Almandog,
More than one way to skin a cat as they say. That sounds like an affordable method and I'm sure it works. Still, the Audio Desk appeals to me as the least labor intensive method I know of. The only problem now with all the recent attention is that you can't find one. Production wasn't quite ready for the increased demand it seems. |
Here is my new cleaning method:
1. With the record laying on a lazy susan, I use Perfect Glass cleaner (ammonia free) and a Disc Doctor brush, to clean the record first.
2. I then wipe off the Perfect Glass cleaner with a microfiber towel.
3. I then wash the record in a Spin Clean record Cleaner, filled with distilled water with three caps of Spin Clean record cleaning fluid.
4. I wash and vacuum the record with Acquafina water, on Nitty Gritty record cleaning machine.
5. Lastly, I put the newly cleaned record in clean record sleeve.
Try it out before you knock it. I use to knock it too, so try it for yourself. |
George_a, I should have just taken it out. I will check it out on my return. Thanks. |
When I left my Audio Desk unused for about a month I found mold on the filter sponge. I did a thorough cleaning it has not returned. They should probably warn users about this.
Otherwise I have used the unit for over 1000 records without problem. |
Tbg-
Very interesting. Haven't come across that issue yet, but surely will someday. Cling wrap sounds like a good solution. |
Gpgr4blu, I have one problem with the AD Vinyl Cleaner. I am out of Texas for typically three months during the heat of the summer and leave the Vinyl Cleaner behind. I have been concerned with evaporation. The Cable Company suggested draining the liquid. I ultimately chose to use Cling Wrap around the top. Yes I do without vinyl while in the mountains of NM. |
Thanks Tbg. I'm not surprised. |
Gpgr4blu, as I said, I tried the water rinse and heard no benefit. I also used a USB microscope and could see no residue. |
For those of you who think that a purchase of the AD cleaner at its lofty price might be a compromise of sacrificing the best cleaner for the convenience of a good cleaner, I must say that I used to use a 4 step process with my VPI 17f including the use of Premier spray, MoFi enzymatic liquid with a 3 minute soak and then scrubbing and then 2 rinses with reagent grade water again with scrubbing on each application PER SIDE---a minimum of 20 minutes per record. Now I use the AD cleaner with a gallon of distilled water, drop the record in and come back 6 minutes later to a cleaner record than under my prior regimen. I'll do 20 a sitting instead of my old 6. To me, it's better and faster. The doubters who are concerned that the fan process to dry in the AD rather than a vacuum process might leave residue,( I cannot tell without a microscope) keep a VPI or other such item handy and do one water rinse per side for one minute each. End of story. Color me very happy with a much smaller stack of vinyl yet to clean. |
Peterayer, the proof is in the pudding. I imagine many would be put off were your dentist to twice use the cleaning fluid and put the cleaned item back in their mouths.
You seem intent on longer treatments. I had been doing that with the four step Walker Audio Prelude system and vacuuming each on each side. This is a commitment of about 20 minutes per record, rather than none using the AD Vinyl Cleaner and it sounds as good. This is no choice for me. |
Even my dentist who uses an ultrasonic cleaning machine for appliances in his office changes the fluid after one use. We, as audiophiles, surely have standards for cleaning LPs equal to or surpassing those in the medical fields.
How about a thin machine that accepts an LP horizontally like the Furutech Demag saucer, for an ultrasonic bath (using minimum fluid which is replaced each time), no spinning or scrubbing required and then transferring the LP to a vertical double sided point-nozzle unit for spin drying? Quick, no contamination and the benefits of ultrasonics.
Don't know about removing the mold release agents though. I think a multi step fluid solution is required for that. |
Syntax, do you use the Hannl VI3c in the Vinyl Cleaner or can you?
Dougdeacon, I would put the emphasis on convenience but add excellent cleaning. |
Tbg,
Thanks for the recommendation. I'm aware of the AD's build and operating principles. I discussed them in detail with the US importer and the German designer long before the machine arrived on these shores.
Its advantages of speed, quiet and convenience are obvious.
|
Well, the real Audiophile never sleeps :-) May I show you something interesting? I got it last year, it is a 1-step cleaning fluid from Germany and I use it now ( the other one is AIVS, also ok, but the German one is an interesting fluid).... HANNL VI3c |
Syntax, the AD Vinyl Cleaner has a white filter very visible from above. I clean it out about every 100 records and have never seen anything resembling your mess. I have bought many old classics and cleaned them without this mess either, but I have bought them from reputable dealers, typically at the Rocky Mountain Audio Fest.
I have owned the Keith Monks and Loricraft string supported vacuum cleaners and multiple versions of the VPI. I do see the color of water you show in what is vacuumed off the records. Briefly, I did a final rinse with reverse osmosis water and the VPI cleaner after initial cleaning on the Vinyl Cleaner. There was no benefit that I could hear and the discharge water was uncolored. |
Effective cleaning or fast cleaning ... :-) My Way Click me gentle This is a picture from the used Fluid (from MY Point Nozzle). For each record new fluid was used (The Audiodesk uses the same fluid over and over again, it is ok for a record a day...a typical 'audiophile' Product) The dirt you can see is coming from M-, VG++ Records or new Reissues (I don't buy them anymore)... |
Dougdeacon, you really need the AD Vinyl cleaner in a quiet room apart from your listening area. All you need to do is insert it and start it and go listen to your music. Go back when you want and insert another record, push the button, and return to listening. I typically do about ten per evening this way. |
If one wants ultra clean records and is willing to deal with the hassle, I recommend a Loricraft or Keith Monks machine multi step fluids.
If one wants clean records and ultra convenience, I recommend the Audio Desk.
This is my experience after a short comparison between the two machines. Does anyone know if the Audio Desk fluid removes mold release agents from new or used LPs?
|
anyone who is putting enough passion and effort in cleaning Lps to be involved in this thread has already got clean records.
who has the cleanest?
:-) Not me! I've got about 2500 still awaiting their first cleaning. Any volunteers? :-D |
i own both types of machines. you can make a good case for either as the 'only' one; or make a strong case to 'need' both types.
i made the same case on another thread that Norm makes about the fact that either machine likely improves on the other depending on the sequence. a second re-cleaning helps by either machine.
and i respect Syntax's point that clean water is better than re-used filtered water....unless it isn't. and OTOH flipping a clean Lp over and laying it on the 'less that perfectly clean' platter also introduces a point of contamination.
anyone who is putting enough passion and effort in cleaning Lps to be involved in this thread has already got clean records.
who has the cleanest?
:-) |
Syntax, like Sonofjim, I don't agree with many of your opinions. I got a Vinyl Cleaner about two years ago and directly compared it with my special VPI with a Delgrin tube with the Walker Prelude four step cleaning solutions. I played VPI cleaned records and then recleaned them with the Vinyl Cleaner. There was no question that the recleaning improved the sound. Later I was to discover that it worked both ways. Using both machines in a second recleaning was best. Of course for me this is just too much!
My Vinyl Cleaner stopped rotating records after about 300 records. I returned it. But I missed it greatly. Devoting about twenty minutes per album with the VPI even with the one time around vacuuming with the Delrin tube was so off putting that I largely stopped cleaning.
After hearing that the reliability of the Vinyl Cleaner had improved, I bought another. It is still working well after about 200 cleanings.
I should mention that my USB microscope shows no difference in the grooves of albums cleaned with the VPI or the Vinyl Cleaner.
Any cleaner other than the Audio Desk Vinyl Cleaner is just too much of a pain for no better cleaning. |
Where do we reach the point of overkill and just start wasting time? Definitely worth thinking about. All discussions can be reduced to something simple: The cleaning fluid has the task to make any kind of dirt soft. When it is soft enough, it can be removed. Of course ultrasonics can help here, or a towel.... The real task (and secret - or background - of ANY Design) is the way to REMOVE it. When you have a drink with a Straw and a given sucking power you know, the more narrow the Straw is, the higher is the speed through it. And you have also the most power in this diameter when it is narrow. The bigger (wider) the Straw is, the more power you will loose. Motors from RCM's are not rated in HP :-) Here we have the most powerful ability to get something out of the groove. Another important fact is, what happens after the removal? The area from a point nozzle design is after the sucking process completely dry. Any other Designs have another kind of "lips, brushes, fans" behind the vacuum. When that one is wet (happens very fast, too much fluid or a few records in a row) then there will stay some wetness after the vacuuming. This fluid will dry after some time and when you play it again, you will have surface noise again. There is no way out. VPI units (or similar designs) are a good example for that. The Audiodesk uses the same cleaning fluid again and again, there are filters, but forget them after a while. There are brushes, but forget them after a while .... It is a nice toy, great for Audiophiles who can live with something which saves time, is comfortable, in a way it is "modern High Tech" and that is ok. I know record dealers who tried it and no one used them for a longer time. Most have Loricrafts or when they can afford it, a Keith Monks. All Designs have some strengths, because they are all better than doing nothing, but when you think about what is responsible for what and how it is solved (and the reliability after longer time) it is obvious, that you will find different opinions. This is ok and absolutely normal. When there are various opinions, every reader can try to find the right one for himself. The world is loaded with Jaguar Drivers, but when I can afford only one car because I buy it and have to use it for 10+ years, my choice is Mercedes. |
Syntax,
I agree with almost everything you say there and respect your opinions. They are opinions though, you do realize that right? Opinions are expressed as scientific fact in these forums almost constantly. Have you for example had extensive experience with the Audio Desk so you can objectively state that it is always inferior to a Loricraft? I've heard from several people who have used both extensively and their answer to that is not so definitive. A filthy moldy record definitely seems to benefit from enzymatic or multi-step chemical cleaners. According to several whose opinions I also respect the average record may actually come out better on the Audio Desk. Anything this subjective will never have a definitive answer. If you clean a record for two hours is it really any cleaner than it was after five minutes? Where do we reach the point of overkill and just start wasting time? I don't know for sure either but I do know there's not a lot of time in my life for overkill. |
Thank you both. Incredibly helpful. I'll borrow my uncle's 4 point system fluids and try to fully experience what you both are saying. I have been adhering to Sytax's "throw it away" (or return for credit at Amoeba) plan for the last few years. I think my collection has shrunk for sure. |
There are a few points which should be realized in cleaning,
-Speed has nothing to do with a better cleaning result
-Cleaning grooves from dirt and removing dust from new records are 2
different chapters.
- Using always new, clean fluid is always superior to a System which uses the
same fluid all over again
- Quality discussions about a Design which was made for Audiophiles or serious
Dealers should be seen different.
- Physics and opinions are also 2 different chapters.
- Cleaning Reissues and thinking about upgrading the RCM because there are
still ticks and pops with the actual unit: Forget it.
Reissues are bad compared to the vinyl from the 70's to 1995 (for example),
with some exceptions, but in general it is the way it is... It has to do with soft
vinyl, bad quality control, wrong cooling processes and so on. Buried Know
H9871240ow.
And when you have luck and get a silent reissue, I bet, it sounds worse than the
original because the remaster was done mediocre (Today money counts, not
perfection).
Second Hand Records from the former years can be in top optical condition, no
scratches and when you play it, you will have noise. This is mainly based on the
fact, that a previous owner used a wrong aligned cart/Arm or too much VTF.
Then the grooves are damaged. Best you can do, throw it away (I do it). Short
pain, but then it is done.
When a record is not silent after 2 cleaning processes with a point nozzle and a
cleaning fluid, then there are normally grooves damaged or the vinyl has
problems, years ago it was very common to use alcohol in cleaning fluids, when
done wrong, the groove side walls got dry, inflexible and the only chance to
enjoy them is a cart with a round needle :-)
Or you go the way with short pain....500 top records are better than 3000 noisy
ones. Life is too short for that |
Dhcod,
Thanks for your interest. What my partner and I get for our (considerable) trouble is a groove that (to our ears) is as free of contaminants as possible. I'll describe our sonic priorities and then our standards for "clean", which differ from what Mikelavigne and you just mentioned.
MUSIC & SONICS
Our listening is 95% classical and includes a large dose of early/authentic instrument recordings (Hogwood, Harnoncourt, medieval/Renaissance music, etc.) Such music is typically played by smallish ensembles on natural, acoustic instruments having unique harmonic and dynamic characteristics. My partner and I are intimately familiar with the sound of such instruments. In my college days I helped build a harpsichord. One of our friends is a professor of early music at a local university. Listening to him play the same piece on three or four different harpsichords is an education in listening skills and sonic subtleties.
Nobody's stereo can reproduce that but our goal is to come as close as possible. It is very difficult. People who listen primarily to rock or other amplified music typically have different priorities, sensitivities and tolerances.
BEYOND TICKS & POPS, HOW CLEAN IS CLEAN?
Regardless of what sort of music one prefers, a truly clean LP groove is evidenced by more than a lack of ticks and pops. Removing the cause of these is only the first step, and by no means the most important (musically). Further, it's possible to reduce ticks and pops by using cleaning products and processes that leave the groove LESS clean. The absence of ticks and pops is not a reliable indicator of cleanliness.
I can get tick- and pop-free surfaces by using certain "cleaning" products and practices that in fact leave residues. These smooth over irregularities and make for a very quiet (and boring) LP. Anything that masks microscopic irregularities also masks low-level details, complex harmonics and subtle micro-dynamics. This saps the life out of the music we listen to.
A truly clean groove is actually NOISIER than a residue-coated one, because even the tiniest irregularities are bared for the stylus to see. This allows a (suitably responsive and transparent) stereo to reproduce the tiniest groove modulations, which brings the sound of live instruments closer to life.
This is not to say we tolerate clicks and pops. The vast majority of our records are quite free of them. But we achieve this by using products and methods that remove the cause (when possible) rather than slathering over it.
Hope that's helpful,
Doug
P.S. If you have a "clean, silent LP that develops noise over time" then it wasn't clean. Unless your setup is wildly off and your're damaging the vinyl, the only possible source of increasing noise is residues in the groove being disturbed/re-arranged by multiple plays. I'd wager I could make any of your cleaned LP's considerably cleaner. They might sound slightly noisier than when you first cleaned them (due to the elimination of all residues) but the life and dynamics that such cleaning exposes would astound you... at least in our system.
|
Doug,
For your 20 mins of cleaning, what do you get? Can you be specific? I have a PRC3 and am using L'art du Son as a single step cleaner. I know cleaning is important but to be completely honest, I've never had an LP that was noisy suddenly become quiet. And if I have a clean, silent LP that develops noise over time, for whatever reason, I've never been able to get rid the noise by cleaning. Maybe I'm just not doing enough? |
Thanks for your input Mike. I'll be using the Audio Desk soon but won't be selling the 16.5 just yet. If the Audio Desk goes down I'll need a backup. I am looking forward to getting through a little more of that "to clean pile". Finding and buying vinyl is one thing, playing it is where the rubber meets the road. |
Thanks Doug. If an Audio Desk lets us enjoy more LPs that alone would make it worth the cost. What good are my 4,000 LPs if they're all in the "clean me" pile? says it all. what i do is use the Audio Desk and then if i hear more tics than i think is proper it goes in the 'Loricraft' pile.....for when i have the time. about one (maybe two) out 10 end up in that pile. the Loricraft seems to improve about 30% to 40% of those to some degree.....which i think is mostly a multi-step chemical cleaner issue.....and to a lesser extent that the vaccuum process is simply 100% effective on small particles. i know Albert uses 2 Audio Desk machines; one with only pure water for a final rinse. which is another valid approach. and he also has a third machine for using chemicals. the Audio Desk has the additional benefit of useing blow dry instead of vaccuum which does result in less static and therfore less dust attraction and a slightly calmer play. it is nice to be able to have different approaches for particular pressings. |
Mike,
Thanks for the informative summary. Your experience is consistent with another person I know who owns a VPI, a Keith Monks and most recently an Audio Desk.
The VPI is the least effective, though it's quicker than the Monks. It used to be his "quick clean" option but since the Audio Desk arrived he hardly uses it any more.
The Monks is the most effective, the choice for critical listening, but it takes the most time.
The Audio Desk is fast and does an acceptable job for much of his listening. Its lack of rapid, complete vacuum removal of fluid from the grooves is what ultimately limits its effectiveness compared to the Monks.
For the highest degree of cleanliness there's apparently still no substitute for the pinpoint vacuuming of a Monks/Loricraft but the time required is substantial, especially for a multi-solution regime. My own regime (on a PRC3) takes ~20mins/side... a substantial commitment of life that has certainly reduced the number of records we listen to. If an Audio Desk lets us enjoy more LPs that alone would make it worth the cost. What good are my 4,000 LPs if they're all in the "clean me" pile?
|
Sounds like I'll have to look at the Audio Desk. Thanks for the input. |
Jyprez:
Be careful with ultrasonic cleaners. They can easily pit and damage surfaces unless matched with the materials being cleaned. When I worked for AMAT (a semiconductor equipment manufacturer) some years back we tested ultrasonic cleaning systems on various metal and plastic parts. Settings that worked well for metal surfaces like aluminum ended up damaging plastics like Delrin and acrylic. zero issues on this. no Lps get harmed. To me the main benefit of this machine is not whether it's better than the 16.5 in effectiveness. I've heard it may be. The ability to push a button and return in five minutes to a finished record is where the money is IMO. I can clean 10 records in about two hours with my 16.5 regimen. I doubt there's a machine that get's the job done a lot better when I'm done. However, I spend a lot of time slaving over the 16.5. A machine that can free up time for me and still do the job well would be worth the money IMO, provided it's reliable. People say time is money. No, time is life and the more of it you can enjoy the better. i owned the 16.5 for years and respect the heck out of that machine. i likely cleaned 4000 Lps with it. but the Audio Desk is infinitely easier and does a better job to boot. |
i've owned my Audio Desk Systeme RCM for 3 years....and love it. and recommend it.
previous to owning this RCM i owned the VPI 16.5 for 9 years, and then the Loricraft PRC3 for 4 years. i sold both of them.
and then earlier this year i did purchase another Loricraft, the PRC4 Dlx.
back to the Audio Desk Systeme, i have had zero problems except that after 2 years after my warranty ran out i had a motor failure. i was offered a no cost exchange or i could pay for shipping to Germany and they would still fix it at no charge. i elected to do the exchange; since then no problems. my understanding is that earlier issues have been resolved and they do stand behind their product. i am a careful user and don't force things or overfill the reseavoir which have been two areas where they have had problems.
what i love about the Audio Desk Systeme is easy it is to use, and that it does get the records very clean. however, it is not perfect. which is why i purchased the Loricraft again. sometimes i want to use a 4 step chemical process for specific pressings. having both gives me the flexibility i want. but the majority of the time i roll with the Audio Desk.
i have purchased a couple of record collections in the last few years; it is great fun being able to clean records while i'm listening to others. more music, easier. in a 3 hour evening listening session i can clean 15 lps front and back while i'm listening continually. that is what it is all about. i use to simply not listen to some Lps rather than take the 10+ minutes to methodically clean both sides. now i can just place it in the Audio Desk, press the button, and then come back to a clean Lp.
highly recommended. |
Sgr,
To me the main benefit of this machine is not whether it's better than the 16.5 in effectiveness. I've heard it may be. The ability to push a button and return in five minutes to a finished record is where the money is IMO. I can clean 10 records in about two hours with my 16.5 regimen. I doubt there's a machine that get's the job done a lot better when I'm done. However, I spend a lot of time slaving over the 16.5. A machine that can free up time for me and still do the job well would be worth the money IMO, provided it's reliable. People say time is money. No, time is life and the more of it you can enjoy the better.
+1
I couldn't have said it better. Vinyl is my #1 choice in listening but I have to say I can't stand it when it comes time to stand over that 16.5. |
Sgr,
To me the main benefit of this machine is not whether it's better than the 16.5 in effectiveness. I've heard it may be. The ability to push a button and return in five minutes to a finished record is where the money is IMO. I can clean 10 records in about two hours with my 16.5 regimen. I doubt there's a machine that get's the job done a lot better when I'm done. However, I spend a lot of time slaving over the 16.5. A machine that can free up time for me and still do the job well would be worth the money IMO, provided it's reliable. People say time is money. No, time is life and the more of it you can enjoy the better. |
Jyprez:
Be careful with ultrasonic cleaners. They can easily pit and damage surfaces unless matched with the materials being cleaned. When I worked for AMAT (a semiconductor equipment manufacturer) some years back we tested ultrasonic cleaning systems on various metal and plastic parts. Settings that worked well for metal surfaces like aluminum ended up damaging plastics like Delrin and acrylic. |
I've used the VPI several times in the past and thought it did a great job and not terribly expensive. So are these other cleaners that much better? |
I agree that the price will not likely come down but if it works reliably it is worth it. Consider that every other machine requires laborious attention. The Audio Desk is the only one I know of that apparently does a good job and makes the process quicker and much easier. That I see as the most appealing aspect, a machine that makes life easier and more enjoyable instead of harder and more tedious. Aside from that, I think I'd stick with my current labor intensive process rather than spend thousands more on another one. |
Perhaps this will come down if enough are sold....
Hardly. I think, Mk. III - Mk XVI will follow :-) |
Sonofjim,
I have a Loricraft so I was planning on drying with that. The Audio Desk is certainly the ideal solution but for the price. Perhaps this will come down if enough are sold. |
Sonofjim:
I was assured that problems that existed in the first few years of production have been resolved. Of course, only time will tell. |
Jyprez,
That's an interesting idea but I'm not sure how easy that would be to implement. If it worked you're still left with a wet record that needs to be dried in some way. The major advantage of the Audio Desk is speed and convenience. This approach would certainly abandon that aspect. I think I'd stick with my current regimen over that. The Audio Desk is a complicated machine and the U/S mechanism is only part of it.
Gpgr4blu,
Reliability, especially long term, and customer support are key in a complicated machine of this cost. It sounds as though early reliability problems may have been improved. WHEN it breaks, everything does, how good will the support be to get it going again? I want to be a believer in this thing because it could make life with vinyl way easier. I must say the one I saw a couple years ago turned me off because it wouldn't spin and the guy demonstrating starting cussing it in a way I could tell this had happened before. Hopefully that's all worked out. |
I purchased the AudioDesk Systeme RCM a few weeks ago after seeing it demonstrated at the NY Audio Show and can say so far that it is a joy to use. Quick and efficient. The vinyl does appear to come out cleaner than on my VPI 17F. Also, I can clean 2 to 3 records on AudioDesk Systeme in the time it takes me to clean 1 with the VPI.
Have not had any problems with thin or thick (200g) albums. So far, very happy with the purchase . |
What about this
http://www.ultrasonicsdirect.com/ultrasonic-cleaner-sh180-4l.html
Build a little spin mechanism to support the LP and your in business for under $400 |
This is the kind of machine it would be nice to do a trial with. I saw it working once and wasn't impressed especially since part of this particular unit, a pad as I recall, kept falling off. If it normally works well and simplifies the cleaning process it may well be worth the money. $3800 is a pretty big leap of faith to try it out though. |
Have you considered buying a $75 home ultrasonic dental cleaner? That's what I plan to do because i was going to get one for my teeth anyhow. I will let you know how it works on LP's. |
I now feel the AudioDesk unit is far superior "Feeling" is good. Feeling can hide a lot. I prefer knowledge about how something works and after a while I know why something is better. I use a different machine but unfortunately I have no "feelings" when I use it. :-) |
Careful guys,
There has been a great deal of failure rate with the Audio desk vinyl cleaner. Check the other thread on this on audiogon and also audioaficondo.
I am waiting until the defects are taken care of. Also, the owner of Audiodesk doesn't answer any emails, bad business sense to me.
|
I've got my eyes set on one too - have had the pleasure of neighboring with the folks that import the machine to the US for the past 2 or 3 shows in Vegas - They needed Records to clean - I was more than happy to loan them mine :-) By far the best cleaning machine I've come across yet.
Peter |
No yet, but will as soon as I unload some of my surplus gear. From the various reviews of the unit it appears that the Audio Desk unit will become the gold standard. For awhile I was considering the Loricraft and Keith Monks units, both of which I did real time, hands on tests on. I now feel the AudioDesk unit is far superior. There is a published PhD thesis on the method used. I don't think it was patented. Think about it, it could pay for itself quickly if you start buying 50 cent LP's, instead of downloads and CD's. I am now searching for a dealer that will offer me a 20% discount, which still leaves them a good profit margin. |
