Record Cleaning Machines
- Thread starter MylesBAstor
- Start date
OK, so I have heard two LPs before and after the KL Ultrasonic Cleaner. (We didn't try more because we were having too much fun listening last night -- when you go from The Weavers "Guantanamera" to Led Zep's "In My Time of Dying" and Gina Bacauer/Dorati playing Chopin, it's an interesting evening!)
On the first LP, the difference was like a system upgrade, much more vivid presentation. With the second, the difference was minimal. The noise did not change with either. My null hypothesis based on this extremely limited experience, the KL gets deep into the grooves and lets the cartridge dig out more info. The convenience is to die for. I could see using the Loricraft for an initial deep clean, then the KL for maintenance.
On the first LP, the difference was like a system upgrade, much more vivid presentation. With the second, the difference was minimal. The noise did not change with either. My null hypothesis based on this extremely limited experience, the KL gets deep into the grooves and lets the cartridge dig out more info. The convenience is to die for. I could see using the Loricraft for an initial deep clean, then the KL for maintenance.
Doc, clarify please, since you said the KL sounded like it got deeper into the grooves (I appreciate that it is a hypothesis), but then you go on to say that you'd still use a vacuum type cleaner for an intial deep clean.
I too am a bit troubled by all the issues surrounding both reliability as well as utility of the Autodeske, and like Mep, have an aged VPI that won't die.
I'd love the convenience of a really good machine that doesn't blow my ears out and is far less labor intensive.
So, it's ultrasonic, maybe - let's see what the KL yields-
string type vacuum ala Keith Monks and its progeny, which is even more time intensive than the VPI type, or
another, perhaps quieter conventional suction arm vacuum type cleaner, like the VPI.
I use multiple fluids (Walker), so initially excluded consideration of the Clearaudio Double Matrix Pro but I see there is an aftermarket single fluid offered by the importer.
My mind remains open- the idea of having multiple cleaning machines is a bit obsessive, but I guess that's part of the job description.....
So, how dry, brown cow??what mep said re germans and polesthe KL unit looks interesting but im holding out for the ultrasonic wet clean only vers w/o dryer i still prefer drying on a separate machine, thats the way i roll.
garylkoh
WBF Technical Expert (Speakers & Audio Equipment)
I love the idea of the convenience, and the KL Audio which uses distilled water is even more attractive. However, the 10W of explosions scared me off the Audodesk..... and now 200W of explosions???
There are DIY'ers using units with as many as 8 transducers, I don't think they can harm the vinyl for the small amounts of time that the records spend in the water.
I was told that the issue is that at the surface of the water the high level (200 watt) ultrasonic can damage the vinyl. the big deal about the KL is that they solved this problem and that it is benign to the vinyl. the 6 or 7 Lps I've cleaned so far seem perfect in every way. personally I know nothing about this technology.
i went away from the turntable-type RCMs for various reasons, i've owned the hw16 and have used the monks. through a process of ellimnation i ended up with a nitty gritty 1.5 for drying only.
i work off a large area (table) over cotton bath towels and manually apply various cleaners w/ different brushes/applicators and apply pressure by hand to spot clean most needed areas and allow enzyme cleaners to sit and do their thing. i pefer the 1.5 in part because it eliminates the cross contamination you get with the VPI and similar designs. the reservoir only contains distilled H2o so i can rehydrate the record and loosen any residue before vacuum drying it.
Mike would you mind expanding on how KL solved the problem (if it was one)? I would think some solutions would be reducing time spent in the fluid, lowering the output power of the transducers, or lowering the temperature of the fluid.
as i said, i know nothing about this technology.
i was told there is a patent pending on the design. extactly what it does and how it does it i do not know. if i do get more details i'll be glad to share them.
garylkoh
WBF Technical Expert (Speakers & Audio Equipment)
Will greatly appreciate your thoughts. This new machine is very tempting.... but I am scared for my vintage vinyl. I generally just use enzymatic fluid, and a Nitty Gritty 1.5.
Sorry if this link has already been posted, but here she is again, from a pro in the industry ::
=> http://www.analogplanet.com/content/worlds-best-record-cleaning-machine
__________________
* There is a member here at WBF working on what could be even better, and for roughly five grands. ...Or was it ten grands?
...A new Record Cleaning Machine with revolutionary and upgraded/improved Ultrasonic technology.
But I am bound by my own word to not divulge anything (it's very easy, I know nothing because I wasn't told more).
...It's been a while, and if the member in question is reading this, perhaps he can now share some with all of us?
=> http://www.analogplanet.com/content/worlds-best-record-cleaning-machine
__________________
* There is a member here at WBF working on what could be even better, and for roughly five grands. ...Or was it ten grands?
...A new Record Cleaning Machine with revolutionary and upgraded/improved Ultrasonic technology.
But I am bound by my own word to not divulge anything (it's very easy, I know nothing because I wasn't told more).
...It's been a while, and if the member in question is reading this, perhaps he can now share some with all of us?
One thing for sure, no matter how ultra sonic, this type of cleaning will not remove oily grime like fingerprints and the like. For that, an enzymatic pre scrub is required.
Clearly, you haven't tried an AudioDesk cleaner. The records come ut shining as new, and all such marks are gone.
Clearly I have, I own an audio desk. It's good for removing dust and static. I have had to redo records via hand scrub to remove pressing grime and oily deposits.
It's failure to remove oily grime, pressing solvent residue, does in no way make it a bad machine. It is the perfect finishing rinse and dry. It leaves zero static unlike vacuum style machines. Once a record is scrubbed and finished in the audio desk, the audio desk is perfect for future routine maintenance cleaning. No machine can get by the necessity to hand scrub it first whether it is a new or used record.
Similar threads
