Just wondering if Liquinox is completely removed with a distilled rinse or do you need to use the final cleaner to remove it? Thanks!
The Liquinox should be removed by a distilled water rinse; but it depends on how much distilled water is used. The problem with the Liquinox is the in-use concentration is 1% (manual clean) or 0.5% (vacuum-RCM). This is a high concentration; and for it to work, it has to be high (a consequence of the anionic surfactants) and to ensure a complete rinse - a lot of DIW would be required; a 95% efficient rinse process could still leave 250 ppm residue, which could be a problem. If you fail to remove Liquinox fully, the dried residue has the consistency of bar-soap. The high dissolved solids that are inherent to the Liquinox (consequence of the anionic surfactants) can actually impede the removal of very thin/fine soils. Essentially, once past pre-clean, the Liquinox can be become the soil. So, the final cleaner which is a single component nonionic surfactant cleaner that is fully soluble with water at lower concentration is performing multiple functions - it removes any residue from the pre-clean (Liquinox) step, and thin/fine soils that a single clean step can miss noting that very fine/thin soil films are very difficult to remove (nonionic surfactant strength is emulsifying oil); and the lower in-use concentration is easier to rinse with lower risk of residue. This whole concept of the step-by-step cleaning efficiency is easily shown in Figure 42 of the book. The detailed analysis using probability for each action of each major step (pre-clean, acid-wash & final clean), is shown in the book Table XVI; but it's not an easy read. However, let me emphasize, that residue from the Liquinox is not going to damage the record, and residue can be removed (rehydrated) by rinsing with water or at worst cleaning with a very weak Tergitol 15-S-9 solution of 0.01%. Liquinox residue on the stylus would require some water and patience to remove; not much different than those people who use dish detergent and do not rinse, or rinse enough. So, go experiment if you want; I am not recommending it.
I'm using the Liquinox on an RCM. I use about 2 mil per side. I do two rinse cycles of distilled water of about 3 mil each. Thanks!
I had an interesting question posed to me by a friend that has jumped down the rabbit hole of record cleaning. I've shared with him Neil's book and my suggestions based on that. He's using a manual method but also recently got an Ultrasonic and is working that into his cleaning. He is using a Liquanox mix with brushing, rinse and then a Triton X100/alcohol mix with brushing followed by rinse. His question was why can't he just mix the Liquanox, Triton X100, alcohol, distilled water together and brush and rinse one time? In other words, turn 2 cleaning steps into one? I responded that I thought one surfactant/detergent would cancel out the other. They wouldn't work in concert with one another. You need to to the two separate steps to benefit from the differing qualities of Liquanox and Triton. Anyone want to chime in on this? I don't know if I'm in the right ballpark with my response. Neil, any thoughts?
Elliot: It comes down to what each cleaner/step is doing. First there is no benefit to adding X100/IPA to Liquinox. Liquinox contains anionic and nonionic surfactants - adding more nonionic surfactant is going to do nothing. The pre-clean step with Liquinox does the heavy lifting to remove the heavy crud. Liquinox is a pretty aggressive cleaner and used at 1% is 5000 ppm active ingredient (the product is 50% concentrated). The high concentration is a consequence of the anionic surfactants. If you fail to remove Liquinox fully, the dried residue has the consistency of bar-soap. The high dissolved solids that are inherent to the Liquinox (consequence of the anionic surfactants) can actually impede the removal of very thin/fine soils. Essentially, once past pre-clean, the Liquinox can be become the soil. So, the final cleaner which is a single component low concentration nonionic surfactant (+ some IPA for some) cleaner that is fully soluble with water at lower concentration is performing multiple functions - it removes any residue from the pre-clean (Liquinox) step, and thin/fine soils that a single clean step can miss noting that very fine/thin soil films are very difficult to remove (nonionic surfactant strength is emulsifying oil); and the lower in-use concentration is easier to rinse with lower risk of residue. This whole concept of the step-by-step cleaning efficiency is easily shown in Figure 42 of the book. The detailed analysis using probability for each action of each major step (pre-clean, acid-wash & final clean), is shown in the book Table XVI; but it's not an easy read. If your friend wants to shorten his process - use only the Liquinox; this, then is not much different from those who clean only with Dawn. The difference is that Liquinox does not have all the other stuff that is also there including ingredients to protect your hands. If you use Liquinox without gloves, after a few records it will strip all oils from your hands - it's an industrial product. Neil
Thanks Neil. That was what I was trying to tell him, but you said it much more succinctly. I'll pass this along to him.
If you can’t get solid results after a pre clean, acid clean and final clean plus ultrasonics, it’s time to give up and get rid of the LP. There’s nothing that can be done to resurrect a faulty pressing or one that was pressed with substandard vinyl. There are some records that I just couldn’t improve upon by a deep cleaning to my satisfaction, no matter how hard I tried. As a result of this, I now avoid certain labels/pressings from a particular period, mostly US vinyl pressed in the mid to late 1970s.
I didn’t mean to disparage your collection at all. It’s a combination of having no luck with those pressings and OCD.
I've been pretty lucky in that regard. Apart from the thousands of records I bought new back in the period, much of the high ticket stuff I buy now is small or private label soul/spiritual jazz from the U.S. made in the '70s. Definitely not a high point for plastics used in making records in the States, but I really seek out copies that are mint-/never opened (that can be tricky but I've had good luck and when necessary, use the Furutech/Orb record flattener I bought a while ago, which is a lifesaver). Some of those records have been reissued, but they are often needle drops, or taken from a CD or something other than the tape, let alone the "right" tape. Such reissues may be ok as a stopgap because the price of some the sought-after copies is now astronomical.
Adventures in record cleaning, 3rd edition update! After re-reading 3rd edition with special emphasis on the highlighted, along with our various conversations on this thread and other similar threads, here are some observations. First of all I supplied up on the materials needed to implement the acid-wash / acid soak step. I've also converted my basins to rinse only use, opting to go totally to a spray and brush method of both or all three cleaning steps depending on whether I use the acid step or not. Just to review I use a procedure based on Neil's work. 1. Spray with liquinox solution & vacuum. 2. Spray with liquinox, scrub, vacuum. 3. Place in rinse basin #1. 4. Spray with Triton X100/Iso Alcohol solution, scrub & vacuum. 5. Place in rinse basin #2. 6. Vacuum. With the 3rd edition update 1-3 remain the same. But before going to step 4 I take the record to the sink and rinse with warm water, place flat on a container and spray citrinox solution, let soak for 15 minutes, then I rinse again in the sink, then spray with citrinox solution and wipe with brush, then rinse again, then spray with distilled water, then repeat with side 2. Then I go back to work station and resume at step 4. I've tried a number records that I had cleaned previously but still had issues. I done this cleaning 3 or 4 batches. Some records I continued with my non-soak method and others I included the acid soak. None of the problem records improved with the acid soak. I can't hear any difference between records that were cleaned with or without the acid soak. Records that were cleaned for the first time with the original method and still had some issues I cleaned a second time including the acid soak. They did not improve. Initial Conclusions 1. For normal records the 6 step method does an excellent job cleaning the records. 2. Records that still contained surface noise after cleaning have groove damage. 3. Acid soak cleaning may in fact remove particles deeply embedded in the grooves but I haven't encountered any of these yet. 4. I don't need to include the acid wash or acid soak method in my normal cleaning procedure. 5. My best strategy will be to set aside more valuable records that have issues after I clean them and periodically clean as a batch with the acid soak method in the hope some of them aren't groove damaged, just deeply embedded with particles. 6. As a general rule the acid steps aren't needed. 7. If you do include acid steps, don't just do the acid wash, include the acid soak. If the issues with the record are bad enough to go to the extra effort, don't skimp and then wonder later if you had soaked it too it would made the difference. 8. I'm glad I'm retired, as the rabbit holes that are the record collecting world are deep, with lots and lots of twists and turns.
Elliot: Thanks for keeping us abreast of your trials and tribulations. Definitely agree that after a precision multi-step cleaning process whatever is left is groove damage. However, I respectfully take exception to your statement: I have found the acid wash to be beneficial, noting that in my procedure (book Chapter V), the acid-wash step only adds a few minutes (~2-min) to the cleaning process. Its only after fully cleaning and 1-2 playbacks will I consider the time-consuming (~45-min both sides) acid soak. In your process the acid-wash is not incorporated into the natural flow of the cleaning process requiring an off-site (away from your vacuum RCM station) location for the acid process. Why have you not had benefit from the acid-wash or soak, it could be as simple as the records you are buying. I have had some success with new records (mostly EMI Germany) and lots of success with many used records that while filthy had few if any groove scratches. Just the other day, a Blue Note Tone Poet developed a skip - much to my surprise. I tried the misted carbon fiber brush that some recommend - nada. However, 15-min acid soak on that one side - good as new. But I do have one question for you - how are you preparing the Citranox solution? I would like to confirm you are using the right concentration. For surfactants and manual cleaning, there is a pretty wide range; but the acids are much more concentration sensitive. Take Care, Neil
I soak each side for 15 minutes, rinse, then spray the Citranox onto the same side and clean with the brush. I’ll use the Citranox on lot of older used records. Sometimes, I’ll use it on new albums, especially if they were pressed at GZ or Optimal
Hi Neil, Yes I think the reason the acid steps aren't having any affect is because the reason for the surface noise is groove damage. I think they are getting very clean without the Citranox, but I think there are plenty of records out there that might not get clean and would benefit from it. I just haven't cleaned any of them yet! I do not doubt the effectiveness of the acid step when needed. Since I have to maintain two stations, the work table and the sink, it makes sense in my particular situation to first clean without the Citranox and only use it on records I have to reclean and since I'd be recleaning I figure to go all in and include the acid soak so there's not a chance I have to reclean a third time. Regarding the Citranox concentration I'm doing it per your book, 7.5 ml to 16 oz of distilled water. I mix up a gallon by taking a gallon of distilled water and adding 60 ml of Citranox. I actually use a 1/4 cup measuring spoon since 60 ml is equal to 0.25 cups. I make sure it is well mixed and then pour into a spray bottle as needed. Anything I might be missing or you think I need to tweak please advise. Take care, Elliott
Elliot, You have the Citranox solution right; and I have nothing to add to your process. Take Care, Neil
First, thank you Neil for putting together such a thorough document. It is very much appreciated! Regarding the record drying using the OXO Dish Rack, I ordered the model described in the document - however, I had some concerns with it, and returned it (as I write this, I wish I had taken some photos to document the issues described below). The grey tips, upon which the records would rest, felt to be of a relatively hard plastic. While they were of a different material than the base of the posts, they were still quite hard. Not only that, many of the grey tips still had rough/sharp edges from the plastic moulding process, facing towards the front of the rack. I was worried that they would end up scratching the records as they leaned against them. Perhaps they have changed the manufacturing since you purchased yours. What are your thoughts on this rack: https://www.amazon.com/WEWU-Record-Storage-Records-Stainless/dp/B09B3NKZJX If the dimensions are correct, the metal would contact the label area of the record. I ordered the 15 record version, and will report back once it arrives. --- Second question: Citranox seems to be out of stock for the time being, and you mention that vinegar can be a possible substitute when mixed with an NID (such as Ilfotol). It is mentioned to add 5 drops per 500ml of acid spray solution, and if ~15-18 drops equal one 1 mL - I was wondering if using 0.5ml of Ilfotol would be detrimental? (I'm asking since measuring 0.5ml would be much easier than 5 drops) Also, I was wondering whether it would be worth it to get Citranox when it comes back in stock, or stick with vinegar and Ilfotol (since I have a bottle of it already)? Thank you!
For a rack, here is an alternate that you may like - Neil Antin's Aqueous Cleaning of LPs- 2nd Edition . As far as the OXO, mine has the tip mold-lines parallel with the record, and I am reasonably careful with placing the records and have not caused any damage. As far as Citranox - have you tried buying from Alconox Citranox Acid Cleaner and Detergent | Alconox Inc.? Not sure of the shipping cost. You can use Vinegar with ILFOTOL. However to get 5-drops 100% NID equivalent using ILFOTOL which is about 5% you would need 20X as much or 100-drops or about 5-ml. Otherwise, the distilled white vinegar can become a bit over-bearing and your place may end of smelling of vinegar. Good Luck
Just a quick update. I cleaned the Frank Wakefield album again. I included the acid soak step. I did notice improvement this time, still a VG record but went from a a low end VG (what I call a VG-) to more of a mid-range VG.
The 15-record stainless steel drying rack arrived - this is what it looks like: Full size images here: Album — Postimages My thoughts - The Good: - I like that it is stainless steel, no worries if it gets wet or to clean - To give proper ventilation space between records, it could comfortably hold 8 records - Compact - Only makes contact with the label on a 12" record The Bad: - The space between the slots is narrow, requiring lots of care and steady hands to not rub the vinyl against the metal when inserting it or removing it. I want something that will let me work quickly when cleaning a bunch of records, without damaging them. Because of the risk of scratching the records if not careful, I am not sure if this is the right solution for me.
Dear Neil, thank you for your response! The shipping for the 1-Qt Citranox is difficult to justify direct from Alconox. Nearly $20 shipping for the $27 bottle of cleaner. I phoned around all the local dealers and no one was expecting stock for 4+ weeks. In regards to the smell of vinegar, we use if for some cleaning jobs around the apartment, so we're used to the smell Even when the Citranox does come back in stock locally, would I be missing out on cleaning performance by sticking with the Vinegar + ILFOTOL?
