Thanks for mentioning the Versa-Clean. I just ordered it to compare to the mix of Everclear and Photo-flo that I’m using in my Elmasonic P. After a 20 minute ultrasonic bath I rinse/vac with distilled water and TergiKleen on a VPI 16.5. This evacuates and dries the LP so well that I don’t feel a need for more rinsing or steam.
Thumbs up for ultrasonic record cleaning
My Cleaner Vinyl ultrasonic record cleaner arrived today and it’s impressive.
Everything I’d read indicated that ultrasonic was the way to go, and now I count myself among the believers. Everything is better - records are quieter, less ticks and pops, more detail etc.
All my records had been previously cleaned with a vacuum record cleaner and were well cared for. Nonetheless, the difference is obvious and overwhelmingly positive.
Phil
Everything I’d read indicated that ultrasonic was the way to go, and now I count myself among the believers. Everything is better - records are quieter, less ticks and pops, more detail etc.
All my records had been previously cleaned with a vacuum record cleaner and were well cared for. Nonetheless, the difference is obvious and overwhelmingly positive.
Phil
373 responses Add your response
@terry9, Sorry for the delay. In terms of SQ, I cannot tell a difference. I do steam beforehand. I think my heroic pre-clean method needs to be a factor in my posted results here. I believe your "heroic" rinsing is still a big key in SQ after a US clean. I doubled the Versa-Clean after I wrote the post above to my latest water. I have not noticed any SQ differences. After adding the Photo-Flo, I noticed a completely dry record after lifting it out of the bath and letting it spin for a very short time. I feel trying the additional steaming after the US cleaning is a waist of effort. I get a better SQ result from a warm rinse from my kitchen sink tap water/sprayer , then a rinse of distilled water, then a final distilled water rinse/vacuum on my VPI 16.5, the a De-Stat. @bdp24 , I guess the appropriate discussion for music is elsewhere, but I agree with MF regarding the SQ= around an 8 on the PC lp which is alright. |
I like the Kirmuss Audio cleaner because it uses a lower frequency (35Khz), lower temperature (95 degrees), common fluid (distilled water and a touch of alcohol), proper spacing for cleaning (Cleaner Vinyl Pro stack doesn’t permit cavitation bubbles to enter deep between records), does shellac 78s and 45s as well as 2 LPs at a time and cavitation to occur beneath and away from the records (not blasted at the surface like one $4500 machine). It doesn’t have scrubbing felt/brushes or other surfaces rather just a slight grip from lips to hold the record in place while it spins. It’s $800 for a fully finished machine. It does not dry but also doesn’t add static or dry dirt back to the surfaces. Plus, the low cost of water/surfactant allows for no filtration and just refilling after a dozen washes. Terry9-I think your method of US is using 10 C degree too hot water and 100% too high a cavitation frequency. Maybe that’s why you can’t hear the difference on 3-6 posting; however you state you did see and hear the difference using this method on 2-6 post. |
I have about 25,000 LPs. I've noticed that the LPs I cleaned 20 to 30 years ago using a stiff brush and Torumat fluid on a VPI 16.5 sound as good and clean as when I first cleaned them. I'm playing them on a VPI VI/SME IV (mod)/Benz Ruby 3. No increase in surface noise even after 100 playings of several of them. Clean stylus and clean records make both last a long time. |
I built my own cleaner on the design of a drive thro car wash system. I am a aero modeller/flier so have lots of servos/materials and tools. Its basically a rectangular tub with a horizontal spindle and lock for the record disk. I have two (one for each side of the record) high pressure jets (tubes of aluminium drilled with tiny holes) to blast the surface of the disk. The lid of the unit covers the disk to the lower part of the label so it doesn't get saturated (after bit of experimenting and lost labels later). I pump distilled water under high pressure to blast the grit and muck from the record for 2 minutes and then the timer servo switches off the water and then blasts filtered air for one minute the dry the disk surface. A second timer signals the procedure is finished. No chemicals, no mess other than to empty the drain tank underneath when a float contact says its full. The whole cleaning blast area is 1/4 the record area. They come out nice, clean and dry. Amazing what a bit of tinkering will do and watching drive through car washers. |
I've been experimenting with USC in the past few month, having cleaned about 30-40 2nd hand classical Lp's so far. I've added USC as a second stage after my regular Okki Nokki vacuum cleaning. I must say it has not been so far such an epiphany to me as it seems to others, rather incremental. The biggest disappointment is that it does not seem to reduce clicks&pops, sometimes making them even more pronounced, probably due to quieting the background. I'm quite sensitive to clicks as I'm listening on high efficient Stax headphones, so all is in my ears. Whats it does seem to do, provided I use right chemistry (see below), is increase of micro and macro dynamics, and detail retrieval (so perhaps all the clicks I hear are due to permanent vinyl damage). On some LP's the sound becomes more direct which is a big plus for me. Here is the hardware and procedures I use: GT Sonic 6L 150W 40kHz machine + 1um filter+ 1rpm motor for rotation. I clean at most 3 Lp's at the time as evenly spaced as possible. I can clearly see the standing waves between the vinyls. Currently I'm using 5% IPA + 0.05% Tergitol S7, which is available in Poland albeit v expensive. This Tergitol concentration is recommended by the archivists and the solution is already foaming. I was afraid to use the higher 0.13% concentration as recommended elsewhere after my failure with PhotoFlo. I used it instead of the Tergitol and it was giving me unpleasantly "plasticky" sound despite a mandatory 2 step rinse on the vacuum machine. Had to US rinse all vinyls I cleaned with it and clean all that had contact, incl. the tank, the filter, brushes, etc. The procedure is: *1 step vacuum: Apply the above solution, let it soak for 5mins, biderectional scrub, vacuum. *USC: 60% power 40kHz, 32-33C, 15mins (first degass for 10mins, filter before the batches) *2 step vac rinse: First high purity DI water then 3% ethanol I've once heard opinion that alcohol dries vinyl surface and one can never get rid of pops&clicks. I tried just DI water USC too but no real change and Tergitol softens the cavitation action at 40kHz, lowering the surface tension. I'm thinking of investing in a second 80kHz tank to see if the more refined cavitation would improve. Perhaps my initial vac + scrub is quite efficient in removing what's easy to remove. Cheers, b |
As a follow up, directions I'm considering: *80kHz tank since I use it as the 2nd stage and 80kHz process is more penetrating but gentler *slower motor; anyone knows of a cheap 1/3rpm or so motors in EU? 230V synchro would be the best *submicron filter - are carbon filters good? would they not filter out also the chemical solution out of the water? |
I’ve been following this thread for some time now, very interesting reading and thanks to all the contributors. Some observations: I owned one of the original AD US cleaners and was not impressed with the results or the build quality. I replaced it with a KLAudio KD-CLN-LP200 with (IMO) much better build quality, but still unimpressive results. I’ve looked at the DIY machines and have been reading everything I can get my hands on wrt to US technology. There seems to be a considerable difference between low frequency US cleaners (28kHz) and higher frequency (80-100kHz), the former used primarily as industrial cleaners (car parts, large metal components etc), the latter used for more delicate structures, especially fine jewelry. The cleaning action is created by the collapse of the cavitation bubbles which can create extremely high pressure (10’s of Mpa) and high temps (5000°C), but on a very small scale, determined by the size of the bubbles: The lower the frequency, the larger the bubbles and the more concentrated the released energy. On high power, low frequency US machines, this process can be so aggressive the sides of the stainless steel tank are subject to etching. I was curious about this, so I did some measurements on my KLAudio RCM which is assumed to be 40kHz. It actually runs at 34.72kHz which would seem to be more aggressive, almost midway between 28 and 40kHz. There was a frequency adjustment pot, and I monitored the AC power being consumed as I adjusted the pot. Increasing the frequency lowered the power consumption and lowering it increased the power; at 33kHz, it went from 200W to almost 350W. The power consumption also changed drastically between running the cleaner with and without a record (200W with vs 150W without) indicating that the load seen by the transducers affect power consumption and the load changes with mass, density and distance from transducers. So my question is this: With so many variables affecting the performance and operating parameters of the US process (temp, surface tension, power, frequency, cavitation efficiency), how does one know what they are really getting and what they are doing to the record surface (not only whether it is effectively being cleaned, but whether it is being damaged in the process)? |
With persistent clicks and pops, I don’t find that the 80khz setting on my Elmasonic P improves on a 38kHz cycle. Try 20 minutes at 40-45C and 100% power, with a 1:30 concentration of Fisher Versaclean instead of Iso. Some records with stubborn clicks and pops just won’t clean up. Sometimes the pops seem reduced in amplitude. |
gbanderhoos I replaced it with a KLAudio KD-CLN-LP200 with (IMO) much better build quality, but still unimpressive results ...That’s interesting. I’ve had outstanding results with the Klaudio. It may not be the best device for extremely dirty LPs such as you might find at a yard sale. For them, I think the right fluid and a vacuum machine might be the best first step. But for everything else it works very well, imo. What could be more impressive than a pristine clean disc? ... how does one know what they are really doing to the record surface (not only whether it is effectively being cleaned, but whether it is being damaged in the process)?If the record looks clean, and the phono cartridge stylus is clean after playing the LP, I’m satisfied that the US cleaner was effective. Because LPs almost always sound better after a cycle through the Klaudio, I can’t imagine how the cleaner could have caused damage in any way. The few LPs I’ve heard that may not sound better after being cleaned in the Klaudio were clean to start with. They sound about the same after a pass through the Klaudio. |
@bydlo After many cleanings, I’ve set aside a few problem records for continuing experiments. Some of these were improved after transitioning from ISO to Versaclean. The 80kHz cycle didn’t seem to make a difference, though I like that its reduced power doesn’t increase the bath temperature as fast as the 38kHz action. As long as you don’t allow the LP to sit still in the bath, don’t be afraid of cleaning at 45C. I’ve had some luck spinning problem LPs in the hot tub for an hour or so at 45C prior to engaging the pulse cycle. It’s likely that the vinyl expands and contracts repeatedly as it spins in and out of a hot bath, loosening debris over time that is then pounded out during the subsequent pulse cycle. However, after all is said and done, some clicks and pops are deemed record defects. As a general rule I give every new record a cleaning, on the theory that it is better not to grind in debris with even a single pass of the stylus. However, I’ll usually pass on the pre-cleaning with MoFi and Analog Productions-- and with impeccable pressings like Rhino’s recent Donald Fagen Cheap Xmas box set. |
@gbanderhoos-you raise some interesting points, starting with the actual operating frequency of your KL. I wonder how much variability there is among units in the field? We are told that 40Khz doesn’t cause damage, at least for relatively short duration at fairly high rotational speeds (AD, KL); most of the DIY set ups seem to rotate at a lower speed, and for longer cleaning times, no? (I have only owned the AD and KL, but am aiming for a DIY when the KL goes, mainly for operational flexibility rather than low cost). I prefer point nozzle vac drying to forced air or passive air drying since I think it does a better job of removing the vestiges of contamination and fluid. I learned pretty quickly that the commercial US machines intended for LP did not clean challenged records that could get clean using AIVS No. 15, some vigorous agitation, pure water rinse, sometimes repeating the process, and then employing the US, with a final rinse and vacuum using high purity water. I pre-clean any used record (and a few new ones that are obvious dirty) before going into the ultrasonic, using a Monks, and high purity rinse. I only find a deposit of very fine grit in the KL tank from new records that have not been pre-cleaned. As for damage, I suppose you could test using a blank LP, examine for pitting, etc.-a point raised by a vendor of new cleaning service who opted for 80khz transducers run at low power (Perfect Vinyl Forever, who has recently been posting about his equipment and methods on various fora). I’ve certainly heard no evidence of damage, which would be one good way to discern--most revealing to me are the results I get from a record cleaned both by conventional (fluid/vacuum/rinse/vacuum) and US, sometimes repeated conventional cleanings using AIVS No. 15 and reagent grade 1 rinse--where the record initially exhibits low level noise, raspiness, tracing distortion-often associated with groove damaged records. These can in many cases, not all, clean up to be quiet players. Once I clean a record using combined methods and it plays well, I don’t re-clean or do follow up re-cleans. I’ve also had records that I cleaned decades ago using a VPI and who knows what fluid at the time (I tried several including some home brews) that play beautifully today. I’ve also been reliably informed that using a surfactant in the US enhances the cavitation effect dramatically. Perhaps using a surfactant reduces the need for lower frequency, higher power and reduces the potential risk of damage, I don’t know. I found the earlier AD to be kludgey in operation, the KL of course doesn’t permit the use of additives as far as I know, thus my aim for a DIY which permits use of a surfactant. |
@whart - Thanks for your thoughtful response. The general consensus seems to be that US RCMs do not cause any damage; I suspect that if any microscopic changes (damage) are occurring, it is subtle, random, isolated and cumulative, possibly evading detection via listening tests for several cycles. I also suspect that given the number of variables, the amount of cleansing action (and by extension, over cleaning and possible damage) varies greatly with each application. I doubt that damage would be heard as an average degradation across the entire LP, but would be random and very limited until it became severe enough. My thought process is to better understand the mechanics of US cleaning in order to optimize the cleaning process while minimizing the potential for damage. My impression after reading this thread (and others) is that few people using these devices fully understand what is occurring and are relying on mfrs specs and hoping for the best. My impression of the electronics driving the KLAudio transducers is that of a very simplistic approach, adjusting one important parameter (frequency) in order to obtain a desired specification (power) without fully optimizing the process. Some of the industrial tanks vary the frequency and therefore the power to create "waves" of transmitted energy to improve the cleaning process. While the average power may be 150W, the peak power could be many times higher. The KLAudio machine maintains constant frequency, but the DC supply to the output transistors is essentially unfiltered rectified line voltage so the transducers "pulse" at 100/120Hz with peak power ~280W. FYI, I use both IPA and surfactant (tergitol) in my KLAudio RCM for the past 2 years. I know it voids the warranty, but so far, I have not experienced any bad side effects. I also vacuum the records after cleaning with an Okki Noki. |
@bydlo - i have not added any surfactant/detergent to the water since I’ve been using the KL. When I got it, I was using Reagent Grade 1, which seemed to be a waste of money. Now I just use distilled in the US, but for a finish rinse on valuable or challenged records, I’ll use the Reagent Grade 1 and vacuum on the Monks. As mentioned, when the KL goes, my plan is to try a DIY approach, largely b/c of the feature set, which includes the ability to use a surfactant to enhance cavitation effect. For now, I just change out the bath water every thirty records, even though most of them have been precleaned. (Yeah, I’m a little compulsive, but I don’t have a filtering system hooked up to the KL). Not to open a can of worms- I think this was discussed earlier in this thread- but the idea of alcohol and ultrasonic makes me a little nervous. I gather most of you are using only a small amount. Since I haven’t mixed any chemistry for ultrasonic, I can’t contribute to a meaningful discussion about what alcohol adds. I know in the old days, using vacuum, alcohol was commonly part of the cleaning fluid. I don’t think it is a terribly good solvent. Perhaps it is the evaporative properties. (I’m not concerned about damage to the vinyl since I think the exposure to the plastic is limited, but the flash point does concern me). Maybe I’m a nervous nelly. There have been some good suggestions here on different chemistry. I use an lab grade detergent to clean my lab dishware which can be used in an ultrasonic machine. It isn’t very expensive. 1 part per 100 or 200 is recommended. It foams like crazy when I am hand washing the various glass I use hold brushes, and mix one of my RCM fluids (Hannl concentrate, which I dilute with the reagent water). I think there's a little Walter White in all of us. :) |
@whart That's what I thought - KL discourages use of any add-ons no? Honestly, I'm sticking with alcohol just by some inertia. I like it for its grease dissolving properties. Also as far as I understand, it actually makes the 40kHz cavitation gentler by lowering water's surface tension. Having said that, next tank solution I'm gonna try will be just water + 0.05% Tergitrol, excactly as used by the Congress Library and see if I get less clicks n pops. I also tried pure water US but I'm a bit afraid it may be too aggressive plus I like the Tergitol solvent properties. |
@fleschler You say, "I think your method of US is using 10 C degree too hot water and 100% too high a cavitation frequency. Maybe that’s why you can’t hear the difference on 3-6 posting; however you state you did see and hear the difference using this method on 2-6 post." The one posting was about a routine involving 2 records at inadequate spacing, temperature, and rinsing. Improving these helped. The other posting was an experiment to explicitly test the hypothesis that one record would be damaged (it wasn't). The differences were: more energy per record and very high temperature on one sector of the record in the test, higher temperature on the bulk of the record and better rinsing for the routine cleaning. Don't quite see how you conclude that 45C is too hot and US frequency is 100% too high. Also, don't quite see how this explains the results. Cleaning efficiency vs frequency is graphed on the DIYAUDIO thread, if you are interested. |
@dgarretson I prefer the 80KHz setting because of the graph of cleaning efficiency vs frequency on DIYAUDIO, although I cannot say that I’ve found a reliably detectable difference. Just a theoretical one! The big thing is that the wavelength is much smaller, so that there is plenty of room for the wave to develop on all sides, so no disappointing surprises when you play that record in 6 months time. Also, 80KHz is quieter. And as you note, it doesn’t heat the chemistry up as much. Me lazy. |
I've purchased ebay records where the seller used the KLAudio. The records are nearly mint; however, they are missing their highs. Multiple copies (I've given six of them as gifts cleaned on a VPI 16.5) of the
AMERICAN PERCUSSION SOCIETY PRICE URANIA have all got fantastic highs but the KLAudio cleaned copy is like someone filtered off the highs. This is the third ebay US cleaned record I received sounding like the highs are missing. A friend has the Audio Desk and mentioned that the KLAudio shoots the cavitation directly at the disc versus below the disc surface and wipes out the highs. Kirmuss Audio claims the higher frequency and temperature can both harm the highs and warp the record. Why take a chance on higher than necessary frequency and higher temperatures if reducing them is safer? |
@fleschler- You have it backwards. A higher frequency US will have lower energy release and it will be much more evenly distributed than lower frequency. The cavitation bubble size is inversely proportional to the frequency; the higher the frequency, the smaller the bubbles and the lower the energy release when they collapse. The smaller bubbles are also more effective at removing smaller particles than larger bubbles (lower frequency), especially between the grooves. The Kirmuss RCM is closer to an industrial cleaner and should be avoided IMHO. Higher temps facilitate cavitation and will increase the energy release, which may not be desirable if you are worried about damage. Adding surfactants and IPA will also increase cavitation. Whether this is advantageous or not depends on frequency, power, chemistry of the bath, distance from the transducers, volume of the tank, coupling efficiency of the transducers and matching of the drive signal for both impedance and frequency of the transducers. |
I too have bought many records which appear NM, but play poorly. Just to note, most records look NM after a US cleaning (scratches excepted, obviously). Nevertheless, a well used record plays that way, no matter how it looks. My experiments, 80KHz and 45C with an Elmasonic, would appear to contradict those claims. And in my view, experiment is the ultimate arbiter. |
fleschler I've purchased ebay records where the seller used the KLAudio. The records are nearly mint; however, they are missing their highsI don't think there's any correlation between the lack of highs on these LPs and the use of the Klaudio machine. I have a Klaudio and have not experienced this problem. When I first got the Klaudio, I actually went to the trouble of recording to digital both before and after samples from a few records, and then compared the waveforms. I didn't see any damage to the discs, and haven't suspected any damage since. |
terry9 I too have bought many records which appear NM, but play poorly. Just to note, most records look NM after a US cleaning (scratches excepted, obviously). Nevertheless, a well used record plays that way, no matter how it looks.Exactly. And it's just amazing how good an LP will look after a pass through a good US cleaning system. |
I must say I was perhaps a bit too harsh on US. Most of my experience was based on 10%IPA +0.1% PhotoFlo for 10min at 70% power, 33C, 3rmp, and then a US rinse with DI water to get rid of the crappy PhotoFlo "plastic"sound. Now I’ve cleaned about a dozen of Lp’s using 5%IPA + 0.05% Tergitol, 15min, 70%, 33C, 1rpm, and apart from the record I happened to use for tests (which turned out to be problematic), the rest does show v nicely quiet background with very much reduced amplitude of clicks n pops compared to what I’m used to. I did not take the time to listen inbetween initial vac pre-clean and the US clean, so this subjective opinion is based on the final result of my vac+US+vac cycle (which costs me an arm and a leg - I can’t do more than a dozen Lp’s per day). All in all, at this moment I can say US can be efficient but not out of the box (in the DIY version) - quite some experimentation and tuning needed. PS I’ve found a 0.5um polyprop filter to better filter the solution....and ordered a Keith Monks record brush to perhaps improve pre-clean too. What I’m failing to find is a small (4-5W) 0.3-0.5rmp motor in EU. |
@bydlo- for what it’s worth, the Monks brushes work really well on the Monks which runs at a higher rpm than something like the VPI. I don’t know what fluid you are going to use for pre-wash, but I’ve found that the velvet pad type, e.g. Disc Doctor/MoFi, do a better job with the AIVS No. 15 (which is what I use for heavy duty pre-cleaning). It allows you to delicately ’scrub’ the record. You have to pre-wet the applicator pad, which soaks up more than a brush. The applicators from Lloyd Walker are unidirectional pile and the easiest for me to handle. I will pre-pre-clean to get the grit or surface particles off using a mild fluid and brush (.e.g, Hannl, but you could use something else), and vacuum. Then use the AIVS No 15, let it soak, agitate (light scrub) and sit, doing this while the motor on the Monks is "off. The pads create more resistance/friction than the brushes and I don’t want to screw up the motor; there is also no need to spin the disc at speed to do the scrub/agitate phases. I don’t have to worry about grinding particulates into the surface b/c of the pre-pre clean. I will add more fluid, and agitate more. Then vacuum, rinse with high grade water, then US. If I’m really compulsive, I’ll do a vac dry on the Monks rather than using the blow drier on the KL which has helped get some remaining tracing distortion out of a few records. Obviously, I don’t go to these lengths on every record. But, some need the extra work to get to a high state of play without any groove noise. And it works! |
@whart Interesting re the brushes. I've been using brushes (Osage for cleaning, Okki Nokki for the rinse) thinking they create more resistance, which is what I want (I like working harder through the vinyl surface). Never tried pads but will definitely do! I also scrub so motor speed is not an issue - I can create any speed my hands allow ;) I pre-clean with the same fluid I use for US: 5%IPA + 0.05% Tergitol S7 |
@bydlo Just some friendly suggestions to help out, I'm not playing any games here. Your rotation is too fast (try a fifth of that speed), your rinsing is only one stage (try 4), and your temperature is only 33C (try 40-45C). Also, make sure that there is enough space between the records and between the records and the sides of the tank (4 cm for 40KHz, 2 cm for 80KHz). More space is better, as it allows for records that aren't mathematically perfect planes, e.g. warped or temporarily warping in the bath. Makes sure that there is enough energy (50W per record). Good luck! |
@terry9 1) Rotation - I know! See my posts. 2) Rinse - it’s 2 stage :) see above 3) I’m a bit afraid of passing 35C 4) Spacing - I use 6L 150W cleaner with 3records max but at 70% power. The central record is 37mm (the 40Khz wavelength) to both side records. Side records about 30-35mm to the tanks side. Could be more but I can see the ultrasonic action clearly in all the spaces. |
On Kirmuss - he seems to go pretty much against all the usual US considerations. Perhaps he is right, I’m not judging. But its seems that in semiconductor industry, where they are most preoccupied with damage, they go not for 80kHz but for 800kHz to eliminate cavitation altogether and rely on acoustical streaming as the main cleaning mechanism. If I’m to buy another tank, I think I’d give 80khz a try, given that I pre-clean with vac anyway so no need for the stronger cavitation power. |
BTW, those using Tergitol - what are your rinsing procedures? After my PhotoFlo disaster I'm quite obsessed with rinsing: I first use high purity water. Distribute it with a rinse brush, rotate 3x with the brush on in one direction then 3x in the other, then vacuum. As the last step, I use 3% ethanol with the same 3x + 3x rotation. Perhaps so many revolutions (6 altogether per liquid) are a waste of time? |
terry9 The Kirmuss interview of his US is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKT5fvJ_otk starting at 45:25 Maybe the larger cavitation bubbles are necessary for 78s as is the lower temperature and greater distance between discs mentioned to be further apart for lower frequency agitation? I have 7,000 78s and intend to someday clean them, record them through the SimplyVinyl Sugarcube declicker machine. This would be ideal for a two-step noise reduction, US cleaning and then declicking. |
I use running water, twice filtered down to 1 micron, mounted on a special order high speed Vinyl Stack. Then thrice filtered running water, filtered down to 0.5 microns. Then a bath in distilled water. It takes 50 or 75 records to show any hint of detergent contamination, which is when I change it (use the discarded rinse for cleaning). This would not work, except that my tap water is almost indistinguishable from distilled. |
Maybe I’ll just stick to using Disc Doctor cleaner on a VPI 16.5 with Mobile Fidelity brushes, rinsing twice with distilled water. A Monks or Loricraft would be safe choice relative to the unknown potential damage of KLAudio and AudioDesk (and hassles to use). I cleaned records on Monks machines 30 years ago and they came out very clean. My friend owns an AudioDesk and said he chose it over the KLAudio because the cavitation bubbles were not directly hitting the record surface. He thought that was the reason for shearing off high frequencies and possibly distorting the vinyl grooves. I tried his AudioDesk and found it didn't make a difference after cleaning using my VPI method, even in his system using a Caliburn turntable rig ($100,000s). |
I concur on the benefits too. really transformed the quality of the records. some that were barely playable sound great. I use cleaner vinyl and clean two at a time. 36c for 15 minutes. I use distilled water with a couple of drops of Dawn liquid and a cap full of Photo Flo. drip and air dry. my watchmaker friend swears by Dawn for delicate cleaning with his ultrasonic cleaners. |
