Record Cleaning Debate with Esposito, Fremer & Patrick
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ก.ย. 2024
- A response discussion to my HumminGuru Cleaner Video: To Use or not use a surfactant
Patrick the Vinyl Archivist: / @vinyl4all
Michael Esposito: The In Groove: / @theingroove
Michael Fremer The Tracking Angle: / @trackingangle929
Rachels Ghost Stream Conversation : • DRAMA!!! Michael Freme...
Hi Mazzy,
Thanks for hosting this. It was interesting but did have one recurring issue, namely that none of the participants understand the relationship between surfactants and the cavitation process from a scientific perspective. Without this knowledge, everyone is unfortunately resorting to poor analogies and misconception.
To attempt to clarify: from a scientific process perspective, cavitation is clearly aided by the presence of a surfactant. The role of a surfactant is to reduce surface tension. When surface tension is reduced, cavitation levels increase. Cavitation involves the creation of bubbles which requires breaking of surface tension. So lower tension means more bubbles, and more cavitation. Distilled and deionized water have higher surface tensions making cavitation more difficult, making the use of a surfactant in fact more valuable.
How to handle the surfactant safely (as with all chemicals), which surfactant is most suitable for vinyl ultrasonic cleaning, and so on, are then supplementary questions to this. For what its worth, triton x100 is an environmental hazard banned in the EU, tergikleen has been shown to leave residue, and ilfotol is probably the safest.
Finally, alongside Patrick's first hand experience that surfactants do offer a benefit in an ultrasonic environment, there's an english journalist called Paul Rigby, who writes and youtubes as "The Audiophileman". He's also researched this area extensively and done hands-on test comparisons and gives a good summary on the use of surfactants, their audible beneifts, and their use across manual machines through to ultrasonic cleaners. For anyone interested in a dispassionate take, his stuff is well worth seeking out.
There's no reason why people shouldn't try a surfactant and see if they can hear the difference themselves. It might be negligible enough not to bother. If so, fantastic. But people should not be put off by the panel members here saying it has no role to play in a cavitation process when it assuredly does with an action grounded in well established scientific theory.
Thanks!
Very well said. I think.
@Loki Tio Do you think that perhaps what we are dealing with here is a difference in the amt of transducers in the 4 with the Klaudio and 2 with the HummingGuru?
That is, Mike E may be getting the same results with 4 transducers and plain distilled as Patrick is with the 2 transducers with the needed addition of surfactant?
The surfactant in essence "making up for" the lack of the additional transducers?
Hope that makes sense.
Also as Chris mentioned the cable issue causing a weaker power source in the HummingGuru.
Thoughts?
@Loki Tio, I completely agree. As it happened I consulted with Paul Rigby in great depth when he was doing his research for this.
Fact of the matter is Mazzy experienced great results with his first test, using Tergikleen: it worked! I do hope he's not put off by this scaremongering. I've used Ilfotol as surfactant for decades with no ill-effects.
@@FleagleSangria I know what you're getting at and yes it might be a factor but equally so could how Mike E actually used the surfactant when he tried it. Most experimental evidence across all those machines, from the likes of Paul, Dave and Patrick, as well as the foundational science, suggests a surfactant will always have a positive effect on a cavitation process. Whether you hear it is down to how you do it and the specifics of your environment. Beyond that, we're into marginal gains territory. If you don't hear it, don't do it! The point here was to debunk the myth that in a general sense there was no relationship between surfactants and cavitation. Scientifically, there is, and evidentially many leading audiophiles have proved this through extensive experimentation.
@@DaveDenyer Thanks for weighing in Dave, a voice of your experience here is invaluable. Incidentally, If people are unaware of Dave's background and credentials, please visit Dave's channel.
I also tried steel wool with great results. No more grooves, perfectly smooth. Dead quiet vinyl.
I have been using Triton X-100 with distilled water, exclusively, as my ultrasonic solution for quite some time, and have experienced nothing but optimal, phenomenal results (I run 30 minute cycles at 32 degrees Celsius, for my ultrasonic cleaning). I swear by it, so I'll never understand how anyone could think that distilled water alone can do the job, without wetting the molecular structure in order to enable it to really get into those tiny grooves, fully. I 100% reside within the "yes, surfactant is absolutely necessary for proper, effective ultrasonic cleaning" camp, personally.
I just got Triton X-100 last week and made mix. I'll be using it for the 1st time tomorrow, Glad it worked out for you!
Thanks for hosting this Mazzy, it was fun and I hope folks got some useful information
I’m glad this finally came to a head. Patrick knows I’ve been asking about this subject in the peanut gallery for months. I was finally convinced by Patrick for two reasons. 1 he cleaned a thousand records with good results. 2 he has sent me free dollar bin records that should be G+ but they play VG-VG plus making enjoyable player copies. Patrick’s real world experience trumps any unsubstantiated claims. What I would like is for Kirmus to come I’m with Mazzy and explain the claims he made at RMA from several years ago.
I like both the Mikes, it's always fun watching them mic it up.
As a record collector since 1968, I think today the vinyl thing has become over the top. I realize that used records are now more prevalent than in the seventies so some kind of cleaning is necessary.
When I first started buying records most were new, I simply kept them sleeved and bushed any particles off.
In the eighties I bought my first RCM a VPI 16.5. My cleaning process was a solution of a of about 1oz of 99% alcohol to a quart of distilled water followed by a rinse or two with distilled water.
The last 12 years I’ve used the Systeme Desk cleaner (actually 4 different models because reliability is not their strong suit).
All my records sound great. If I had to agonize more than that I go digital.
Lets be realistic if you have amassed a large collection (5k to 10K) how many times are you realistically going to play most records in your lifetime? At my age 70 it’s unlikely that a record gets played more than twice.
Degritter updated the firmware of all of their machines (Mark I and Mark II) to be able to have two cycles: wash with one tank, then it stops and asks you to switch tanks (manually) and put a tank with just water for the rinse. This is available to anyone with any of the Degritter machines, just need to download the software and flash your machine.
Degritter showed a machine at Munich 2022 that has two tanks and essentially does the above automatically. That is not in production yet but I imagine they will bring it to market - I would love such a machine.
Great job pulling this discussion together! Great to come to a consensus that records should be cleaned. Also great to see the two Mikes not going at each other! I thought I heard Patrick say that the HumminGuru and Klaudio both cavitate at 40Hz with them having 2 tranducers for the humminguru and 4 for the Klaudio. I wonder if Mikey F would do a review of the HumminGuru himself for those of us that can't spend the Klaudio $$$
Great Debate!
Tried a Humminguru / Turgikleen experiment this pm. I used to have a junkie ultrasonic from ebay, I cleaned the test album once with it months ago and it was still noisy every time I play it. I used my Humminguru w/straight distilled water, no dry. Then used a fresh reservoir of water and this time with one drop of Turgikleen (so not really diluted at all) and I could see the disc was absolutely soaked compared to the first cycle (again, no dry). Ended with two more cycles with fresh distilled water only and each pass I could see there was less water on the album than the first cycle, then dried. Sound was significantly improved, much more quiet.
This was great and thanks Mazzy, nice to see someone wanting to tackle this issue head on....
Glad you enjoyed it
Excellent discussion and thanks to Mazzy for getting the panel together. I won’t bore you with my preferred record cleaning process (I do use a Humminguru with the 10 min dry cycle) but one point that I haven’t seen raised here is to be sure the records are completely dry before playing them! Advice from a cartridge manufacturer I know was to let the records completely air dry before playing (and sleeving) them. I do this routinely now and let them air dry for at least an hour or two (longer the better) before resleeving (in new sleeves).
You douse 'em with lighter fluid, ignite it, and when the fluid burns off, the record is clean
What about the dust that falls on them while they're air drying?
Thanks Mazzy for this. I think a combination of ultra sonic and physical agitation is the best method. I wet vac clean my records once using a project. Surface tension prevents a good deep wet clean so a surfactant is essential imo.
Thank you for this. One of the most informative video about ultrasonic cleaning. There is no need to add any type of chemical to a Ultrasonic machine.
This is all good information and I am still on the fence as to what is the best approach, although I am leaning toward eliminating the chemicals. I guess one thing to consider about the build-up of chemicals on a record is the fact that if you properly store your records post cleaning (outer sleeve and poly-lined inner) and you use a brush with every playing you will likely only need to do a thorough cleaning (chemical or ultrasonic) once. So, that being said I kinda think cleaning with chemicals , if you rinse properly, may not be a big deal.
Thanks for the real world review.
My HummunGuru arrived today.
Just cleaned an original 1967 copy of Surrealistic Pillow…..priceless
I find cleaning records very satisfying, regardless of technique!
If nothing else, it was heartwarming to see Messrs Fremer & Esposito firmly on the same page...🙂
Thanks for this Mazzy. I have had the Humminguru now for a few months and as soon as a new record arrives, even a double album, and no matter how anxious I am to hear it, I run it through the Guru, usually with 2 min clean and 5 min dry. If it looks dirty, I do 5/10. I learned something here despite having one for a while, and that is I do not replace my water frequently enough out of laziness! I probably should replace the water every 4 or 5 album cleanings. I have tried a few solutions but the instructions with the Guru say not to add any gunk, so I stick with distilled water only these days. Cheers
I understand. But I think I’ll start with sone of my older well played records ✌🏼
Thank you, very timely video.
Just bought a HumminGuru after Mazzy’s video and buy tons of records from Mike @ The In Groove
Damn! So pissed I missed this I have so many questions for these guys in particular and on this exact topic!!
Great. Fun and interesting discussion. And I have saved some money by watching, realising I don’t have to add any expensive branded chemicals to my Audio Desk. I have blindly, stupidly, followed the manufacturers recommendations.
There’s something to be said for just giving a new record out of the shrink a nice dry brushing and then playing it. I disagree with Fremer in the regards that it’s not a chore to clean records. It absolutely is a chore especially when you let them pile up because life gets in the way. I spent more time cleaning records the last year or two than I did listening. This year I’m not doing that. Unless the record visually looks terrible (like it was bought from the used $1 bin), then my really nice brush will do. The results so far this year have been pretty good. Much of what I’ve bought are from MoFi/AP/VMP, and they do a mostly good job of not sending you records that look like they got made in mud. BUT when that does happen, I’ll break out the wet spray or record wipes, and give it a clean. Appreciate the informative video, Mazzy and company.
This Humminguru video from Viny Attack is the most thorough and objective I've seen. He assesses the results under a microscope, which directly contradict Fremer's contention that you don't need a surfactant, at least with respect to Humminguru. In his first review of the Humminguru, he did not care for the machine but the results were dramatically different with the Tergitol. Not everyone can spend 6500 for a Klaudio. th-cam.com/video/5gh_OxTA3x0/w-d-xo.html
Oh I have bought tergikleen but haven't tried it yet. The lady/fella that sells this stuff are a riot to communicate with. Very humorous and can give and take joking around.
Great video. I use a spin clean and follow it with a record doctor. No complaints
My process is similar to yours, but I have Vinyl Styl. It's advantage is the use of goat hair brushes that get into the grooves to loosen the dirt.
This was a great video, Mazzy. I think that too many people have too many ideas about the cleaning process as to make it a chore.
Steve Guttenberg said he washes his records in his sink with no vacuum cleaning. I think the best thing is to clean tour records before playing and enjoy whatever process that you use.
I use Trident X100, distilled water with natural fruits that have enzymes in them that I let ferment. I got this method from KoolKatJazz's TH-cam channel. It has worked perfectly for years.
Patrick looked like he was getting frustrated as you could see him shaking his head during the video.
Even though Steve is a 1% audiophile at least he tries to be at the 99% record collector level .
He is now using an SL-1200. To
spin his lp’s.
I do like the record cutter guy in this long you tube video
I just started to watch this stream minutes ago, as I clean my records from Waxed. I don’t know where this stream will go, but if there’s a god, I hope it will help my MKII Degritter work just fine for as long as possible!!! This toy is magic!! 💪 is 🧨-mite, guys!! 😎
If you clean your MOFIs well enough, you might just be able to hear that digital step your magic ears couldn't heard before.
😂
The digital step has been around since the 70’s and maybe the 60’s . You cant hear the difference come on.
All about sales with these VC guys
@@Anthony-fz7uf , you are absolutely correct. As if the owners of the priceless master tapes would be willing to degrade them every time a rerelease is scheduled. Not happening
Thank you .
I kniw they started before 79 .
The 3 M’s are the all wise lol.
Fleetwood Mac did one in the 70’s.
I have no issue with digital if it improves sound so be it.
I belong to a Record Collector group in NYC and these videos are to long . Ww air tem once in awhile and with ten minutes most are looking at their phones
Wealthy American boomers and their 1st world problems... I started my record collection aged 10 in 1971. I made the switch to CD in the mid 80s and stopped buying vinyl but never offloaded my collection. By 1995 the vinyl was stored in the attic. I retired last year and decide to upgrade to my final system and to reintroduce a turntable and recommission my vinyl. I bean researching which record player I would buy. When watching YT I was amazed to discover the lucrative record cleaning industry that had grown in my absence. I was astounded at some of the ridiculous snake oil gizmos available. I could not believe people were actually placing vinyl discs into a domestic oven or a small electric blanket thingy. slathering PVA, WD40 or washing up liquid everywhere and then there were the expensive contraptions- Heath Robinson devices that washed, sucked and blasted. Add to that record clamps and weights. I couldn't believe what I was seeing/hearing. Had the world gone mad? Apparently so! It still puzzles me that people actually buy used records- only god knows how they were stored and cared for by the previous owner/s- and were willing to risk playing them on high end equipment. I break out in hives just thinking about that. My old dad taught me never to lend or borrow from anyone as you just don't know what their standards are- especially when it comes to records. I watched these demos on line where records bought at garage sales/thrift stores and covered in crud were being put through a gizmo costing thousands of dollars.... REALLY? WTF? Are these people nuts? What miracles do they ecxpect? This is on the "water in to wine" level of expectation. I eventually decided on the turntable that would meet my needs/budget. I took out one of the discs from my collection- Fleetwood Mac Rumours- It was clean to the eye and after a quick and careful brush it played perfectly. If you look after your records from the day of purchase then you have no need for any Ultrasonic Humming DeGritter gizmo. A year on and the novelty of the turntable, cleaning and turning the disc over every 15/20 minutes has worn off. the turntable has been relegated to an expensive ornament.
Best comment on this video
Thanks, Mazzy! (from an old drum playing, amateur photographer who also enjoys martinis) 😁
I've been using a solution of Triton TX-100 and pure water for about six years, and it works very well for me. I decided to add vinyl to my system after having none since 1985, and this prompted me to do a lot of catch-up research on the various aspects. Prior to this, I had never used anything in the old days but cloth and a 'Dust Bug'. :) Importantly here, I never planned on having a lot of records and, though I researched all info availble on cleaning vinyl, I never considered any of the relatively expensive approaches and equipment. So, firstly, I used an objective that, to the degree possible, nothing is added to the record surface that is not removed in the cleaning process. After researching all the solution mixes and other DIY people were using, I started with Triton TX-100, isopropyl alcohol, and distilled water, and a 'Vinyl Vac'. For isopropyl I used a 99.9% reagent level product, however, I soon read that the main purpose of the alcohol was to aid in drying the record, and decided to stop using it, since the process I use results in the solution being vacuumed from the surface, leaving it dry. My main priority with TX-100 was that it's a surfactant, but it's also described as a 'detergent'. I also switched to pure water. So, my cleaning solution is nothing but pure water and just enough TX-100 to do the job. I use two mixes; the first a bit stronger for used records when I first acquire them. The second is for light cleaning and new and never-played older records, and has 1/3 as much TX-100 to wet the surface and keep the entire side covered with the mix. TX-100 is very concentrated, and my mixes use one to three drops in a 400ml Nalgene container. Water alone will bead up on a record surface, and my solutions cover, spread and stay put. Additionally, I made for the first part of the process a 'turntable' by modifying a plastic 10" lazy susan, adding dime-size pads to support the record. The first part of the process is to put the record on its turntable and into the kitchen sink, and application of solution. This is where the surfactant (TX-100) breaks the surface tension, permitting the water to penetrate more deeply into the groves than it would otherwise, helping to float and loosen most matter that does not belong there - anything that is not part of the record. I use my fingers to assist in spreading the solution, making certain it covers the entire surface. I let it sit a few minutes, and follow this with a warm rinse of filtered tap water rinse using the faucet spray thingy, all the time turning the disc, about ten times. I then remove the turntable and record, and use to remove the solution, a 'Vinyl Vac' attached to a small shop vacuum, removing the solution along with all loose matter contained (in suspension) within it at that point. The side is practically dry at that point, and the runout area and label are dabbed dry. The process is then repeated immediately for the other side, and the record placed in a rack to dry completely - usually it is only the record label that needs time to dry. It's possible debris can become 'mechanically' stuck in the grooves and not removed in this process. I hope this will add to the very informative discussion here. Apologies for the length. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triton_X-100
paragraph breaks nek time ok bud?
Greetings from the UK. Within the past two years had my interest in RCM’s was tweaked by watching/reading various forums on this great hobby. So l did my research on Ultrasonic and vacuum RCM’s and in March ‘22 encouraged by my wife l decided to buy the Loricraft PRC6i.
For me this was/is a massive game changer. Now l don’t play a record on our system unless it is cleaned first.
Thanks for sharing!
I use (in order): compressed air, carbon fiber brush, spray on a solution of distilled water/a tiny bit of photo flow/alcohol and then scrub on a turntable with a white paint edger pad, then rinse with distilled water spray, then vacuum with vinyl vac. Works amazing and cheap!
Good conversation. I own the Audio Desk Pro X and am about 450 records in with cleaning my collection. My issue is going to be that once I get through my back collection, how I will handle the sporadic new stuff that comes in. Some months I buy one record, other months, 20-25, and the cleaning formula from Audio Desk is not cheap. They suggest I can't keep the fluid in there longer than 4 weeks, but It won't be economically feasible to throw out the water when I paid a decent amount for the cleaning fluid.
I use the Degritter, with the cleaning solution they provide, plus a few drops of Turgitol (heavily diluted with distilled water). I purchased a separate tank for rinsing and follow up every cleaning cycle with a rinse cycle.
This is a fascinating discussion. Oddly enough I just had an issue with Tergikleen on my records and was discussed at length on facebook. I had 2 new records that had a haze on both after cleaning in a tank with Tergikleen. I think the problem was I let them dry before rinsing.
I have a home brew ultrasonic cleaner and have tried lots of different mixes: Photo-flo, Turgikleen, IPA, JetDry, etc. Today, I’ve got nothing in the tank but distilled water and Jesus. I noticed the Tergikleen gave me the best results, but it was leaving a buildup that created static. I get just as good a clean without it as long as I’m drying records off as they finish with a microfiber rag. Totally agree with Mike E on changing the water frequently. My solution was to buy a water distiller.
Great conversation about all vinyl cleaning 🧼 Thanks Mazzy!
Without having the time to view this what has worked for me is: I nitty gritty vac the record after I scrub it with a solution from that guy up in Osage, MO. Then I use one medium pass--total of 8 min 30 sec clean and dry time in the Degritter machine. In the machine's water so far I have just added to it the solution that came with the machine. Using both the manual scrub/vac and followed by the ultrasonic does an excellent job. What I have found does NOT work is solely using something like the spin clean. ESPECIALLY DONT USE THEIR CRACKLE INDUCING DRYING CLOTH.
My personal method:
For "clean" (eg new or looking very clean): Humminguru with surfactant and 1% alcohol (no drying step) then Degritter with 1% alcohol (rinse and dry).
For "dirty" records I first do a Spin-Clean with surfactant and 5% alcohol, then the step above.
Distilled water, .5% ilford, .5% isopropyl alcohol (99%). Cover it with cleaning solution and vacuum without touching it. Cover it again with solution and use paint pad. Vacuum. Cover it again with solution and use paint pad. Vacuum. Distilled water vacuum without touching it. Distilled water and use different paint pad. Vacuum. Distilled water again paint pad. Vacuum. Basically I use cleaning solution and vacuum it off to get anything that the paint pad might drag over record and scratch. Then clean it with solution and paint pad twice. Then rinse as many times as I feel like it. Yeah it’s overkill. It’s a labor of love. I wanna get the klausaudio but it’s gonna be awhile before I got 6000 to spend on it.
I've used the Nitty Gritty and Hanss Record cleaning machines. Then I tried the Ultrasonic V-8, which at that time was the best solution I'd found. It allowed me to clean up to eight records at a time, but I found six to work the best in the machine, which was just a standard ultrasonic cleaning machine. However, the ultrasonic wasn't perfect. I still found that a number of records still had some surface noise. On a lark, I decided to try the Merrill Gem Dandy Record cleaner, which is a PVC contraption along with a special hose that screws into kitchen tap and projects high pressure water on to a record after first spraying with the proprietary George Merrill cleaning solution and then waiting a couple of minutes. What I found was that using the Gem Dandy first and then doing the ultrasonic bath as a final rinse worked best of all for record cleaning. High pressure water is far better than cavitation alone for getting into the grooves of the record, and the nasty smelling solution that Merrill invented also worked extremely well. After I do the final rinse in the ultrasonic, I air dry on a rack. I found that using the Gem Dandy alone was not as successful without also doing the ultrasonic rinse just as doing the ultrasonic without first blasting water on the record was also less successful. I highly recommend the Gem Dandy. I think using that with a cheap ultrasonic like the Humminguru or getting a basic ultrasonic machine will do the best job of all. One thing that Merrill says about standard record cleaning machines is that the vacuuming can damage the lands on the records, so it's best to air dry.
life's too short lol
As many varying opinions here one thing I could see the panel all agreed on … 75th anniversary blue note records, no love.
Ha yeah you heard that 😎🤠
Sure clean your records but the best cleaner is the needle? 😮
Michael Esposito et al: filtration of solids (dust, dirt) etc. from your cleaning water is a great idea when reusing/recirculating no matter the method. But what about the buildup of soluble contaminants that build up in the cleaning water that pass through the filters? I think you should add an activated carbon/charcoal filter to your system as these chemical will build up unless the water is changed out after each cycle, less they dry on the record.....
Mazzy I don’t clean my records unless I feel they need it. Your panel here all have systems that
Cost more than my vehicle. They may even have needles that are more than my mortgage payment.
Well maybe not since my house is paid off. You get the point. Don’t go out of your way to change
What your doing. I intend to have one of these machines myself but only after prices are more
Reasonable
Good conversation! I use a Disc washer with distilled water and have for more than 40 years. I should up the game and get a humming guru at some point.
Trying to summarize:
Seems to me we are looking at several factors here with this topic:
Most importantly, does Tergitol hurt the vinyl?
The North East Document Conservation Center as noted, Association Of Recorded Sound, TALAS all approve of Tergital. As does the Library Of Congress approve Tergitol. "Tergitol is the only chemical that has been scientifically approved and rinses clean" is also what the lady that has a degree in archival processing mentioned in the other video.
So, many chemists/scientists apparently say no Tergitol does not damage the vinyl.
Yet apparently there are other scientists/chemists that say yes the chemical is bad for records. Though the scientists that say Tergitol does hurt the vinyl were not listed here in this video.
A note to the opposition to Tergitol:
If you are going to argue that scientists and chemist disapprove then please provide sources and major archival facilities that agree with you. Mentioning a panel or a group of individuals at a convention in which speakers are endorsing a cleaning machine product is not exactly unbiased. Or very scientific IMO.
Leaving the above behind...
Those two differing stances aside...lets take the stance that Tergitol left on vinyl is damaging. Lets hedge our bet..
Hypothetically lets just say leaving Tergitol on the vinyl in any form and any dillution is not good for vinyl records.
Then a final rinse should remedy any worries, yes?
That is, after Tergitol is used and before drying the record if the record is given a final rinse it should not leave any danger of Tergitol being left on the vinyl lp in a significant amount.
If the above is the case, for certain, then it becomes two other questions:
Does having Tergitol in the mix actually help the cavitation process?
Not "is it neccesary?" but rather "is it better and doesnt it give better results than just water alone?" should be the question.
If so, if the results are better with Tergitol added and since there is an extra rinsing step, are the benefits worth the time and effort?
If so, then it becomes a time factor. An extra step factor. And is that extra step worth the hassle vs the better results?
But how would one test this?
That is...
Is there a way to test whether Tergitol added is better than simply distilled in the process of ultrasonic cleaning?
Is there a way to test this?
I dont think there is.
And the reason Mazzy mentioned is why. You have already introduced an initial cleaning step with the first distilled water only step. Then your dealing with a cleaner record and of course the next step with the added Tergitol is going to most likely yield better results. Doesnt really matter how you examine the results. The test is flawed to begin with. With a microscope you are simply magnifying the results of a flawed test.
So for me that test unfortunately would be invalid.
I mean you could I suppose get two albums that have similar audible noise from debris and dirt on them and run side by side tests (one record with distilled and one with distilled/Tergitol) but even then there are many variables.
Still that would be the closest type A vs B test, Distilled water ultrasonic cleaning vs Distilled water/Turgitol mix, that one could trust.
In the end I think Tergitol is probably determined safe as far as harm to records (Ive never had a record develop cancer yet anyway). With one important cavaet:
•••IF RINSED•••
In the end, its up to the cleaner to see his or her own results as to whether or not Tergitol being added actually yields better results than simply using distilled water.
Both safe methods with time due to extra rinsing being the factor.
My biggest take away?...
Using Tergitol? •••RINSE YOUR RECORDS IN A FINAL STAGE•••
Side thoughts:
I do think it might be good to have a wet cleaner such as the VPI to preclean so you are not blasting your record with particulates as you are cleaning with the ultrasonic. A must? eh probably not. But at least put a label protector on and pre wash the superficial dirt off before sticking the record in the ultrasonic. Protect the waters integrity as much as possible.
Highlight from the comment section:
Here are some very good points brought up by two posters here:
@Loki Tio
"To attempt to clarify: from a scientific process perspective, cavitation is clearly aided by the presence of a surfactant. The role of a surfactant is to reduce surface tension. When surface tension is reduced, cavitation levels increase. Cavitation involves the creation of bubbles which requires breaking of surface tension. So lower tension means more bubbles, and more cavitation. Distilled and deionized water have higher surface tensions making cavitation more difficult, making the use of a surfactant in fact more valuable. "
(check out the rest of his comment)
and..
@Jaguar Audio
"This Humminguru video from Viny Attack is the most thorough and objective I've seen. He assesses the results under a microscope, which directly contradict Fremer's contention that you don't need a surfactant, at least with respect to Humminguru. In his first review of the Humminguru, he did not care for the machine but the results were dramatically different with the Tergitol. Not everyone can spend 6500 for a Klaudio. th-cam.com/video/5gh_OxTA3x0/w-d-xo.html
Articles mentioned in the video and comments secrion to learn more about surfactants in record cleaning:
thevinylpress.com/app/uploads/2022/01/PACVR_3rd-Ed_2022-01-17_Master.pdf
theaudiophileman.com/surfactant-clean-vinyl-buyers-guide/
Interesting problem with the DoE on this. I think the trick to do this experiment correctly is to break it down into two parts. First, do two cleans help more than one ( in sonic terms)? To do so, two consecutive cleans should be done with only water. If the second clean causes an improvement, abandon the experiment. If it does not, proceed to the second part, which is to clean with the additive and check sonics after that. (The underlying assumption is that if the second water only clean made no improvement, a third water only clean would not have either). Therefore if any improvement is heard on the third clean with the additive, it must be attributed to the additive only.
@@tugga511 This is a possible solution. Thanks!
Thank you for your detailed overview. It does sum up things about all this. Maybe adding questions for some and answers for others ✌🏼
Very thorough John. I think Patrick, Dave Denver and The Audiophileman would say, however, that it is possible to test for a difference.
Great video Mazzy and guests. Been following Michael Fermer for awhile. I use to use alcohol forget the name, starts with an i.
Isopropyl I guess...
@@Venus_Isle Yes, thank you.
I purchased the Pink Floyd Animals remix/remaster from Mike@The In Groove and had him ultrasonically clean it. It sounds fantastic, dead quiet. I would for sure take his advice on this.
I have KLAudio cleaner. When I change out the distilled water, that's all that is hitting the LP to clean, I'm always amazed at the amount of black grime that flows out when changing the water and just from having been on the cleaned vinyl. It makes a great difference sonically.
26:57 - If, as Michael Fremer indicated - "New records need to be cleaned because record plants are not clean", would that perhaps also mean they are pressing dirt INTO the new vinyl, ultimately generating noise that should not exist?
Noisy Czech vinyl records, yes
800ml Distilled & De-Ionised Water
100ml Pure (99.9%) Isopropyl Alcohol
5ml Ilford Ifotol
The only problem is you need just 5ml of wetting agent for 1Ltr of cleaner.
For a 32 ounce bottle of cleaning fluid
Before making any cleaning solution, check the ingredients against the pvc and plasticizer chemical compatability chart. If using cleaning machines with pumps and rubber, also the rubber and neoprene compatability chart as well.
Do note where Ilford photo flow defeats the purpose. As a certified darkroom specialist, the monopolar attributes of this liquid is made to repell water from film and paper so as we dry the mediums we do not want water spots to be fixed to the film or paper. For record cleaning we need to see liquids attracted to the record. Not the opposite.
I use some sand paper and motor oil. It works like a charm. They all end up sounding like the album Metal Machine Music which in my view is better than say the caterwauling of a band like The Cranberries.
We didn't do any of this schiit back in the 70's! Just the velvet brush and red bottle.
That velvet brush worked about as well as doubled papered blunts of sticks and seeds.
I use Tergikleen with distilled water and the Tergikleen works great. But I do rinse it off then dry
Yeah, use a rinse. Audio Intelligent makes a one step rinse which leaves no residue.
I found even Compilation records for K -tel sound more musical once i have cleaned them, its amazing to hear things in the mix i never heard before :)
That was entertaining mazzy. I'm a UK listener and a lot of this I feel is
Bunkem. I clean like yourself, I don't think some hi fallutin expensive cleaner is going to make a huge difference to the audio. I have rega system and it's damn good. Thanks for this video.
Using my very cheap £140 Vevor US cleaner, in 6L of distilled water I add 60 mls of 100% isopropyl alcohol ( 1.0%) and 6mls of Triton X (0.1%). Afterwards, using my Project VC-S2 I brush wash with distilled water and Project 'Wash It' and vacuum dry. All sounds good to me. Much greater clarity.
Have tried many different systems but for a good cleaning I go back to my Krimuss but it is a long prosses but works. I use more than one system depending on what needs to be done.
Great to see you all together I watch most of everyone's videos'. Question How to you do a second rinsing with water? Also I bought (right before the pandemic) an Project VC-s machine the one that Michael Fremer did a review on and a month later it started sounding louder then a jet taking off, So they gave me an up grade 6 month later the same thing happened? So they gave me a 3rd machine now it's doing the same? So I got a used VPI machine Between that & my Ultrasonic machine I'm cleaning all my records..
I use a Degritter. I have two extra tanks. I never put a truly dirty record in it at all. I use my vacuum RCM for that. Rinse with distilled water then mist a VERY diluted (1/4 or recommended strength) Tergikleen, then a short cycle in tank 1. Next a short cycle in tank 2 for rinse. If it's classical or anything else with very wide dynamics, i.e. quiet passages, I do a 3rd rinse. Without getting into record cleaning debates I consider the Degritter to be the best rinsing machine I've ever used. Even things that say they don't need a rinse leave a cloudy residue once rinsed with the Degritter. And I'll admit, on my most precious classical stuff I do a rinse with pure water, lag grade. Can I offer empirical evidence that it's necessary? No. It does make me feel better and requires very little since I do it on the vacuum machine. I have found that Tergikleen can have a negative effect on some LP's. Using 3-4 drops per gallon has no ill effects if rinsed afterwards. I also have a Kirmuss. I don't like using a surfactant in the US water.
I physically scrub and pre rinse dirty records with water..then using a soft goat hair brush or bath body brush to get the initial dirt off using a mixture of clear palmoltive dish soap with little distilled water, and using a lazy susan. I then use a few drops of Ilford simplicity Film Wetting Agent from BHphoto and a capful of Sink to Clear flocculant. You can find at home depot in the pool cleaning supply area, with a tank filled of distilled water in my spin clean MKII as my final rinse. After doing multiple spins in both directions..I then just initial wipe off the extra moisture using multiple micro fiber towels and air dry overnight using a common Dish holder. Notice the crud at the bottom of the spin clean...they will decend to the bottom. Since I usually buy older lp's that was real vinyl and not the cheaper base lp's using the brush method, it doesn't scratch it as long as you clean the same direction as the grooves, never scrub across the grooves. After it drys, I place the clean lp in a new clean sleave and store vertically. When playing I only use my audioquest static record brush with NO chemicals ever back on the record. Best part supplies last a long time and the real cost is the spin clean MkII and time.
One comment on dirty records: If a record has visible dirt on it (eg dust, fingerprints) then it is best to clean the record first with a more mechanical method, be it a Spin-Clean, a vacuum machine, or similar. This lets the ultrasonic do what it is designed to do: get into the groove. You wouldn't clean a muddy car with a detailing brush - same thing here.
I don't think Esposito follows this prescription.
@@austinhunt4260 Two points:
1- The Klaudio machines filter the water as it it drained AFTER the washing cycle while the Degritter and Audiodesk skim and filter the water DURING the washing cycle. If there's any substantial dirt like grease or dust pulled from the record, it will be floating in the Klaudio water and possibly be put back into the record.
2- The ultrasonic action is efficient on small dirt inside the groove, it is bad at removing large dirt
3 non-experts debating and haggling about something which requires in depth knowledge of vinyl and its chemical compatability with surfactants. Having worked in the record pressing business for a few years, dealing with the maintenance of the pressing machines, extruders and additives used with these, I can personally say how durable and resistant vinyl is to most chemicals, a glycol based surfactant won't ever harm a record when applied sparingly, then rinsed with distilled water. The biggest issue you'll have cleaning older used records is mold, mildew, human skin oils from poor handling and bacterial growth. All of these (except outdoor mineral dust particles) require a surfactant to remove them. Additionally, leaving these contaminants on the record surface will allow a permanent molecular bond to form over time with the vinyl. Enzymes will only be effective at breaking down oils and bacterial debris (including dust mites, fungus and dead skin) to the point the grooves don't re-accumulate and grow more biological matter. You simply can't thoroughly clean a used record thoroughly enough with just water alone and reduce most traces of surface noise caused by organic contaminants, even with other mechanical cleaning methods (including ultrasonic cavitation). Dust itself can be organic or mineral based, so dust related to mites, their feces and the dead human skin cells they feed on necessitates enzymes and a surfactant to remove them. PVA mold release also won't budge without a surfactant, as its a bipolar molecule. Various PVA mold release agents are used in record pressing plants. They're chosen for the lowest amount of surface noise and for compatability with the specific vinyl formulations used. The manufacturer of the raw vinyl will specify the emulsion of PVA most compatible with the chosen type of vinyl. The biggest issue with pressing a record is the temperature of the extruded vinyl as its applied to the stamper mold. Too high of a temperature will cause bubbles to form, on the surface as it reacts to moisture in the air and condensation on the stamper dyes. Too low a temperature will cause micro fractures to form. The ideal temperature depends on the air temperature, humidity and pressing time. The press operator will test press a few times to dial in the parameters. So hopefully people can understand how delicate of a process it is to press records properly for the best possible pressing quality. Lastly, record presses are run in dirty, dusty environments, not in clean rooms. Some dust contaminants will make their way onto the surface, permanently embedding themselves.
What fun this was, all my favorite vinyl guys hanging out discussing cleaning vinyl
Wadda kiss ass
controversy! magic eraser stylus cleaning...done properly using the dipping method via cueing lever followed by the short/tightly packed/vertical bristle brush (similar to the Discwasher SC-2 or the much smaller diameter Stylast brush) to get off any residual detritus, will be superior to nearly ANY other stylus cleaning method.
i did a determined process of comparison cleaning of my AT170ML square shank diamond. 1st, i used the brush only and looked with a 40x handheld stylus microscope, first with no cleaning---schmutz. then the brush---cleaner but i could see that it could be better.
then i dampened the sc2 brush with the AT stylus cleaning fluid (so as not to directly put liquid on the stylus which is VERBOTEN per Ortofon) and looked again---better than before.
then i dipped the stylus into a piece of ME about 3 times followed by the brush. aMAZing. I saw a crystal clear, beautiful diamond and the square shank was VERY evident. i was shocked at the beauty of the diamond shank with MR tip. and yes, i could see the detail of the MR tip.
no styli were endangered in this test. admittedly, fools will try to use the ME like a brush and snag the cantilever off the cartridge due to a lack of understanding of the delicacy of such a procedure. further beauty of this process is that it NOT costly like many of the other rip-off products that are being sold to the unwary. i also think that the "ultrasonic" vibrating brushes like the original Signet, the Panasonic, and now the Hudson Hifi unit can be quite effective. the Hudson Unit is reasonably priced.
...hifitommy
Hey Mazzy, don't lose sight of the fact that it was using your initial process, with the Tergikleen, that brought about the perfectly audible results that you experienced...
I suspect that Michael & Michael have been listening too long to Charles Kirmuss who advocated that unless you use his machine, his (secret) chemicals, and his methods you'll be damaging your records...
I completely disagree, I think this is just fear mongering. I do agree his machine and process works very well, it's very thorough but incredibly tedious. I think the results are purely down to the thoroughness, not any voodoo. I've not yet tried a Humminguru but it's great to see an easy to use ultrasonic machine at a reasonable price.
Incidentally, I've used Ilfotol and many other cleaning additives, soaps or solvents for decades.
ps. Terikleen probably shouldn't be used as eye drops. ;-)
@DaveDenyer If you do a related video Please include comment on using structured water vs just distilled water, since you're one of the few that gets ionizers which is also bit of an underground subject of sorts - lookup 'crystal blue water' website if you happen not to know about structured water
@@tokioPK I don’t know about ‘structured water’ to be honest. I’ll look it up! 👍
@@DaveDenyer watch this Dave, its a great intro to it th-cam.com/video/qkVK4BaPSL4/w-d-xo.html
the dutch QS(aka Tonar) works real good; the simple okki nokki worksok,its a work horse
Hi I’m fairly new to the vinyl world. I’ve been thinking about investing in a record cleaner. Could you please recommend a record cleaner that won’t break the bank but is a decent purchase from across the Atlantic? It would be greatly appreciated as it’s extremely confusing…
Let me blaspheme a while. I use tap water, a new 2 inch nylon fine bristle paintbrush, and a little palmolive dishwashing liquid. Most of my records are 2nd hand and you can tell when they wee in smoky households - the soap foam actually turns brownish on bad records. I rinse with tapwater, and finally with distilled water after through tap rinsing. I dont find any residue after drying with a clean bath towel. I take care not to water log the label. It works great - and is practically free. Btw, static is rarely a problem here in Pensacola, Fla. 100% Humidity most days .
lplease elaborate about the magic eraser being used on styli. i did a progressive test sequence of examining the stylus before cleaning, standard brush only (Discwasher SC-2), sc-2 with the audiotechnica AT-607a (moistened only), and the ME. this was done on my AT ML170 with nude, square shank diamond.
at the start before cleaning it was almost disgusting. at the end, the results with ME, the diamond was a breathtaking jewlel. i used the dipping method, I know not to move the ME or the thing can catch and rip out the stylus. we have all had that deflated feeling once in our audio career by one happenstance or another.
in my Degritter, I use just 1.0ml of their fluid and am contemplating none at all as recommended by KL Audio. $3k is easier to swallow than $6500 for me so that's the way I went and couldn't be happier.
I put my records in the dishwasher, works fine.
Remember to put in on 80 degrees as well then 👍 But I get your joke.
I asked Tim de Paravicini what he thought about ultrasonics a few years ago, and he said they don’t know yet. The jury’s not out. I think there’s a small chance that it may damage your records. I thought I heard a slight softening of transients with my Kirmuss.
Humminguru used to say that the use of surfactants voided the warranty. Now they sell their own and It works well!
Yup
MIcro details, imaging, air, lowest of noise floor - like a major cartridge upgrade
I had a cleaner I think was called Tourmat which left a visible film on my records so I stopped using that. I still have a VPI 16.5 but haven't used it in awhile.
Mr. Esposito’s cleaning set up is crazy.
This should stir the pot just a bit:
For "good" records, those I care about most, a dry (wood-handled, not plastic) Discwasher will often suffice;
otherwise I use a few precious drops of the little fluid I have that I trust.
A key part of success with this method is Keep Cleaning Until There Is No Line Of Particles Left On The Record.
For heavy dust on newly acquired $1 to $2 pieces, Blow Off Electronics Cleaner and a microfiber cloth works wonders.
Max. I clean record if it’s obviously dirty or doesn’t sound just right. I even use a glass cleaner on
Extremely filthy records. I have a good vacuum and I rinse with distilled water afterwards😊
use distilled water with TTVJ Vinyl-Zyme in ultrasonic bath and after that spray distilled water on it and use vacuum machine great results
Thank you for the informative discussion. I wanted to pursue the importance and frequency of filtering/changing the distilled water for ultrasonic cleaners. While I covet a Klaudio my budget does not stretch quite as far as $6.5K. I decided to save about 33% off the Klaudio’s price and purchased the Audio Desk Systeme Pro.
Michael E stressed the importance of changing or filtering the water in between cleanings. I’m wondering about frequency. I noticed on the video shot of the "In the Groove" Klaudio Assembly line that they all seemed to have the 5 disc carousel. So am I correct in assuming that the cleaning water’s changed after every 5 (1 completion of a fully loaded carousel) cleanings? My “duct-tape” plan w/ the Audio Desk is to run the wash water through a .05-1 micron filter, a Brita Elite-- with every __ cleanings. In addition to washing the sponge filter and roller pads at the time of filtering.
What frequency do you change out, filter the water? Are you recycling wash water through the 2 sets of filters after every 5 cleanings for each machine? I realize that the answer is dependent on the condition of the LP’s being cleaned. Does the water get visibly dirty, or less clear or tinted? Any advice, wisdom etc that you might offer would be greatly appreciated
@@jeremiahchamberlin4499 Thanks--He does indeed clean a s%@t-load of records.
Anything we do to not see the needle fight with dirt, dust, fungus, surface films etc. as we plsy the record should be the goal of any cleaning process.
Cleaning 101..
Before playing any record, it is wise to use a 10 micron diameter parastatic felt brush to remove dirt, dust and other particulates sitting on a record or in the groove. If you have ever heard more pops after playing a record, and hearing them again, same spot, this is caused by the stylus that generates heat which in turn heats up the record's release agent that in turn fuses dust into the cooling pressing oil as it cools.
Same issue with dust at the pressing plant landing on a hot record and being fused into the cooling pressing oil causing those unwanted pops in new records.
Continuing the thought process and prior to play, use a 2.5 million count carbon fiber brush to reduce static.
These two simple steps should be done before any record play.
Periodic needle cleaning also removes anything that the stylus gouged out of the record's groove.
Some cleaning processes shine and inadvertently further coat the record. At times hiding a factory induced pop, which reappears as the record sees repeated plays as the needle has removed this "cleaning film." One also usually sees deposits on the needle confirming this.
Mr. Fremer has posted on TrackingAngle.com a video shot at the Florida International Audio Expo 2023 that covers generically record care and tonearm/cartridge alignment. Two essential elements that impact positively your analog listening experience.
A more precise and detailed presentation on the many myths as to record cleaning and care may be found on the KirmussAudio TH-cam channel. A 45 minute generic seminar recorded at a dealer event in Seoul last November in front of local audio journalists. Followed by a step by step video restoring a very well used record that was previously cleaned by a vacuum system. A record selected by the store owner.
...Informative as to the various methods out there, the videos both allow the hobbyists to discover for themselves the technologies reviewed. Added, as it relates to advertised ultrasonic machines, if they use cavitation or are simply bubblers. This also was referred to in a second posted video by Mr. Fremers is in a review of a cleaning solution sold for use ultrasonics, this in his cleaning solution review.
Beware...
Before using any cleaning solution, it makes sense to first read the ingredients list on any sold cleaning solution.
... No ingredients listed, use under caution.
..... With the ingredients list that should appear on the supplied materials safety data sheet, required by law, by the way, consult the pvc and plasticizer chemical compatability chart to see if the chemicals are safe for use on records. You will be surprised where some are ethers and solvents. Not pvc or even user friendly. Some toxic to humans!
Word if caution...if using cleaning machines that use pumps or rollers etc., check the rubber and neoprene chemical compatability chart to see if the solution you are considering to use will adversely affect your machine's parts.
Common sense to only follow manufacturer's instructions as to not use home made solutions.
To confirm that a record has been properly processed, as stated by the Tribelectric table of charges, a record should repell water and not see pools of water needing to be removed.
A shiny record is not a "clean" record.
After a process is used on records you should see increased signal on any VU meters or realize where you will need to turn the volume control down as there should be an increased signal to noise ratio and gain from a true restoration system. Noted in your testing of any cleaning technology and where you performed a before and after processing audition was performed.
As we make contact with water, any cleaning appliance should see a UL, CSA, cUL, and FCC Part 15 approval or Interrek ETL electrical and safety certification sticker certify those norms on the machine. NOT ON THE EXTERNAL LAPTOP STYLE EXTERNAL POWER SUPPLY. This is ILLEGAL. Those manufacturers circumvent law. If a fire is caused by such a device, your property insurance may not cover your loss.
Some machines sold here with direct connection to AC power have no certification stickers.
Hope some of the generics expands on the intent of this Zoom. Sad to comment on some of the electrical safety issues. We all as consumers expect the manufacturers to be responsible in protecting us.
Keep those records spinning.
Man , I wish I knew all these rules before I got my first Meet the Beatles record in 1964 😵💫😳✌🏼
@@mazzysmusic I've been spinning records since 1965. Bought every cleaning solution and spray sold. During high school worked in two audio shops in Montreal even more cleaning agents applied. Some 50 years later was able to strip everything out abd that problematic pressing oil that no one knew about, remarked on by Shure Brothers in 1977 but lost.
Keep those records spinning!
Great comments! I suggest trying Audio Intelligent products they use an enzymatic solution that is safe even with old 78s.
@johnparks6172 Not all 78's are made the same. Before using any cleaning solution check the ingredients list of the cleaning agent and its compatibility with the materials used on the record. Also some shellacked records may have some surface damage exposing the substrate which will not fare well with a liquid.
So if my new records seem to sound perfect. Why clean them? I've never tried but its hard to imagine they could sound better...???
Just as undecided weather to clean or not before watching this video. If I hear clicks & pops, I will clean them.
Thanks for that, don't have to waste my time now
I have been cleaning my records ever since I got back into buying them a little over 10 years ago. I started with a Spin Clean, then went to a VPI 16.5. About a year and a half ago I switched to an ultrasonic cleaner. I have videos on my channel showing my processes with the VPI and ultrasonic. I feel like I have noticed a difference each time I have made the switch although, like mentioned here, there is not a definitive, scientific process to test these things.
I have found on really dirty used records that have really nasty fingerprints on them that I do have to use my VPI to get them off. I typically do that after an ultrasonic cleaning.
I have tried with and without surfactant and as In Groove Mike mentioned if you just dry your records a little longer the pure water method seems to give similar results.
The bizarre thing I have found and was confirmed by the manufacturer of my ultrasonic cleaner (Isonic) is that using distilled water (with a surfactant) left an audible residue. They suggested using filtered tap water and surprisingly it actually worked much better. I recently have tried filtered tap water with and without surfactant and have not really noticed a difference except for the dry time.
CLEAN ALL YOUR RECORDS EVEN NEW ONES!!
I can’t stress that enough. Especially new records stored in paper sleeves but all should be cleaned.
Thanks for sharing. It seems everyone has a different plan. I only clean new records when I feel the need and my older records as I pull out to play. All used recorded that enter the house get cleaned too. Cheers ✌🏼
A high priced "collector" record store I used to visit in Manhattan cleaned records using Glass Wax and a towell or rag. It left a cloudy look on the record surfaces. I could tell where the records came from when I saw them in other stores later on.
I love my ultra Sonic clear with one or two at 6 minutes with a little alcohol
I use a cleaning machine and not manual cleaning so although interesting this conversation was not necessarily relevant to me.
I use only distilled water with the Humminguru. I run the long wash only followed by the long automatic. Very happy with results. No surfactants.
Long, but intresting video. Let's set aside the subjectivity of audio quality long enough to focus on the objectivity of a clean record.
I say this because many people with good intentions claim improved sound after having cleaned their records and I would agree as the dirt, grime and pressing release agents have been removed. It makes sense one would be able to hear more of the musical detail locked in the grooves after the muck has been removed. This is a "duh, no brainer." Beyond that there are the infinite variables associated with the audio systems of just as many Audiophiles.
The objective issue I want to address is the effective removal of contaminants from record grooves. Just like the infinite variety of audio systems and variables there of, the record cleaning process suffers from no shortage of variables in record cleaning either. So you have to ask which method(s) are most effective, time and cost efficient. Remember, the objective is the removal of all contaminants. If that can be achieved with one of the various ultrasonic methods or some variation of a manual, homemade invention or some combination of both, if the method chosen effectively does away with the dirt then great.
So in case you're wondering what method of record cleaning I use, its a manual process that consists of a Vinyl Styl RCM and a Record Doctor RCM. The Vinyl Styl is similar to the Spin Clean. The advantage of the Vinyl Styl it's use of goat hair brushes that get deep into the grooves to dislodge contaminants and fine dust. The Spin Clean only uses pads, which are good for surface cleaning, but canned doesn't reach into the grooves. I do not bathe my records in a solution of cleaning fluid. I just don't like the idea of reusing the same fluid for more than one record. Instead, I spray my cleaning fluid on both sides of the record, giving it a number of spins.
The cleaning products I use are Audio Intelligent enzymatic solutions. To saturate the record I just apply more fluid, let it sit for just a sew minutes. After sufficiently scrubbing the record with the first step of cleaning I use the Record Doctor to suck of the fluid with whatever contaminants the fluid has loosened up. The next step is to follow-up with a rinse using the same procedure as previously described. Dirty record sometimes require a bit more cleaning time. But new records clean-up pretty quick.
The Record Doctor is effective at drying the record and clearing away any residual wetness. I've found this process to effectively reduce static as well. Then I use a dedicated goat hair brush once the record is on the turntable to sweep away any fine micro dust followed-up with a carbon fiber brush before playing the record.
Thanks for your comments. For me, the bottom line is , what works for each of us that doesn’t get in the way of music enjoyment. Some work it more and others don’t choose to clean at all. So it goes ✌🏼
Tackling the greatest challenges of our time.
Here you go... my method Project Vacuum Cleaner, Wash-It mixed in gallon of distilled water with 7 drops of Triton X-100, clear distilled water rinse, vacuumed dry, clear distilled water run in my Kirmuus and then vacuumed dry with a different tube from the one used from the initial wash, brand new Mofi sleeve. "Dollar bin" finds get the full Kirmuus treatment.
Triton X-100 is a toxic substance, banned for import to the EU because of its toxic impact on the environment. Please use tergitol or ilfotol for similar results.
@@lokitio Loki thank you for the info, had no idea. I will order Ilfotol and give it a try.
Its a pleasure. Easy to google to confirm if you want to know more. Also checkout Paul Rigby the Audiophileman who put them all through their paces.
@@lokitio I will check out the Audiophile Man, thanks again!
I also agree to clean new records and put them in new premium sleeves.
One thing I would recommend to keep records clean is to not touch the playing surface. In both Patrick’s and Mazzy’s videos I have seen each ‘host’ touching the grooves with their fingers. Skin oils will remain on the playing surface and cause crackle, requiring additional cleaning. Proper record handling is step one to keep records clean. Should be a no brainer but apparently it isn’t.
Mazzy has no brains
Mazzy is a good guy; they all are.
@@paulspanbauer4125 Mazy spends a lot of time in front of the mirror
hey mazzy....you know that i'm from the 60's as well...i don't clean records...but...if i did, i would just use the distilled water and be done with it....interesting conversation though...peace and good health to all...rocky
We called it Photoflo back in the Day .
Yes !!!
@@mazzysmusic Army Trained Photographer at Fort Monmouth NJ 1972 . MOS 84Bravo . Still do Black and White Film and Printing . Shoot Medium Format Mamaya M645 .
Liquinox is all you need!
I love the results on my pro-ject vacuum machine
When it comes to cleaning records nobody ever mentions the importance of a bright light. You can see what is on the record surface and what is left after you clean it. Often, it is permanent damage that is causing ticks and pops or hardened debris stuck in the grooves. The Kirmuss method works best because you brush a surfactant into the grooves. This helps to loosen the debris and increases the effectiveness of the cavitation. I have an iSonic and a Humminguru. The Humminguru pales in comparison to the iSonic and I use it mostly as a dryer. Often, I have to take a q-tip with diluted alcohol on records to get rid of paper bits and baked on debris that the cleaning cycles don't get rid of. Some records take several cycles. Mike Esposito may clean thousands of records without surfactant, but does he listen to them? Often it is a manual process like I have described above that gets rid of the final bits of dirt and debris that keep an undamaged record from sounding perfect.
I still think people get way too worked up about cleaning and babying records. Sure some really need cleaning but if you take good care they need very little extra care. For me it’s more about cleaning the records others have not taken care of
We do not use our spray as a cleaning solution, rather, an ionizing agent that when applied to the record it changes the charge of the record to be opposite to that of water.
This per the Tribelectric table of charges.
That is why we also need to cycle the record in and out of the machine as the induced charge wears off as the record spins.
The colorant added to the spray allows you to see what the ultrasonic loosened in the prior cycle.
As stated by the Tribelectric table of charges, a restored record comes out virtually dry needing no vacuum or air drying as the record repells water.
I love my kirmuss unit uses surfactant. Works great. No issues. I have been so happy. Super noisy. After cleaning and white gunk gone…fantastic. Mazzy I think you need a round table with klaudio, kirmuss etc
Kirmuss does not use surfactant. The basic process uses 40ml of 70% alcohol only as a fungicide. The restoration process, which has to be experienced with an older record to fully appreciate uses The spray supplied with the KA-RC-1 (propanediol 1-2-178) first ionizes the record (changes it’s electrical charge)
@@trackingangle929 why does he refer to it as a surfactant?
@@trackingangle929 his website says it’s his “surfactant”. Mazzy needs to have the klaudio and kirmuss guys on here to duke it out.
I like you guys, but I am in the Roy Gandy (head of Rega) camp on this one i.e. you should try to keep record cleaning to the minimum. Sure, if you have a problem record then a good quality record cleaning machine will work in most cases, but for many records, they are not necessary. The path to great sounding records is to look after them from the start ie poly-lined sleeves, handle them correctly - no fingers or thumbs, store correctly etc. I will use a micro-fibre cloth very lightly before play. Taking proper care is what I think Mazzy has been doing for years and why the vast majority of his records already sound fine with no pop or clicks. He doesn´t need to run them all though a cleaning machine now. They are really just required for problematic records..
Also just to correct Michael Fremer on his assertion that Roy Gandy thinks that azimuth doesn´t matter. It is obvious that he does think it matters. Something not being adjustable on a turntable is not the same as saying it doesn´t matter. Listen to any of his top of the line products and you will see he takes all elements of music reproduction very seriously.
Thank you. Yes take care of them from the start ✌🏼
This Roy Gandy should get himself a PF Animals remix. It heavily needed a clean. I simply used distilled water and isopropanol and a cloth. It was night and day difference. Some of these records come heavily full of debris and paper because of these silly paper cardboard inner sleeves and scuffs. Cleaning them makes a difference. After the clean it was dead silent.