I have been criticized for this, but I believe in avoiding all chemicals on
records, which are basically fragile things, and washing them gently,
rubbing lightly with fingers, under running warm tap water, drying gently
with paper towels, then letting them air dry for a little while.  To the
extent possible, avoid wetting the labels.  The real benefit here I believe
is in the running water, which washes away dirt particles like no mere
application of a solution can do.  The result is a clean sounding record,
and I have never ruined or hurt any record this way.  This also removes
most gummy record cleaning solutions from past years that have left gunk in
the grooves.  If a record is really gunked up, it will sound lousy anyway,
so in that case I say don't bother with it.
Best,
John Haley
 On Jun 26, 2014 6:26 PM, "H D Goldman" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> This wetting  solution is incapable of thoroughly cleaning any moulded
> recording whether shellac, acetate, Diamond Disc or vinyl.  This can be
> recognized by anyone with a mid-fi system that is properly set up whether
> you remove fluids by vacuum or with pure cotton terry cloth rags and some
> micro-fiber fabrics.
>
> When you take the time to learn the history of the Keith-Monks machine &
> how, in the US, we came to use of alcohol-water blends, most notably
> isopropyl alcohol/water mixtures with vacuum-based record cleaning
> machines, you'll understand that it had nothing to do with listening to
> unclean vs. clean recordings.  In fact our own efforts were the direct
> result of comments made by a small group of magazine reviewers during
> listening sessions in the early 1980s.
>
> Duane Goldman
>
> H D Goldman Lagniappe Chemicals Ltd.
> PO Box 37066 St. Louis, MO 63141 USA
> v/f 314 205 1388 [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
> On Jun 26, 2014, at 5:03 PM, DAVID BURNHAM <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > Photo flow and distilled water are the ingrediants used the the Keith
> Monks record cleaning machine.  This machine doesn't seem agressive enough
> to remove the thick waxy crud on some 78s.
> >
> > db
> >
> >
> > On Thursday, June 26, 2014 12:29:09 PM, Roger Kulp <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> >> The Photo-Flo looks like something I want to try.Would it work on 78s
> with thick layers of crud on them? Roger > Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 23:02:45
> -0600> From: [log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] The guy who
> cleans his 78s with spit.> To: [log in to unmask]> > On 6/24/2014
> 3:25 PM, Christopher Whiteman wrote:> > I've seen so many different methods
> and opinions on cleaning them that I am> > unsure what method is best.  Is
> there any sort of consensus that Tergitol> > 15-s-7 is the best way to
> clean LPs?   If so, are there vendors who will> > sell it to someone
> without a business license? I've seen some people use> > original Dawn as a
> surfactant. If someone uses a vacuum system, would using> > Dawn be an
> issue since the vacuum should suck up all of the liquid and not> > leave
> residue?> >> > Mr. Goldman mentioned mould-release compounds.  Will
> Tergitol or Dawn> > remove these? If I play a new LP without wet cleaning
> it first with some> >
> > kind of surfactant, will it damage the stylus or permanently affect the>
> > LP's sound quality? FWIW, I'm running a budget setup (meaning less than>
> > $500).  Any advice would be appreciated.> > Bottled distilled water with
> a couple drops of Kodak Photo-Flo has > worked for me. The fancier stuff
> seems to be about the same > effectiveness, and I worry about anything
> containing alcohol.> > Peace,> Paul
> >>
>