No problem.
And yes, @MikeH is right about what I was asking. And I'm inclined to agree with you about having no need for all the extra ingredients, though it's also true the amounts are miniscule and all of this seems so completely trial-and-errorish that I honestly don't know what I'm thinking about it at the moment.
I have only cleaned 2 records (granted, they were used and somewhat beat up) but not noticing any difference with using the Tergitol. I can see the record actually getting wetter, but audibly, haven't heard any differences. i haven't had a ton of time to experiment but will see if i can find a cleaner looking record to try it with.No problem.
I started making a video to post here with a pretty poppy and crackly David Bowie record after regular HG use and HG with Triton X-100. Within the first seconds I could tell it didn't make a difference so I stopped filming
.
Yes, it is similar. From what I am reading, many people use Ilford Ilfotol in their ultrasonic cleaners. $28 with free shipping for 1 liter seems like a fair price, as it will last a long time.
theaudiophileman.com
Wow, that audiogon discussion, those folks are into it, mixing their own solutionsYes, it is similar. From what I am reading, many people use Ilford Ilfotol in their ultrasonic cleaners. $28 with free shipping for 1 liter seems like a fair price, as it will last a long time.
Surfactant: Cleaning Your Vinyl, A Buyer’s Guide
One of the most important tools in the armoury of the vinyl fan, Paul Rigby asks what they are, why they’re important in terms of vinyl cleaning and which surfactants you should buy I’ve been testing and using vinyl cleaning products for well, decades. During that time, I have progressed from...
Some interesting notes here, particularly regarding Tergitol / Tergikleen, Kodak Photo-Flo, and mix ratios.
Audiogon Discussion Forum
so many new ones. ps adviseand i read that surfactant is hugely important. Any expertise on that?forum.audiogon.com
I see some vinyl-related comments here as well:
Not to mention that from a 'research' standpoint, the setup for an objective and decisive conclusion would be rather complex. First, you'd have to be able to demonstrate that the same (or equivalent, which would be sooo difficult to be sure of) record cleaned with surfactant sounded better than that record (or equivalent) cleaned without surfactant. And if this is attempted by first cleaning the record with just distilled water, listening, then cleaning it again with surfactant added, and listening again, you'd have to have a control of that same record (or equivalent) cleaned twice without surfactant added for the second cleaning to rule out the possibility that the second cleaning alone is accounting for the improved sound. Might be a fun exercise, but practically speaking, for me, since I'm quite happy with the results I'm getting using distilled water, I'm going to stick with that for now. And I'll report back once I get my Zerostat 3 about whether this eliminates the wee bit of crackle I get on occasion.I started making a video to post here with a pretty poppy and crackly David Bowie record after regular HG use and HG with Triton X-100. Within the first seconds I could tell it didn't make a difference so I stopped filming
If you want a deeper dive, check out this page and the PDF guide.
thevinylpress.com
Yeah, you raise good points. I had good results with my first few runs using just water. I'm going to go back to just water for a while and see how the records sound, because that's really what matters here.
but you got no cats
Interesting, I know you, me, @Heath , @Portland Sheriff , of course @Mathew Chupacabra J.D. , who else plays with words for a living?
I do.
Oh man, I would have a stupid setup, but then I remember I have kids.That alone doesn’t get me there. That combined with no kids does
FTFY