2. analog
  3. 1322020048

Different Results between Record Cleaning Machines


The last thread on Record Cleaning Machines (RCMs) in 2009 covered the simple to the exotic in machinery.

RCMs haven't changed much since then, but AIVS has released 'Solution 15,' an enzyme cleaning solution, to augment their three bottle cleaning kit.

I have an older VPI RCM (the 16, not the 16.5). After cleaning with AIVS chemistry on my VPI my records, one Warner Brothers (Sweet Baby James), one RCA (Bridge Over Troubled Waters), both from 1970, didn't sound as quiet as the LPs cleaned on my friend's Loricraft using exactly the same chemistry and very similar technique. We noted a couple of things.

First, the stylus collected a *huge* amount of gunk --particularly from what was, at least chemically, a record cleaned with care, and according to AIVS instructions.

Second, after playing a couple of songs, we stopped, cleaned the stylus again, and played once more. The sound was drastically improved. Anyone have experience similar to this?

I'm a little skeptical about using an expensive TT, cartridge and stylus for auxiliary record cleaning.

Was it the 'gunk removal' that led to better sound with the second playback? Was the mold release compound coming off in globs with the needle carving its way down to the sound? Why was so much material caught on the stylus? And why didn't the RCM collect more of it?

Is the answer too obvious?

The VPI's vacuum motor is brand new. The table sounds like its bearings are arthritic when it rotates, but beside that, it turns with considerable torque.

Thanks in advance for any experience you might have about this.

At the moment I'm considering a Loricraft purchase. Anyone have a Lorcraft for sale?

Happy Thanksgiving,
cdk84

Showing 5 responses by markd51

markd51
763 posts
 
I have no definitive answers because I have not used every cleaning machine on the planet.

But I'll offer my 2 cents.

I have yet to come across a record, either brand spankin new, bought new, but have been in my personal collection for up to near 37 years of age, or the used unknown past history thrift finds dating from whenever, that I have found to gunk up my Stylus with a cleaning process involving either a 3, or 4-step AIVS process, and my VPI 16.5 RCM.

Only one period in time have I ever experienced such considerable gunk build-up on a Stylus (Benz Glider), years ago, and it was prior to owning an RCM, and it was with Records that I had treated with LAST Record Preservative.

Most of it simpky whisked away with a Stylus Brush, but at the time, I usually followed with LAST Stylus Cleaner to be sure.

At the present, and with a ZYX Airy 3, I never seen accumilations of gunk using the cleaning processes, and 16.5 machine I mention above. Never. Stylus maintainence has never been easier for me. Just a simple dunk or two into Magic Eraser ensures my Stylus stays as clean as the day I bought the ZYX Cartridge.

Something sounds amiss, either poor fluid pickup, or some oddball records that have been sprayed with Silicone Spray Lubricant, or such, that is proving almost impossible to remove? Mark
markd51
763 posts
 
From what you've written, the conclusions, and answers are these that I come to.

Since you state all other aspects of the cleaning processes, which are the exact same cleaners, and methods of application are the same, then the only variable is the fluid removal, meaning the RCM.

Yes, many state the Loricraft-Monks are superior machines, and perhaps they have a number of advantages versus any slotted wand type of fluid removal.

But I don't believe any properly working VPI RCM, or any other similar type of RCM that uses a similar design of fluid removal to be so substandard and flawed in their fluid removal efficiency to be causing what you're experiencing.

I suspect a flaw-fault with the vacuum operation of your machine. Perhaps the 16.5 upgrade kit may be of help? Still, I believe the Kit will still lack the baffled fluid recovery tank that modern VPI RCMs have.

Can you elaborate more about your machine's operation?
markd51
763 posts
 
If you are considering the Loricraft as an upgrade, it certainly is a very fine machine. I strongly doubt that any here, such as my friend Doug Deacon, would retrograde from his Loricraft back to any wand style RCM.

The Loricraft I understand takes some knowledge to understand its operational features, which I have read Doug write about here (search the archives). Understanding the machine will no doubt be beneficial to extracting its best performance.

Still, I'll defend the VPI 16.5, or others similar to, either from VPI, or others like Clearaudio, that with the proper cleaning products, and techniques such issues as you have experienced should not be happening.

Hard to say where the shortcomings are, but as I understand about the older VPI model 16 RCM, the Wand is attached-glued to the Lid of the Machine. That it is possible you are losing vacuum pressure from a poor seal-fit of parts with this older Vacuum Wand design?

All newer VPI Machines use a vacuum wand assembly that has a good fit tolerance, for better vacuum suction with very little vacuum leakage, if any.

Others, such as the Clearaudio Smart Matrix-Smart Matrix Pro is a very nicely made machine.
markd51
763 posts
 
From your descriptions, all sound well.

One thing that is an unkonwn to me, as I never seen the inside of a model 16 machine, is where, and how the vacuum motor is positioned-situated within the machine, and by how and what means does the vacuum motor cause suction at the vacuum wand?

At least with the model 16.5, the priciple is basically simple, you have a vacuum motor butted up against one side of a baffled recovery tank, and in essence the vacuum wand at the other. There is a foam rubber seal on the 16.5 RCM, where the vacuum motor face butts up against the recovery tank. If this goes bad, which it can over time, proper sealing will be compromised, there will be a loss of vacuum pressure, and as well possible fluid leakage may occur at this area.

With my 16.5, basically all the fluids are off the record within one revolution. I do another revolution as insurance.

And as many others have found, more revolutions than 2 usually accomplish nothing more than than building a static charge due to a now dry wand rubbing the record's surface.

About the only other unknown I can think of mentioning, was what records did you note this with? Was this with just a few records that were used, that you've noticed this just lately, and only one occasion, or does this seem to be the norm, no matter what records you throw at your machine?

I ask this because records coming from some unknown source could possibly have been cleaned, and treated with something very stubborn to remove.

And that a repeat cleaning again had been the possible cause of positive results? Mark
markd51
763 posts
 
No question about that Syntax, simplest way out with a VPI 16.5, acquire a cheap set of headphones like one would use at the Gun Range. And isolate yourself somewhere where you disturb no one else.

My own VPI 16.5, with its mods is pictured on Osage Audio-AIVS's site, under "RCM Museum. Adding a 4" hole in the back of mine, to add a Cooling Fan made the machine even louder yet. And trying Dynamat did nothing but probably add another 5 lbs of weight to an already heavy machine.

Thin blanket insulation lining the inside of cabinet probably would've been more beneficial, but doubtful if the machine's roar would be dropped by more than a few db at best.

About the only solution, would be to totally isolate the vac motor, and relegate it to a seperate cabinet underneath the machine.

As I understand it, some type of highly specialized vacuum motor that would be quiet, will also likely be costly as well.

VPI had to make a number of decisions, to market an affordable machine to the masses (16.5) that had a vac motor that was powerful, yet easily obtainable, and relatively inexpensive.

Thus the vac motors (Ametek-Lamb) are virtually identical to what you'll find in commercial Shop Vacs, or commercial walk behind Floor Scrubbing Machines, and it's why they sound quite similar.
More to discover