A question to ponder about vinyl and surfactant

[Mockduck]

The advice has basically always been that a surfactant helps in your record cleaning solution because it allows the solution to get further into the grooves of the record. The advice has also basically always been that if you use a surfactant, you should do a rinse with just distilled water after in order to remove the surfactant from the record.

How, though, does the distilled water get into the grooves of the record to clean out the surfactant if surfactant is necessary to get into the grooves of the record?

 

[Jeff449]

I'll leave the answer to those who are more educated than I am in this area.
My solution, though, is doing my final rinse with a Spin Clean full of pure distilled water. The brushes get into the grooves, at least in theory.

 

[onwardjames]

Please refer to the "Cleaning Vinyl" thread, found here.

Essentially, what I have found aligns with @Jeff449, and that is the residual surfactant allows the fresh water in, those Spin Clean bristles help, and voila, clean.

I know it isn't scientific, but my own experience is that with ultrasonic cleaning, the surfactant is not even needed. I use a single tablespoon of Jet Dri, tapwater for the wash, and rinse with distilled in a Spin Clean.

This uncomplicated method has left me with 4 or 5 jugs of Tergitol, various potions and off-brand cleaners. Might sell them on Bartertown, as I have zero need for them any longer with the above method.

I wish you well, and advocate that you not overthink it. It'll bug the fun right out of this hobby.

 

[onwardjames]

Also, I'm a huge fan of air-dry. You're not generating any static electricity, or charge. A decent sink drain is cheap, and works wonderfully.

 

[Mockduck]

I agree this is basically a nonissue when it comes to ultrasonic, and it makes sense I suppose with the bristles as long as they are thinner than the grooves of the record. I am still a cheap broke ornery type who uses microfiber cloths and a homemade solution and it works fine enough until I win the lottery. For me, it seems like an issue, if I actually think it's an issue, which I am unsure of.

 

[GChief]

I'll leave the answer to those who are more educated than I am in this area.
My solution, though, is doing my final rinse with a Spin Clean full of pure distilled water. The brushes get into the grooves, at least in theory.

I do the same for a rinse after US.

 

[loudnoises]

Dilution is the solution.

 

[Blowed Fuse]

Distilled water is 100% pure. Tap water has lots of stuff in it you may not want on your vinyl. I guess distilled is a good way not to add anything to a record you just cleaned.

 

[grillebilly]

AK turned me onto a solution with surfactant already in it. Scrub and rinse under the faucet.
Ultrasonic is the likely the best, of course. The rinse depends on the water quality.

 

[loudnoises]

AK turned me onto a solution with surfactant already in it. Scrub and rinse under the faucet.
Ultrasonic is the likely the best, of course. The rinse depends on the water quality.

View attachment 3709313

A bit about Dawn...

So we use it in bubble exhibits. For kids. Cuz after years and years nobody ever has had a bad reaction to it. But it is an organic solvent, and it's no joke. I've seen it eat cast iron pipe. And it WILL leave residue and will build up.

*You only need a drop in a gallon to get the effect you need.* Please rinse thoroughly.

The P&G plant manager was clear they only used water to clean it up. Lots of water.

 

[Mr Boochie]

Whatever you decide to use, try to rinse off any remaining surfactant. Some can leave a sticky residue when dried. This residue can attract dust, which causes those annoying sticky fuzz balls to form on the needle.

Cleaned vinyl with no residue on it will not do this.

 

[flavio81]

The advice has basically always been that a surfactant helps in your record cleaning solution because it allows the solution to get further into the grooves of the record.

I don't think there is any record cleaning solution without a surfactant.

Tergitol is a surfactant; used on many record cleaning formulas

Kodak Photo-flo is a surfactant; ditto. As is Ilford Ilfotol.

Homebrew record cleaning solution, if it uses any detergent like dishwashing detergent, then it contains a surfactant.

Only record cleaning solution without a surfactant would be a mixture of distilled water with alcohol. Alcohol lowers surface tension but it's not exactly a surfactant. And alcohol is generally discouraged to be used on records.

 

[sound hound]

How, though, does the distilled water get into the grooves of the record to clean out the surfactant if surfactant is necessary to get into the grooves of the record?

Water is considered a solvent. Distilled water is an aggressive solvent. It is very effective in diluting a sufactant, at least to the degree that the surfactant is water soluble.

 

[noisefreq]

I think using liquid Dawn or Jet-Dry creates more problems because they are ionic. Tergitol, Photofol and Ilfotol are NON-ionic. These eliminate static after the record is dried and won't attract dust while on the platter, keeping the record cleaner. And it's easier to brush off any dust that does fall on the record during use. A new poly sleeve and you're all set.

 

[jrtrent]

The advice has basically always been that a surfactant helps in your record cleaning solution because it allows the solution to get further into the grooves of the record. The advice has also basically always been that if you use a surfactant, you should do a rinse with just distilled water after in order to remove the surfactant from the record.

How, though, does the distilled water get into the grooves of the record to clean out the surfactant if surfactant is necessary to get into the grooves of the record?

I'm not sure what a surfactant is, and I don't know whether I've ever used one. When I've wanted to use a record cleaner, I've simply purchased one and used whatever fluids that company sold for it. I used Discwasher in the 1970's and have been happy with Nitty Gritty Pure 2 since 2009. No rinsing was needed with either of those.

 

[Mr Boochie]

I'm not sure what a surfactant is.

A surfactant is an agent that has an ionic (water-soluble) and non-ionic (organic or grease-soluble) part to its molecular structure. It allows non-water-soluble fats and grime to be removed from surfaces and washed off with water.


Diagram from Wikipedia of a series of surfactant molecules lined up in a sphere, to help solubilize something non-water-soluble.

 

[onwardjames]

I think using liquid Dawn or Jet-Dry creates more problems because they are ionic. Tergitol, Photofol and Ilfotol are NON-ionic. These eliminate static after the record is dried and won't attract dust while on the platter, keeping the record cleaner. And it's easier to brush off any dust that does fall on the record during use. A new poly sleeve and you're all set.

Having cleaned over 100 records with just the Jet Dry I am discouraged to hear this.

Using a conical stylus, I have no pops, no noise, and no lint.

After buying a BIC 1000 with a Shure Cart and Supertracker stylus, I've found several large globs of dust. I thought it was just the smaller stylus digging up crap.

I'll try the next batch with a tiny amount of Tergitol, see what happens. I was so pleased with the results the Jet Dry, dangit.

 

[jrtrent]

Having cleaned over 100 records with just the Jet Dry I am discouraged to hear this.

Using a conical stylus, I have no pops, no noise, and no lint.

After buying a BIC 1000 with a Shure Cart and Supertracker stylus, I've found several large globs of dust. I thought it was just the smaller stylus digging up crap.

I'll try the next batch with a tiny amount of Tergitol, see what happens. I was so pleased with the results the Jet Dry, dangit.

Sometimes those new-fangled stylus shapes aren't all they're cracked up to be. One of my favorite quotes (though the link to it seems busted) is, "All the early types were conical which present the same width from any angle. However, as the cutting stylus is chisel shaped (it is wider head on), the lateral cut will be slightly less wide when it cuts a high modulation groove. For this reason, it was thought that an elliptical shape would improve tracking by maintaining better overall contact with the groove. In practice the benefits are very small and offset by increased record wear and a tendency to collect dust from the record surface."

 

[loudnoises]

Sometimes those new-fangled stylus shapes aren't all they're cracked up to be. One of my favorite quotes (though the link to it seems busted) is, "All the early types were conical which present the same width from any angle. However, as the cutting stylus is chisel shaped (it is wider head on), the lateral cut will be slightly less wide when it cuts a high modulation groove. For this reason, it was thought that an elliptical shape would improve tracking by maintaining better overall contact with the groove. In practice the benefits are very small and offset by increased record wear and a tendency to collect dust from the record surface."

There have been many discussions on this very topic, some recently. The benefits and drawbacks of simplre and complex shapes is pretty well sussed out.

In the end, if you're tracking under 2g and you're setup correctly, you will not wear out your records. Shape isn't a factor nearly as much as tracking weight.

 

[jrtrent]

There have been many discussions on this very topic, some recently. The benefits and drawbacks of simplre and complex shapes is pretty well sussed out.

In the end, if you're tracking under 2g and you're setup correctly, you will not wear out your records. Shape isn't a factor nearly as much as tracking weight.

I didn't want to edit the quote, but I should have made it more clear that I was responding to onwardjames's comment, "I thought it was just the smaller stylus digging up crap." The article I quoted from mentions an elliptical's "tendency to collect dust from the record surface." Just trying to support onwardjames's observation about the Supertracker stylus!