Ebm, the Ultrasonic V-8 unit cleans up to eight records at a time with 400 watts of ultra sonics.
Audio Desk Record Cleaner-Anyone buy one yet
I may never get to own one of these due to the price, but if I could I would say that it may the best upgrade to any analog system. I had the opportunity recently to have a couple of records cleaned on one. The two Lp's I had cleaned are one of many copies I have purchased thru the years in search of a good clean copy. The title is the 2 disk set "Renaissance Live at Carnegie Hall". I took one of my copies over in hopes that I would get back that sought after clean copy. However I will preface my comments about the Audio Desk with the cold hard fact that once a record reaches a level of surface noise and contamination, nothing can make it new again. However once the Audio Desk completed it's 8 minute process, the improvements were immediately evident. First thing to take notice of, absolutely the cleanest and shiniest black vinyl I think I have ever seen. The LP's looked better than new under light. But the real test is listening. As I have listened to the title many many times from my first copy back in the 70's and never on LP, CD or Imported CD have I heard the detail of the recording. On disk #1 the cleanest of the two the LP was much cleaner than I have been able to obtain on my VPI 16.5 using Walker 4 Step, Mobile Fidelity Enzime, L'Art Du son, and various other solutions. My guess is the Audio Desk cleaned an additional 50-70% of the surface noise from the album. The depth of information in the Annie Haslam's Vocals, the clarity of the Bass that I had written off as muddled recording failure was now revealing the individual notes each taking their own space in the music field. The orchestra was fully present and not crowded together as before. Now on to disk 2, the disappointment of permanantly damaged grooves was inescapable. However the music that came thru had much more information to re-write the recall of this recording burned in my memory from previous listening sessions. On Scherazade with the verbal introduction to the song, I heard instruments and voices in nthe back ground that I had never noticed before. Little plucks of strings and puffs on brass as the orchestra was making sure they were ready to perform. I will say that an additional cleaning of 20-30 percent of this album was still obvious but to my disappointment, the Audio Desk is not a miracle worker, but a pretty damn good magician. I think 3800.00 is a lot of money for just about anything these days, but is it worth the 3800.00? Yes if you value and love your record collection. I have an LP12 with many upgrades and Lyra Kleos Cartridge. This record cleaner is just 800.00 more than the cartridge and when I put the two in perspective they both can bring a much higher level of performance to your turntable. Unfortunatly you need both and I sadley can only afford one. The financial curse of audiophilia continues....
100 responses Add your response
At CES I ran into Keith Mook showing the newest version of his father's famous record cleaner. It is pretty much automatic now and quiet.. It is reduced in size but still pretty large. I had one of the first units long ago and found it effective but troublesome. One of the features about it is that your water is always fresh as is the string. They had a special show special one, but I didn't buy it. |
Just wanted to add my experience as food for thought. Considered the Audio Desk and the KL, but was put off by the beau coup bux required and spotty user comments regarding post-sale support on the Audio Desk. Purchased the V8 cleaner, primarily because I could control temperature, agitation and batch process my collection (400+). I've found it to be a superior value, and have tried a few different techniques. The one that seems to work the best is ambient temperature distilled water, some isopropyl alcohol and about 20 minutes at maximum agitation. Even cleaned up some of my wife's (literally) moldy oldies to a playable condition. Drawbacks are that it is a batch device so not really suitable for cleaning just one LP and less-than-serial manufacture accessory execution. Completed cleaning every disk in the house before Thanksgiving and have been listening to a broad variety since then. Like Dave said when I bought it, it can't fix damaged records, but it sure does get the gunk out of the grooves. Even an original pressing of Teaser and the Firecat I played to death as a child became playable on my PL15 / OM 2M Red. A Spyro Gyra LP from my wife's collection came back enough to merit my Sota / Graham / DV XX2 Mk II. Now, where to go from here? I may decide to offer collection cleaning services or off the V8 and go with a KL (still leery of the German "functional disturbances based on these specifications are impossible" approach to customer service by Audio Desk I've seen reported a few times - unforgivable in a $5K discretionary purchase). My trusty Discwasher brushes (have 2 from back in the day and they are still the best manual devices, IMO) work just fine with my preferred cleaning solution for LPs that have gone through the V8. I've also found that as long as a mold release agent remover is used, the ultrasonic treatment isn't really needed for initial cleaning of sealed, new records. Regardless, I've concluded that ultrasonic record cleaning is the biggest advance in cleaning to come down the pike since the original vacuum devices were introduced. Strongly recommended for having fun and happy listening! |
Just coming to this thread. I have had the audio desk for a year - after several vpi iterations. I have not used other ultrasonic machines. AD is absolutely remarkable. Have cleaned hundreds of records with zero operational isdues. Great for cleaning up older, dirtier discs, but also incredible with new, audiophile quality vinyl where I clean prior to first listen. I always had problems with the "artistry" needed to get vinyl really perfect out of vpi. With AD, press a button. Only drawback is 4-5 mins of loud vacuum noise - take that time to read liner notes !! |
Hi Matt: Most of the time the record is dry enough to put back in the sleeve. On those occasions where there are a few drops on the record, I use pressed air or a microfiber cloth (like the kind used to clean eyeglasses) to remove them. Doesn't happen that much. I tend to clean about 20 records a month as well. Before my next cleaning episode, I'll just add distilled water to the mix to make sure the record gets fully immersed (advice of the importer)--the amount to be added is learned over a few tries--when you use too much, water will be spit out of the fan air vents in the drying phase. No harm though. After 3 months, I usually change the water even though I've only cleaned 60 or so records. Just because I want a fresh solution. Can't say I would be able to detect a difference if I didn't. Others empty the solution in an airtight container for storage and then pour it back into the RCM prior to use. I assume they might be able to go the full 100. The Audio Desk is a big investment. But if you value your collection, you will be happy with it. |
The album is almost always dry enough to put away, but occasionally there are a few drops of water in the run out grooves. I just wipe them with a microfiber cloth. I clean about as many records as you and do not think there is a problem with the fluid deteriorating. You may occasionally need to add a little additional distilled water due to evaporation. If you want to keep track of how many records you have cleaned you can get a Great Star Tally Counter at Office Depot, Walmart, etc for under $5. I also use one to track record sides played so I have approximate cartridge hours. Having the Audio Deske Cleaner has made a difference in how the music sounds. I hope you enjoy the results as much as I have. |
Mine is on the way, but have a few questions. After the unit run through its cycle is the album dry enough to put back in its sleeve. Also if someone only cleans say 20 lp's a month should you change the cleaning fluid more often than every 100 or so album. Didn't know if it would go bad or stale. Hope it's as good as you guy's say it is. That was a hard trigger to pull Matt |
I'm very happy with Audiodesk. I've also seen the Kl Audio which appears to be a well made machine as well with one nice little extra element of convenience that I can see (if I recollect correctly)---the ability to dry only. On the other hand, M. Fremer reviewed the Kl Audio on his website (Analog Planet) and, although he liked it, he appeared to like the Audiodesk, which he owns, a bit more. Another difference is that Audio Desk uses a cleaning agent of its own and distilled water while Kl Audio uses strictly distilled water. I personally like the logic of a cleaning agent with ultrasonic activity in the grooves, but I have done no head to head comparison. Good luck. |
Wilcan7, I have an AudioDesk and find it exceptional as one can put the record in a push the button and then go back to listening while the record is cleaned and ready to go when you go back. Earlier I had a special VPI with a Delrin vacuum tube and used Walker Audio cleaners. I took me about twenty minutes per LP to clean them. With the AudioDesk it takes maybe a minute. |
Anyone use the Ultrasonic V8? It doesn't dry the records but at $1500 is quite a bit less expensive. Also cleans up to 8 LPs at a time. I talked to David who manufactures. I will also pre clean with a brush then the ultrasonic. I have quite a few LPs, none of which have been cleaned. Heck, they haven't even been played for 25 years, I looked at about 200 today and the surfaces look pretty good. Back in the day we all took pride in handling and cleaning, you know with the old velvet discwasher and solution. i'm so looking forward to cranking up the tunes. It's been a long time! |
you mean the KL Audio ? The KL has no spinning terry cloth drums that make contact with the record like the Audio Deske. The audio deske uses 40 watt ultrasonic motors, the KL Audio 200 watt. The Audio Deske requires their cleaning solution to be added to the water, the KL uses straight water (distilled, ect) with no surfactants. |
Thanks everyone. Just got mine last week, I'm 20 records into it. Interesting about the first cleaning with brushes idea to get off the mold release stuff. It's so convenient that I'm motivated to use it more, I have kept my Loricraft which I will use first for the dirtiest records. Will probably report back if I have more questions! |
I've done several hundred with mine as well. It's been very reliable and almost too convenient. It's hard to keep up with listening to what I've cleaned. I've noticed no drop off in sound quality over my former labor intensive methods. I also have less staic than I ever remember. For me I fear there's just no going back. My only problem, if you can call it that, is some records make the machine squeak rather loudly during the clean cycle. The distributor informed me that this is not a malfunction and it's caused no problems. |
As an auto deske owner here's my take. It's a great finish cleaning unit. If your records are old or even new but have mold release gunk, mold or fingerprint oils, the auto deske will not clean them. For best results...ie cleaning for the first time, I scrub the records with disk doctor brushes first using my cleaning fluid of choice, then I dry them off with a micro fibre towel and put it in the auto desk for the final rinse/ clean/dry. Once that is done then the auto desk is great to keep them clean ( dust free) and the complete drying w/o static. |
Orthobiz, my only problem with this machine is evaporation of the cleaning fluid. I often go for weeks without cleaning and the fluid does evaporate. Also in the summer, I leave Texas for months. The only real solution is draining the unit into a bottle. Apart from this this unit is far and away the most convenient and thorough record cleaner I have owned and I have owned even the original Keith Mooks, VPIs including one with a delgrin tube, the Loricraft unit, etc. In my experience, the recent units are entirely dependable. |
at RMAF i learned about another 'trick' for the 'white wipers' from the 'Elusive Disc' guy who was demo'ing the Audio Desk. he said to take a 'twist tie', those wires with a paper wrap, and insert the twist tie (laying flat against the flat back of the white wiper) behind the white wiper in the slot carefully. basically start them both together and gently, slowly, push them in. this will push the white wiper out just a bit and help it wipe better. he said a wire by itself is not enough. the paper will keep the twist tie from damaging the white wiper and it's probably good if the twist tie is slightly sticking out at the end so it can be grabbed by a pliers for easy extraction. i might also apply a small amount of vasoline to the back of the twist tie so it slides in easier if it won't slide in smoothly. i've not yet tried it but it does sound like it would work. |
I have been intrigued by the ultrasonic method but cannot afford the Audio Desk. There are many audiophiles around the globe that have built their own machines by basically adding a rod and rack system to clean 3 to 12 records at once. There are units like the dentist use for about $400. You have to be a DIY person or have friends that are to pull it off. I have read hundreds of posts from these DIY guys and it really seems they have figured this out. Even the use of Kodak PhotoFlo seems to solve the drying issue. Everyone agree the records are the cleanest they are ever going to get and the listening results make for some happy audiophiles. I have ordered a machine and am gathering the parts for the motor, gears etc. If you can set up a cartridge properly then you can do this too...with a little help from your friends. You can ck it out over on DIY audio website. Just let Google translate the Norwegian for you. |
George a I have had this issue 3 times out of 60 + cleanings. I hope readers of this post do not think that my enthusiasm is at all diminished. I still believe the best solution is changeable wipers which is not structural. Of course, the liquid only appears on one side, never both---so compressed air or 1 quick rinse or dry or both on a VPI for those rare occasions is the answer for now. Still in love. |
"With thin records, there will sometimes be a few drops of water/ fluid left on the record" I have this problem too. The cause is that the thin records are too flexible to stay centered between the wipers, hence one side is not wiped completely by the wiper. Normal records are not a problem. Your solution of wider wipers is what I proposed to CableCo in an email several weeks ago. I never received a reply. Another cause is that the slotted record guides at each end are too wide to hold a thin flexible record centered between the wipers. I use a small wood block and weight to push against the edge of the record in order to center it. Fortunately only about 10% are affected. Still it is something that should be addressed and fixed. |
A top notch rcm with appropriate fluids and care should not add more tics, pops or glaze on a cleaned record. It would seem that a subsequent cleaning with the same or, preferably, a different machine with different fluids will, if done properly, cause no harm---and probably help to clean a record a little better. I am still very happy with the Audio Desk rcm and I am cleaning many more records than I did with my VPI 17F which, btw, I think is a fine machine. As for my search for the ultimate record cleaning machine---I'm done. PS- With thin records, there will sometimes be a few drops of water/ fluid left on the record which cann be blown out with compressed air. I believe this can be easily remedied with slightly bigger squeegee flaps which the manufacturer could easily supply. They slide in a space at the top of the rcm. Thus you could have more squeegee space for thick records and less for thin records. |
Peterayer, I have done a double cleaning only once on an old Lena Horne album. It was a DJ record and was really dirty. The double cleaning did help. I also cleaned it again with my VPI using the Prelude four step cleaning of which step 1 is enzyme. As I said records that had been previously cleaned with the VPI sounded better after cleaning with the Vinyl Cleaner, and those cleaned with the VC also sounded better after cleaning with the VPI. |
Tbg, That's interesting about the second cleaning, especially if it is one of the good 4-step formulas. These usually include an couple of enzyme steps which address the mold release issue. Have you tried two cycles of the Audio Desk and noticed a sonic improvement after the second one compared to just one? |
Peterayer, I did that with a Delgin tube VPI as the vacuum of the ultra pure water rinse. I heard no benefit and saw none with a USB microscope. I stopped after three records. As I have said before, a second cleaning using the four step Walker Prelude liquids did improve the sound. Two different cleaners were better than one, but I was not at all likely to do this. |
I agree that the convenience is unmatched. If I were to use this machine, I would do an additional two ultra pure water rinses on a point nozzle machine like a used Loricraft PRC3 just to be sure that there is no residue left over. That might add another 6 minutes to the process, doubling the total time to clean an LP. But then it would no longer be so convenient. |
Syntax raised a good point about the AD using the same fluid repeatedly. However, the real question is how effective is the foam filter that the AD uses? Has anyone examined the water after say 100 uses to see if the water is contaminated? If someone can propose a simple test I would be glad to look at my unit. The AD manual says to replace the water after cleaning 100 dirty records or 200 new records. It costs about $2.50 to replace the distilled water and $12.50 for the cleaning fluid, so it would not be that costly to change the fluids more frequently if necessary. The convenience of the AD is unmatched. |
I agree that one attractive feature of ADRC is the fully automatic function that is hard to beat. But considering what I already have, I think putting $3000+ toward a another cartridge since I just got a 2nd arm for my TW table would be a better deal right now. I can definitely see myself getting ADRC in the future. Too bad the earlier units had problems otherwise I would have gotten one already. I guess it is all in timing!!! |
A couple of years ago, I was going to get ADRC unit but held off second to problem with reliability and slow service of the early units. In the mean time, I found a local manufacturer who made me an ultrasonic bath big enough to submerge a whole LP with acrylic label cover to prevent label from getting wet. After a bit of experimentation, I left the heater off eventhough it supposes to work even better at 40-50C as I managed to bend one of the LPs while I was experimenting with the unit. I usually leave an LP in the bath for around 10 minutes and spray rinse it to get soapy water (bubbleless formula for use with ultrasonic bath) off then clean it one last time with my Clearaudio Matrix machine. Personally I never had static issue with my LPs since I use Furutech anti static fan regularly on my LP. I have no idea if ADRC is any better but at a fraction of the cost,ultrasonic bath is certainly well worth it and it is definitely better than using Clearaudio Matrix cleaner on its own. |
Yes - the friction created between the tube strips and LP... especially if one lets the cycle run too long as the record becomes dry = lots of static buildup. For the record, my points above regarding "proper ultrasonic cleaning" were gathered up from around the net researching the subject after becoming intrigued by the AudioDesk machine. Most hobbyist ultrasonic cleaning is discussed among car enthusiasts restoring old carburetors or watch collectors. It's possible that such objects are more difficult to clean given their complex structures (and in the case of engine parts - extreme grime and mess.) Thus, more care is needed to get good results. A vinyl LP - although decidedly more delicate - is a more simple structure to clean relatively speaking. There is also a rather healthy interest among DIYers experimenting with far less elegant and mostly manual versions of ultrasonic LP cleaning routines. In all these instances, getting proper cavitation to occur in the bath has required all sorts of experimentation -- all of which, I presume, Reiner has figure out on his own to get the brilliant results his design is getting (with little fuss or muss). All of this is fascinating - given how old this hobby is we are still finding ways to better extract more sound from those tiny grooves. What next? |
Cto007, as I said in my review the Vinyl Cleaner improves on the cleaning of the VPI with a Delrin tube instead of the normal plastic tube and visa versa. I suspect that it is differences in methods and fluids but nevertheless, using both is a better although untenable solution to cleaning records. Mike, I have never had a static problem with any of the multiple cleaning machines I've owned. Perhaps this is the humidity of Texas. |
interesting points, i don't know the science about ultrasonic cleaning so i can't comment on the still water and the heated water points, but i can tell you that records much prefer blow drying to vaccuum. vaccuum adds static, blow drying does not nearly to the same degree. big issue as far as dirt and dust attraction and calmness of that first play. i own the Loricraft, and did own the VPI 16.5 for many years, so i know how vacuuming affects play. one benefit of the Loricraft over the VPI is it's less intense vacuuming. and the AD has none so it's even better. |
Reiner Gläss of AudioDesk Systeme should be commended for his design of his Vinyl Cleaner in its unique ability to totally automate the record cleaning process - while still keeping the actual cleaning thorough and effective. IMHO, the above scenario is usually mutually exclusive in that automation and convenience often sacrifice performance and high performance sacrifices convenience, etc. To me, this is his major achievement. I've had the pleasure to experience the product in person several times and have been tempted to (find a way) to acquire one - or at least similar results. The critical accolades his AudioDesk Systeme Vinyl Cleaner (ADSvc) is getting right now (despite it being available for several years) is genuinely deserved - and as the first mover with a viable commercial concept is open to set his own price/profit margins relative to his R&D, bravery, etc. This happens in every industry. This brings us to the next inevitability - iteration, imitation, evolution and eventually the next/next thing. This also happens in every industry. So, on that note, there are several things in his design that I'm curious about - because, they seem to buck the general consensus of best practices established in ultrasonic cleaning in general. Most of the rule breaking can be observed here: 1 - The bath fluid should be degassed in the machine for 5-10 minutes prior to cleaning (the ADSvc doesn't have a degassing phase - such a phase simply requires running the machine with just your distilled water) 2 - The effectiveness of ultrasonic cleaning benefits from a heated bath (as far as I know, the AudioDesk product is not intentionally heated) 3 - The item to be cleaned should remain still in the bath (not only does his design have the LP constantly spinning at different speeds - there are roller brushes in full action for a majority of the bath cycle agitating the water) 4 - The amount of undisturbed time an item should remain in the bath should be relatively long (when compared to the exceptionally brief and "anything but still" minute that the ADSvc requires) 5 - No additional additive is required for effective bath water in the ultrasonic process (yet he has an additive - rumored to be some type of wetting agent/surfactant to aid in the drying process?) 6 - Finally, nothing is vacuumed. Simply dried with the ADSvc. This violates most known record cleaning concepts considered most effective up to now (Keith Monks, VPI, etc.). So, despite all of these transgressions from known "rules' for effective ultrasonic cleaning (or vinyl LP cleaning in general) -- this product is highly effective. So, what say you readers? I'm interested in the discussion. Cheers |
