HiFi Subjectivist ¦ Audio Forum ¦ NVA User Group

Nah, I'm merely restating a fact.

guydarryl wrote: ↑Sat Oct 17, 2020 7:17 pm Oh dear, heading in to "ad hom" territory.

I think, I hope, DQ was referring to his own post.

Geoff.R.G wrote: ↑Sat Oct 17, 2020 8:41 pm

guydarryl wrote: ↑Sat Oct 17, 2020 7:17 pm Oh dear, heading in to "ad hom" territory.

I think, I hope, DQ was referring to his own post.

Actually you must be right - just me being overly sensitive, after all who could think that I didn't make my point clearly:



"Re: What's in an enzyme.
Post by guydarryl » Sat Oct 03, 2020 10:16 am

Many years ago I worked on photographic film research.

To remove gelatin (a protein) which "held" the silver salts (and recover the silver from photographic film) we used pepsin - it works best in acidic conditions and at 30 - 40 degrees c - rather like your stomach conditions.

https://www.philipharris.co.uk/product/ ... g/b8a01879

Needs to be handled with great care - it does digest proteins!

I would guess that most enzyme record cleaners are bull, as surely the temperatures they are used at are quite low and so the "dwell time" required to digest proteins (from finger prints etc) would be longer than the time the record is left in contact with the solution?"

I expect the record cleaning enzyme is not for protein but for fat. That's what's on our skin. Otherwise, what's on the surface will be dust and dirt which is readily removed mechanically but a lot stickier when combined with fat.

Also, enzyme technology has progressed a lot in recent years.

That fact is in dispute. Do you have any evidence.

Not just fat apparently - absolutely fascinating stuff, hadn't bothered reading up on it previously:

https://serval.unil.ch/resource/serval: ... 01/REF.pdf

Well I've now cleaned 1/2 my record collection with an enzyme cleaner£7 for 1 litre.

I had a competition between the enzyme record cleaner and enzyme drain cleaner. I cleaned them both for 35 minutes.

The cleaners were indistinguishable except the record cleaner had a perfume. I mixed them both with water at 36 degrees.

Once washed in the ultrasonic cleaner the records were indistinguishable. They took the same amount of time to dry and there was no residue.

Playing the records a similar level of quietness was noticed. Leaving them in new inner sleeves for 2 weeks and then playing. Neither showed any I'll effects.
.
So £7 for a litre wins. With a £84 ultrasonic cleaner and £34 for the rotator, it's an absolute bargain.

Daniel Quinn wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 8:39 pm Well I've now cleaned 1/2 my record collection with an enzyme cleaner£7 for 1 litre.

I had a competition between the enzyme record cleaner and enzyme drain cleaner. I cleaned them both for 35 minutes.

The cleaners were indistinguishable except the record cleaner had a perfume. I mixed them both with water at 36 degrees.

Once washed in the ultrasonic cleaner the records were indistinguishable. They took the same amount of time to dry and there was no residue.

Playing the records a similar level of quietness was noticed. Leaving them in new inner sleeves for 2 weeks and then playing. Neither showed any I'll effects.
.
So £7 for a litre wins. With a £84 ultrasonic cleaner and £34 for the rotator, it's an absolute bargain.

Well done DQ, sounds like a worthwhile experiment.