Record Cleaning: Developing the Best Possible Methods

[davelarz]

I ran my Trusonik with just distilled water and there was still a nasty smell, though it didn't seem quite as strong. I'm returning it (heat function doesn't work anyway) and just ordered the Sonix IV 136. I'll see how that one treats me, seems like a much better machine overall, also 60khz. I admit I'm a little concerned though - having researched the chemicals now doesn't seem like Hepastat, Tergitol or IPA vapors should be giving me any problems, but I'm worried I might just be oversensitive. Wouldn't be the first time I've had this kind of problem. I suppose I can try a particle mask as well.

 

[phantomrebel]

Well, the Tergitols and Tritons are WAY less toxic than SDS (using LD50 results in mice), and SDS is the go to detergent in almost all shampoos and dishwashing soaps so I'm not sure what people here are worrying about. Furthermore, Triton and Tergitols are sold in liquid form while SDS is in a powder that is incredibly noxious (removes the mucous coating from your lungs) so we prefer working with the former. The quats we are using are also in liquid form and they are approved for hospital and food surface use. They are not very toxic to humans and we are using them at concentrations less than your local restaurant or preschool does. This is why they have replaced bleach as preferred disinfectants in sensitive environments. Again, it is your US tank that is the problem. Take it out and shoot it. Than go back in the cleaning area with just your cleaning solution and hand wash a few records and see how you respond. There is a very rare chance that you are allergic to something, but I bet my best LP that you will no longer experience any noxious odors (in the case that your are sensitive, a particulate mask will do nothing...you will need a special filtered unit with protective clothing and also wear the same when you do laundry, dishes, or any other household cleaning unless you select particular products...It is an unfortunate condition, but it does exist and you would not be alone. You NEED to consult a doctor, preferably an experienced allergist, if this is the case).
Careful when interpreting safety sheets: Attorney's dictate what is in these and if you followed them, you'd never salt your food as NaCl is mutagenic and you need protective clothing to handle: http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9927593 !! Yet us contact lens wearers have no problem squirting 0.9% solutions of this salt directly in our eyes on a daily basis with no ill effects.

EDIT: This may be something not to be taken lightly. There are serious sensitivities out there we just don't understand. If you find yourself uncomfortable with a particular environment, avoid it immediately and find someone who can help you understand and deal with your sensitivity. Be confident that this is not a weakness or something to be ashamed of, rather, be proud of the fact that you have a unique sense that is greater than the average person!

 

[AlexA6404]

I have been using Rushton's formula (Tergitol S-15-3 and S-15-9, Hepastat 256, 9a% IPA, and Whole Foods DI water) for my US tank with great results. I have come across a couple of issues that I wanted to get input from the knowledgeable members on this thread:

1 - My ultrasonic tank has a drain valve. After each batch of cleaning, I connect a hose and drain the solution into 1gallon containers, while passing it thru two layers of fabric for filtering (old T-shirts, really). This may not be the most effective filtering method, however. I found a compact inline water filter made by a company called Sawyer. Walmart sells them for $30. It is actually a 0.1 micron filter, which is great. The only question is if the filter is too fine and could potentially filter some of the needed chemicals from the solution.

- I drain and change the cleaning solution every 40-50 records. But, this could take a few weeks. Meanwhile, doesn't the alcohol in the solution evaporate? If so, how can you tell how much alcohol has evaporated so that you can add it back to the solution?

 

[Rushton]

I have been using Rushton's formula (Tergitol S-15-3 and S-15-9, Hepastat 256, 9a% IPA, and Whole Foods DI water) for my US tank with great results. I have come across a couple of issues that I wanted to get input from the knowledgeable members on this thread:

1 - My ultrasonic tank has a drain valve. After each batch of cleaning, I connect a hose and drain the solution into 1gallon containers, while passing it thru two layers of fabric for filtering (old T-shirts, really). This may not be the most effective filtering method, however. I found a compact inline water filter made by a company called Sawyer. Walmart sells them for $30. It is actually a 0.1 micron filter, which is great. The only question is if the filter is too fine and could potentially filter some of the needed chemicals from the solution.

- I drain and change the cleaning solution every 40-50 records. But, this could take a few weeks. Meanwhile, doesn't the alcohol in the solution evaporate? If so, how can you tell how much alcohol has evaporated so that you can add it back to the solution?

Hi Alex,

Simply draining your US tank through a filter seems like a fine approach. Some people drain through paper coffee filters. The inline filter I use is a 1 micron filter (not familiar with a 0.1 micron filter), and it seems to work fine without adverse impact of the effectiveness of the mixed solution. The chemicals are in solution and a filter won't filter out the chemicals, only particulates.

You are correct to wonder about alcohol evaporation - this is sure to happen over time. I will usually add more as I use the mixed solution over several days, but I have no set amounts or recommendations - I just make a guess as I do it. I do keep my tank sealed by a cover when not in use precisely to minimize that alcohol evaporation over time.

Cheers,
Rush

P.S. I replied to your posting of this same question at Positive Feedback Online, but my reply has still not been approved for posting after 5 days! So, clearly this forum is a better place to ask questions and share information.

 

[AlexA6404]

Hi Rushton
Thank you very much for your quick response. And, of course, many thanks for your article and the solution that I have been following.
- re: filter size, I just wanted to make sure that none of the chemicals in the solution (some are not water soluble) have molecules greater than 0.1 micron in size that could potentially get filtered out.
- I have noticed that I lose a bit of the solution after each session. Do you know if any of the other ingredient in the solution evaporate also or is the loss of solution volume only due to Alcohol evaporation? I have been topping off with mixed solution, but, if the loss is only due to alcohol, then, I will top off with Alcohol only.
Best regards
Alex

 

[Timothy Flath]

I have been using Rushton's formula (Tergitol S-15-3 and S-15-9, Hepastat 256, 9a% IPA, and Whole Foods DI water) for my US tank with great results. I have come across a couple of issues that I wanted to get input from the knowledgeable members on this thread:

1 - My ultrasonic tank has a drain valve. After each batch of cleaning, I connect a hose and drain the solution into 1gallon containers, while passing it thru two layers of fabric for filtering (old T-shirts, really). This may not be the most effective filtering method, however. I found a compact inline water filter made by a company called Sawyer. Walmart sells them for $30. It is actually a 0.1 micron filter, which is great. The only question is if the filter is too fine and could potentially filter some of the needed chemicals from the solution.

- I drain and change the cleaning solution every 40-50 records. But, this could take a few weeks. Meanwhile, doesn't the alcohol in the solution evaporate? If so, how can you tell how much alcohol has evaporated so that you can add it back to the solution?

Use a Squeaky Clean Mk III and you will be cleaning with fresh juice each time
It's kinda akin to the super expensive NASA space pen development versus the Russians simply using a Pencil. They both write good in space....

 

[AlexA6404]

Thank you for your input, Timothy. I do use a vacuum based RCM also, but, in my rinse cycles. I use both Nitty Gritty and Okki Nokki RCMs. I use a multi-step cleaning process. Admittedly, some steps might be unnecessary, but, until I better understand which steps, I will continue to use this process.

My process consists of:
- Last Power cleaner to clean Manufacturing Mold Release agent
- Scrub with Nitty Gritty Enzyme cleaner
- US cleaning using Rushton's formula
- Two rinse and vacuum cycles using DI water. I am about to order Type 1 reagent grade water to use in my second rinse cycle.
- I have also used Last Preservative on some of my records, until I read this thread. This step is now on hold pending further evaluation.

The questions that I have are about proper filtering of US solution and substitution of chemicals lost due to evaporation.

Best regards
Alex

 

[Timothy Flath]

Thank you for your input, Timothy. I do use a vacuum based RCM also, but, in my rinse cycles. I use both Nitty Gritty and Okki Nokki RCMs. I use a multi-step cleaning process. Admittedly, some steps might be unnecessary, but, until I better understand which steps, I will continue to use this process.

My process consists of:
- Last Power cleaner to clean Manufacturing Mold Release agent
- Scrub with Nitty Gritty Enzyme cleaner
- US cleaning using Rushton's formula
- Two rinse and vacuum cycles using DI water. I am about to order Type 1 reagent grade water to use in my second rinse cycle.
- I have also used Last Preservative on some of my records, until I read this thread. This step is now on hold pending further evaluation.

The questions that I have are about proper filtering of US solution and substitution of chemicals lost due to evaporation.

Best regards
Alex

I am actually hearing what you are laying down. The obvious question though: Doing all that, when do you find time to actually enjoy your records or is the actual cleaning process the enjoyment vs the tunes themselves (aka the space pen team)? Then again the NASA team made it to the moon and the Russians did not. But hey the Russians can put people into orbit now and NASA truly cannot (they are actually hitching rides with the Russians)...
To me there is always a point of diminishing returns and I have learned to just accept a little of life's imperfections to keep my tunes spinning on my turntable. Then again none of my records are so valuable that I feel they need to last longer than I will be alive so keep doing what you are doing.

 

[AlexA6404]

Yes, it is a lengthy process. But, cleaning a few records a week is a bit of a therapy and "me time" . Also, not every record that I have goes thru "the works" process.
I think some steps may be duplicates, but, I am not sure which ones: eg. does the Rushton US solution also address manufacturing mold release agent, also?

 

[2channel*]

Yes, it is a lengthy process. But, cleaning a few records a week is a bit of a therapy and "me time" . Also, not every record that I have goes thru "the works" process.
I think some steps may be duplicates, but, I am not sure which ones: eg. does the Rushton US solution also address manufacturing mold release agent, also?

I believe it does, and since step 2 (Enzyme) is mostly for the other kind of mold and the Rushton Formula has Hepastat; I think I's skip # 2 also. But I've never done US. Does it remove big particles and hair?

 

[phantomrebel]

Record manufacturers do not use a "mold release agent" per se. That is an old internet tale. The record is released via the steam generated during the heat pressing process. There are, however, compounds in the vinyl formulation that make the polymer release cleanly and retain its pressed form. These are integral to the vinyl and not something washed off. There is no oil, wax, or other "release agent" used in the pressing. That said, the vapor generated at pressing can be rather dirty and leave a residue behind.

I find an enzyme step is only necessary for really scummy thrift finds that have visible fingerprints and obvious contaminants (Cheetos dust is the worst!). In these cases, I simply make my own mix from enzyme tablets commonly found at the drugstore (the ones for digestive help, not the ones for cleaning contact lenses. The former has lipase, protease and amylase while the latter is usually just Papain, a protease).

 

[Thunderbox]

I had said earlier I would show my pressure washing device and I am posting it now for people to look at. After pressure washing, the records get a distilled water rinse and a good vacuuming. I can now do a comparison between the Clear Audio Double Matrix, Ultra Sonic and pressure washing methods. Stay tuned.

Here is the link to the video

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=861265394030341

 

[ripblade]

Record manufacturers do not use a "mold release agent" per se. That is an old internet tale. The record is released via the steam generated during the heat pressing process. There are, however, compounds in the vinyl formulation that make the polymer release cleanly and retain its pressed form. These are integral to the vinyl and not something washed off. There is no oil, wax, or other "release agent" used in the pressing. That said, the vapor generated at pressing can be rather dirty and leave a residue behind.

Based on what I've read, wax is added to the vinyl matrix for the purposes of facilitating ready release from the stampers. Heat and pressure causes the wax to liquify at the surface between the stamper and the vinyl puck.

There are patent abstracts on the internet that describe this. I think carnauba is included in one of the formulations. It is one of the hardest waxes and has the highest melting point of any wax.

The thinking is that this wax is somehow sticky and attracts dirt. The truth is, the dirt is in the air and static attracts the dirt and holds it to the vinyl, which is why we should wash the record after opening it. However, in washing the record we remove the wax and the beneficial lubrication it provides. So we gain one advantage at the expense of another.

I've never noticed a 'sticky' substance on new vinyl. A nice, glossy shine, on the other hand...

 

[Timothy Flath]

I had said earlier I would show my pressure washing device and I am posting it now for people to look at. After pressure washing, the records get a distilled water rinse and a good vacuuming. I can now do a comparison between the Clear Audio Double Matrix, Ultra Sonic and pressure washing methods. Stay tuned.

Something didn't work. What format should videos be in to download them on this site.

You don't post the media here, you link it in. For example my vid several posts above was actually uploaded to my YouTube channel and then linked in using the film icon in the post editor....

 

[theophile]

In other words, Left click to highlight the URL of the video. Right click to 'copy' the URL. Go to the post reply box at AudioKarma. Enter the URL into the reply box at AudioKarma by right click on 'paste'. Post reply.

 

[2channel*]

Record manufacturers do not use a "mold release agent" per se. That is an old internet tale. The record is released via the steam generated during the heat pressing process. There are, however, compounds in the vinyl formulation that make the polymer release cleanly and retain its pressed form. These are integral to the vinyl and not something washed off. There is no oil, wax, or other "release agent" used in the pressing. That said, the vapor generated at pressing can be rather dirty and leave a residue behind.

I find an enzyme step is only necessary for really scummy thrift finds that have visible fingerprints and obvious contaminants (Cheetos dust is the worst!). In these cases, I simply make my own mix from enzyme tablets commonly found at the drugstore (the ones for digestive help, not the ones for cleaning contact lenses. The former has lipase, protease and amylase while the latter is usually just Papain, a protease).

You are a veritable bottomless pit of information!

 

[2channel*]

Based on what I've read, wax is added to the vinyl matrix for the purposes of facilitating ready release from the stampers. Heat and pressure causes the wax to liquify at the surface between the stamper and the vinyl puck.

There are patent abstracts on the internet that describe this. I think carnauba is included in one of the formulations. It is one of the hardest waxes and has the highest melting point of any wax.

The thinking is that this wax is somehow sticky and attracts dirt. The truth is, the dirt is in the air and static attracts the dirt and holds it to the vinyl, which is why we should wash the record after opening it. However, in washing the record we remove the wax and the beneficial lubrication it provides. So we gain one advantage at the expense of another.

I've never noticed a 'sticky' substance on new vinyl. A nice, glossy shine, on the other hand...

Another bottomless pit! We are truly fortunate.

 

[phantomrebel]

Based on what I've read, wax is added to the vinyl matrix for the purposes of facilitating ready release from the stampers. Heat and pressure causes the wax to liquify at the surface between the stamper and the vinyl puck.There are patent abstracts on the internet that describe this. I think carnauba is included in one of the formulations. It is one of the hardest waxes and has the highest melting point of any wax.

I think the standard lubricant is EBS (Ethylene bis stearamide). Either way, it's important to clarify that it is always part of the resin formulation, not something sprayed or wiped onto the stamper (a releasing oil stamper coating is something falsely perpetuated on the internet). They are necessary not just for separation but for improved flow of the resin (as a consequence, it lowers the melting temperature). It is very difficult to wash this out with aqueous solutions, though some on the immediate surface may be partially removed over time by detergents and alcohol mixtures. I assume they are replenished by some of the long chain surfactants I use however, and there are even patents (e.g. US4510187, US4351048 ) describing the benefits of adding quats for this purpose.

Car people will know that a hard wax finish can be washed with mild detergent without harm, but if you want to apply a decal or 3M taped body part, you wipe with alcohol to prepare the surface first (remove the wax). Hence, I cringe when I see people using straight IPA to clean their records.

 

[ripblade]

I think the standard lubricant is EBS (Ethylene bis stearamide). Either way, it's important to clarify that it is always part of the resin formulation, not something sprayed or wiped onto the stamper (a releasing oil stamper coating is something falsely perpetuated on the internet).

Yes, what I was trying to say was that the mould release agent is in the vinyl, not on it, though some exists on the surface after pressing and can be washed off. One study (probably related to the patents you listed) showed that the friction coefficient of the vinyl increases after the record is washed. Hence, leaving some surfactant on the record is a good idea.

 

[phantomrebel]

Yes, what I was trying to say was that the mould release agent is in the vinyl, not on it, though some exists on the surface after pressing and can be washed off. One study (probably related to the patents you listed) showed that the friction coefficient of the vinyl increases after the record is washed.

This is a very important point that is often overlooked. All the data show that slick record plays better and lasts longer. Another reason to stay away from strong commercial or solvent-based cleaners! As you stated, there is a balance between effective cleaning and removal of desirable compounds. Hopefully we can find the sweet spot.