Lugnut, thank you for a very thoughtful response. That’s what I was hoping for but never expected to get when I wrote this piece. I enjoy this thoughtful exchange of ideas very much even if we disagree on many points. Actually, besides being almost the same age—I am a year older—and having a similar penchant for tinkering, you and I may share more common views about records than you think. The most important thing is our obvious desire to take care of our records and getting wonderful music out of them the best way that we know how.
ALL OPTIONS ARE TECHNICAL VALID
Please allow me to re-emphasize the two most important points of my threat. I was addressing only NEW records and all the choices I presented (dry-brushing, cleaning with dilute alcohol and using a surfactant-based cleaner followed by multiple rinsing) are all TECHNICALLY VALID CHOICES, and none is science “[…] taken to an illogical extreme.” Each option is a balance between cleaning and side effect and no one method is a panacea. I just happen to prefer dry-brushing for safety, but this choice applies ONLY to new records. For old records, I found that deep cleaning with a surfactant-based cleaner followed by multiple rinsing is the best method—and unfortunately the most tedious by far. I assume that the “boulders” you referred to are either dust particles or vinyl debris present in OLD records. If such boulders were present on a new record, they would be clearly and unmistakably heard and would definitely give me the reason to deep-clean a new record. That’s usually the only time that I do it.
DRY SURFACTANT FILM IS NOT A PERMANENT DAMAGE
I apologize for not making some technical points absolutely clear. I have worked as a research scientist in surfactant technology for over 25 years—perhaps too long—and tend to take many complicated concepts for granted. I should have made one point very clear: the formation of a dry surfactant film from an RCF in the record grooves IS NOT A PERMANENT “degradation” or “damage” as you may have feared. Certainly, it causes a FAINT background noise on a new record several days or weeks after cleaning that I find disappointing and unacceptable after putting in all the effort to clean it.
This adsorption film is held to the Vinyl surface loosely by intermolecular forces (van der waals attraction, London dispersion, and hydrogen bonding), the same forces of that loosely hold liquid molecules together. Upon repeated playing, the immense pressure of the stylus against the grooves—up to a couple thousand psi as you mentioned—will easily tear apart this film leaving extremely fine particles (less than 10 nanometers thick) which is usually not visible to the naked eye or optical microscope. The noise gradually goes away and no permanent damage is done. (The same erosion happens to mold release—that’s partly why used records lose their shine.) You can also immediately remove the faint background noise of the dry surfactant film by simply rinsing with low-residue water. In short, the presence of a dry surfactant film is not a permanent damage, real or implied. It’s just a temporary penalty for using surfactant without rinsing.
FINAL COMMENTS
I am not sure whether you mentioned anything about rinsing your records after using a cleaner or not. If you did, this would go a long way toward eliminating the adsorption film in the first place. I personally find this ritual of cleaning, vacuuming, rinsing, vacuuming, rinsing and vacuuming again tedious and would use it only when I absolutely have to: with old records and new records that are noisy.
Having made a living studying surfactants all these years, it is ironic that I may have given the impression that I am anti-surfactant. Of course I am not. But I do want to emphasize the fact that surfactant is not a magic bullet in record cleaning—not yet anyway. It can provide excellent cleaning, but it can also extract plasticizer or leave a noisy film behind when used improperly. With most new records, many would be safer with a dry brush and a clean storage.
Once again, thank you for this wonderful chance to exchange idea. |
NOONTOON: Thank you for taking the time to read and respond to my thread. In an effort to keep my answers brief, I will not necessarily respond to your comments in the order they were presented.
YOU WROTE: "The better surfactants, enable the water to lose it's surface tension and spread out. (this means it gets deeper in the grooves, did you ever notice that if you slowly and carefully fill a glass of water the dome, meniscus is taller than the rim of the glass? This is surface tension) Further a combination of those will lift not only dust, but organic and inorganic substances. Grease, oil, release agents, sludge, bacteria and any left over water based solids from other cleaners. (I buy used as well as new)"
My main point was not to compare the cleaning effectiveness of various RCFs. It is obvious that surfactant-based RCFs are by far the best cleaners. I already went through the chemistry of record cleaning and the way surfactant works in excruciating details in a very long primer on RCF I posted last week. This threat is about new records, which in my opinion do not usually require deep cleaning. If the main goal was to avoid leaving any background noise behind on a new record which had none to begin with, and for this restricted case only, I find that dry brushing is the safest method and that alcohol-based RCF leaves behind less background noise than surfactant-based RCF.
YOU WROTE:…“The alcohol seems to leave a cleaner record but does it. The alcohol will assist in evaporation of the water but most water, contains small amounts of disolved solids. Even super cleaned RO/polished water. Which are left behind. Crunchy granlola suite!!!”
Alcohol-based RCF leaves behind less residues and less background noise than surfactant-based RCFs (if you do not rinse several times after cleaning and do not use lubricant to dampen the noise) regardless of the quality of the deionized/distilled water (D/D) used. Actually, the topic of residues from D/D is one of the most misunderstood areas of record cleaning. Beyond listening tests (with dry record), a crude material balance easily shows why we have less residues with alcohol-base RCF than with surfactant-based RCF.
I assume here that we use D/D water to make up the alcohol-based RCF. The level of total dissolved solid or TDS (potentially left as residues on vinyl) varies from about 100 ppm in the worse quality of D/D to less than 10 ppm in triple D/D water or triple filtered reverse osmosis water—that’s a mouthful. (I personally use HPLC water which contains less than 0.1 ppm residues.) Now compare that to a surfactant-based RCF, such as the one you make yourself, which typically contains about 1,000 to 5,000 ppm (0.1 to 0.5%) of surfactant dissolved in water (I will ignore the residues from the makeup water for simplicity sake) compared to 10 to 100 ppm TDS in alcohol-based RCF. So which RCF will leave more residues on vinyl after cleaning and vacuum? The surfactant-based RCF of course, by 10 to 500 fold! And we have not yet included the amount of surfactant that is preferentially attracted to the vinyl surface by physical adsorption forces.
In short, a surfactant-based RCF will leave behind far more residues (evaporated and adsorbed) than an alcohol-based RCF, regardless of the quality of the D/D water used in both RCFs. Again, this in no way implies that alcohol-based RCF is a better cleaner; it just leaves less residues, that’s all.
YOU WROTE: “I'll take any small amount of left over surfactant, over the bacteria and mold chewing up my vinyl."
My thread was never meant to be an indictment of surfactant. That would be truly ironic since I make my living designing, studying and using surfactants. Surfactants can be an outstanding cleaners but are not without side effects. Surfactant-based RCF leaves behind surfactant residues from adsorption and evaporation which is far more abundant than water residues from alcohol-based RCF because of the higher surfactant concentration. But, as I pointed out in my thread, you do not have to put up with this. All you have to do is follow each cleaning by rinsing the same way you do your laundry and your record will be perfectly quiet.
In a nutshell, I main hope was to present potential complications arising for each cleaning method. As long as you are aware of them, any method you chose to clean your new records with will the applied with the best possible effectiveness.
Cheers. |
Dougdeacon: Thank you for the many interesting points you made.
YOU WROTE: “… I've tried playing new records with only dry brushing. Those records are now ruined. Whatever particulates or contaminates the mold release grabbed onto got ground into/against the vinyl by the stylus. This damage has proved irreversible by cleaning with any means at my disposal - which include a Loricraft, highly purified, deionized water and solutions with surfactants, with alchohol and with enzymes.”
I am sorry to hear about your bad experience with dry brushing. I have not had a comparable experience: I brush a new record carefully before and after each play and store it in a new sleeve free of dust. I know of a well known person in record mastering who flatly refuses to use RCF on ANY record period, so annoyed is he by the background noise created by these cleaners. I am not nearly that extreme because the problem isn’t permanent and can be easily rectified.
Being a surfactant specialist, I used to clean every single new record I bought with surfactant RCF until one day, quite by accident I am ashamed to admit, I played a record that I cleaned about a month earlier and played once without any problems. I was shocked to hear a faint background noise that wasn’t there before. And to my complete horror, I found that ALL my new records cleaned by surfactant RCF had the same faint noise unless they have been played a lot. I figured out what the problem was (dry surfactant film) and promptly proceeded to rinse every previously cleaned record with HPLC water: they are all dead quiet now. I can’t emphasize this point enough: you don’t hear any noise if you play the record immediately after cleaning or with if any lubricant/preserver is present in the RCF.
YOU WROTE: “…My preferred RCFs (based on achieving the best results) are the ones made by Record Research Labs. Brian Weitzel is also a chemist BTW, so I'm sure he considered many of the issues Justin_Time has raised. Presumably this explains why RRL contains far lower surfactant levels than other RCFs and no alchohol at all. If RRL leaves any residue or sonic signature I've never heard it. That is not true of the other products I've tried.”
I agree with you. RRL makes some of the best if not the best RCFs out there. And yes, RRL is probably aware of the problems with surfactant noise. Using less surfactant certainly helps reduce the surfactant residue but unfortunately also reduces the cleaning power as well, thus the need for two cleaners (the Super Deep Cleaner and the Super Vinyl Wash). The lighter-duty SVW also uses a lubricant (carboglycinate) which dampens any noise that the surfactant film might create; this lubricant seems to have little or no signature of its own. Overall, an effective solution if not a simple one.
If you worry about the mold release (Teflon/silicone lubricant) attracting dust and gumming up your expensive stylus—aren’t they all ridiculously expensive these days?—I think the same concern should apply to any lubricant used in the RCF until the manufacturers explain to us how theirs are different and why we shouldn’t worry.
I have played around some with formulating new surfactants for RCF. It is possible to design a surfactant that works very well—actually better than most—at very low concentration, doesn’t adsorb much, and does not create any audible noise after drying. As the market for such experimental surfactants expands to a commercial level, we will be able to use them to make simple and safely effective RCF. I am sure smart RCF manufacturers will figure out what these surfactants are soon enough, if they haven’t already. |
Lugnut, thanks for the suggestion on the water source. Lab water is plenty good for rinsing records. Due to the high volume required, instead of distilled water, most laboratories use de-ionized water, which is much more than adequate for our purpose. Some health-food stores are starting to use the same system to produce drinking water.
The storage container is absolutely critical. It is essential that you use a container that is free of contaminants and completely inert. The safest storage containers are those gallon jugs made of amber glass (to minimize UV-related problem) with a plastic cap. Of course you should first clean all storage bottles with a mild detergent and rinse them thoroughly with tap water and one final time with your pure water. If you use a plastic bottle, make absolutely sure that it is made of polyethylene or polypropylene (pure polymers) and not PVC or other plastics that contain plasticizers, which will slowly leach into your pure water and ruin it. Of course they should be thoroughly and similarly cleaned before use.
Do you think there is a need for more information on the water purity required, where you can get it, how to store it? I think I can put something together if there is a real need for it. |
Hello again Lugnut. Once again your response is thought-provoking.
YOU WROTE: “Obviously surfractants, HPLC water and ultrasonic action is too aggressive. Still, I believe even a conventionally applied approach as a first step to remove the mold release compounds followed by an ultrasonic bath using only HPLC water is a sound idea.”
— ABOUT ULTRASONIC. This is actually a rather difficult problem because the cleaning requirements are so fundamentally different: embedded solid particles require mechanical actions, which the ultrasonic machine provides but mold release and even organic contaminants (finger prints, glue and other Unidentified Drying Objects—UDOs?) strongly adhere to the vinyl surface and are surprisingly resistant to ultrasonic action. They require chemical intervention to initially “lift” them off the surface first before ultrasonic can do its work. It is difficult to find a gentler cleaner for Vinyl than surfactant—ammonia, acid, bleach, enzymes are all considerably harsher cleaners. I am looking for a surfactant that provides low surface tension but with a limited ability to solubilize and emulsify. That’s like asking a vampire to only bite but not drink blood. But I still have a few candidates to test if I can find the time.
You WROTE: “A decade or so ago a CFC cleaner was banned from use. I've never used this product but understand it really removed the mold release compounds and nasty fingerprints quite easily. In one of the many audio catalogs I receive and promptly give away there was a reintroduction to an evironmentally friendly replacement product. Are you familiar with this first step? Any reason not to use them?”
— ON CFC CLEANERS. Yes, I am quite familiar with the product. The first one was called…FIRST. As you said, it is a CFC, but it has a longer molecular chain-length than the more familiar Freon. I used many isomers of the trichlorotrifluoroethane from the lab and achieve essentially the same amazing results. They work based on a familiar principle in chemistry: things that are alike prefer to stay together. And Teflon or Silicone mold releases are molecularly similar to CFC and thus easily removed by the latters. I would imagine that if you use a longer-chain CFC, the environmental impact would be dramatically reduced. I am not familiar with the CFC replacement so I can’t be sure what they might do but, if they work like CFCs and if you keep the contact time brief, the plasticizer within the vinyl matrix should be quite safe from these products.
YOU WROTE: “For sure, proper cleaning of records is a very time consuming process and one which takes a lot of experimenting to get right. I honestly believe that many folks just don't take the time to experiment and get it right. I intentionally pulled records I cleaned last month for a repeat play last night just to see if I could hear any traces of dried surfactants you mention. My final rinse with lab grade water must make a difference because all of these examples are as quiet as I've ever heard.”
— ON RINSING. You did the right thing by rinsing your records with distilled water after cleaning. Imagine what would happen to your clothes if you did the laundry without using the rinse cycle! It is such a trivial thing that I am puzzled why so many people do not automatically rinse their records after cleaning.
— A SMALL EXPERIMENT. Are you curious enough to conduct a small experiment? First only dry-brush a brand new record and then play it once. Next, clean the record with a surfactant-based cleaner—no lubricant or preserver please!—and vacuum it thoroughly to remove the excess liquid but skip the rinsing step. Now play the record again immediately. If you used a good RCF, you’d notice that the record is dead quiet, an improvement over the un-cleaned new record. Next store the record for about a month or two (the length depends on the humidity in your house). Finally, play the record again: you’ll hear a very faint background noise that sounds like a dusty record but with ultra-fine dust particles! Don’t worry; you haven’t damaged your record. Just rinse it a couple of times, et voila, the noise will not come back.
YOU WROTE: “I'm surprised that there haven't been more posts to this thread. Mind sharing how many hits it's gotten?”
— HITS OR MISSHITS? So far, this thread has 288 hits. My previous RCF thread, a long primer—an oxymoron?—received 1188 hits and 33 responses. I can only guess the reasons why threads like mine have relatively few hits. First, my threads are much longer than the average threads which immediately puts many people off and even angered a few. Second, I tend to present or discuss basic concepts in the hope that people will use the knowledge to make their own decisions in specific situations. Apparently, this is not a very popular approach—people prefer instant gratifications and quick fixes. My approach may even appear condescending to some people. Finally, Chemistry is a notoriously unpopular topic with audiophiles who much prefer talking about mechanical or electronic issues perhaps because many have those backgrounds. But that’s all just wild guesses. Perhaps my verbosity and pontification put people to sleep. For this, I am amused and strangely unrepentant. |
Rushton, thank you very much for your words of appreciation.
Your choice to clean all new records with an RCF and then rinse them with distilled water is completely valid. You should have no trouble with the "dry surfactant" noise that I discussed because you get that problem only when you use a surfactant cleaner without rinsing.
I am getting lazy in my old age. I reserve wet-cleaning with RCF and multiple rinsing for the few new records that I really treasure for sonic and/or musical reasons. The rest gets only the dry-brush treatment.
Once again thank you for taking the time to read my thread and for sharing your views. |
Willster: unless I could get data that tell me otherwise, that would also be the only conclusion I could draw.
The mold release is a lubricant that is applied to the mold; each record may get a different amount as it is pressed. The number of times you play the record--each play removes a small fraction of the mold release--and not chronological age determines the amount of mold release left. Yes, teflon or silicone mold release is extremely stable, chemically. Mechanically, is gets chewed up by friction against the stylus the same way that your engine oil gets broken down by shear and heat.
The other possiblity, though remote, is the various amounts of plasticizer lost due to extremely slow evaporation--remember the white haze on the windshield of early Datsun? That's phthalate deposit--which could affect the wettability of the vinyl surface.
I forgot one other variable: the amount of high-frequency information on the particular record. The more high-frequency info the record has, the more tiny grooves it contains--in the oder of 0.1 micron around 15 kHz--and the harder it is for the RCF to penetrate and wet these tight spaces, everything elese being the same (same RCF, same wettability).
I hope this helps a little more. Cheers. |
Willster, a valid diagnosis is nearly impossible without specific information on each and every case. All I can do is give you some general concepts which may help you identify the problem yourself.
Whether the RCF will spread or bead up on a Vinyl surface depends both on the RCF and the Vinyl surface (not the vinyl). The contact angle between the RCF droplet and the surface must be favorable for the liquid droplet to spread. Part of the requirement is for the surface tension of the RCF to be low, the lower the better (pure water has a surface tension of about 60-70 dyne/cm; good surfactants will reduce the surface tension by a factor of three, to around 20 dyne/cm). The other parameter is the wettability of the Vinyl surface.
With different RCFs, you may have different surface tensions which lead to different spreading tendencies. With the same RCF, the surface tension will tend to increase if the RCF is diluted with too much water.
The vinyl itself is pretty much an invariant. The polymer molecular structure is ALWAYS the same, a polyvinylchloride or (—CH2—CHCl—)n. The amount of plasticizer (phthalate ester or 1,2 benzenedicarboxylate) used to soften the vinyl may vary slightly from record to record but this is unlikely to fundamentally change the wettability of the Vinyl surface. The type or amount of mold release (Teflon or silicone product) covering the Vinyl surface is also likely to vary from record to record. This will alter the wettability of the Vinyl surface.
So in a nutshell, either the surface tension varies with different brands of RCF and different levels of dilution or the wettability of the Vinyl surface varies with different types or amounts of mold release. The important thing is you can’t clean what you can’t touch: if your RCF does not completely wet the Vinyl surface, you cannot clean it well. Apply the full-strength RCF a couple of times to ensure intimate contact for better results. |
LUGNUT: Thanks for the clarifications.
YOU WROTE: “You mention that you can hear the residue for a time after cleaning a new record. My experience is just the opposite. My new recordings have proven to be quieter with cleaning.
Please let me attempt to re-clarify the point: if you clean a new record with an RCF and play this record immediately after cleaning, you don’t hear any noise at all—the surfactant film is still slightly wet. And yes, there is absolutely no doubt the record is quieter after cleaning.
Now put the record away for a month or so. Then play it again: you’ll hear a faint background noise (from dry surfactant film) that wasn’t there before! As a double check, you can simply rinse & vacuum the record a few times: the background noise will disappear.
If you played the cleaned record repeatedly, the noise will also fade away. If you always rinse your new records after cleaning or if your RCF contains a lubricant or preserver, you won’t hear the surfactant noise either.
YOU WROTE: “…Someday somebody will finally introduce an ultrasonic record cleaner that uses only the best water as a cleaning agent and everyone will be on the same page. Hold onto your wallets because it'll be expensive.”
It’s curious that you mentioned ultrasonic cleaners. I have some big ones in the lab that easily accommodate LPs. I tried them. They work better than anything else out there at dislodging dust particles that even my best RCF couldn’t touch. Still, one problem remains. In order to better remove mold release and organic contaminants, I found it necessary to use a little surfactant to better solubilize these materials and also to penetrate deeply into all the nooks and crannies. Unfortunately, the surfactant also caused a not insignificant amount of plasticizer to leach out (as emulsions). Still some more work to be done! |
A few answers for Letch about rinsing and vacuuming.
YOU WROTE: “I was wondering about the water to be used for rinsing. I use RRL products for record cleaning but do not rinse. I was told, and have read that one uses a two step application, the stronger Super Deep Cleaner then the Super Vinyl wash and vacuum. Then play. Though for new records I only use the latter wash….”
If you use RRL SVW on your records, you do not have to rinse them after cleaning. The point of rinsing is to remove the surfactant left on the vinyl after vacuuming that can be noisy when dry (weeks later). But RRL SVW contains a lubricant (carboglycinate) which will keep the left-over surfactant wet and will also dampen the noise. You can rinse with water if you like, but this action will remove not only most of the surfactant, which is a good thing, but some of the lubricant as well, though not all.
YOU WROTE: “…I thought the vacuuming was supposed to remove the residue. I figured that would do it or it would evaporate...”
Vacuum physically removes the bulk of the fluid from the vinyl surface and evaporates the rest. But some surfactant will stay behind on the vinyl surface by adsorption or simply because it is a heavy liquid or a solid that does not evaporate under vacuum. Surfactants, and other materials dissolved in the RCF will remain on the vinyl after vacuum to make up what we loosely call residue.
Good luck with the water (you may also want to check my response to Lugnut about water source). |
Alephman-I assume that your post was addressed to me (it is hard to tell in this forum).
YOU WROTE: "I noticed you neglecled to mention LAST record preservative. "
As a general rule, I try not to comment on commercial RCFs; my main objective is to provide general information and discuss basic concepts, not to praise or badmouth any particular commercial product. I understand that this often makes it difficult for reader to evaluate some of the ideas that I proposed but this shortcoming is unavoidable. You have to look elsewhere for specific recommendation/opinion about commercial products.
YOU WROTE: "It it true alcohol damages vinyl by removing polymers and other oils and that constant contact will make the vinyl brittle?"
For a longer discussion on the effect of alcohol on vinyl, please check my older thread: http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1124989009&read&3&4&
Strictly speaking, vinyl or PVC is a completely inert polymer that is susceptible only to very strong acids or bases, powerful oxidizers, and strong UV exposure. PURE alcohols, however, can extract out the plasticizer (phthalate esters), which was ADDED to the vinyl to soften it. The danger of extracting the plasticizer from vinyl is reduced as the alcohol is diluted in water. The reason is simple but long to explain.
The plasticizer, an organic compound with low to medium dielectric constant--I don't recall its exact value--is soluble in any liquid (organic solvent) with a similar dielectric constant like alcohols (dielectric constant around 20 to 30. By the way, you should never use ammonia or vinegar on vinyl for the same reason: low dielectric constants). But when an alcohol is diluted with a lot of water, which has a very high dielectric constant (around 78), the resulting fluid acquires a higher dielectric constant and loses most of its ability to dissolve the plasticizer.
The contact time between any RCF and vinyl should ALWAYS be minimized. Even surfactant-based RCF will extract out the plasticizer given enough contact time (by a mechanism called micellar solubilization, which is different from that of alcohol).
I hope this helps. |
