I didn't really notice it doing anything honestly. I would then go back and use one of two other cleaning solutions that both got better results. The first was Audio Intelligent No.6, and the other was my home blend of distilled water, a bit of 90% isopropyl, and a couple of drops of Dawn.
I've tried an Triton X-100 solution. Although I got good results, I didn't notice any difference with AIVS or L'Art Du Son solutions. So I can see why @jon9091 might not as enthused with his results.
I generally agree that these solutions seem mostly fungible in the actual cleaning. I think the advantage with Triton-X/Tergitol is that it costs pennies on the dollar compared to the two you mention, and doesn't have any of the storage requirements that the enzyme cleaners have. I always feel the water is muddy in conversations like this though, as a) all dirty records are different, and b) when you get better results from using a different solution on the same record, implied there is that you're also cleaning it a second time. Its very hard to come to clear conclusions of one cleaning better then the next IMO.
Yeah I can see the cost effective side of things. I bought a 100ml bottle of X-100 and that'll last me for sometime. I think though the AIVS one step or their non-enzyme solutions are easier to deal with re: storage like the tergitol solutions. As to your second point, the interesting thing for me is that, so far, a second clean using Triton X-100 has not given me any improvement. I concede that it is highly possible that the records I've tried so far were just beyond improvement so I'll add that qualifier as I continue to experiment. IMO, I think for the most part, the majority of used records are the same level of "normal" dirty, in that most solutions will clean them equally as well since you're not dealing with stuck on goop or moldy parts that require a bit more elbow grease. A lot of records I buy are just really dusty and even a distilled water rinse alone does a lot to clean them up, noise wise, as most dirt is fairly loose and easily removed. Another pass with an proper cleaning solution does the rest of the work for you
Have any of the good folks here noticed this while using Tergikleen: If Tergikleen is properly used, has anyone noticed MORE surface noise on what seemed like a quiet album prior to using it. When using Tergikleen, the results are a clean record with what seems like more detail coming through, but also an added amount of surface noise...
Doc, Do you add anything else to your US solution besides the TergiKleen? I've seen where some add about 5% Isopropyl Alcohol. Thanks, -jj
Hey everybody, Just joined the forum after lurking for some months. Trying to approach this record cleaning issue in a sane, empirically responsible way. SHF has helped greatly! I haven't decided on what route I'm adopting yet, but here are a few thoughts: Re: Turgikleen vs. bulk Tergitol and/or Triton X-100. There is an issue of shelf life. Dow Chemical rates all of these chemicals as having a shelf life of 2 years. (Tergitol 15 Series / Triton X Series ). Does anybody have any experience of the effectiveness of these surfactants beyond two years? If they are no longer effective, it may turn out that the small Turgikleen bottle is worth not having to dispose of quantities of flammable, ineffective chemicals in 2 years, and buy more which you'll also have to dispose of in a similar fashion. However, if all of the chemicals retain their effectiveness for a longer time than Dow rates them for, it may be worth investing in a bigger bottle of the pure. Re: adding alcohol to Tergitol, Turgikleen, or any other surfactant. Here is a link to an extremely helpful discussion, which many of you have probably already seen: A (Very Long) Primer on Record Cleaning Fluids . This is the most scientifically informed discussion of record cleaning, as well as the alcohol issue, I've been able to find on the internet. According to that author, alcohol does leach plasticizer from the record, BUT (i) so do surfactants, and (ii) this effect can be entirely mitigated by removing the (appropriately diluted) cleaning agent from the record promptly, such as by vacuuming it up. Furthermore, this author claims that alcohol "can handle a broader range of contaminants than a surfactant." While he falls short of recommending any one method, he suggests "A carefully tailored mixture of several surfactants, or several alcohols or several surfactants and alcohols in water can offer a broad and deep cleaning without additional risk." So, unless somebody can indicate counter-evidence or a better scientific authority than the author of the Very Long Primer, it is not credible that adding alcohol "would defeat the entire purpose of using Tergitol" or, as the makers of Turgikleen insist here, that adding alcohol is "unnecessary" and "ruins the product. " It is clear that their information is purely anecdotal. I know that the Library of Congress and their Canadian counterparts do (or, did, before they removed the recipe from their website) use Tergitol and no alcohol to clean their archived records. For that reason, I respect anybody who follows their lead and only uses water and Tergitol. But bear the following in mind. In this interview from Dec. 2016, an archivist at the LoC seems to admit that the scientific testing LoC has done on cleaning methods has been limited. In particular, no testing has been done of enzymatic cleaners. Secondly, the LoC has plenty of old records (shellac, etc.) which are documented to be damaged by alcohol. So, the most we can reasonably conclude from the Library of Congress's practices is that Tergitol diluted in deionized water keeps records safe. We cannot conclude that adding alcohol to the mix is unsafe for newer LPs. We also cannot conclude that adding alcohol to the mix won't improve its ability to remove contaminants. Feel free to correct any missteps here! Thanks!
@JohnMonte513 Have you seen this thread over at Audiokarma? Record cleaning- you're doing it wrong! Posters in that thread include chemists so it's not just a bunch of guys throwing darts. It does go into adding iso-p to your tergitol mix. IIRC, the main poster (I think) says adding it will not improve your record cleaning but you can add it if you wish. It's a long thread, but worth reading. I know the shelf life of the concentrated solution is discussed at some point but I can't remember if there's an amount of time given.
I'd spend less time reading Internet Explainer Guy posts and more time experimenting with cleaning records and determining what works best for you. The most amusing thing about the long, psuedo-scientific discussions and arguments between chemists to me is that it assumes cleaning records is amazingly difficult and requires very specific combinations and ratios of chemicals that requires a lot of research and study. It doesn't, they all work pretty well and your records aren't that dirty to begin with. The biggest differences are generally related to how hard they are to rinse off and what happens if you don't.
I loved this review on Amazon - "to call me an audiophile, well that is an understatement!" "I even used Tergi-Kleen on some quickly deteriorating pre-production copies and those that were covered in palmitic acid." What kind of records deteriorate? And how did he get 'palmitic acid' on his records?
@eddiel Thanks for responding in a helpful, constructive way. That Audiokarma link is a good one, and the chemistry guru over there seems to know his stuff. Doesn't seem "pseudo-scientific" to me at all. I didn't read all 85 pages, but his claims that bear on the present discussion are: Adding isopropyl alcohol to a cleaning mix can be advantageous. It must be highly purified, mixed in concentrations lower than 10%, and removed from the record promptly. The shelf life of surfactants like Tergitol 15s and Triton-X only really matters for scientific experiments, not for record cleaning. These chemicals can be safely washed down the sink when finished. Sorry about throwing the shelf life worry into the discussion. Dow recommends testing the Ph and viscosity of their non-ionic surfactants every six months after they've been opened, and both of those properties struck me as more important than simply technical niceties. But the authority over at Audiokarma doesn't seem to worry. If he is correct, Tergikleen's warning that their product is only good for 2 years is probably mistaken. Probably going to go with bulk Tergitol though. It is worth noting that nothing in the Audiokarma discussion appears to contradict, in fact in places supports, claims made in the Very Long Primer discussion. That's a good thing. In science at least, consensus provides some (though not definitive) evidence of truth.
That thread is actually very interesting even if you don't care to experiment. It actually explains quite a bit as to why things work the way they do and one of the major points of that that article is that you do not have to spend money on pre-made formula because there is a very cost effective and easily obtainable solution (well generally). The fact that you missed that leads me to believe you didn't even read it or if you did, dismissed it based on your bias. In essence, it explains what you should use, why you should use, all the while helping you avoid costly formulas pre-made formulas. It actually doesn't assume that cleaning records is amazingly difficult. Quite the opposite i.e. here's an excellent formula you can make at home for cheap. There is of course guidance because, well there needs to be. Otherwise, you can make your problem worse e.g. you haven't rinsed properly. Of course these discussions can move into the minutia, which happens here too, but only a perfunctory scan of that thread will yield good advice that'll simplify your cleaning and within budget (if you are concerned about that). You don't need to get into the minutia at all to find a simple solution that won't take you away from cleaning your records for that long.
I imagine in laboratory level work you need things to be at certain levels. With record cleaning not so much. I think as long as it's stored properly and isn't contaminated it should be fine. It'll take several lifetimes for me to work through that concentrated bottle of Triton I got that's for sure. But it takes forever to get through my L'Art Du Son too. Reading all 85 pages is a bit much as it diverges often between other forum members. I kept an eye out for the a couple of the posters mainly as they were the ones with the most knowledge and they tended to answer questions that I wanted answers to as well. What I found interesting was that thread was the first I came across that had participation by professionals and not just companies trying to sell their pre-made formula. There is so little information regarding the pre-made stuff in terms of ingredients so it was interesting to hear what a chemistry professional had to say. There's some discussion later on about adding an anti-static agent that I was particularly interested in as I get a lot of static issues but the chemical is not available in Canada and hard to get in the US as well.
Oh. Well, if you need me to confess that I didn't read the entirety of a Russian novel on the subject of cleaning dust off of PVC - guilty as charged! But I have certainly never claimed that anybody needs to invest a lot of money in record cleaners (and in fact use the cheapest one I'm aware of), so the idea that I "missed that" or have "biases" is a bit strange. Maybe one day our science-minded friend will share with us the conclusions he reached by comparing and contrasting the differences between cleaning a record with Tergitol and cleaning a record with Tergitol mixed with alcohol vs. citing internet forum posts. Of course, the problem there is that cleaning dust off PVC isn't especially difficult, and any one of these substances does it just fine on their own without needing to be combined. Coupled with the fact that you can only clean a record for the first time once, its nearly impossible to do a head to head test of cleaning products in the first place - another reason why Recordcleaningology gets a tad amusing. I'll close by saying the reason I avoid alcohol in record cleaning products has a lot to do with my experiences using them vs. products that don't contain alcohol, and has literally nothing at all to do with "leaching plasticizer".
Don't act like that. Of course I've cleaned records, and it went well. I think it could probably go better, and I probably could take better care of my records, with more knowledge. So, I'm exploring what information is out there before I commit to a purchase, and sharing what I've found with others. I fail to see what about that is so problematic that you've got to throw cold water on the whole conversation. Didn't take too long, and I don't find being informed about the substances I'm putting on the record to be pointless at all.
Lighten up! That Audiokarma thread was enlightening to me over a year ago. I use a triton-x/distilled water/ hepastat 256/alcohol mix with my vacuum machine. It works great for me. Naysayers be damn!
