Yea, the cheap or inexpensive machines don't work, work well because they were originally designed to clean other things. Ok, the Humminguru sort of was designed for lp's but I don't know if it's much, if any better than a 16.5. The Degritter, and Audio Desk, are in a different league. Personally, the Degritter is the way to go. Easiest to use, cheapest to use, and most reliable machine out there. I.ve owned the VPI 16.5 (hated it) and others and spent money on cleaners(I should show you a photo of them all). If you like spending time cleaning records then go ahead, go low. If like me, you just want to drop an lp in the cleaning machine and press start, and come back to a clean-dried record. the Degritter is the one. Worth every penny. I promise.
Ultrasonic record cleaners
I have a modest lp collection, mixed bag of original college age purchases, used records before the current renewed interest, and some newer albums to replace some older issues from the p mount needle days. Have a vpi 16 machine and audio intelligent form 6 fluid. I’m not finding a significant improvement on my noisier issues. The price of ultrasonic cleaners have come down to a price I would consider. Appreciate the experiences of those who have purchased the ultrasonic machines, are they superior to my vpi and are the less expensive models effective?
TIA
- ...
- 131 posts total
I’ll throw one more log on the fire--using surfactants in an ultrasonic should also involve some method to rinse and remove the fluid/contaminants once the cleaning is done. Some of the made for LP ultrasonics use forced air. When I had an Audio Desk (older model), I had, at the suggestion of some early adopters, reduced the amount of AD fluid from a bottle to just a capful. I could still see what I believed was a function of fluid residue when the same record was recleaned later on the KL--- the way the water behaved on the record surface in the KL. I think Neil addresses this as well in the book- it’s been a while since I read it. And @antinn, I know you and @jtimothya went back and forth on the value of a rinse step- he was at the time using a formula he had adapted from the London Jazz Collector site. Don’t know where that left things which is why I flagged him here as well. Glad Dr. Bond got the book. It would cost to produce a decent print copy and I’m not sure people want to bear that cost. And then Neil would have to autograph them for deluxe editions, etc. :)
|
Bill (@whart) Tim was first using a no-rinse formula of ~2.5%i-IPA and ILFOTOL and filtered. ILFOTOL is not bad, but it does foam a lot and the delivered concentration can vary, and they did reformulate making what exactly you are working with that much worse. He did add a rinse step. However, late last year after continued prodding he switched to Tergitol 15-S-9 at about 150 ppm and the first four posts pretty much sum it up - tima's DIY RCM | What's Best Audio and Video Forum. The Best High End Audio Forum on the planet! (whatsbestforum.com) Take care, Neil
|
I'm another Degritter user. I wanted my records to be clean, but hate cleaning records. Some people turn it in to a second hobby, but I didn't want that. I was willing to pay for the combination of great cleaning and as easy a process as possible. The Degritter was created to hit that goal precisely. It's a joy to use. That said, I have been particularly cursed in having more problems than most with the Degritter. I've had one replaced, had to send that replacement back. But...when it's working, it's great. (Again, it seems most owners wash thousands of records with no issues). |
- 131 posts total