2. analog
  3. 1126313662

How Should We Clean A New Record?


Have you ever listened to a new record a month or so after you’ve cleaned it with a record cleaning fluid (RCF)? Listen closely: it sounds unexpectedly noisy doesn’t it? Many think so and, for this reason, have stopped using RCF on new records! Others insist that cleaning them with an RCF is an absolute must to remove the offending mold release. And then there are those who have always felt that dry brushing is all that new records require. Amazingly, EVERYONE IS RIGHT! If you are interested in how these seemingly contradicting choices can all be valid, please read on.

CAN YOU HEAR THE SOUND OF MOLD RELEASE?

A new record is covered with a thin layer of mold release, unquestionably a contaminant with a sonic character. However, this sound is subtle, a thin veil that’s mostly unobtrusive. The Teflon or Silicone mold release actually acts as a lubricant that protects the grooves without significantly obscuring the Vinyl’s sound. Countless times I compared the sound of new records BEFORE and SHORTLY AFTER cleaning with an RCF. Without Vinyl lubricant or preserver, the difference is ever so slight and seems barely worth the effort and the risk of using an RCF. Still, a mold release is a contaminant and a dust magnet; it makes sense to remove it if this can be done safely.

THE NOISE OF RECORD CLEANING FLUIDS ON NEW RECORDS

Can an RCF make a new record noisier? The surprising answer is yes! A small fraction of all RCF ingredients ALWAYS remains on the Vinyl surface as an adsorbed film after vacuuming (see my primer on RCF from last week). Held to the Vinyl surface by intermolecular forces, this film is only several molecules thick (less than 10 nanometers) but grooves can also be quite fine at high frequencies (about 100 nm). Amazingly, many can hear the sound of this adsorbed layer!

But here’s the tricky part. The cleaned record is quiet shortly after cleaning as the adsorbed film after vacuuming is still wet—a WET FILM dampens noise. But days or weeks later, with all the liquid gone, the DRY FILM becomes audible. It is a background noise akin to the sound of a dirty record, but much fainter. You may even think that your cleaned record has been re-contaminated with dust. It hasn’t. It’s the sound of dry surfactant. If you re-wet the Vinyl (by rinsing or re-cleaning), the noise goes away only to return when the record is dry again.

An alcohol-based RCF—diluted with water!—leaves a less objectionable sound on a new record because the adsorbed alcohol evaporates completely under vacuum and leaves no dry film behind as long as no surfactant is used. (Note: Dry adsorption film has nothing to do with solid residue from the distilled water making up the RCF.). But even an alcohol-based RCF still leaves a very faint background noise behind; this suggests problems in addition to dry adsorption film but that’s a complicated story for another time.

WHAT ARE YOUR CLEANING OPTIONS WITH A NEW RECORD?

1. Given the current RCF technology, I recommend the Hippocratic approach: first, do no harm. Use a dry brush on your new records, keep them clean, and stay away from RCFs.

2. But if you must wet-clean a new record—because it’s noisy or you find the sound of mold release objectionable—use an alcohol-based RCF (diluted alcohol; little or no surfactant) which leaves behind little or no dry film. The residual background noise is minimal and inaudible in many systems.

3. If you must use a surfactant cleaner, rinse well with low-residue water. Repeated rinsing is necessary as some adsorbed material always remains on the Vinyl after each rinsing by chemical equilibrium. The record will be quiet, wet or dry. Alas, many of you will find this rinsing ritual very tedious.

4. Alternatively, you can use a RCF with lubricant or preserver. It leaves behind an “oily” film that keeps the adsorbed layer “wet” and noise-free. Just remember that you are now replacing mold-release sound with lubricant/preserver sound, even though that is usually an improvement.

5. Some of you like the effectiveness of enzyme-based RCFs. I have not used them much. Their impressive cleaning action (by chemical breakdown of organic contaminants) is certainly attractive but the concomitant breakdown of the plasticizer, also an organic compound, remains a concern.

CONCLUSION

While nearly all agree that old records benefit from a good cleaning with an RCF, there is no consensus or easy solution for cleaning new records. Since I do not find the veil of the mold release very objectionable, I feel that a dry brush is the safest thing to use on a new record—until better RCFs are developed.

One alternative is to use an alcohol-based RCF which is free of other additives. You may also use surfactant-based RCFs but most will leave a faint background noise when dry (days or weeks later). To minimize this problem, rinse several times with water to remove the surfactant film. You may also use an RCF with a lubricant/preserver that keeps the adsorbed layer “wet”, a trade-off between mold-release and lubricant sound. The long-term effect of such additive is still unclear. (Note: To identify the type of RCF you are using, please refer to my last week’s primer on RCF.)

For safer and easier cleaning of new records, we need novel RCFs employing surfactants that are inaudible when dry. This is a difficult but not an impossible demand. RCF manufacturers should look beyond common surfactants (alkylaryl ethoxylates or alkylaryl sulfonates) which belong to an ageing technology. There are exotic surfactants out there that can do the job. Some are (very) expensive but surfactant cost should not be a factor since only a minute amount is ever used in any RCF (typically less than one part in 100, literally pennies per quart of RCF).
justin_time
justin_time OP
100 posts
 
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.
lugnut
1,190 posts
 
I find it cool that we are about the same age with the same passion for our precious recordings. And, again I'm not taking any issue with the technical aspects you presented. My point about boulders in the grooves being held in place by the mold release agents has to do with particles percipitating out of the air and not being able to be removed by a dry brush. That's one reason I defy conventional audiophile wisdom and retain my dust cover. It's just an added measure of protection. Since my suspended table was designed with a dustcover and I can hear no benefit by it's removal I leave it in place. Yes, I do rinse and find the multi-step proceedure a pain. 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. For the sake of full disclosure I no longer even play a new recording without first cleaning it. This concept has been proven to my satisfaction some time ago so I've adhered to it. Maybe one of us has a more revealing analog front end I guess or better hearing. For the record, mine is a Linn LP12/Ittok/Valhalla/ZYX Airy3 S SB/Supratek Syrah. My hearing seems to be fine although I'm sure I've lost the high frequency extremes that fortunately lie outside of most of the information contained in the grooves. Funny though, I do hear the benefits of a super tweeter. Go figure.

Also, I dry brush after each play. I figure it can't hurt and only takes a second.

I respect your sharing this information and appreciate it. 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.

I appreciate all of the information you've given this community and hope you continue with this tradition. Your many years in research is respected by this A'goner. No insult intended and none taken.
dougdeacon
3,338 posts
 
My experience is similar to Lugnut's and Loontoon's. 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.

Based on those experiences, I will never again play a record before wet cleaning. Mold release itself may or may not be harmful, though as Loontoon said I don't fancy dragging the stylus of my $7K cartridge through it, but its tendency to attract things that the stylus will scrape against the groovewalls under great pressure makes removing it essential IME.

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.

Because of its very low surfactant levels, just enough to allow it to flow around and suspend, dissolve or bond with contaminants, RRL works without much scrubbing. This probably helps reduce damage from over-zealous brushing. Low surfactant levels also make it easy for the vacuum to remove. RRL doesn't "want" to leave a film on the vinyl surface that can be adsorbed. (Sorry for the non-scientific language - obviously I am NOT a chemist.)

For most records (80% or so) RRL is about all that's required. The stubborn ones which don't respond to a second RRL cleaning get treated with enzymes, alchohol or higher doses of surfactants, depending on our guess as to the problem. The success rate for these is about 2/3.

Justin_Time's knowledgeable observations seem to lead to this conclusion: there is no perfect RCF, we must choose an optimal compromise. RRL's low level of surfactants and easy rinsability make it exactly that for me.
justin_time OP
100 posts
 
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.
justin_time OP
100 posts
 
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.
More to discover