Fatparrot .. I vill gif you halv ... if I get Natasha. |
Hi Jyprez,
You certainly should have received them by now, especially since you're close by. The Post Office strikes again! I'll send you another set of the samples today.
Best regards,
Paul |
Hi Psychic ... got your e-mail. Tried calling, but apparently I was too late. I'd like to understand the baseline data process better. Please e-mail when you're free, and I'll give you a call. Thanks, Psychic.
Best regards to everyone,
Paul |
Hi everyone,
I don't know why the prior thread was pulled. I have written A'gon, but have received no reply. That's why I began this separate thread for posting results. Maybe the thread got "yanxed?" At any rate, this is an open forum for the testers to post their results.
For those new to this and the prior thread, I am sending samples of 2 formulas for a 2-step vinyl cleaning process to 20+ people who "signed up" for the testing. I'm sorry, but I can't send out any more samples at this point. If the collective judgment of this expert group is that these formulas work well, then I open a commercial account with A'gon and make the formulas available to A'gon members at very reasonable prices.
Because the prior thread was pulled, I would appreciate it if anyone who posted results on that thread could repeat their results here. Thanks ... and sorry for the inconvenience. |
I have an idea. Admittedly, it's my idea ... and therefore it's likely a scam (see above). But it's a simple idea. How about if we leave room here for those who have actually tried the formulas to post their results?
Holy, jeez. Is there blood in the water, or what? |
Hi everyone,
I have asked A'gon why the prior thread was pulled. I haven't received an answer. If it's against the rules to give free product and ask for feedback, then I'd hope A'gon would tell me, and I would refrain from doing so. Yes, I could have asked people to e-mail me with comment and copied and pasted those comments into a subsequent advertisement, but I feel that an open forum -- over which I have no control -- is the most honest. I'm surprised that level of openness and honesty offends some. If the feedback from this expert group is positive, I will open a commercial account; but at this point, nothing is offered for sale!
If anyone read the prior thread, they would see that I did not ignore 4yanx. I answered 3 of his postings fully. But he became more demanding and belligerent with each subsequent posting, and it ultimately became clear that he was not interested in answers, but in polluting the thread with venom and slamming something he had not tried ... exactly as he does again here. While he owned up to previously recommending washing LPs in Dawn Dish Detergent, he didn't 'fess up about also recommending DIRECT Vinyl Floor Cleaner for LPs. I have little doubt that 4yanx will again bust into this thread with his aggressive rant. I will not, however, again respond to his postings. His invective means little against the empirical results being reported and which will be reported ... and it is upon those results which I think we should focus.
But free publicity? It costs only $3 to post a commercial ad. It has cost a significant amount in boxes, containers, postage and product to provide these samples. But a commercial ad would not provide a feedback forum over which I have no control. I felt, and still feel, that this open forum is in the highest spirit of our community and shared hobby. I hope A'gon feels likewise, and will let this thread survive.
Best regards,
Paul |
Regarding the safety issue ... I tested the solutions on a few LPs, all from different labels. I allowed the solutions (one at a time) to sit on the vinyl for a half-hour (something I don't recommend you do with ANY vinyl cleaner), and then removed with my vacuum RCM. I did this just about every day for about 6 weeks. Given that, with normal cleaning, the fluids should be on the vinyl for a minute or less, I figure this was more than a lifetime's worth of "fluid on" time.
Every week I examined the LPs with illuminated microscopy, and played them. I found no degradation in appearance or sound of the vinyl ... and this result maintained throughout the testing period. I also found no accumulation on the stylus, other than the typical dust that falls on the LP while it's played. One LP I sacrificed to a thumbnail scratch test ... to see if I could detect any increased brittleness, or at the other end of the spectrum, softening of the vinyl. As crude as this latter test may be, I could detect no changes in the vinyl ... and after the tests, the LP made a great (albeit dangerous) frisbee. This testing was mentioned in the prior thread, but in more summary fashion. After this testing, I tried the fluids on my UHQR "Crime of the Century." It sounded excellent.
Sean's appeal to common sense is, appropriately enough, good common sense. For example, when testing these formulas, I hope no one would use their prized $300 (used) Fred Jackson Blue Note original LP (per jes45). But I disagree with one thing Sean said (which I think is a first, Sean). Sean suggests that if you don't have a vacuum RCM, then let the LP air dry. I believe that would allow the gunk you've loosened-up or dissolved to re-deposit into the grooves. I think it would be better to absorb the fluids and the gunk with lint-free cotton toweling (used in photography) or lint-free cotton pads. In fact, if your LP is heavily soiled (or has something strange or really sticky on it), using lint-free cotton toweling or pads is probably a preferable first step. It will keep the fabric surrounding your suction apparatus from getting fouled.
I look forward to the feedback from the testers.
Best regards,
Paul Frumkin |
ANOTHER PRECAUTION:
This was on the prior thread, but I should repeat it here.
1. Do not use the formulas on 78s. They are made of shellac, and the isopropyl might dissolve them.
2. I also have no experience with acetates, and therefore cannot comment at all about the formulas' safety on acetates.
3. Lastly, do not use a natural bristle brush with the enzymatic solution. Natural bristle = hair = protein ... and the enzymatic is designed to dissolve protein deposits. Hence, over time, the enzymatic would dissolve the natural bristle ... and perhaps leave its remnants on your vinyl.
Please feel free to write with any questions or concerns. Again, I look forward to the testers' feedback. Thanks!
Best regards,
Paul Frumkin |
Hi Jyprez,
Carbon fiber brushes have advantages and disadvantages. On the plus side, carbon fibers have incredibly small diameter. They are therefore capable of going deeper into the grooves. But even carbon fibers are not capable of brushing most modulations in the grooves -- high frequency modulations are so small that they're measured in the same units as are lightwaves: microns (one one-millionth of a meter).
Further, carbon fibers are so soft that they provide very little "scrubbing" action. Further, most of the cleaning occurs because of the agitation of the cleaning fluid, and not because of direct brush-into-groove contact. The softness of carbon fibers makes them not very effective agitators.
I tried using a carbon fiber brush for a while with the cleaning solutions, thinking (as perhaps you are thinking now) that their small diameter would allow better penetration into the grooves. I concluded that their drawbacks outweighed the advantages; it also didn't let the fluid flow on the LP very well, and acted more like a squeegee than a brush. I used the Audioquest carbon fiber brush. Perhaps another brush -- such as the Hunt EDA Mark 6 (whose fibers are "backed up" by a velvet-like bar) -- might be more effective.
Certainly, nothing was harmed by using the carbon fiber brush that I could tell. If you try one or more carbon fiber brushes, I think all of us would be interested in your results. FYI, I contacted Audioquest with this very question before trying their carbon fiber brush with the solutions. Their terse response was that their brush was meant to be used dry.
Best regards,
Paul Frumkin |
Re: Distilled Water Rinse
It's hard for me to say whether improvements will result from a distilled water rinse as a third step. That's because my self-designed RCM (photo available under "systems") uses a powerful 1 hp. vacuum motor, and I am confident in its suction power. (Prior to deciding to build my own RCM, I e-mailed VPI 3 times asking for the rating of their vacuum motor. VPI never responded ... which helped me to decide to build my own).
Certainly, I would recommend removing as much of the cleaner fluid -- now laced with the grunge it dissolved or lifted off -- as possible. If you are less than confident in the suction power of your RCM, then perhaps it would be best to either (1) use a distilled water rinse as a third step, or (2) if the record is still damp at all, use lint-free cotton toweling or a lint-free woven cotton pad to sop up any residual cleaner fluid.
BTW ... does it drive anyone else buggy when, by the time you get your cleaned LP over to your turntable and get ready to cue up, dust has landed on your LP? For a time I used canned compressed air (sold in office supplies for cleaning keyboards, etc) to blow the dust off the LP. But the stuff would frequently spit some kind of liquid on the LP with the compressed air. I have found an alternate solution. Here's the URL address to a page at American Science & Surplus' website:
http://www.sciplus.com/category.cfm?subsection=5&category=58
At the top of this page is a PC cleaning kit for $4.95. The REAL attraction of this item is that it includes a little battery operated vacuum/blower ... which is perfect for that last second dusting-off the LP before you cue up. It's not powerful, but it is sufficient. If the link doesn't work, it's their item No. 34158.
More samples were shipped out on Wednesday and Thursday, so more feedback should be available soon.
Best regards to everyone,
Paul Frumkin |
Yikes! I hope Eldartford's comments are tongue-in-cheek. |
REGARDING GRAIN ALCOHOL (VODKA)
This is a subject I've discussed with Duane Goldman (a/k/a the Disc Doctor) a couple times. 100% pure, 200 proof grain alcohol (ethyl alcohol) is a good cleaner. However, Duane says that vodkas have numerous impurities which may not be safe for vinyl. (All vodka sold in the U.S. is charcoal filtered. Perhaps some of the impurities are carbons and hydrocarbons from the charcoal?)
Bottom line: using vodka on your vinyl may not be a very good idea.
Best regards,
Paul
|
Hi Dave,
The last group of samples were mailed out on Thursday or Friday of last week, so you should be receiving your samples soon. If they don't show up by Thursday, please let me know, and I'll re-ship samples to you. Thanks for your interest and I look forward to your feedback.
Best regards,
Paul |
Joe ... I apologize for the unruly ninjas. I'm currently performing an advanced microscopic ninjactomy on the remaining brews, and hope to replace the ill-behaved rascals with better trained microscopic audio ninjas in the near, if not microscopic, future.
On a more serious note, we've yet to hear from many of the folks who received samples. Kindly post feedback when you can. Thanks!
Best regards,
Paul Frumkin |
Hi everyone,
I wrote to Dave and asked to go ahead and be liberal with using the formulas -- I'll send more if he needs more to complete valid testing. I make the same offer to everyone else. If you need more fluid, let me know and I'll send you more.
Best regards,
Paul |
The enzymatic formula contains: (1) enzymes; (2) surfactants; and (3) distilled water. The cleaner formula contains: (1) surfactants; (2) a wetting agent; and (3) distilled water.
The formulas contain no plasticizers (e.g., LAST Record Preservative), nor does it contain lubricating agents (e.g., Gruv-Glide and RRL). It is not possible for the formulas to act as "equalizers" and alter the sound. Any differences perceived are due -- strictly -- to cleaner vinyl.
Best regards,
Paul |
Today I shipped more samples as requested. I appreciate the offer to pay for the extra samples, but when I posted this I agreed to a protocol: that I would not offer the product for sale unless this expert group agreed that these formulas were good.
While the initial feedback is very encouraging, there are many more people who have received the formulas who have yet to post their results. The jury, as they say, is still out. So thank you for the couple "orders" I've received, and the offers to pay for the formulas, but I can't accept any payment at this time -- I will abide by the protocol I established.
Hopefully, more will post their feedback soon, and we can see if there is a consensus. Have a good weekend, everyone.
Best regards,
Paul |
Hi Raul,
You say "Paul has to answer." Actually, I don't, but will do so now as a courtesy to you. I didn't respond earlier because I thought that what was already posted adequately responded to you.
Your suggestion that should send the fluids to the original recording engineers (studio engineers? mixdown/mastering engineers? lacquer cutting engineers?) makes no sense to me whatsoever. They don't have hard drives for brains; they can't "replay" sounds once heard years ago for comparison. And even if they did, how would they listen to the vinyl cleaned with these formulas except on their equipment ... which necessarily has its own sonic signature?
The reason for this thread is really quite simple: whether the knowledgeable, experienced and technically-oriented vinylphiles here on A'gon think the vinyl sounds better -- or not -- after using the formulas in my 2-step process. None of us need anyone else -- whether a recording engineer or our mothers -- to agree or disagree with us when we listen to something on our system and say "that sounds better," or "that sounds worse."
Having now responded, I respectfully ask that if you want to continue this debate, please start your own thread to do so. People are using the thread to post their feedback on using the formulas, and others are coming to this thread becaue they want to read that feedback ... and not debates on whether we should or should not have recording engineers tell us what sounds better -- or worse -- on our own systems. Thanks, Raul.
Best regards,
Paul |
Damn. Raul figured it out. The formulas contain (1) microscopic-sized audio ninjas and (2) microscopic-sized electronic parts to build an equalizer.
Once the microscopic audio ninjas are deployed via the first formula, they dig-in and camouflage, waiting until the microscopic electronic parts are stealthily delivered via the second formula.
At that point, the microscopic audio ninjas load up their microscopic audio ninja backpacks with the microscopic electronic parts, and bivouac their way (microscopically, of course) through the stylus, through cartridge, through the tonearm wires, through the interconnect, through your phono stage, and then through another interconnect, to the preamp, where they unload their gear, download microscopic audio ninja schematics, and build (and integrate) a microscopic equalizer into your preamp. Pretty nifty, eh?
Regards and enjoy the humor.
Paul |
Hi Psychicanimal,
It was my understanding that: (1) distilled was preferable to deionized because it removed both ions and organics; (2) deionized substituted polyvalents, such as Mg+, for Na+ and Ca+, which maybe didn't really advance the ball all that much for our purposes; and (3) your water basically become re-ionized when exposed to the air.
Also, if the group concensus is that these formulas work well and I am therefore encouraged to offer them for sale, I had planned on selling them in concentrated form (dilutable in the range of 4:1 to 8:1) -- I don't want folks to have to pay shipping for water, at 64.4 pounds per cubic foot. To maintain purity if I use deionized, and assuming most folks have ready access to distilled but not deionized, I would have to ship in dilute, ready-to-use form, which would undermine one area of cost savings.
But both formulas would contain some water, and since you have worked in the industry and garnered expertise, I would like to discuss this with you either directly via e-mail or through a telephone call. Thanks!
Best regards,
Paul
(302) 836-0453 |
Jphii,
Thank you for your thoughtful, detailed and careful review. Using small sample bottles was one of those things which seemed like a good idea at the time. I should have realized this technically-inclined group would want to do more testing than the small samples permitted. Hence, my sending more (and larger) samples upon request. Sorry about that, Jphii!
I have not encountered accumulation upon my stylus. These different results may be due to: (1) your use of test LPs which were more heavily soiled then mine; (2) frugal use of the cleaner formula -- understandable in light of the small samples sent; (3) the VPI's suction power compared to my self-designed RCM with 1 hp. of suction power. But I would think that (3) would be overcome by addressing (2), and making more liberal use of the cleaner formula. Your larger samples are on their way, and I'll be interested in seeing if more liberal use of the cleaner formula does, as anticipated, reduce accumulation on the stylus.
Thanks again for your very thorough testing and review.
Best regards,
Paul Frumkin |
Somebody please remind me never to get into a water chemistry debate with psychicanimal ... with whom I hope to be speaking soon. |
Psychicanimal's knowledge of water chemistry is amazing. He convinced me of the benefits of ultra-pure water, and I can pursue using ultra-pure water for the small amounts of water which get added to a cleaner formula concentrate.
But because of the relative unavailability of deionized ultra-pure water, folks who want an ultra-pure water based cleaner formula will need to either (1) purchase the concentrate AND their own dionizing equipment, or (2) purchase the cleaner formula in non-concentrate, ready-to-use form, and incur the expense of shipping water, albeit ultra-pure water.
I'll look into deionizing equipment on Monday, and report back.
Best regards,
Paul |
I left the enzymatic on a few different LPs for 1/2 hour every day for about 6 weeks. If the enzymatic began to dry, I added more. During, and at the end of the testing, I played all the LPs, and found no damage or degradation under illuminated microscopy. I continue to play these LPs (some 4 months post first application), and continue to find no damage. Because of this regimen, enzymatic was left on the LPs for a total of some 1,200 minutes (20 hours) ... certainly many, many multiples of the amount of time that should ever be necessary: unless you subsequently get grease or fingerprints on your LPs, I don't think you'll need to use the enzymatic more than once.
I did not get as much grunge off my LPs as Jphii reports ... which did cause me some concern. However, nearly all of the LPs had been previously cleaned with the cleaner formula, variations of which I have used for a few years now. (More recently, I played with formulation of the cleaner formula to find the combination which seemed to be the best solvent for the enzymatic).
While I let the enzymatic sit on my vinyl for the noted extended periods (1/2 hour at a time), I can't say I recommend that others do so as well. I only know what my results were, and that based on my LPs being fine, after leaving the enzymatic on 1/2 hour x 6 weeks, I have a high level of confidence that the enzymatic is safe when left on for much shorter durations.
BTW, the enzymatic I sourced is supplied containers made of HDPE (High Density Polyethylene) ... which is a variety of vinyl, and I personally use HDPE squeeze bottles to apply both cleaner and enzymatic formulas to the LPs I am cleaning. Now, I am not a chemist, but it seems to me that the chemical structure of proteins and vinyl are very different. Proteins are made of amino acids. Vinyl is made from ethylene (derived from natural gas or petroleum) and chlorine (derived from salt). Maybe someone with more chemistry knowledge than I could jump in an explain the structural differences.
Tomorrow I'll find out more about making ultra-pure water, and report back.
Best regards,
Paul |
Sean and Jphii: now that Jphii has said "Don't get me wrong, the RCM outflow tube isn't turning black," I am much more comfortable with his use of and results from the enzymatic. Still, I suggest leaving the enzymatic on the vinyl for no more than a couple minutes.
Also, from my conversations with "el brillante," the Psychicanimal, it appears that if ultra-pure water is used in the cleaner formula (which I think will be made optional with the user), it will even more effective as a solvent ... including as a solvent of any remaining enzymatic.
Best regards,
Paul |
RE: ULTRA-PURE WATER
As promised, I contacted AquaFX, a Divison of Aqua Engineering & Equipment, Inc., in Winter Park, Florida. These guys are the ultra-pure water gurus whom Psychicanimal suggested that I contact.
The first reaction of the guy I spoke with (Bob) was that ultra-pure was too aggressive for vinyl LPs: it has the potential leach plasticizers and other large chain molecules out of the vinyl ... even though it doesn't do so with food storage safe plastics (e.g., PET, MDPE, HDPE and Nalgene). Bob thought there would be a point where, when enough other stuff is added to the ultra-pure water, this doesn't occur, and he's going to get back to me on what that point is.
However, unlike most surfactants, detergents, soaps and cleaners, the surfactant I use is a single molecule. The benefit of a single molecule surfactant is that it can be effective at very low concentrations. This is a good thing when it comes to removing the cleaner by vacuum or rinse and vacuum. (Of course, the wetting agent adds another molecule, so we're at a 2 molecule soup).
So while I wait for Bob to get back to me, I'm a little leery of going down this path. Yes, ultra-pure water is a good solvent. But perhaps it's too good of a solvent. More later.
Best regards,
Paul
|
TALLYING THE RESULTS & ULTRA-PURE WATER
Hi everyone,
So far, 10 beta testers out of 20 have reported their results. They are: Brashgordon; Thafler; Jeffloistarca; Slipknot1; Lugnut; Nghiep; Jdodmead; Jphii; Sbank; and Dopogue. I think it's fair to say that they have reported very good results with the 2-step process. Thank you, guys, for your testing and for providing us all with your results. I guess at this point, I'm fairly encouraged to open a commercial account here on the 'Gon and make the formulas in the 2-step process commercially available.
I'm thinking that for 'Goners who wish to buy the concentrate and add their own distilled or ultra-pure water, I'll package the formulas in your choice of 4 oz. amber glass or 8 oz. Nalgene containers. Because the concentrate will be formulated to be diluted 7:1, the 4 oz. isn't as ridiculous as it might seem on first blush -- 4 oz. will make 32 oz. (one quart) of ready-to-use formula. Of course, 8 oz., once diluted, will make twice as much -- 64 oz., or a half-gallon.
Bob at AquaFX, a division of Aqua Engineering & Equipment, Inc. (telephone: 407-599-2123 or 877-256-3467), has kindly given me much of his time over the past couple days. He also had his engineering department do an analysis to make sure the ultra-pure water would be safe for vinyl LPs. Their conclusion is that ultra-pure water is only aggressive with LONG TERM contact; it is very safe for short term contact, such as the 1 minute or so the cleaner formula (step #2) is on the vinyl.
Therefore, I have purchased AquaFX's Barracuda unit ... a 4-stage reverse osmosis and deionization unit. Here's the link:
http://www.aquariumwaterfilters.com/RODI/Barracuda.html
I will make available to 'Goners the cleaner formula in a ready-to-use, diluted with ultra-pure water. Ultra-pure water, and the ready-to-use ultra-pure cleaner formula, may be safely stored in plastic containers which are food storage-safe; e.g., PET, LDPE, MDPE, HDPE, and Nalgene. I'll ship the ready-to-use, ultra-pure cleaner formula in 16 oz. and 32 oz. HDPE squirt bottles.
There's no point in making the enzymatic formula with ultra-pure water. The enzymatic contains several complex molecules, and is too much of a "soup" to benefit from ultra-pure water. The concentrated enzymatic should be diluted with distilled water. Thanks to Psychicanimal for suggesting that I look into making the cleaner formula (step #2) with ultra-pure water.
Currently, I'm sidetracked with an appellate brief due in the Michigan Court of Appeals this week. (Now there's an audiophile speaking for you -- my real work is "sidetracking" me). But I hope to be up and running in a week or so, and I'll have pricing information available then, too (I promise it will be affordable). The products will be sold under the "Audio Intelligent" brand name, here on the 'Gon.
This has been a group project of sorts from the beginning, with the beta testers literally having the collective power to veto this project. So if anyone feels that I have not fairly summarized the feedback, or if anyone dissents from the intentions expressed above, please feel free to speak your mind.
Thanks, everyone.
Best regards,
Paul Frumkin
(302) 836-0453 |
Psychicanimal ... glad you're doing well with your difficult move to Orlando.
I'm getting the in-line TDS (total dissolved solids) meter! It can be moved from post-reverse osmosis stage to the post-deionization stage to monitor the ultrapurification process. (TDS should = 0 post-deionization). Thanks for helping me make a better product for all of us 'Goners!
Best regards,
Paul |
Slipknot ... yes, Mrkidnow remarks on that issue. Repeated heating will break down the enzymes, rendering them less effective. Rather than heating your whole supply, just heat the portion you're going to use.
Placing the enzymatic formula in a container, and then heating it gently with hot water, would work well. Don't get the formula hot: you don't want to melt any modulations. Warm to the touch will work well.
Jyprez, the formulas will be sold under the "Audio Intelligent" brand name. They will be available as concentrates in both 4 oz. glass bottles and 8 oz. Nalgene bottles. Their concentration level is set to be diluted 7:1 with distilled water. So the 4 oz. bottle will make 32 oz. of formulas (1 quart), and the 8 oz. bottle with make 64 oz. of formulas (1/2 gallon).
I will also make the cleaner available in a ready-to-use formula made with ultra-pure water ... sold in 32 oz. HDPE squirt bottles. I hope to set up my ultra-pure rig in the next couple of days.
But specific to your question ... don't be stingy with the cleaner formula: it's what makes sure you get all of the enzymatic, plus oils and grease, off your LP.
Best regards to everyone,
Paul |
Zilla ... thanks for posting your results. It's gratifying that so many people are obtaining such good results. Dopogue ... I hope to have a classified ad up within a couple days. The Formulas will be sold under the Audio Intelligent brand. I need to rig up the 4-stage water purifier I bought so I can make some of the Cleaner Formula with Ultra-Pure Water. Thanks to everyone for their testing and feedback.
Best regards,
Paul |
Hi everyone,
I'm pleased to announce that I've posted a commercial ad for AUDIO INTELLIGENT VINYL SOLUTIONS. Here's the URL:
http://cgi.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cl.pl?anlgtabl&1101803723
A big "THANK YOU" to all the beta testers, who so carefully tested the products and posted their feedback. Truly, this was an Audiogon collective group project. The beta testers literally held the power to approve or disapprove of any marketing of these products. Prior to their testing, I did not know any of the beta testers. Their uniformly very postive reviews were gratifying. In addition, the offering of a ready-to-use product made with ultra-pure water was the result of an Audiogon member's (Psychicanimal) input. Again ... thank you for taking the time to test and post your objective results.
AUDIOGON: hosting some of the most knowledgeable and nicest people in the world! A great place to hang out.
Warmest regards,
Paul Frumkin
(302) 836-0453 |
Thanks, Sean and Lugnut! Viggen, regarding heating the Enzymatic Formula .... First, I think only the amount that will be used immediately should be warmed, because repeated heatings will degrade the Formula. Therefore, a good approach might be to put the amount you plan to use in a small container for warming. Second, warm the small container with warm/hot water until the Formula is warm to the touch -- about 100 degrees. This will double the rate of chemical activity (over an 80 degree base), yet will be safe for the vinyl.
Mc5baby, glad you also obtained good results with the Formulas. Sean's post, above, contains a link to the classified ad here on Audiogon -- it's currently posted in the Turntables section. Perhaps next time it will be under tweaks or accessories. (Maybe 'Gon needs a new category? Cleaning equipment & supplies?) I had previously said I wanted to make the Formulas affordable. The concentrates work out to a price which is about half the cost of other products.
Best regards,
Paul Frumkin |
Thanks, Psychicanimal ... and welcome back! Hope your move went smoothly. Must have been difficult getting into Florida, with all those other folks trying to get out!
The 4-stage water purifier is now plumbed and installed. So the CLEANER FORMULA with ULTRA-PURE WATER is now available!
Thanks to Psychic for suggesting that I make the CLEANER FORMULA available in a ready-to-use solution made with ULTRA-PURE WATER.
Best regards to everyone,
Paul Frumkin
p.s. Ads now posted under Turntables and Tweaks. |
You're very welcome, Dopogue! Glad you're consistently obtaining such good results.
Hbarrel ... absolutely. New LPs often have residual silicone compounds on them left from the stampers. We think new LPs look clean because they have shine ... but that's exactly what a thin coating of silicone does: it makes things look shiny. And that silicone holds dust and dirt like glue (besides being a microbe's idea of fine souffle).
Albert, not to worry: I doubt you'll be "dead last." A number of people haven't reported back yet. Actually, my thanks go to the Audiogon members who gave the formulas a fair and thorough trial, and whose positive results were literally the deciding factor in whether I would offer the formulas for sale or not. Many thanks, guys!
Best regards,
Paul Frumkin |
