REVIEW: AIVS no. 15 Record Cleaning Fluid vs Phoenix Record Cleaner
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 08. 2024
- 00:00 - Introduction
02:25 - Vinyl Inspection
02:40 - Cleaning Explained
04:12 - Record Cleaning
15:43 - Final Thoughts & For the Record
FEATURED PRODUCT: Phoenix Record Cleaner - sleevecityusa.com/products/ph...
Audio Intelligent Vinyl Solutions Premium Pre-Cleaner No. 15 Record Cleaning Fluid - elusivedisc.com/audio-intelli...
FEATURED ARTIST / ALBUM: Isao Suzuki Trio +1 / Blow Up
PREVIOUS EPISODES REFERENCED: AIVS Enzymatic Soak - • Why Use An Enzymatic S...
WATCH WORN FOR EPISODE: www.tudorwatch.com/en/watches...
RETAIL SOURCES FOR RCF & BRUSHES:
Acoustic Sounds: store.acousticsounds.com/
Elusive Disc: elusivedisc.com/
CLEANING EQUIPMENT:
Kirmuss Ultrasonic - upscaleaudio.com/products/kir...
Loricraft PRC6i - www.loricraftwatermusicusa.com/
VPI MW1 Cyclone - elusivedisc.com/vpi-mw-1-cycl...
KLAudio Ultrasonic Machine - klaudio.com/kd-cln-lp200-lp-v...
SpinClean - thevinylrevivers.com/product/...
RETAIL SOURCES FOR RCF & BRUSHES:
Acoustic Sounds: store.acousticsounds.com/
Elusive Disc: elusivedisc.com/
OTHER SUPPLIES:
UV-Resistant Spray Bottles
www.walmart.com/ip/6-Amber-4o...
RECORDING EQUIPMENT:
AT4050/CM5 Condenser Microphone - www.audio-technica.com/en-us/...
Universal Audio Volt 176 USB-C Audio Interface - www.sweetwater.com/store/deta...
Mission 40 to 1000x Magnification Endoscope, 8 LED USB 2.0 Digital Microscope - www.amazon.com/Jiusion-Magnif...
crid=184CFURE544SB&keywords=Juision+40+to+1000x+Magnification+Endoscope&qid=1699575575&sprefix=jiusion+40+to+1000x+magnification+endoscope,aps,152&sr=8-2
Dino-Lite Digital Microscope Stand - www.dinolite.us/products/acce...
GoPro Hero11 Action Camera - gopro.com/en/us/shop/cameras/...
iPhone 14 Pro Max - www.verizon.com/onesearch/sea... Pro Max&ES=shop&src=wireless
DJI Oslo Mobile 6 - store.dji.com/product/osmo-mo...
Joby GorillaPod Tripod - joby.com/us-en/gorillapod-3k-...
ProMaster Scout Series SC423K Tripod - www.actioncamera.com/shop/pro...
Photoflex StarLite QL Tungsten - www.actioncamera.com/shop/pro...
Photoflex Lamp - www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...
Impact Luxbanx Duo Medium Rectangular Softbox - www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...
HIFI EQUIPMENT:
Quadraspire Equipment Stands - quadraspire.com
Cardas Power Cables & Outlet - www.cardas.com
Puritan Audio Power Cables & Mains Purifier - www.puritanaudiolabs.com
Nordost Cables & Outlet Strip - www.nordost.com
Linn Turntable - www.linn.co.uk/us/
Dr Feickert Turntable - www.feickert.org
Hana Cartridge - www.hanacartridges.com
Koetsu Cartridge - www.koetsuaudio.com
Pure Audio Project Loud Speakers - pureaudioproject.com
Silversmith Audio Loud Speaker Cables - silversmithaudio.com
Michael Green Design Acoustic Treatment - www.michaelgreenaudio.net
Luxman Phono Stage - www.luxman.com
Shindo Labs Pre-Amp & InterConnect Cables - www.shindo-laboratory.co.jp
Auditorium 23 InterConnect Cables - www.auditorium23.de
Musical Fidelity CD Player - www.musicalfidelity.com
Triode Lab Amplifiers - www.triodelab.com
AirTight Amplifier - www.airtight-anm.com
IsoAcoustics Isolation Platform - isoacoustics.com
HRS (Harmonic Resolution Systems) Isolation Platform - avisolation.com
Tone Arm - www.originlive.com/hi-fi/tone...
Another winner. With each segment, I always come away with having learned something new and interesting. In addition, I also greatly appreciate the very high level of production and editing that goes into each edition. Outstanding in every respect!
As to record sleeves, 4 mil HDPE which are non static with an alkaline and not rice paper sandwiched insert is the prrfeered custodial sleeve fircrecords.
Polypropylene offers clear presentation and affordability, while Polyethylene provides better protection and reduced dust attraction. For long-term storage, consider acid-free options like HDPE.
When using any solution read the manufacturer's instructions!
I like to use Zolef outer sleeves. I like Hudson Hi-Fi inners (very much like Mofis inners). I find them both to be very economical.
Records should be kept in the inner jacket, not on the outside and then slipped in the outer sleeve. The outer plastic sleeves are not antistatic and are of pvc. Not of HDPE. PVC have issues with outgassing.
Testing any liquid should one before making any recommendations to others should use an environmental chamber as we do where we can accelerate record ageing.
If someone wants to see what a protectant looks like after application andvits removal, send me an email.
Appreciate the dialog that this channel opens up.
16:13 I get the reference, haha.
I have a lot of experience with AIVS and I have also tested Phoenix. There are several things wrong with your testing and there are grave concerns with Phoenix.
First of all, you insist that one wants a lather and the more lather the better. This is incorrect. If you are getting such lather from a cleaning fluid something is not right. Either the cleaning fluid has some kind of detergent in it or the record has been coated with something. The more lather the less contact with the record being cleaned. As explained before, the bubbles are air pockets preventing the fluid from touching the record in those spots.
AIVS #15 is not to be used alone, but always as a pre-cleaner, you need not take my experienced word for it, it even states that in the instructions. It should be followed up with either the 3-step or at least the #6 formula.
I noticed that you also apply far too much of the fluid to the record. It takes only about three or four (max) 50 cent piece drops to cover the record well. One may agitate as much as one likes, but for AIVS fluids they should also be left to soak for at least 1.5 minutes and no more than four minutes total. (Do not let the fluid start to dry).
As stated regarding "lather" or foaming, the AIVS fluid should not do that in that amount! No. 15 has no alcohol for one thing. It also has no detergent in it. I am extremely familiar with AIVS fluids. Yes, they all have surfactants, but those surfactants are a wetting agent primarily and have no hydrophobic properties (at least not in regards to AIVS), they are also non-ionic. Therefore you should not see a whole lot of lather that stays longer than a second. Judging by what you showed in your video leads me to believe that the record had been cleaned before with something or coated with something.
The other question is how many revolutions of vacuum you gave the record. I suspect it was more than two due to video edit, but I could be wrong. One should do no more than two revolutions of vacuum.
As for finding out the ingredients in AIVS, it can be done with a phone call to the manufacturer in Osage, MO. You won't get all the exact ingredients and certainly won't get the ratios, but you will learn the process if they want to discuss it with you. I was fortunate enough years ago to have a very long discussion about it with them. The water they use in the mix is the same as the "Pure Water". It is a far more multi-level reverse osmosis system they use to produce the water, lab grade level. Secret be told, distilled water is equally pure, so if you run out of the "Pure Water" you just need to get distilled.
Also the enzymes used in AIVS are all plant-derivative. There is such a thing as synthetic enzymes, which is usually not what you want for your body or applications like this.
As for Phoenix: I have tested this stuff and it fails on all levels! It is nasty stuff. It has a short shelf-life as well (6 to 7 months at best). It actually crystalizes over time!!!! I have tested this myself! That alone should be fair warning not to use it on your records. It also contains hydrophobic surfactants, which do coat the record, much like dish soap! I noticed the water rinse reaction on your record was far worse after using the Phoenix fluid! That should tell you something.
My results with testing Phoenix fluid was not good. It made the record sound worse! It resulted in a big loss of dynamics and gain. It also coated the record and I did not have the advanced equipment I do now to even attempt to get it off. As a result, that record had to be tossed. It only took one record of testing to show why Phoenix should be nowhere near a record! One also can even discuss the fluid with the maker as not only is there no way to contact them, but the retailer won't talk to you either.
As for the wand used for it, I would at least replace the velvet strips or get a new wand. That Phoenix fluid is nasty, like I said.
In regards to re-visiting the LAST cleaner with the VPI machine, I strongly advise against it. The reason they have you use the thin little brush with the tiny hairs is because it is a coating, not a cleaner! It has a certain viscosity that works better with such a brush. If you proceed with the idea you have, you will ruin one of your good brushes and at least the wand of your VPI, guaranteed. Of course, the final decision is yours alone.
As for inner sleeves: I only use HDPE sleeves. They do not form static and do not scratch. There are many good ones available, I use Diskkeeper, but Bags Unlimited have good ones as do many others. Mo-Fi is ok, just know that the paper layer is NOT rice paper or alkaline paper. It is regular very low quality paper like one used to get in grade school way back in the day. It won't hurt anything overall, but it is the misleading info that is a sticky point with some. I also prefer at least a .4 mil thick HDPE with alkaline paper such as the afore mentioned Diskkeeper and Bags Unlimited carry.
As for outer sleeves, it is really personal preference. I prefer ones like Diskkeeper, a good thickness and not too tight or loose. Some like the sealable ones, (I don't). I would not bother with the really thin ones, they are worthless in my experience.
As for storing, I prefer to store the record slipping the inner sleeve into the outer jacket with a closed side of the inner sleeve facing the opening. The outer jacket just offers more protection in my book. Ring wear is going to happen no matter what over time, not storing ones records too tightly helps mitigate that.
I think you might be thinking of the LAST preservative, the LAST cleaner is a different product that uses the same brush.
As to your other comments I don't have any experience with those products, but some interesting information to digest keeping in mind your misinformed on the LAST product.
@@pnichols6500 I know about LAST preservative and no, I am not thinking of that. I am not misinformed about LAST power cleaner. Granted, there is not much to go on, but it is better to error on the side of caution. I have been at this for a long time and have two years formal study as well in it. Take a closer look at LAST power cleaner. Also note the way he used it in the video. Note he did not rinse after application. (Unless he did not use it per the instructions). The way it behaved in the video and the fact he did not rinse tells me there is a coating aspect in the formula, unless he did not use it per the instructions as I stated. There could be a coating element in the formula much like there is in dish soap, only with dish soap as well, one must rinse.
99% of cleaners require a rinse, think about it. You use a cleaner to remove contaminants from a record. Usually, that means what is happening is that the cleaning fluid has the capacity to lift some of the contaminates off the record from the surface to inside the grooves and suspends said contaminates to be removed via vacuum, cloth, what have you. Either way there will be residue left behind, whether the cleaning fluid deposited something or if it is just some contaminates that were loosened and did not get removed. A rinse cycle is for that very thing, it removes any contaminates still loose but left behind and removes remnants of any cleaning fluid left behind.
I put it as simply as I could, I could get into the weeds and discuss chemical and object reactions, but that would take away from the point here.
How do you know that the LAST cleaner is different? Do you have information on it to share the rest of us do not know? Better yet, do you have access to a lab you can send it to for analysis? (I wish we all had that so we could send all the record cleaning fluids in for analysis with such equipment and learn exactly what is in them).
I also recommend whenever you suspect an ingredient or learn of an ingredient in a record cleaning fluid, that you consult the PVC chemical compatibility chart.
@@ericelliott227 I understand your reasoning, and don't dispute much of what you say, I suppose my issue is my personal experience doesn't show any adverse effects.
I have records that I used these types of cleaners hundreds of times in the 70's on records that still hold up against new releases.
Have put some through the Kirmuss system to see how much improvement there was and it MAY have been noticeable.
A well taken care of 50 year old record cleaned with a one step cleaner will suffer more from an improper sleeve, that any cleaner I ever used.
I had new engineers at my company tell me systems that I designed weren't correct and wouldn't work.
This is after have sold literally thousands of them and taken business away from the competition because they worked better with less issues, so I take all this with a grain of salt.
@@pnichols6500 I have been taking care of records for decades now and went custodial level about 11 or 12 years ago with deep study and testing. That said though, there is no arguing with personal experience. How does one do that? 97% of my records are 50 years and older.
I also have a Kirmuss machine and it has taken things to next level, basically into the realm of "restoration" or as close as we are gong to get. If one understands how paintings are restored for example, one will understand record restoration. I do find 98% of the time a real audible improvement after processing with the Kirmuss machine. I have also seen improved measurements first hand several times using comparisons on spectrum analyzers while listening through headphones and that is just after sped-up process verses the proper full process! I place more validity at the end of the day with what is audible verses what is measured. Measurements merely verify what one hears, not the other way around.
I'm not saying one-step cleaning fluids are no good at all. For example, I have had no adverse effects with AIVS #6 nor Mo-Fi Super Wash. Of course, they don't do a lot of cleaning either. Also, neither can remove off-gassing or "lubricant from pressing", "Pressing Oil" call it what you will. No record cleaning fluid can do that. Therefore the claims OF LAST Cleaning fluid are not true, but worse, we don't really know what it is doing over time.
I'm saying with ALL record cleaning fluids, caution is first. There are good ones and bad ones. I have tested many, but not all of course, but I have learned what to look for, what is and is not good, etc. I can look at a record now days and tell whether it can be restored or not and I'm not talking about the obvious. One eventually learns this over a long time, it is not learnable in two weeks or a month or something. It took me years to get here.
I have tested similar products to LAST preservative with devastating results. For example, "Gruv Glide" was an unmitigated train wreck.
Another example was Phoenix cleaning fluid. I'm not even certain if the record I tested with it could be rescued by cavitation had I had a machine at the time. (This was years before Kirmuss showed up). What I do know is my experience with it and it was nothing but adverse.
In testing it is also important to have an element of time. Sometimes, one can use something and seemingly have no adverse effects right away, but what about a few months later? What about a year later? What about two years? One example of this is cavitation RCMs or so-called cavitation RCMs. When I was studying I did not even bother trying to save up for any of those machines on the market at the time, not just because the price was unattainable, but far more so the designs are bad. A lot of guys where running out and buying these $4000 and $5000 ultrasonic RCMs and using them. They would report vast improvement of their records......at first. Then I started hearing reports from some of these same people about a year later and how the record they cleaned with said ultrasonic machine all of the sudden sounded worse then ever. I found out the reason was (assuming they followed the instructions), that the transducer frequency was wrong resulting in a far too aggressive resonance frequency combined with too high a temperature. Basically, what was happening in these cases was that the process was leaching out the plasticizers essentially turning the records into a piece of plumbing, raising the noise floor to double the height it was before. Some machines were also doing other damage.
Another example was when I experimented with homebrews. At first, everything was fine, the record sounded much better then before. Six months and the fourth play later, it did not sound as good as before, so I did a maintenance clean with AIVS #6 resulting in no change. Then I did a re-clean with AIVS 3-step and no change. Two more subsequent cleanings with the 3-step, still no change. The record sounded just ok, but had more noise than before. Turns out it was because the dish soap (or some of the surfactants in it) left behind a hydrophobic residue thus causing the stylus to ride higher in the grooves where contaminants still remained and perhaps in greater number along with the off-gassing, etc. and also prevented other fluids from penetrating said barrier now on the record.
(I have been using HDPE inner sleeves for years, but while they help with static and other things, they do not prevent or help with off-gassing).
Yes, I agree that a record would suffer from an improper sleeve, storage, etc. However, a record can suffer equally from improper cleaning!
As I stated, we don't know that he followed the instructions in the LAST cleaner video and that would be a big factor. However, with my experience and study I know what I should and should not see in regards to how cleaning fluids react etc.
Plus, the one difference between our experiences is that you sell records while I do not. (It is not that I do not have enough, I have well over 800 records). That is a different approach and world from what I do. Nothing wrong with selling records of course, don't be absurd, but I personally buy records to keep, play and preserve partly because I am a historian, so there is that value and therefore it would be silly for me to sell records. I also don't privately sell records because as a historian I can't put a monetary value on a record. I do know that much of what we see in that area is artificial and wildly inflated, but that is another story. So what do I do with my "rejects"? I give them to goodwill or something. I used to turn them into my local record store, but they are not so local now and they stopped giving store credit long ago and the cash offer is not worth the drive. (They have also gotten ridiculous with their pricing. I understand overhead and all, but really, $10 for an unplayable and maybe unrestorable record?)
@@ericelliott227 Good deep dive, and good info. Appreciate your input.
Correction, I wasn't selling records, I was referring to hydraulic systems that I designed and "experts" said they wouldn't work, when clearly they did. So that's what I was meaning, often times "experts" are dead wrong. And that's why I rely on actual hands on experience when it differs from what someone says differently.