Tomb- I use reagent grade water which is very expensive to buy at retail. I buy it in bulk. For a while, I was buying it from OpticsPlanet online, but it was more expensive each time I ordered it. A week or so ago, I checked their site, and it appears that they no longer carry it. I tracked down the supplier of the water, Fisher Scientific, which sells it under the Thermo brand. The price, with shipping, was about 2/3’s the cost of buying it from Optics. I use it for my KL, as a rinse when cleaning records on my Monks, and to make up cleaning fluids from concentrates like the Hannl, which is not sold in un-concentrated form here in the States. As to benefits, it is costly, but peace of mind- I don’t exactly know what processes some distilled, R/O, DI and other ’purified’ waters go though, particularly those sold in groceries or large retail outlets, the ’lab’ stuff has to meet certain standards, and goes through multiple purification steps. It is probably overkill, but since I usually do one thorough cleaning of a record and that’s it--for posterity--I want some assurance I’m leaving no residue on the vinyl surface. There are different grades of ’lab’ water, and a few sites that explain the processes to meet the various grades. To me, it is a relatively small cost given the sizable investment I have in records. To others, it may be a waste of money.
In my discussions with the preservation specialists at the LOC, they suggested DI water, which is not terribly expensive and meets the objective of not leaving mineral residue on the record. That interview is posted online. |
Tomb- it is this stuff: [url] http://www.thermoscientific.com/en/product/nerl-reagent-grade-water.html[url] It is also available from other third party suppliers for even less than I paid, but check the shipping cost before you order- the shipping price from Fisher to me in NY was almost nothing, and 5 Gallons is pretty heavy. Yes, I think Albert uses the same grade of water- in fact, I had him verify what he was using b/c I was tired of paying beaucoup prices for small containers. |
To Rlawry's point: I pre-clean virtually every record that goes into the ultrasonic, to reduce the amount of contaminants that pollute the bath. There's no 'one way', but using a conventional vacuum record cleaning machine with appropriate fluids, followed by a pure water rinse, is a predicate to the next step of cleaning in the ultrasonic. I buy a lot of old records, and even with pre-cleaning, change the ultrasonic water out at roughly 50 cleanings. |
I don't purport to claim some 'magic' improvement in sound as a result of water (or even fluid for that matter). What I do hear is the difference between an old record that has an unknown history of contamination (including previous haphazard cleaning) and one that has been properly cleaned. My experience has been - using only ultrasonic was insufficient for some records, that multiple cleanings using different methods yielded an improvement and that the results are often more in the method than any particular product. Since many of these records are from the '50s and '60s, some are quite valuable, and I listen to them (I'm not just a collector), I want to achieve the highest state of playback as possible. In addition, since I don't want any chemical residue from fluids to remain on the record over time--which can potentially interact with inner sleeve material, etc.- I want to do my best to preserve them. Thus, the reason for using high grade water in various rinse and cleaning cycles. As I originally noted, it may be overkill. I have no commercial interest in any product or company. My explorations of various cleaning methods are published, along with my visit to Culpeper and interview with the preservation folks at the LOC re cleaning. I do not believe that any of this borders on the absurd but you are free to decide otherwise. The only caveat I would make in evaluating cleaning methods and products is to perform some comparisons using different cleaning methods and combinations- something that is not easy to 'test' scientifically, since every record is sui generis in its pressing quality and history of contamination and multiple cleanings, even using the same method, usually yield some improvement up to a point.
|
Dave- I think the 'uber' expensive stuff has labels like 'ultra pure' and goes beyond the so-called Grade or Type 1 Water; never tried it, b/c it is crazy expensive. (I think it may be used for injectable solutions, among other things). Yeah, they still require a business address- I used to use my law firm, which seemed to foreclose any question. I like your idea of using a TDS meter (which you mentioned in another thread), particularly if folks aren't pre-cleaning and rinsing records before putting them into the ultrasonic. I'm not surprised by the outcome of your experiments. For what it's worth, the pricing of some of this lab water is all over the map in the States, depending on the supplier and quantities--costs more for multiple smaller capacity bottles (obviously, just for packaging and handling) than larger quantities. I don't use enough of it to justify a water purification system. I think the better investment would be a small nuclear reactor in my backyard for cleaner power. Haven't checked government regulations on that front. Be well, :)
bill hart |
Tomb- just for fun, if you have some AIVS No 15, try and reclean the Zep RL, agitating and letting it soak, then vacuum off with your Loricraft, do a water rinse with the reagent water, vacuum again, then run it through the KL again.
I went through a bunch of copies of Zep II RL to finally find a minty one, not easy. But it does kick hard, and is great fun to listen to. (The UK plum is also a good listen, as is the Canadian Red Label TG). |
When I had the Audio Desk, I reduced the amount of factory fluid based on input from other long time users. I could still see the effects of that fluid residue afterwards- water spread across the disc fairly evenly, as if there were still a surfactant of some sort present, breaking the surface tension. Theoretically, the ultrasonic cleaning as a finishing step, without the contact of potentially polluting brushes, or static inducing vacuum wands, is best. However, I still got better results on some records by point nozzle drying the ultrasonically washed, but not forced air dried, record. One can do this without spending a fortune on machines- DIY ultrasonic plus used Loricraft will get you there.
|
@grooves- what version of the manual do you have? The one shown on the KL site is English Version 1.2 and says:
"Use only distilled water to fill the reservoir. Detergents, tap water, and other additives are not recommended and may react with materials used in the system or cause mineral build-up...."
I can check the manual that came with my machine- but the unit shown on their website (still up) looks pretty much identical to the unit I have here in terms of lack of switch on face panel, etc.
|
I think @grooves is Mike Fremer. Or his doppelgänger. Mike?
|
@lewm not to belabor the point, but at the time this thread was originally posted, I was not aware of the DIY methods of filtration of particulates from the US bath-- that sort of kit can be put together fairly inexpensively along with other features that may or may not be available on the "made for records" US machines. It is a fair point regarding pollution of the bath water. Rush Paul and Tima have written about it, as has Neil Antin, who developed mil-spec cleaning methods for 02 systems on Navy submarines. Yeah, it can get a little obsessive. :)
|
