Clearaudio Double Smart Matrix or Loricraft PRC4

Yeah, guess I stated the obvious. :-) It is funny that this subject usually causes all kinds of heartburn which lead to one of the pointless arguments. These days I see mention of demagnetizing LPs and I don't even think twice about it.

Dan and Doug,

Do you guys demag your LP's once only or do you notice additional demags are needed over time? Could it be like the Cardas Frequency Sweep I use for my cartridge every week or two but less often?

We could start a separate Demag thread and really raise some eyebrows.

Peter,

I think Doug found that with the Talisman repeat demags are necessary, and maybe Walker advertises it as so. So far, with the stronger magnet, I have not found it necessary to repeat the demag on any LPs.

I do also pull my tubes and cables every 6 months or so to clean and demag them. That actually may be too long of a time between demags of the cables. I haven't really experimented with it.

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?

Peter, Doug and Dan ... one more question ... do you demag on the RCM platter after you've cleaned each side of the LP or elsewhere? Just trying to visualize the most efficient production line. Thanks again.

Randy, I take the cleaned LP off of my rcm and lay it my pool table well away from my system, especially my cartridge. I clean, then demag, then slide into a new sleeve.

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. ;-)

Yes, I agree. I demag up on my third floor, two floors away from the cartridge, speaker magnets etc. The device picks up the screws under my wood floor and buzzes. Scary stuff, but this is a crazy hobby at times.

A demag party sounds fun.

Thanks, Guys! I'll drink to that!

Some general information for the lazy User. I am one of those with RCM. My experience the last 12 years with cleaning fluids (please notice, I don't write what is good, better, best, I don't know all fluids). I started 12 years ago with a VPI 16.5 and the VPI cleaning fluid. It is a concentrate. Later I read a lot about home made fluids and the rip off pricing from commercial fluids and I tried my own stuff. In a lot of mixes, I had contact to Audiophiles, we talked endless about how many parts of "this" in "that" and it was a good time.
Years later I got a Keith Monks and was impressed how much more information I was able to hear after cleaning with this kind of Design (Point nozzle). I went ahead with fluids, I bought real expensive ones and after years I realized, no matter what I do, some records won't get silent. Well, to make a long story short, when the vinyl has problems (cooling process, noisy vinyl), I could do everything, it got a bit better, but far away from the results I had with the old vinyl from pre 1990.
Last year I thought, no matter what I use and no matter how good the RCM is, sometimes it is the way it is. Waste of time.
I gave up this Cleaning Fluid Odyssey and went back to the cheap stuff, the one from VPI. and my results are as great as with 10x more expensive fluids.
And I like the results. It is clean.
And those which still have tics, pops have it even after 10 cleaning runs.
That's the way it is.

Ok, ok. Once again my words have been ripped from my mouth and feed back to me in large chunks. :-)

Steam isn't doing as much for me as I thought. It may have helped some used records but I'm back on the soaking band wagon. Doug soaked my previously cleaned, LP for at least 15 minutes with the AIVS enzyme cleaner and the results proved without a doubt that my current, faster regimen is not cutting it. I'm not quite ready to spring for a Loricraft, but I am going back to the slow, soaking method.

Looks like I won't be cutting into that backlog anytime soon. :-)

Dan,

Your report rings sad but true in my experience. I soak new and used but fairly clean LPs for 10-15 min. with the AIVS enzyme cleaner that Doug uses and I'm astounded with the improvement in clarity and dynamics. I have done this demo for two audio buddies and they, too, heard the dramatic effect. I'm afraid it takes time to soak and clean LPs.

To be fair, I have not done a controlled experiment with many cleaners and a wand-type vacuum versus my Loricraft, but I can say the AIVS/Loricraft combo is certainly more effective than my old L'Art du Son/VPI16.5 combo.

... 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!

Peterayer,
And I will still revert back to the last paragraph on my first post on 7-10-10 in this thread, where I said my VPI 16.5 with AVIS Cleaning products will give better results than a $4,000 Loricraft, or a $5200 Clearaudio Double Matrix with lesser cleaners.

I'll still stand behind this statement with no doubt. And as Dan_Ed's discovered, even the steaming has proven less promising than at first thought.

I can forsee some having to "run back to the drawing board" so to speak, just as I once read Doug D. having to do in the past. Meaning an entire collection may have to be gone through again, but the results would probably proove worthy, just as Doug had found.

Thankfully, for somebody like Doug, with all his hands on research, testing, and learning from his experiences, both good, and the not so good, this man has saved me a considerable amount of time, and money from investigating other cleaners on the market. I thank him for placing me on a good path with RCM's, and Cleaners-Rinses.

I know I'm going to sound like a commerical, or shill, but I'm unsure if any of you have tried AVIS's new #15 Pre-Cleaner. I have no affiliation with AIVS, other than being a totally satisfied customer of his products.

I've found this product even more effective as a first step cleaner, it seems to work more quickly, works more efficiently, and is one fine, outstanding product. I highly recommend trying this one, and adding it to your arsenal. You won't be diappointed on how this one works. Mark

Mark,
I was not aware of the AVIS #15. Is it used before the enzyme soak or instead of it? How would you describe one versus the other?

Regarding your stance that the VPI 16.5 with the 4-step AVIS gives better results than a "$4000 Loricraft ...with lesser cleaners" I have no doubt. I'm curious to know if, given the use of the AVIS cleaners, which type of RCM - wand type vs. point nozzle - works better. I have not made a direct comparison, but I would gues that the Loricraft would outperform the VPI 16.5 in absolute terms. Time, effort and cost are another matter.

I, too, am most appreciative for the information I have learned from reading Doug Deacon's many posts about analog, including the Magic Eraser discovery.

Peterayer,

The best way I can describe AIVS #15 PreCleaner, it is like the Enzymatic Formula on Steroids.

As far as I can tell, no Alcohols are in this product, and I was told it contains not one, but two broadband vegetable based Enzymes.

As I understand it, the #15 PreCleaner can be used as a replacement for the Enzymatic Formula, or in conjunction with the Enzymatic Formula as a following-next step.

The #15 can also be used as well as a first step in a two step cleaning process, and then followed by AIVS #6 One Step Cleaner.

As suggested by Osage Audio, it states #15 PreCleaner is not to be used all by itself as a cleaner.

I myself seem to find a 4-step AIVS process works best on all my records, old, or new, using #15, the Enzymatic Formula, the Super Cleaner, and then lastly, the AIVS Pure Water Rinse.

As Doug states, and I concur, on average, a 5 minute application, and soak seeems just about right with all steps preceeding the Pure Water Rinse.

As for the contest-battle of the RCM's, the Loricraft vs VPI method of fluid removal, I cannot personally give the lowdown, having never used the Loricraft, or any other String Feed Nozzle Type Machine.

Advantages, and disadvantages with both machines-methods I'd assume.

I think Doug is more experienced in that regard, having used-owned both. I would probably recieve no flak, saying that the VPI 16.5 is the "best of the cheap". And the most convenient in the lesser expensive RCMs in this price range.

The new Clearaudio Smart Matrix is in another class, with better build construction, better quality of parts consist than the VPI 16.5, and at twice the price, it should be.

I'd still have to say, it's undeniable, that Harry W/VPI still puts out the best bang for the buck, price king RCM on the market, the VPI 16.5.

Some may argue that, in regards to price, as there are many Nitty Gritty Fans.

I personally like the fact that the VPI has a Platter, on which I can easily apply Fluids, no need to move-flip records for vacuuming, that gravity is on my side to let Fluids sit, and soak as needed, before one chooses to remove. A simple swing of the Vacuum armwand, hit two power switches, and the fluid removal is done in two revolutions of Platter.

As for Doug Deacon, I've been following his personal advice, and reading his posts here for a number of years.

Doug IMO, has always been the voice of unbiased logic, sensibility, and wisdom-knowledge. Mark

What I find most interesting about this particular LP is that the enzymes seem to have been working on some contaminant. This was a recently opened pressing from the Music Matters series of Curtis Fuller's The Opener. Was it the enzymes or was it the extended soak? I don't know. I'm just bummed about the extra time involved.

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. ;-)

Yes, I used to use a similar regimen. I think I got lucky on a few records, adopted a short cut, and then sang myself to sleep. So to speak. :-)

Update, received my new Loricraft PRC4 w/walnut veneer last week.

Nice looking pce, over all very happy with the fit and finish and it's so easy to use. Allot quieter than my friends PRC3, does a great job. I like being able to have options of how I decide to clean my records and with all the info. on this thread provides me with such THX!

Congratulations, Dev. I have the PRC4 in cherry. It's a great machine, but my stack of uncleaned LPs is growing because I spend all my time listening and not cleaning. One word of caution: if you follow the advice in the manual and suck up one spoonful of alcohol at the end of each cleaning session to keep the tubes clean, beware of dripping the alcohol on the record mat. I found that the chemicals in the AVIS or the alcohol turns the black mat slightly lighter. Mine is now very uneven in color, but the functionality is unchanged.

Peterayer thx, I decided to just use distilled water and a little more than the spoonful. My thought is all this product already being inside the tubes so using the distilled water should flush it out doing the job.

After exsperiencing the over all sonic difference along with seeing the crud in the jar and all from new recordings well it's a no brainer for me, nothing gets played until cleaned. Knowing and seeing what I have now I would not want to put my stylus on any record unless cleaned.

This thread serves a lot of good information. You will find the solution which works best for your collection. For saving time, try AIVS No.6 or the new MoFi cleaner. You know, there are differences.... :-)

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.

Dougdeacon, thx for the tip for keeping the tube clear I will do that.

It's a no brainer regarding what I heard in my set-up, I did not go to the extent of what you have described in cleaning but will.

I'm shocked with all the crud on "new records", my stylus will never be put through that abuse again.

Update;

I'm lovin my unit, it does a great job even though I do not enjoy cleaning.

My collection has grown substantially to a few hundred now, still not even close to what most of you have.

Update;

I have truely enjoyed the TW-Acustic Raven One table so I have moved up the line and have on it's way their Raven AC3, looking forward to it.

My VAC Sig. MKIIa full function pre, so happy with it that I have decided to pull the trigger and get their Statement 450 mono blocks.