I have now cleaned quite a few LPs with my new KL Audio RCM. I have tried different cleaning cycle times and drying cycle times. I have mostly cleaned records that have been previously cleaned with my Loricraft Audio PC-4 Deluxe machine using a four step process with the AIVS fluids. I had thought these LPs were already very clean, but the KL Audio further improves the way they sound. Most LPs were cleaned with one five-minute wash cycle and one four-minute dry cycle. The handful of records that had quite a few ticks and pops were cleaned with two five-minute wash cycles followed by one four-minute dry cycle.
I also bought a sound proof enclosure called the Silencer. Here are the results of its efficacy using my Radio Shack SPL meter, dB C weighted:
1. Wash cycle - 70 dB, with Silencer, 52 dB
2. Dry cycle - 71 dB, with Silencer, 55 dB
The interesting thing is that the wash cycle sounds much louder, but it is a higher frequency noise. The noise even with the Silencer, is somewhat annoying because of the high frequencies to which I am sensitive. I had thought I could clean a batch of 10 LPs while reading/working at the computer, but now I’m not so sure. I want to protect these ears and high frequencies irritate me. Unfortunately, I may have to move the machine to a different location, further away from my desk. The dry cycle is fine, just a mild fan noise.
I still have to try cleaning records that have not been previously cleaned with the Loricraft, and I may try reversing the order to see if the Loricraft improves LPs that have already been cleaned with the KL Audio. I should add the obvious: this is the most convenient cleaning machine that I have ever tried. It is a joy to use and it is built to a very high standard.
I am very impressed with the cleaning results that I have gotten so far. The LPs look pristine when they are finished and they are completely dry. I had bought this machine thinking it would simply be more convenient to use than my Loricraft, and it might eliminate a few ticks/pops. Boy was I in for a surprise. I am reminded by what an experienced analog guy once wrote. I think it was either Doug Deacon or Mike Lavigne. Paraphrasing: “A good cleaning method is not so much about removing pops and ticks as it is about hearing more into the music.” A clean record allows you to hear more information and become more deeply involved in the listening.
Hall information: My very first impression was from hearing Cantata Domino, Proprius PROP 7762, and being shocked at how much larger the stone cathedral in which it was recorded sounded. At first I thought the singers were further back in the soundstage, but the more I listened, the more I realized they were standing in the same place in my room, but now my room boundaries further disappeared and I was hearing those singers in the vast space. The reverberations from the voices and organ were cleaner and better defined the dimensions and character of the recording venue.
Resolution: The next impression was from the Janaki String Trio, Yarlung. I heard an increased sense of, and appreciation for, the contrast between string texture, the movement of the bow against the strings, and the resonance of the wooden instruments’ bodies. The three instruments were more distinct sounding, the timbres more unique and accurate, and the overall impression was more natural. The sense of clarity increased. The overwhelming impression I get from hearing the BSO is the incredible clarity of the sound. This string trio now reminded me of that. On “This One’s for Blanton”, the piano sounded less “tinkly”. Brown’s bass had more body, more fullness, and it was more extended. I became very aware, for the first time, of Brown’s fingers moving up and down the neck and squeezing the strings. On “For Duke”, M&K RealTime Records, the brass was extraordinarily dynamic and the sound was piercing, but it was less shrill, less fatiguing. It just sounded cleaner, less distorted and more natural.
Room fill: At some point a couple of years ago I began to pay attention to the distinction between the size and location of the instruments or voice within the soundstage and the sound as it leaves those images and fills the space around them and then the listening room. The newly cleaned records now produce an even greater amount of room filling sound. It is as though the sound from the instruments, voice, piano, violin, trumpet, is greater and freer, leaving its source to more completely fill the listening room with its energy. The sound is more effortless, more enveloping.
My audio friend Al M. came over last night to listen to my newly cleaned records. After hearing a few, we listened to my recording of Beethoven’s “Kreutzer” Sonata with Heifetz on RCA Victor Living Stereo, LSC-2577. I had not yet cleaned it. We listened to the first movement and he remarked on the quality of the sound of the violin, the transients, the tone, but he said that the piano did not have quite as much body as he has heard before from this recording in other systems. I then took Al upstairs to demonstrate the use of the KL Audio RCM. We listened to the first movement again without changing anything else. He heard the differences immediately and said that the piano sounded fuller and much better now. The violin also had more energy.
At the end of the listening session, I asked him for his thoughts. We did not want to influence the other with our own thoughts, so Al asked for a piece of paper and wrote down his impressions. I then told him how I thought the KL Audio improved/changed the sound of my LPs. I basically described what I wrote above. He then told me what he had written on the Post-It Note: 1. Cleaner, 2. More energy, 3. More body of piano.
We heard pretty much the same thing. The improvements are easily audible in my system. The KL Audio RCM has increased my enjoyment of my music collection. I had been contemplating buying one for some time now and am very glad I finally did it. It allows me to hear deeper into the music. I am still experimenting with how to optimize its use, and it does indeed reduce the numbers of pops and ticks, though it has not yet fully eliminated them on some of my records. Perhaps it never will. I may try multiple repeat washing cycles on one LP to see if I can get it really silent without damaging the vinyl.
What a great addition to my vinyl system.
I also bought a sound proof enclosure called the Silencer. Here are the results of its efficacy using my Radio Shack SPL meter, dB C weighted:
1. Wash cycle - 70 dB, with Silencer, 52 dB
2. Dry cycle - 71 dB, with Silencer, 55 dB
The interesting thing is that the wash cycle sounds much louder, but it is a higher frequency noise. The noise even with the Silencer, is somewhat annoying because of the high frequencies to which I am sensitive. I had thought I could clean a batch of 10 LPs while reading/working at the computer, but now I’m not so sure. I want to protect these ears and high frequencies irritate me. Unfortunately, I may have to move the machine to a different location, further away from my desk. The dry cycle is fine, just a mild fan noise.
I still have to try cleaning records that have not been previously cleaned with the Loricraft, and I may try reversing the order to see if the Loricraft improves LPs that have already been cleaned with the KL Audio. I should add the obvious: this is the most convenient cleaning machine that I have ever tried. It is a joy to use and it is built to a very high standard.
I am very impressed with the cleaning results that I have gotten so far. The LPs look pristine when they are finished and they are completely dry. I had bought this machine thinking it would simply be more convenient to use than my Loricraft, and it might eliminate a few ticks/pops. Boy was I in for a surprise. I am reminded by what an experienced analog guy once wrote. I think it was either Doug Deacon or Mike Lavigne. Paraphrasing: “A good cleaning method is not so much about removing pops and ticks as it is about hearing more into the music.” A clean record allows you to hear more information and become more deeply involved in the listening.
Hall information: My very first impression was from hearing Cantata Domino, Proprius PROP 7762, and being shocked at how much larger the stone cathedral in which it was recorded sounded. At first I thought the singers were further back in the soundstage, but the more I listened, the more I realized they were standing in the same place in my room, but now my room boundaries further disappeared and I was hearing those singers in the vast space. The reverberations from the voices and organ were cleaner and better defined the dimensions and character of the recording venue.
Resolution: The next impression was from the Janaki String Trio, Yarlung. I heard an increased sense of, and appreciation for, the contrast between string texture, the movement of the bow against the strings, and the resonance of the wooden instruments’ bodies. The three instruments were more distinct sounding, the timbres more unique and accurate, and the overall impression was more natural. The sense of clarity increased. The overwhelming impression I get from hearing the BSO is the incredible clarity of the sound. This string trio now reminded me of that. On “This One’s for Blanton”, the piano sounded less “tinkly”. Brown’s bass had more body, more fullness, and it was more extended. I became very aware, for the first time, of Brown’s fingers moving up and down the neck and squeezing the strings. On “For Duke”, M&K RealTime Records, the brass was extraordinarily dynamic and the sound was piercing, but it was less shrill, less fatiguing. It just sounded cleaner, less distorted and more natural.
Room fill: At some point a couple of years ago I began to pay attention to the distinction between the size and location of the instruments or voice within the soundstage and the sound as it leaves those images and fills the space around them and then the listening room. The newly cleaned records now produce an even greater amount of room filling sound. It is as though the sound from the instruments, voice, piano, violin, trumpet, is greater and freer, leaving its source to more completely fill the listening room with its energy. The sound is more effortless, more enveloping.
My audio friend Al M. came over last night to listen to my newly cleaned records. After hearing a few, we listened to my recording of Beethoven’s “Kreutzer” Sonata with Heifetz on RCA Victor Living Stereo, LSC-2577. I had not yet cleaned it. We listened to the first movement and he remarked on the quality of the sound of the violin, the transients, the tone, but he said that the piano did not have quite as much body as he has heard before from this recording in other systems. I then took Al upstairs to demonstrate the use of the KL Audio RCM. We listened to the first movement again without changing anything else. He heard the differences immediately and said that the piano sounded fuller and much better now. The violin also had more energy.
At the end of the listening session, I asked him for his thoughts. We did not want to influence the other with our own thoughts, so Al asked for a piece of paper and wrote down his impressions. I then told him how I thought the KL Audio improved/changed the sound of my LPs. I basically described what I wrote above. He then told me what he had written on the Post-It Note: 1. Cleaner, 2. More energy, 3. More body of piano.
We heard pretty much the same thing. The improvements are easily audible in my system. The KL Audio RCM has increased my enjoyment of my music collection. I had been contemplating buying one for some time now and am very glad I finally did it. It allows me to hear deeper into the music. I am still experimenting with how to optimize its use, and it does indeed reduce the numbers of pops and ticks, though it has not yet fully eliminated them on some of my records. Perhaps it never will. I may try multiple repeat washing cycles on one LP to see if I can get it really silent without damaging the vinyl.
What a great addition to my vinyl system.
