I do not claim any special vinyl cleaning inelegance. In fact I did quite stupid things in my past playing with a few cleaning and playing “improvement” solutions.  Well, I went over it and have learned that I would like to practice only something that I call “dry cleaning”.

The concept of “dry cleaning” implies that record is moisturized, then vacuumed and cleared record is “dry”, means has no residue on the record of any kind. I do not feel that scabbing of records clean them. I feel that wetting records with Grease absorbing liquid (alcohol) and then sucking the juice with vacuum is all the necessary to clear the records. As the result my clean records are “dry” and highly abrasive. I do admit that the “dry” records, being played by the needle with contemporary complex profiles, might have some noise. I feel that this is the noise that the records have naturally. My last two cartridges in my reference stereo arm are both hard-reading cartridges (Shelter 901 and Ortofone Jubilee) What I play clean records, with good surface and good quality of vinyl then they are silent. Otherwise I do pick some noises here and there and I do feel that is how it shall be the noise-reading of a record shall reflect the condition of the record…

Last few weeks I have a local guy who debates this position and who has his alternative view. He feels that the residues and dirt solidified under the bottom of the grooves and the regular alcohol vinyl cleaners can’t dilute it and therefore vacuum does not remove the bottom-laying dirt. He feels that to deal with the situation records need to be scabbed with “right” brushes and the cleaners liquids have to be active.

He considers his record cleaning tech as a “high-end cleaning” and he describing his techniques using terminology that kind of make me to be afraid.  He talks about some kind of biological active things, sort of "vinyl piranhas" that live in liquids and affect any non-vinyl dirt. Then the records need to be s scratched in special ways and then exposed to a few other types of liquids… This is a totally new way of thinking not me, and I am not sure is I am agree with it.

He made me to buy the Osage brash for scabbing and one of the brands of Osage's single-step cleaner.

http://www.osageaudio.com/

http://www.audiointelligent.com/philosophy.htm

I do like the brash very much. I do not like the Osage single-step cleaner  -it is too greasy and I need to wash my hands after touching it. I am afraid that all of his “high-end cleaning” might end up dounf will be oiling the records... Anyhow, we agreed that when my preamp be back and my system be up and running we will come together and he will show me how the “really good cleaning” might be performed. It might be interesting as his records do sound very quite silent but I am not willing to step away from my “dry” approach and I would like to preserve all natural vinyl's abrasiveness .

I am interested to see how it will end up. Meanwhile, I did not use any of the “Audio Intelligent” (AI ) cleaners and I am awaiting for a convincing cleaning demonstration/competition that would not affect sound negatively.

Interesting. Whatever you do, do you have the final rise with alcohol-heavy cleaner to degrees the surface? I might presume that all of “active” cleaners and scriber do lift up from the grooves some “cemented” dirt but as the final wash all leftover of the “active” cleaning shell be eliminated.

What I would like to try, when my local guys will demonstrating to me his cleaning methods, will to see if the improvement will be due to play less abusive surface (LAST-effect) of it will be due to the true dirt removal.  My local guy is very confident that his techniques will be very affective and with no negative sonic consequences. Touching and feeling with my hands the AI Premium One-Step Formula I ma not convinced as I feel a LOT of oil in this mixture. I did not use any AI cleaners yet and wait for our “cleaning contest”…. I wonder myself what the result will be. From my former experiences the oiled records do sound very quiet but they consume the details of woodwinds in ppppp and very much depersonalize HF, making them all the same.

Romy the Cat wrote:

Interesting. Whatever you do, do you have the final rise with alcohol-heavy cleaner to degrees the surface? I might presume that all of “active” cleaners and scriber do lift up from the grooves some “cemented” dirt but as the final wash all leftover of the “active” cleaning shell be eliminated.

I think, today we have a new problem with Vinyl. The quality Control in or after the cooling process. Most of the reissues today (or probably regular records too) are sensitive to clicks, pops and other noises. Or they run silent at the beginning and after some turns they start to get noisier.

Next is, the vinyl is super sensitive to scratches, even when you are careful, they can look very bad after regular use (they will never be interesting for collectors in future, except sealed)

But let's go back to the cleaning process. The "old" records (<1980, before CD Era) are very solid, silent (in general) and totally free from groove noise. What they - can - have, when we buy them 2. hand, they have some dust, dirt, coke, cigarette etc. stuff in the grooves (when they are in bad condition).

To clean them is normally no big deal, we can use various fluids (selfmade or commercial ones), we can put the fluid onto the record, manual or semi- automatic or full automatic, no big deal either and the only difference is, how to get it out. There are different Designs from RCM units (point nozzle, vacuum a la VPI, or Ultrasonic, Sunshine, towel or whatever).... here are really big differences and these are more important than any - overpriced - fluids with endless mark-ups.

Anyway, all work fine with those old records.

Now we have a new Situation, we have brandnew records which are noisy right from the first contact. Now we use all our fluids, start the cleaning process and all RCM owners are happy, that they can reduce the noises.

BUT:

Unfortunately not for 100%, we still have those noises, not so much than before, but they are still there. And when you stop the time from some tracks you will find out, the noise is always in the same time area. That means, what we did get out was some vinyl pollution which was inside when the record came out off the press, some of it is removable, but some not.

That is the main difference, even a 90gr disc from Van Morrison, far away from being an audiophile pressing, is completely silent after 1 cleaning and I can play it 50 times and it is still silent in the grooves.
We shouldn't start a discussion about how we clean, how often etc. Some love it, I have no problem with it. What interests me much more, why should I start this - frustrating - work with brand new records?

I paid premium prices and they deliver a medium which is inferior in every aspect (lousy remaster, dull high frequencies, weak vinyl, dirt in grooves etc...)

I have no problems with RCM, I use a Keith Monks and I know pretty well the differences from vinyl condition, but what we have today is a joke. Only Audiophiles can be so stupid to pay $30++ for that stuff, a normal human stops that after a few and goes for a CD.

I have a lot of Reissues, at the beginning (1995+) they were quite ok from the material, you had some differences in the know how of remastering, but the vinyl was fine. It went worse after 2002, when some discovered, they can make a lot of money with reissues and more and more offered them...

But the Manufacturers did not grow, the know-how is lost (in general) AND all has to be cheap...

I have no problem with record cleaning, that's the reason why I bought a Monks years ago, because I know, the record was ok when it was produced and the owner before me wasn't a collector.
Now I can read endless reports how and what was made, I was interested in these enzymes too, but after I read how expensive they are, that they only work a few hours and then they die, I asked my self: "Why should I start a Science with lots of money and worthy time to improve inferior made records I bought NEW for a top price?"

Paul S wrote:

I can only say it seems "as if" either something gets removed that should not have, or something gets left behind that should not have.  I can think of no better word than "dried up" to describe the sound of the detergent-washed LPs I have listened to.  And, yes, I've tried "OxyClean", too.

Adrian, I am dying to know if you've used a stereo microscope as part of your [OCD...] record cleaning research, and if so, how what you've seen has added to your understanding.

I have so many questions about "before and after" appearances that I don't know where to begin.

It really puzzled me that the different commercial "detergents" I used made sonic problems.  I always thought the dishwasher "detergents", at least, should leave the vinyl alone and easily rinse off the record.  I made solutions, of course, and really tried to rinse them off carefully with "regular" and de-ionized H2O, and of course I used the vacuum to finish.  I also tried it with very warm as well as lukewarm H2O.  Any ideas what happened?

I'll bet we all want to know about the dreaded "mold-release" agents.

Also, what truth, and how important, the claims that "fungus" grows in the grooves?

Best regards,
Paul S

Well, I did not have yet the promised to me “loosing virginity high-end record cleaning ceremony” and I might not in the same boat what you guys as I do not really know what you are talking about. What however I would like to ask you is the subject that bothers me the most: how can you determine that the record is cleanable?

What I mean: we buy a record that has a visually acceptable surface but has some noise.  You do the regular single wash to get rid the cockroach’s legs and dust from the record and it is still has some noise. The noise might be because many reasons: the residual direst that allegingly might be removed by your “better cleaning techniques”, it might be from the facts that the grooves were compromised by wrong, worn or improperly installed cartridges, it might be just faulty vinyl mass was used for this bath of records, or it might be one of many other reasons. So, my question is – how you differentiate the noisy record that might be cleaned and improved further and the records that are beyond the cleaning help. Are any of you come up with any more or less objective or demonstrable test that would recognize the noise as some kind of special noise that might be cleaned?

The reason I ask is because I have to admit that I do not like cleaning records. I know that some people like the ritual itself and I in fact remember that in my youth I did enjoy, or at list die not object the records cleaning. Nowadays I do not find the records cleaning as a stimulating procedure. My cleaning machine is loud and sound horrible.  It breaks the whole intimacy of record playing. The most I hate is what I need to flip a record to another side and recognize that it needs a cleaning. So, I need to do all that “cleaning dancing” between the first and second movements of Saint-Saens Second Piano Concerto? That sucks, and I prefer to play it on dirty…

Romy the Cat wrote:

What however I would like to ask you is the subject that bothers me the most: how can you determine that the record is cleanable? So, my question is – how you differentiate the noisy record that might be cleaned and improved further and the records that are beyond the cleaning help. Are any of you come up with any more or less objective or demonstrable test that would recognize the noise as some kind of special noise that might be cleaned?

Paul S wrote:

I have certainly subjected some records to very rigorous cleaning and still they sounded "dirty".  This is one of the things I would love to check out with the stereo microscope.

Paul S wrote:

I have long suspected that some of the commercial record treatments were not so much concerned merely with cleaning the record but they were at least as concerned with making good and certain that the record would sound noticeably "better" after treatment, regardless of the cause of the noise.  In this case, some sort of slippery "filler" might just do the trick for the micro-damaged LP grooves.

Paul S wrote:

As for the full-tilt RCM cleaning, do people really do this more than once per LP?

Adrian, wouldn't another microscope problem - besides a light source - be the depth of field problem with the typical "one barrel" microscope?

Also, by "jagged edges" I mean in this case the sort of damage sustained by groove walls by any number of means, and for any number of reasons, including "plastic" formulae that are susceptable to fracturing or shattering even when used +/- as intended.  I think there are some old "styrene-type" LPs out there that are especially vulnerable to this sort of damage; certainly some vintages of some labels often sound like they are so damaged, even after "thorough cleaning".  And it also seems possible that some LPs simply do not come out of the mold intact; ie, they just start out "jagged".

Anyway, plenty of reasons why cleaning might not make the record quiet.  And I do not have a good enough handle on the "sounds of damage" to say exactly whether the source of the noise is dirt, leftover treatment or damaged "vinyl".  Being an OCD geek at heart, and naturally curious, I would have bought a stereo microscope a long time ago if they weren't so freaking expensive.

Best regards,
Paul S

drdna wrote:

To me, there are three types of problems: 1a) grime piled on top of a record 1b) defective vinyl piled on top of a record 2) scratches cutting into the vinyl Type 1 deflects the needle upward and Type 2 deflects the needle downward. Because I am always listening to the absolute phase of each song (it is always different for each album), I think I can hear this. Certainly I know if I switch the absolute phase of the system, I can hear the noise clicks also change their sound. This is the easiest way to tell if something is to be cleaned. Many times also if the noise is Type 2, a lot of this is actually Type 1B, due to small jagged edges rising up around where the scratch is. If only we could cut those tiny jagged edges off! The best I can do is to use an old heavy needle/tonearm with a lot of inertial mass and play through that area.  The needle just sort of rams through the obstruction and removes a bit of the noise, like using a lathe. This is a lot less destructive than it sounds. I just play the area with an old needle; when I go back to my usual needle, the noise has reduced, not gone away of course, but reduced.

Paul S wrote:

Adrian, wouldn't another microscope problem - besides a light source - be the depth of field problem with the typical "one barrel" microscope?