Dan,
You've seen our clean-me-now pile in the LR and that's barely a tenth of it.
As Peter says, for throughput compared with wand style machines, a Loricraft can be part of the problem, but not part of the solution. Vacuuming alone takes ~1 minute per sweep X 6 sweeps/side. If speed is your goal don't count on a thread style machine to help. If I ever want to hear all our records I may need to hire somebody! :-(
We've yet to find a magic bullet to shorten our process to < ~15 minutes/side without impacting results. We'd hoped steaming might replace our 5 minute enzyme soak. No luck, and there's no other step in our process it could replace that would save any time.
Of our ~15 minutes, 6 are consumed by vacuum sweeps and 5 by the enzyme soak. Applying the other 4 fluids takes only ~1 minute/each. I don't include demagging, predusting and resleeving times, since those steps can be done whilst another LP is on the RCM.
Agree with Sonofjim that it's all about personal preference, both for cleanliness levels and for what makes sense to each of us. I'm sure Markd and Hdm are correct that wand style machines can be effective if used with intelligence and care. A thread style machine makes it a easier and largely foolproof to vacuum really well, though certainly at a cost in money and some extra minutes/side.
The Audiodesk machine Peter mentioned once interested me. 100 LPs in 8 hours with minimal user involvement is tempting. I once spent a similar period to do just 36 LPs, and with fewer solutions than we use now. It took my entire attention for a whole day, woo-hoo! Unfortunately, from operational information provided by the dealer and direct comparisons reported by an owner, it's apparent the Audiodesk cannot clean as well as our current process.
Again, it's our choice to insist on maximal information retrieval as against convenience. We only listen to 3 records, but d@amn they sound good! :-^)
|
Randy,
We use a handheld small tools demagnifier, sold through industrial supply houses. There are many out there, ours cost ~$65 IIRC.
I'm reluctant to post a link because ours was TOO cheap (a product of China, and not their best work). It gets hot very quickly if leave it plugged in, even with the switch "off". It has a thermal shutoff but we don't trust it. I wouldn't want to help anyone burn down their house.
That said, it operates like Peter's. Both work on the same principle as the Furutech: pretty powerful electromagnets. By not spending $2K we have to provide the slow circular motion and gradual distancing from the LP (or silver disc) but it works very well.
Sonic effects are as Peter described, and gray scale improvements on DVD's are visible and measurable with Digital Video Essentials.
We A/B'd ours against the much less powerful $200 Walker Talisman and the $65 cheapie outperformed it easily.
|
Thanks, Dan.
It's acted this way since new and Paul replaced the (incredibly shoddy) stock switch ages ago. It made no improvement. Maybe his "better" replacement switch, ain't.
Guess we should have hired an EE! Can you recommend an audiophile grade switch for less than the cost of a Furutech? ;-)
|
FWIW in response to some points made above:
1. We've owned and used a PRC3 for 5-6 years. In all that time I have only once had the thread bind up in the tube. That was less than a year after we bought the machine and I blame operator error. We've had no such problems for years.
2. We've tried steaming, using a device like the ones often recommended on this forum. Maybe it was operator error again, but the results were miles behind what we get from our 4-step AIVS regimen. Someone said Lloyd Walker is a perfectionist and so are we. Steaming didn't come anywhere close to producing acceptable results for us, though it certainly was faster.
3. The Clearaudio solution doesn't match the performance of the AIVS solutions we use, regardless of the RCM you vacuum them with. Koegz's experience that his Clearaudio D.M. worked better than his Loricraft PRC4 was therefore based on different performance criteria than ours.
4. The ultimate test of vinyl cleanliness is not how quiet your surfaces are. One can eliminate clicks and pops with many different methods using many different machines, but that's only the first step. Much harder than that is getting the grooves clean enough so that a very revealing system can reproduce all the low-level information in them. Anyone who touts a cleaning method or machine based on how quiet their surfaces are is not listening at the highest levels. Their statements must be considered in that context.
5. Never tried the Clearaudio RCM's, but as pointed out above the demonstrably inferior physics of slot vacuuming and the constant battle against contaminated felts make them a non-starter for us. No doubt they're faster and if it does a good enough job for some, that's great. To each his own.
|
Walker does recommend treating LPs with the Talisman prior to each play. We didn't have it long enough to test how fast the effects wear off, but if even the manufacturer says so...
Furutech claims that using their Demag once should last indefinitely. Not having one, we've never tested. I've been too lazy to repeat treat an LP with our doohickey and listen for further improvements. Should we schedule a double-blind demagging party?
|
Ditto. I don't allow strong electromagnets anywhere near my cartridges or any other gear. It doesn't get used on the platform of my Loricraft either. Demagging the motor or magnetic arm clutch seemed like a poor idea.
One minor diff: per instructions from some mad scientist we demag LPs *before* cleaning on the untested but seemingly reasonable and probably harmless hypothesis that this might reduce the tendency of some grunge to adhere to the vinyl. Quite speculative, but I sleep better. ;-)
|
... astounded with the improvement in clarity and dynamics Yup. Dan's steam cleaned LP yesterday sounded dull, flat and boring. Yet this was a new 45rpm Blue Note reissue that ought to have sounded at least decent. Actual enzyme soak time was probably ~10 minutes but that was an accident. We were eating dinner and enjoying friends (Hi Sunnyboy!) and I forgot it for a while. Normally I soak ~5 minutes and that's usually enough. The improvement in Dan's LP was startling if you weren't expecting it. Paul and I had heard 100 variations of that "almost clean" dullness during our record cleaning trials so I was pretty confident. Happily, we brought a boring record to life! |
Dan,
In our experience, the majority of LP's have some amount of that blurring veil. We agree that it behaves exactly like a thin layer of some contaminant (or lubricant) and it's difficult to remove.
"Was it the enzymes or was it the extra soak?"
In our experience it's the enzymes. We tried scrubbing and soaking many LP's with multiple non-enzyme fluids (AIVS and others) to no avail. It was always the enzyme step that did the trick. If they aren't used first that veiling layer isn't "loosened" enough for other fluids to work. Unfortunately, enzymes require extended soak times. Unavoidable but certainly a bummer.
Since most LP's have such a layer we clean every one with the full regimen, starting with AIVS #1 Enzymatic. For us it feels faster to do it well the first time than to hope a shortcut will suffice, then end up recleaning anyway. (Been there, tried that, hated it.)
***
Completely agree with Mark that more effective fluids and *some* RCM, well used, will outclean less effective fluids and a "better" RCM. By definition, a less effective fluid is one that doesn't dissolve or suspend all contaminants. With such a fluid the record won't be clean no matter how well we vacuum it, though it will be really, really dry.
***
We use AIVS #15 as a pre-clean step for especially dirty looking records (which we never intentionally buy, but one slips in now and then). It works well. Others use it instead of Enzymatic or even instead of #1, 2 and 3, following only with a pure water rinse or two. We signed up for the full masochistic plan long ago and now we're too old to change. ;-)
|
Dev, glad you're seeing the benefits so quickly. Seeing that muck in the jar from previously "cleaned" or new LP's is indeed an eye opener.
Hopefully it'll be an ear opener too.
What I do to keep the tube clear is put the nozzle off the back of the machine, sucking air, and leave the vacuum running while I'm applying the next fluid (not during the long enzyme soak, just for the quicker fluids). I've not had any buildup in the tube in years.
|
