgassing or leaching, that would also be of interest. Also of interest would be any thoughts you have on the use of something like LAST preservative or similar 'treatments' that claim to change the chemistry of the groove surface, if you've had an opportunity to look at those. While much of the information about specific composition of many of the various vinyls appears to be hard to come by, are there any formulations (or, by extension, labels/presses) that you feel are particularly noteworthy examples of either good or bad decisions from that standpoint? This one is probably somewhat outside the purview of your work, and given the differences from vinyl I won't be too surprised if you decline to offer much on this, but do you have any general suggestions for an approach to cleaning 'styrene' discs? Thanks to both you and Bill for spending the time and energy to make this resource available to the community.
I have the results from the many people I have assisted. My particular experience is not going to add any additional benefit. When working with vacuum-RCM, as I wrote: "XIII..."A key difference between the manual cleaning procedure of CHAPTER V. MANUAL CLEANING PROCESS: and vacuum-RCM, is the difference in cleaner concentration/ volume and rinse water volume that can be used. The manual clean procedure of CHAPTER V. MANUAL CLEANING PROCESS: has almost no limits. Any excess cleaner just drips off into a sink and there is a near infinite source of tap-water for initial rinsing. In comparison, vacuum-RCM have inherent design limits to the amount (and type) of cleaning agent and rinse water that can be applied otherwise the unit can be flooded and damaged.". As far as performance, as written in the book: "XII...."However, records that after the three (3) clean process of pre-clean, acid-clean, final-clean and the acid-soak still had residual noise or distortion without any visible detritus, these are classified as having non-recoverable physical damage. Is it possible that residual noise could be caused by deeply embedded debris that ‘may’ be removed with a heated ultrasonic cleaning machine discussed CHAPTER XIV. DISCUSSION OF ULTRASONIC CLEANING MACHINES:? At this point it’s unlikely. The incorporation of the acid chemistry does manually what ultrasonics can do with power.". And, as I wrote: "XII.16 The final chapters of this book will discuss machine assisted cleaning methods: vacuum record cleaning machines (RCM) and ultrasonic cleaning machines (UCM). It’s important to consider that machines are generally developed for two primary reasons – reduce labor and improve process efficiency. Process efficiency can mean faster (higher throughput) and/or higher probability of achieving quality or achieving a quality that manual labor cannot produce. Manual cleaning in the appropriate environment with appropriate controls can achieve impressive levels of cleanliness, but the labor, skill, time and probability of success generally make it impractical for manufacturing environments. But for the home audio enthusiast, depending on your attention to details, adopting machine assisted cleaning may or may not yield a cleaner record. However, the ease of use and convenience provided by machines can be very enticing and cannot be denied.". So, what Neil Antin is never going to say, is what is the 'best' method. There is no best method, other than the method that is best for you; by taking what you have and getting the best from it.
I would never think there is the best method. Instead, I thought you would like to see the methods & results firsthand like an astronomer might want to visit space. Thanks for your work!
In the book the only contaminant I say to avoid is the fuzzy/slimy mold (VIII.11.3); but I still address how to clean if you want. Otherwise, yesterday I bought a used double album of Simon & Garfunkel Concert Central Park. The records did not have any major scratches but there was a variety of contaminants including some mildew type mold. None of it stood a chance against the Liquinox and Citranox; and the records after cleaning played almost Mint. But there are some contaminants liked dried paper that can almost weld itself into the record, and I address some last-ditch efforts on trying to remove (VIII.13 DETRITUS OF UNKNOWN ORIGIN – SPOT CLEANING and I even address using lighter fluid and wood glue. As far as record sleeves I just follow the pack on that avoiding paper and any PVC. The problem with PVC sleeve is that it will be flexible-PVC which means it has lots of plasticizer and as written in "X.3.1 Plasticizers can migrate from polymers based on three general mechanisms 1) evaporation to the ambient – same as off-gassing; 2) extracted by being soluble with liquids in contact; and 3) transfer from one surface of another." So, using flexible-PVC for a record sleeve is just bad. Last by its patent US5389281A - Composition for protecting vinyl records - Google Patents should be nothing more than a very low-vapor pressure fluorinated oil dissolved in a fluorinated solvent. The solvent evaporates leaving a very thin film of fluorinated oil/lubricant. The basic theory I suppose is to fill-in the record surface roughness reducing the surface friction factor. The problem is that fluorinated solvents have extremely low surface tension so when you apply, the solvent (with dissolved oil) will want to fall to the bottom of the groove, where when the solvent evaporates the oil has no benefit - it has to dry and leave a coating on the side walls. My position is to leave no residue; and in Chapter VI, after analyzing the wear from the stylus - "VI.13.4 If whatever wear byproduct powder that is produced by the diamond and the record is kept dry and free of oily and sticky residue, the stylus should move through this without any affect – not unlike a light coating of very dry powder-snow, it just blows around.". Quick answer - no. I understand the formulation by what RCA disclosed in their patent and this is analyzed in Chapter X, but there is lot to lot variability which is why Better Records: Hot Stamper LPs — 100% Guaranteed Great Sound. (better-records.com) exists. Otherwise, in general I have noticed that new pressing from EMI Germany benefit from acid-wash and I suspect that this has to do with the limited use of air conditioning in Germany. So, the background air in the factory is high in aerosols which contaminants the record during pressing and handling. QRP is pressed in a relatively controlled environment and their records tend to be very clean. In general, I think it's pretty common knowledge that 180-gm records are more difficult to press, and the lower cost version I have found to be worse than lighter (cheaper) say 150-gm. But my knowledge here is no better than what is repeated elsewhere. Take Care, Neil
The idea of having a machine screaming in my ear, is not my idea of fun . You have to appreciate that when I worked for the US Navy, for some 20-yrs I reviewed, supported, implemented, and audited many different precision cleaning processes across the country and many of our NATO allies. Believe me, I have had lots of hands-on experience.
Ahhh I see this is some product that has been diluted in an "aqueous solution", whatever that means. Cider vineger? And by the by what is the standard for neutral pH, 6.0 seems to fall on the acidic side to me.
When they report the pH in aqueous it means % in water. The product is delivered essentially 100% concentrated, which is not how it is used, its used diluted. Scientifically, neutral pH is 7. But, for practical purposes neutral pH is generally accepted as pH of 6-8. However, your store brand 5% distilled white vinegar pH is about 2.5 - that is acidic. FWIW, the nonionic surfactant I generally recommend TERGITOL™ 15-S-9 Surfactant (dow.com), pH of a 1% aqueous is 7.1.
Then I still don't get how water, pH 7.0 when pure, brings down, what must be a basic detergent, to an acidic pH, and I'm also not sure how, practically, an order of magnitude difference in pH is still considered neutral. I mean we use triton x to disolve lipids, I had assumed because it is basic, just like dish soap. I may well be wrong, but it would appear that if a 95% dilution in a pH 7.0 solution brings the pH to 6.0, that it must have been acidic to start with?
"triton x to disolve lipids" - that could be as simple as like dissolves like. EDIT - My background is not laboratory cellular analysis, but how Triton X100 dissolves lipids is addressed in many papers such as Detergents: Triton X-100, Tween-20, and More (labome.com). Otherwise, pH is the log of the hydronium ion, and the Dow data is 5% solution which is ~50,000 ppm does yield an increase in the hydronium (H-) ion. So scientifically (laboratory perspective), the concentrated X100 would be very mildly acidic, and from the 5% in water you should be able to calculate the ionization constant pKa value. But, I would suspect the pKa is going to be very large. As far the term "detergent" from a surfactant perspective, surfactants come in flavors so to say. There is no given that they will be basic.
Thanks for the correction! So I looked into it a bit because I can become like a dog with a bone about stupid **** like this, but apparently Triton-X is a "nonionic" detergent. I just always assumed all detergents were negatively charged. Sorry for belaboring it!
@pacvr Neil do you know anything about the new Audio Intelligent record cleaning fluid made for ultrasonic machines? There’s not much information disclosed in the product description. Osage Audio Products, LLC I wonder if it’s any better than the Degritter cleaning solution? I haven’t purchased the Degritter yet. I was planning on using a mixture of DIW and Tergitol but since there has been reported foaming issues that may cause harm to the machine, I may need to try another option. I don’t think using DIW or the Degritter fluid is enough.
No problem, but if you dug deeper then you found that there are nonionic, anionic and cationic surfactants and each has its own strengths. I do a quick summary in the book Chapter VIII if interested.
Being honest, not a clue w/o an ingredient list, but in the book VIII.9, there is an overview of the four basic type of enzymes including a caution for those that 'may' be sensitive. But, if the cleaner is just enzymes, then it will not foam which for the Degritter could be a benefit. The Audio Intelligent product is not expensive in comparison to other 'record cleaners', so it may be worth a look. HOWEVER, if/when you buy it, take a sample from the prepared solution and allow a few drops to dry - see what is left. If there is anything visible, you may want to rinse. Not sure you want an active protein (that is what enzymes area) sitting in the groove - I may be wrong, but my risk meter just flashed until I know more (and sorry, but I am not investigating this one - way too complicated).
@Tommyboy- agreed. I think the "no rinse" element is to promote convenience. Yeah, record cleaning can be a PITA. But, for me, I do it once, aim for effectiveness and I'm pretty much done. I'd rather that than skimping. It's less ritual than process and varies to some degree based on the condition of the record. In my experience the rinse step takes you one step further. I guess Neil (@pacvr) can speak to the science, but in my simple minded way, it gives you another shot at removing both contaminants as well as possible residue. Even though I'm using very high quality vacuum cleaning, I'm not sure sucking up the fluid/contaminant slurry eliminates the possibility of such residue. BTW, Neil had recommended an air puffer with a HEPA filter on intake. I've been using Giotto Rocket air puffers for quite a while and the HEPA product, made by a different company, is even better. (I also adopted his Tiger cloth recommendation as a substitute for 100% silk fabric-- I use that only for touch up of an already clean record). My records have never played cleaner-- obviously, much has to do with the quality of the original pressing and condition. I think for some people, dead quiet surfaces and no "ticks" or other distractions is a revelation. As you appreciate, there is a way to get this right without going completely OCD (or at least from my perspective, it isn't "too much"-- I clean in batches and am pretty much caught up, a dozen new albums to listen to, including a couple old records that I bought sealed and shockingly, were not warped). Admittedly, the record gods were with me recently. FWIW, Jim Pendleton is very nice but if you talk to him, I doubt he'll tell you what's in his new ultrasonic brew.
Chapter XI of the book goes into great (yes I know - dense, excruciating, technical and scientific) detail on what detritus is audible, but let me extract some parts that are not as scientific/technical and maybe easier to grasp: XI.6.1...how does residue – NVR - effect the sound? There are a number of possibilities. First, what we do know is that thick residue will cause debris/residue to form on the stylus as the record drags the stylus through the debris/residue, and records subsequently cleaned often are audibly improved indicating that the stylus will not clean a record of residue; record and stylus wear notwithstanding. We should agree that any residue that alters the natural surface finish of the record, that alters the friction factor, that increases the mass of the stylus, that alters the interface between stylus and the record may affect how and what the stylus traces. The residue can be viscous (liquid-like) or non-viscous (dry flakes/powder) and each can affect the surface differently. XI.6.1.a Given the high accelerations that the stylus experiences, residue (mass) that collects on the stylus will cause a resultant force (force = mass x acceleration) that can affect the stylus ability to trace the groove. A viscous residue on the record groove may damp the stylus reducing the modulation reducing the signal output. It may cause vibrations if the stylus experiences variable-drag or causes the liquid to cavitate under the extreme pressure of the stylus which in either case, the background noise floor may increase obscuring high frequency detail. XI.6.1.b If the residue coats only the side-wall ridge valley, then the stylus may not deflect/trace the full peak-to valley height and high frequency detail can be attenuated/lost. Recalling the DIY cleaners from CHAPTER VIII. DISCUSSION OF PRE-CLEANERS:, some are over 1000 mg/L (1 mg/ml) and if 3 mL was allowed to dry, the resultant NVR could be 3 mg/ft² with a resultant film thickness greater than 0.3 microns which by Table XVII & Figure 47 should be audible. XI.6.1.c A non-viscous residue may increase the surface roughness noting that the silent groove if at -20db (Table XVII) is very near the record baseline surface roughness (0.01 micron) causing the background noise floor to increase potentially obscuring high frequency detail, record and stylus wear notwithstanding. AND, please remember: "XI.7.3...Some people have very sensitive hearing and likewise can benefit from the best achievable cleanliness level. Consider what is written page 16 – of UIUC Physics 406 Acoustical Physics of Music ©Professor Steven Errede, Department of Physics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Illinois 2002 - 2017. The Human Ear ⎯ Hearing, Sound Intensity and Loudness Levels (78) "....Individual people may hear better/worse than the average person, and so threshold of hearing from one person to another can vary as much as 1/10 or 10X....!!!". So, residue from the cleaner(s) can be audible. In the book, Chapter VII, Table VII Residue Thickness Microns from Water Residue, shows the residue that can be left from the water rinse, and why using better than just purified water (store bought distilled or deionized) should be of little benefit. Devils in the details, Neil
Hi Neil, Thanks for all your great research on the topic of record cleaning. One question that I've had: Does the omission of carbon black in transparent vinyl and/or the inclusion of other colorants in colored vinyl have any unique impacts on the record cleaning process or chemistry?
For all practical purposes - no. The carbon black or pigments have little influence on the record properties regarding the affect or performance of cleaners.
