you cannot go wrong with either. but right now i would choose the Klaudio.
needs only distilled water, love the build quality, seems to (slightly) clean the best, and so simple to use.
Record Cleaning Machines
- Thread starter MylesBAstor
- Start date
you cannot go wrong with either. but right now i would choose the Klaudio.
needs only distilled water, love the build quality, seems to (slightly) clean the best, and so simple to use.
The problem with the DIY ones lies in the selection of the ultrasonic cleaner or ultrasonic sensors that are used. John Chapman of Bent Audio researched the idea extensively with the intention of making a truly affordable ultrasonic machine, and the problem he encountered was that the standalone ultrasonic units were too aggressive for vinyl records. They were far better suited for cleaning metal parts, etc. In the end, he gave all the machines away because he wanted to hit a target price of around $1,000-$1,500, but couldn't do it and feel comfortable about the longterm conditions of the records cleaned.
The point is that not just any ultrasonic cleaner out there is suitable for the task. That's where the $4,000 units excel. They use "more friendly" sensors than the garden variety cleaners use.
I've not really spent the time to directly compare my Audio Desk and my Loricraft to have any sort of definite feel for that comparison. previous to getting the Klaudio I would have said that I thought the Audio Desk goes just a little further in terms of hearing further into the music compared to the Loricraft. that is based on the last year with both units.
now that the Klaudio is here that difference seems easier to pick up on.
so yes; I do think that ultrasonic does do a deeper clean into the grooves than the contact/vacuum type RCM's. but my opinion is only based on limited efforts. nothing definitive.
BTW, you better have detailed measurements to back up any claims -- none of this subjective listening stuff
I'm calling my mommy to tell her you used the 'm' word to me.....you're a bully!
I'd suggest that both US cleaners have a "familial" sound. In the end, I think that the sonic improvements from US cleaning are in large part related to better cartridge tracking.
so do you think that the better cartridge tracking with Ultrasonic you mention is due to less dirt/stuff in the groove or less static due to the more benevolent method of drying? or maybe some other factor?
I suppose whenever you have performance improvements in vinyl playback not related to wire or a phono stage you could say that it came from better cartridge tracking as all mechanical aspects of playback come down to things related to that.
for myself, I cannot make the connection between the ultrasonic and better tracking. my sense is that they simply are more effective at cleaning the microscopic 'gunk' that is deep in the grooves. no brush or chemical approach seems to be able to clean as deep so far in my experience. it reminds me of my experience with the Tourmaline Gun's effects on digital discs and Lps. that method of treatment, while temporary, seemed to release the adherence of dust to the surface of the media and allow for more clarity in playback.....so related to static problems. that was simply a guess as to cause and effect on my part. that had been suggested to me by my non-audiophile PhD in Physics son-in-law when I asked him his opinion on what was happening. he had used tourmaline guns in a lab cleaning the glass cover on testing gear to get the most accurate readings.
Mike, not to preempt Myle's response, but since the KL doesn't purport to 'clean' the surface as Tim from KL indicated (see post #229 in this thread) its salutary benefits (as well as those of the Audio Desk) must have to do with getting the crap out of the grooves that the stylus traces. (Think about records that have some surface marks, not atypical of some new pressings, which never show up sonically). I would assume that a gunk-free groove=better tracing of its undulations= better sound (and also assume that's what Myles referred to in shorthand as 'better tracking' of the grooves).
Can you separate the benefits of US cleaning from the drying? Possibly, but I knew how to work a VPI to minimize static- and the US cleaned records still sound markedly better than what I achieved using the VPI with multiple fluids. So my vote on the benefit of US is probably on getting the crap out of the grooves.
Hi Win,
what do you mean with agressive? Is it because they have more Watts?
The KL has 200 Watts of US. My DIY gives me the choice of 200, 300 and 400 Watt.
I use 400 Watts with great success. But I clean only once for 8-10 minutes.
WR
Andreas
I think that for the guys that clean the record every time they listen, a placebo machine that creates a lot of drama and wonderment but does not harm the record in any way is in order. It's probably worth $4000 to keep them from damaging their record collection.
Bought the Audio Desk; also interested in the KL, but haven't tried it, see earlier postings in this thread.
Works like a charm (so far).
Do you check the water temperature? US can of course heat the water. That's why it, along with RFI, is used to treat cancer
in my communications with Klaudio about their design they told me that their 200 watts (4 50 watt units) of ultrasonic cleaning did damage the vinyl at the surface of the water to begin with. they had to find a work-around to eliminate any damage....and now have applied for a patent for their design.
i'm not sure that the Ultrasonic units used in the Klaudio RCM are similar to the one's in your DIY unit. i assume that you are not having any vinyl damage issues.
Having had ultrasonics in offices for years, they can make shiny plastics haze over. Also, vinyl is plastic with some emollients/emulsifiers/plasticizers that can leach, and I imagine the surface of vinyl can craze.
Vinyl is extremely tough, but I would only use ultrasonics sparingly, mostly as an initial one-off for a really dirty record. I would not be using it over and over again to clean records. For that matter, I don't think using cleansers and detergents over and over is such a great idea, either.
Ultrasonics don't always "remove" dirt, they mostly shake it up a bit so that more exposed surfaces can be opened for disinfectant/cleansers and the dirt is loosened. You still need a follow up light scrub and really good rinse. That is why I don't see any of these machines taking the place of a hand wash.
A machine that truly took the place of a hand wash with ultrasonic/steam would need to be about four to six feet long if you had all of the stations automated and set up to put it in one end so that it just popped out the other, and even then, you can be more careful with the record if you deal with it by hand. The machine would have to be a real beast.
When I use an ultrasonic for the rare record, it is only exposed for a minute or two and rolled by hand.
I would say clean the records once really well, and if you have to keep cleaning them, use something very light and easy on follow up cleansings.
Vinyl is extremely tough, but I would only use ultrasonics sparingly, mostly as an initial one-off for a really dirty record. I would not be using it over and over again to clean records. For that matter, I don't think using cleansers and detergents over and over is such a great idea, either.
Ultrasonics don't always "remove" dirt, they mostly shake it up a bit so that more exposed surfaces can be opened for disinfectant/cleansers and the dirt is loosened. You still need a follow up light scrub and really good rinse. That is why I don't see any of these machines taking the place of a hand wash.
A machine that truly took the place of a hand wash with ultrasonic/steam would need to be about four to six feet long if you had all of the stations automated and set up to put it in one end so that it just popped out the other, and even then, you can be more careful with the record if you deal with it by hand. The machine would have to be a real beast.
When I use an ultrasonic for the rare record, it is only exposed for a minute or two and rolled by hand.
I would say clean the records once really well, and if you have to keep cleaning them, use something very light and easy on follow up cleansings.
Carl: while I don't necessarily disagree, one has to be careful when applying an overall conclusion to all plastics. It's like saying one drug will treat depression; depression is actually a number of diseases under one heading. Same goes for plastic. For instance, optical clarity is a function of how well the polymers are aligned. So what may be detrimental for optical clarity may not apply to another because the plastic polymers are more disorganized.
Although it's not on topic, I once had a conversation with Ken Stevens about how one wanted a capacitor with polymers running in all directions so it didn't hold onto the charge as long compared to a capacitor with an organized chemistry.
So, to the extent we want to avoid over-cleaning (a subject I could digress on but won't), what are the preferred methods for 'touch-up' after the record has been cleaned 'properly' (whatever the preferred method)? I have found that brushes contribute static. And, I use fresh rice paper liners (keeping the vintage liners for artifact value). I've tried various brushes, grounding techniques, grounding mats, etc. Right now, when the record comes off the Audio Desk, no static. But, in the future, with handling, resleeving, what do all of you do? (I used to run an otherwise clean record through the VPI using only Step 4 for touch-ups and was pretty good at managing the vacuum cleaning but for obvious reasons, don't want to go back to that method). Thoughts?
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |