MY TAKE: Normally my knowledge base articles involve only writing and usually a bit of research. That's how this one started life, but as you will read, it turned into quite an exercise. This was a "fun" one, guys! It certainly was a great deal more work than we could have ever imagined, but it was a very educational process for me. Do be sure and check out the Follow-Up Test at the end for some surprising results. - Galen Carol

 

---

 

Devoted vinyl lovers wouldn't be caught dead without a vacuum or ultrasonic record cleaning machine. After all, cleanliness is an absolute prerequisite to enjoying the full potential of any analog rig. Anyone with such a machine likely has a favorite cleaning solution. Whether through experimentation, a recipe found on the net (hopefully not!) or a recommendation from a friend, each of us has chosen a record cleaning solution we like. I made that decision quite some time ago and have been using and recommending one brand of record cleaning machine fluid ever since. The product has served me well and I have had no reason to look elsewhere. However, over the last year or so my customers have asked how our recommendation compared with some of the other popular solutions on the market. I couldn't answer; I simply hadn't tried them. Using one solution for years, I hadn't taken the time to investigate the other choices, but the seed of doubt had been planted. Was there something better? I thought it was high time to bring myself up to date and sample the alternatives, clean a few records and educate myself. That’s where the “fun” began.
 

Let’s Test!
 

I thought I’d take a Saturday afternoon, clean a few records and see what differences I could hear. A bit of thought brought me to the realization that having more than one listener would make the comparison more accurate, and a bunch more fun. So I e-mailed a few local golden ears to see who I could coerce into participating. The enthusiastic response blew my mind!

Envisioned as an informal trial, the thought of offering the results to a wide audience threw a whole new light on the experiment and demanded a far more structured approach. Clearly, the testing methodology had to be much more rigorous and a greater number of listeners should make up the sample. I also decided that the test should be a blind experiment. These changes radically altered our "little evaluation," which had now morphed into a formal test. What had I gotten myself into?

As we soon learned, this was not going to be a quick evaluation. Juggling schedules, vacations and the time constraints of the participants made the process a long one. Further, several of the listeners were out of the area so the records had to be shipped. It turned out to be quite a lengthy trial.
 

The Combatants

I chose four fluids for the test, the ones responsible for the greatest number of customer inquiries. Those were: Disc Doctor, L’Arte du Son, Last RCM Fluid and Mobile Fidelity. There were a couple of fluids I would like to have added, but in hindsight, I’m glad I didn't. The complexity of the evaluation increased exponentially with the number of samples tested and I think any more would have been sensory overload for the testers.

All but one manufacturer offers both a single step and a multi-step product. Since the great majority of my clients have requested a simple, safe method, we wanted to investigate the one-step process. The fly in the ointment was Mobile Fidelity, which offers only a two step method (Record Wash and Super Deep Cleaner). It’s a popular product and we felt it should be included, leaving us with no choice but to use both the Deep Cleaner and Vinyl Wash. That turned out to be a bone of contention as several testers felt this was an unfair advantage, suggesting records clearly benefit from a final rinse with purified water. I would have to agree, but the other option was to leave it out of the comparison altogether and I think that would have been a mistake due its popularity. You’ll have to decide for yourself how to adjust the results.

Methodology

Five brand new records were purchased for the test; Dave Brubeck, Time Out, on 200gm pressings. The thought behind the choice was that most audiophiles have heard that recording a zillion times and would be very familiar with it (my sincere apologies to the testers who no doubt now despise this disc!). All the discs were first visually inspected for any obvious scratches, abrasions or other surface issues. We played each once to be sure there was not an inordinate amount of surface noise that might skew the results. Four of the five records were cleaned, each with a different fluid, leaving the fifth as an untreated control.

The Process

Cleaning was done on a brand new VPI 16.5 vacuum record cleaning machine. To avoid cross contamination, a new pickup tube and applicator brush was used for each fluid. Two of the manufacturers (Last and Disc Doctor) provided a specific applicator which we used with their cleaning solution. The records were cleaned following the manufacturers’ directions, if any were given.

We were very careful to clean each record in the same manner – equal number of revolutions under the brush and the same number of turns under vacuum. This held true for all but Disc Doctor Quickwash, which came with very specific instructions.

After vacuuming, the records were allowed to fully air dry before being inserted into their (rice paper) sleeves.

 

We did note that there was quite a bit of difference between the way the fluids behaved on the surface of the LP. Some tended to bead while others created an even film across the record. The reason for this difference has to due with whether the manufacturer chose to include a surfactant as part of the formula. A surfactant reduces surface tension, allowing the fluid to spread and form a more continuous surface. There are those that believe this chemical leaves behind a residue and therefore a telltale sonic signature. We had no way to test that theory as the differences between the formulations was surely greater than whether or not a surfactant was part of the mix.

Since the record didn't appear to be fully wetted when using the beading solutions, the casual observer might assume that more fluid was needed. We resisted the temptation and used only the amount of fluid recommended by the manufacturer whenever instructions were given. There did not appear to be any visual differences between LP's cleaned with either type solution.

Cost
 

What should be a simple calculation turned out to be more involved than we anticipated. In our tests, we found that approximately 3 - 5ml of solution was required to visually wet the record surface (starting with a fully “loaded” brush). However, some manufacturers gave specific recommendations (both Disc Doctor and Audio Intelligent recommend 2 - 3ml), while others simply suggested using enough fluid to “fully wet the record.” Obviously there’s a great deal of difference when figuring cost between fluids that require as little as 2ml and those requiring 5ml. For sake of comparison we’ve settled on 3ml, but you may find it necessary to use a bit more. (Note: It’s been our experience that people tend to use more fluid per cleaning when using products that bead, making it harder to tell when the record is saturated).

Most of the fluids are sold by the quart, which works out to be 946ml. So we divided that number by 3 to find we can clean approximately 315 sides. Frankly, based on our past experience, that number seemed rather high. Inadvertent waste, spillage, evaporation and loading the brush or applicator, all mean fluid lost. Though it’s not an exact calculation, I estimate a quart will clean 250 sides, or 125 LPs.
 

Fluid	Last	Disc Doctor	RRL (Mobile Fidelity)	L’Art du Son	Audio Intelligent No 6
Cost per LP	0.14	0.20	0.60*	0.13 - 0.31**	0.20***