| Search | Login/Register
   Home » Analog Playback» Sensible record cleaning: vinyl piranhas and record Vaseline (54 posts, 3 pages)
  Print Thread | 1st Post |  
Page 2 of 3 (54 items) Select Pages:  « 1 2 3 »
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  Stop buying the records cleaning fluid?..  I think it is all about oil....  Analog Playback Forum     3  18704  09-28-2008
  »  New  Michael Fremer Continuums…..  Pre-manufactured box speaker...  Audio News Forum     54  404986  01-21-2006
11-14-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,104
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 21
Post ID: 12275
Reply to: 12274
Filler, and the Time and Place for Cleaning
fiogf49gjkf0d
Now that I'm thinking about laundry and dishwasher "detergent" again, I'm wondering about that American Consumer Staple, "Filler", as in, yes, folks, there's "30% More for Your Money", etc., etc.  And I'm wondering how all this filler behaves on our records during and after a typical record cleaning ceremony.  Does it act like the stuff that is designed to rinse off, or does it behave like basically inert crud, or more like, say, sawdust, or styrofoam?  Wouldn't it be "funny" if some of the stuff in typical household detergents "responded" to the electricity that is part and parcel of the typical LP?

Romy, the question about dirt vs. jagged edges vs. sound is a good one.  I have certainly subjected some records to very rigorous cleaning and still they sounded "dirty".  This is one of the things I would love to check out with the stereo microscope.  I have long suspected that some of the commercial record treatments were not so much concerned merely with cleaning the record but they were at least as concerned with making good and certain that the record would sound noticibly "better" after treatment, regardless of the cause of the noise.  In this case, some sort of slippery "filler" might just do the trick for the micro-damaged LP grooves.

Maybe some folks like cleaning records; I do not, at all.  I am pretty philosophical about the quick wipe I give every side (with the LP spinning on the TT) just before playing it.  But this takes, literally, just a few seconds, and I may skip it if I am really immersed in a thread.

As for the full-tilt RCM cleaning, do people really do this more than once per LP?  When I first play a new or new-to-me used record I tend to try a more-careful-than-usual wipe.  I start with a dry carbon micro-fiber brush and then the wetted DiscWasher brush, and then I try playing the LP.  If it sounds dirty, I pull it off and set it aside for a thorough RCM cleaning, and I add a sticky note if I think it needs special abuse.  I usually clean records when I've got a stack to do, and I do not even try to listen to music while I'm in RCM mode.  I clean the records and set them aside, together.  At some point I try playing them again.  I rarely clean a record more than once.  It has to be a wonderful record in every other way for me to try it again.  Meaning, generally, once I've cleaned an LP, it's done, that's that.

Paul S
11-15-2009 Post mapped to one branch of Knowledge Tree
drdna
San Francisco, California
Posts 488
Joined on 10-29-2005

Post #: 22
Post ID: 12280
Reply to: 12274
How often to clean records?
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Romy the Cat wrote:
What however I would like to ask you is the subject that bothers me the most: how can you determine that the record is cleanable? So, my question is – how you differentiate the noisy record that might be cleaned and improved further and the records that are beyond the cleaning help. Are any of you come up with any more or less objective or demonstrable test that would recognize the noise as some kind of special noise that might be cleaned?
To me, there are three types of problems:

1a) grime piled on top of a record
1b) defective vinyl piled on top of a record
2) scratches cutting into the vinyl

Type 1 deflects the needle upward and Type 2 deflects the needle downward. Because I am always listening to the absolute phase of each song (it is always different for each album), I think I can hear this. Certainly I know if I switch the absolute phase of the system, I can hear the noise clicks also change their sound. This is the easiest way to tell if something is to be cleaned.

Many times also if the noise is Type 2, a lot of this is actually Type 1B, due to small jagged edges rising up around where the scratch is. If only we could cut those tiny jagged edges off! The best I can do is to use an old heavy needle/tonearm with a lot of inertial mass and play through that area.  The needle just sort of rams through the obstruction and removes a bit of the noise, like using a lathe. This is a lot less destructive than it sounds. I just play the area with an old needle; when I go back to my usual needle, the noise has reduced, not gone away of course, but reduced.

Adrian
11-15-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
drdna
San Francisco, California
Posts 488
Joined on 10-29-2005

Post #: 23
Post ID: 12281
Reply to: 12275
How to tell if a record can be cleaned?
fiogf49gjkf0d
 Paul S wrote:
I have certainly subjected some records to very rigorous cleaning and still they sounded "dirty".  This is one of the things I would love to check out with the stereo microscope.
It's funny, because I always have used the Sound to guide what I do and I have never seen the need to to anything beyond this. I have a microscope somewhere in the storage room and maybe I should get it out and take a look at these records. I think the only issue will be a light source.
 Paul S wrote:
I have long suspected that some of the commercial record treatments were not so much concerned merely with cleaning the record but they were at least as concerned with making good and certain that the record would sound noticeably "better" after treatment, regardless of the cause of the noise.  In this case, some sort of slippery "filler" might just do the trick for the micro-damaged LP grooves.
No question about it, especially when they tell you not to rinse the record after treating it because you will remove the "good effect." I always have found that these treatments add a weird plastic sheen to the music that I hate.

 Paul S wrote:
As for the full-tilt RCM cleaning, do people really do this more than once per LP?
I hate cleaning records, because as you can imagine it takes a long time for me to do so.  Unless I spill a soda on it, a record gets cleaned only one time, after I buy it and if I think it is needed.Adrian
11-15-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,104
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 24
Post ID: 12282
Reply to: 12281
Depth of Field
fiogf49gjkf0d

Adrian, wouldn't another microscope problem - besides a light source - be the depth of field problem with the typical "one barrel" microscope?

Also, by "jagged edges" I mean in this case the sort of damage sustained by groove walls by any number of means, and for any number of reasons, including "plastic" formulae that are susceptable to fracturing or shattering even when used +/- as intended.  I think there are some old "styrene-type" LPs out there that are especially vulnerable to this sort of damage; certainly some vintages of some labels often sound like they are so damaged, even after "thorough cleaning".  And it also seems possible that some LPs simply do not come out of the mold intact; ie, they just start out "jagged".

Anyway, plenty of reasons why cleaning might not make the record quiet.  And I do not have a good enough handle on the "sounds of damage" to say exactly whether the source of the noise is dirt, leftover treatment or damaged "vinyl".  Being an OCD geek at heart, and naturally curious, I would have bought a stereo microscope a long time ago if they weren't so freaking expensive.

Best regards,
Paul S

11-16-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,486
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 25
Post ID: 12284
Reply to: 12282
The records were abused in past.
fiogf49gjkf0d

 drdna wrote:
To me, there are three types of problems:

1a) grime piled on top of a record
1b) defective vinyl piled on top of a record
2) scratches cutting into the vinyl

Type 1 deflects the needle upward and Type 2 deflects the needle downward. Because I am always listening to the absolute phase of each song (it is always different for each album), I think I can hear this. Certainly I know if I switch the absolute phase of the system, I can hear the noise clicks also change their sound. This is the easiest way to tell if something is to be cleaned.

Many times also if the noise is Type 2, a lot of this is actually Type 1B, due to small jagged edges rising up around where the scratch is. If only we could cut those tiny jagged edges off! The best I can do is to use an old heavy needle/tonearm with a lot of inertial mass and play through that area.  The needle just sort of rams through the obstruction and removes a bit of the noise, like using a lathe. This is a lot less destructive than it sounds. I just play the area with an old needle; when I go back to my usual needle, the noise has reduced, not gone away of course, but reduced.

 Excellent post, thank you. I have no luxury of absolute phase for a few years…. I do use your second needle/tonearm approach but I do not attribute it to the inertial mass but rather to different profile of needle. I kind of have a mental picture how noise might sound what it played with my reference stereo, mono and stereo conical needle but sometimes it give to me an interpretable message. More frequently however if confuses as there are many different types of worn with all imaginable abuse in past.

 Paul S wrote:
Adrian, wouldn't another microscope problem - besides a light source - be the depth of field problem with the typical "one barrel" microscope?
Yep, you are very right – the “depth of field” makes the visual record inspection not useful. To do into the grove you need 500X microscope. I in my past was trying to employ a microscope to educate myself about the grooves but to get any more or less interpretable picture I needed 600x scope. With this magnification the depth of field is smaller then the height of the grove. At that time I even was thinking about the grooves reading scanner … there were many stupid ideas. In the end it boiled down to me that instead of wasting time to analyze the condition of grove it is better to buy another record that might have less noise.

THe Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
11-23-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,486
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 26
Post ID: 12340
Reply to: 12167
Do not wash records by coca-cola.
fiogf49gjkf0d

Well, we did have the Cleaning Contest and do stay with my position – a regular wash is all that might be done to a record. I have pretty much the same experiences as I had 7-8 years ago when I was trying to use different cleaning “improvements”. It is like a rule- if an industry offers something beyond a common sense then it is most likely a sham… Anyhow, the Osage  AI System cleaners turned out to be no just bad but dungarees – they affect sound and I was not able to remove the negative effect Osage  did with any of my consequential re-washed – perhaps I need to try a pure alcohol to recover the record. I would not make any assessment about the enzymatic theory – I do not know if it does anything. I however did re-read the Osage site in context of the actual result that I experienced with their AI cleaners and I do not find the Osage views as honorable. I do not know if it is a pure deception on Osage part or they just ignorant and do not know what they are doing but in both of the cases what they offer do devastate sound of the records – unfortunately it looks like permanently.  Now go back to the Wash de Regula…

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
11-30-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,486
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 27
Post ID: 12372
Reply to: 12340
A strong anti-OsageAudio, anti-AI System position.
fiogf49gjkf0d

Well, I gave away my Osage AI System. The engagement with OsageAudio was a false move. After playing with AI System solution and reading everything at OsageAudio site I am confident to state that the OsageAudio is/are quite ignorant about what they do. The amount of stupid industry medals that they receive and the positive feedback that they get from press and from their users is in my view not an evidence of AI System’s advances but just an indication of low level demands from the AI System supporters.

The AI Cleaning System does destroy sound; in fact destroy it in very mean way. I would not comment about the AI System cleaning effect – it is absolutely irrelevant. The effectiveness of AI application is not the cleaning effect itself and redaction of surface noise but just lubrication and greasing of groove. Many of you know about the negative effect to Sound by the “wet playing” – here is comes…. I know that many of you have read at the OsageAudio site that no oily, greasing or any other lubricants are being used but OsageAudio but it is lie. The  OsageAudio that I touched were extremely greasy.

Now, the OsageAudio cleaners do have some advantage over others “groove improvements” crap – the OsageAudio cleaners are VERY hard to remove from records. I made up to 5 washes and I still hear the clear presence of the OsageAudio sound. How would I characterize this OsageAudio sound? I could itemize the specifics of the sonic damage but I chose not to – it will be the homework for the folks who would like go to the bottom of this - I do not what to bias them with my commentaries.

So, the records cleaned with OsageAudio AI System cleaners are permanently damaged, are they? Yes, but the reasons I write this is because there is a hope for you - the wondering in the OsageAudio’s ail analog lovers. The records ruined by OsageAudio still might be restored by application of very strong degreaser that would remove the crap that AI System deposit into the groves. I made number of experiments with it and here are some tips, make your own assessment.

1)      Take a good record  that you know and that never was cleaned and clean it with OsageAudio AI System (one step or 3 steps is irrelevant)

2)      Play the record and note the huge change in sound in the area of ……..

3)      Buy a strong concentrated high quality degreaser. (The list degreasers that I trued are below). 

4)      Put the record to you washer machine, flood it with your regular alcoholic cleaning fluid. (I use the Nitty Gritty Pure 2)

5)      Apply the 5-10 drops of the concentrated degreaser to the WET surfaces of the record

6)      Keep spinning the washer machine, scrubbing the records with OsageAudio brash. The scrubbing is not the key in here but you need to have the degreaser mixed with regular cleaning fluid, and brushing would help. Alternately you might add the degreaser in high concentration to your fluid if you wish.

7)      Vacuum all fluid with degreaser

8)      Now wash and Vacuum the record again with regular fluid.

9)      Play the records and see how much better many aspects of sound are (feel free to name them…) when there are no OsageAudio oily residues are presented in the record.

The person of this post is not to snipe another ignorant industry partials as some fools might present it but to get some truth about what it right and what is wrong. I do not have any personal agenda against OsageAudio but I do not like the situation when people put themselves the in the position of industry authority/leaders and in the same deliver very sub-qualified actual result.

Anyhow, here are the degreasers I used:

1)      CW:100 – was recommended by a reader of the site from Europe:

http://www.wackchem.com/cw1100-super-english/cw-1100-super-windshield-cleaner.html

This is very powerful thing and is considered in the Old World as a high-end degreaser.  In US it is not being sold and available only re-branded by Porsche:

http://www.drivewerks.com/catalog/shopcart/CARE/POR_CARE_PORCAR_pg5.htm

2)      X-O Plus – this is a phenomenal Odor Neutralizer that I use for years and it has very strong degreasing actions no residue of any kind. This is mine the most beloved cleaner ever. The few drops of the concentrated X-0 removes any OsageAudio residuals, making the records to sound like day and night:

http://www.xocorp.com/

Rgs, Romy the Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
01-09-2010 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
oldclassics
Posts 1
Joined on 01-09-2010

Post #: 28
Post ID: 12649
Reply to: 12284
Kerf - one cause of pops and clicks
fiogf49gjkf0d
After expending the better part of the day sorting through the record bins at thrift stores I came home with some finds (for me). Milstein playing Mendelssohn’s e minor on Columbia’s first LP, ML4001, and the Golden Jubilee concert given by Josef Hofmann in 1937 and released on ML 4929.  Both records looked very clean despite their age and lack of inner sleeve, more important, there were no visible scratches.  After giving them a couple spins with a dampened diskwasher black velvet brush I was ready to play them on a Thorens TD 160 MkII powered by a Sansui AU D9 integrated and hooked up to a pair of A/D/S 620’s. The cartridge was a Grado stereo so I knew I wasn’t optimizing the mono records to their full potential, but both records sounded good with surprisingly low levels of surface noise.  Yes, there are pops and clicks but not so much as to interfere with the listening experience which is after all the goal. Incidentally, I’d recommend both of these recordings highly. 

Well … then… I got the idea of cleaning them with my standard washing procedure under the kitchen faucet. I turn the nozzle to spray mode so there are many small jet streams directed down into the grooves. The disk is swirled around to cover the entire playing surface.  A little water on the label isn’t a problem since all the major recording companies coat their labels after printing, so they can stand up to water briefly. The small jet stream creates microscopic bubbles that then collapse when they are deep in the groove creating a cavitation effect.  The point of bubble collapse is theoretically at irregular boundaries or where the surface tension gradient is highest – i.e. dirt. Cavitational forces can be very destructive but mostly on brittle surfaces and I haven’t noticed any discernable impact on the vinyl except for removal of foreign matter.  After that first spray, the disk is wiped with a very mild mixture of 95% water, 4% isopropyl, 1% windex to wet the surface and lift off organic residues and fingerprints.  Then another water rinse to remove the phthalates in the windex from the grooves.  Hand wipe with microfiber towel and set to dry for 30 minutes. 

Except that since I was anxious to hear the records again I put them on while the records were still moist.  The Thorens even has a setting to adjust skating when playing records that are wetted.  I couldn’t believe what happened!  The surface noise had increased so much including many more pops and clicks that I couldn’t continue playing them.   I thought initially that I had ruined the records, but when they had totally dried it was another matter entirely.  They were again very playable, in fact I think even quieter so the cleaning did some good.  In thinking about what caused the wet records to sound so bad, I remembered that one of the problems with early pressings was that there was uneven quality control resulting in flow of vinyl out of the groove into a small microridge along the groove.  I think it was called kerf and I’ve seen some pictures published on the net taken at high magnification(300x) which showed these ridges.  As long as these ridges remained intact they didn’t adversely impact the path of the stylus.  However with age and handling these ridges would break and parts would collapse down into the groove. When they did there was a strong possibility that the needle would scrape along the wall picking up a filament of vinyl from the partially collapsed kerf. This is one of the major causes of the pops and clicks on a record that otherwise looked clean.  Of course, there are all sorts of other detritus that could be on the surface of a dirty record.

What I had feared was that these old records (the Milstein one was pressed in 1947) had gotten brittle and that the cavitation had created havoc with the kerf so that playing the records again would be impossible.  Since the playability improved to even better after the washing, something altogether different had happened; namely, that the surface tension exerted between stylus and the wet groove had pulled the stylus against one wall of the groove, temporarily causing the needle to rub against the wall and the microridge or any parts of it leading to the horrendous surface noise.

One of the other posters mentioned running older records through a complete cycle with an old worn-out needle with higher than recommended tracking weight. Hopefully, if the old needle isn’t damaged in some peculiar way it would tend to drag out the dirt and break off any protruding kerf leading to less surface noise.  A better approach might be to rig up a trailing laser beam on the arm to burn off the kerf.  Consider this an offer to license the idea to some MIT type for the mere cost of a penny a record.

01-09-2010 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,486
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 29
Post ID: 12650
Reply to: 12649
I think vacuum and distil are the key
fiogf49gjkf0d
Oldclassics, I think the problems that you describe are illuminated by vacuuming records. The vacuuming of a wet record sucks out all residues. When you leave a record to dry naturally then you have all residues and minerals of your facet water to deposit itself into the grove. I think with distil water and a powerful vacuuming the problem you described shell not manifest itself.

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
01-16-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,486
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 30
Post ID: 15437
Reply to: 12167
Record Revirginizer’s stupid claims.
fiogf49gjkf0d

I did not use it and it might be a good solution to remove residual dirt from the death of the groove, similar how women remove hair from body.

http://www.recordrevirginizer.com/

However, the claims they make are ridicules:

http://www.recordrevirginizer.com/about.html

The most important is not even the idiotic statements but that at their site they have “before” and “after” section:

http://www.recordrevirginizer.com/beforeandafter.html

… and fro what I hear the test “after” do kill sound along with noise.

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
12-11-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
mem916
San Diego, CA
Posts 52
Joined on 10-14-2011

Post #: 31
Post ID: 17509
Reply to: 15437
Audio Desk Systeme ultrasonic record cleaning machine
fiogf49gjkf0d
I just received mine on Friday.   I am amazed at how easy to use and this machine is and how convenient it is compared to my old VPI.  I always dreaded cleaning records with the VPI.  With the audio desk I put the record in, push a button, come back in 5 or 6 minutes to a clean (both sides at once) and dry record ready to play.  I put it in another room so I can clean at the same time I listen.  It isn't noisy during cleaning but the fan during drying is fairly loud.  Still nothing at all like the loudness of the VPI!  I had to wear earplugs with that thing and it was still too loud.

I think there must be something to the theory that there is debris down in the grooves that the VPI and other similar machines cannot get out, based on the difference I hear after cleaning with the new machine.  I admit that I have not yet done a serious test though.  I only took a record that had been previously cleaned with the VPI and played once, sealed back up in an outer-cover.  When I get around to it I will clean one with the VPI, play it, and then clean it again with the audio desk and compare the difference.  And if I get real ambitious I'll record the results and post them somewhere.  But I can tell you simply based on convenience alone this thing is worth the money to me. 

Mark


12-11-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
mem916
San Diego, CA
Posts 52
Joined on 10-14-2011

Post #: 32
Post ID: 17510
Reply to: 17509
Pic
fiogf49gjkf0d
Here's a pic:
12-11-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
oxric
Posts 184
Joined on 02-12-2010

Post #: 33
Post ID: 17512
Reply to: 17509
Audio Desk System Vinyl Cleaner: Analogue rip-off of 2011?
fiogf49gjkf0d
 mem916 wrote:


I think there must be something to the theory that there is debris down in the grooves that the VPI and other similar machines cannot get out, based on the difference I hear after cleaning with the new machine.  I admit that I have not yet done a serious test though.  I only took a record that had been previously cleaned with the VPI and played once, sealed back up in an outer-cover.  When I get around to it I will clean one with the VPI, play it, and then clean it again with the audio desk and compare the difference.  And if I get real ambitious I'll record the results and post them somewhere.  But I can tell you simply based on convenience alone this thing is worth the money to me. 

Mark




Hi Mark,

I did not know about the AudioDesk Record Cleaning Machine, and am of the opinion that a fully automated record cleaning machine such as this is the only sensible method of cleaning large quantities of records when a typical collection can consist of many thousands of these. I was quite impressed by certain aspects of the RCM's operation, specifically the fully automated process and the blow-dry facility, as described on Audiodesksysteme's and Ultrasystem's websites and public forums where some users commented on its use:

http://www.ultrasystem.com/usfeaturedprodsAudioDeskVinylClnr.html

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?41-Record-Cleaning-Machines/page2&s=76e1ab018a1653b533531adc985ad45e

http://www.audiodesksysteme.de/


Although it takes 5-6 minutes per record, one can do something else whilst this is happening in the background, so the idea is just perfect. Imagine the ability to be able to clean about 20-30 records in 2-3hrs everyday, assuming 200 days per year one could go through the main records one listens to (say about 4000-6000) in the course of a year and do the rest over time at leisure. Any other manual system would mean 600 hrs of cleaning records that is 600 hours not doing anything else, that is about 6 hours just cleaning records over a period of 100 days if not more.

The machine does not look terribly complex to me yet costs a cool $3,500 in the US, and will probably cost the same or more in Europe! That gave me pause, I put my wallet safely away and read more attentively the 'technical' literature, such as is it, that is available on the manufacturer's website. I did not feel there was much there which was terribly revolutionary. I personally do not think the ultrasonic cleaning process, called 'Cavitation' ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrasonic_cleaning ), is strictly necessary and does anything more than justify the ludicrous price of the Audio Desksysteme Cleaner. This is what one can read about the technical aspects of the record cleaner. I have highlighted in red the only parts which are of any interest to me, and which in my view makes this cleaner different from others:

Cleaning and Drying VINYL CLEANER

 

The VINYL CLEANER - (not) a matter of philosophy

One can speak about two primary philosophies, two different approaches, that are used in disc cleaning (if you disregard the generally ineffective cleaning by hand): surface suction and point suction. Without wanting to go into the pros and cons of these two procedures, both have one common denominator - suction: I have heard the credo „the disc needs to undergo suction cleaning in order to become really clean“, at various high-end trade fairs and in diverse analogue forums. This statement is underlined by the product offerings on the market: there appears little alternative to suction cleaning.


I wish I could claim that by discussing this topic we have arrived at the gist of the matter - but in the case of disc cleaning the one thing all can agree on: when the dirt loosening process is not carried out effectively, then suction cleaning (or any other clever procedure) simply won't bring good results.

 

The VINYL CLEANER - a clean machine

In order to loosen dirt, residues, and other contaminants from the disc surface, the standard approach employs brushes. The cleaning results are at least as various and diverse as the brush materials that are used. From the shape of the brush, to the pressure and angle applied, to the speed of turning, numerous criteria, which have to work optimally together, play an important role in order to form the basis for efficient disc cleaning.


Unfortunately the worst case scenario occurs too often: instead of removing the dirt it is forced even deeper into the grooves, or spread across the entire disc surface, or worst of all, the analogue killer, the disc surface is damaged.

 

The VINYL CLEANER - a dust remover

The VINYL CLEANER doesn't rely on brushes to remove dust and other contaminants. Counter-rotating microfibre wet cleaning barrels, and the ultrasonic process, remove dirt gently yet thoroughly; even the finest particles sitting deep in the grooves of the disc. The cleaning fluid is recirculated and filtered during the cleaning process - in this way the dirt removed, or “shaken,” from the disc can't find it's way directly or indirectly back onto the disc surface. Only then is the foundation for the important final step created: the drying process!

 

The VINYL CLEANER - drying with no ifs, ands, or buts

Both surface and point suction rely on the vacuum created. The diminishing of the vacuum due to the aging of the apparatus, and the static charging of the disc caused by the effects of rubbing, are two main drawbacks of suction. Surface suction is generally characterized by the limited efficiency of dirt removal and loud vacuum cleaner-like noise. Point suction is typified by the slow speed of cleaning and complicated handling. Convenience is generally sacrificed in either case - both concepts in the main only allow one side of the disc to be cleaned at a time. Once again the VINYL CLEANER rips up the rule book! Both sides of the disc are cleaned and subsequently dried simultaneously. The gentle fan drying process is driven by two high-performance motors - with significantly lower noise, and with no creation of static!

 

Operation, handling and care

The VINYL CLEANER - maximum convenience

The VINYL CLEANER can justifiably claim to be the most user-friendly disc cleaner: operation, handling and care are all geared towards absolute simplicity and maximum convenience. Before first usage the VINYL CLEANER simply needs to be placed on a level surface, distilled water and cleaning fluid added, the wet filter be fitted and the apparatus plugged in - off you go!
Switch on the VINYL CLEANER, introduce a disc from above, press the start button - the cleaning and drying procedure run fully automatically, and you can get on with other jobs with no worries. The beginning and the end of the cleaning process are signaled both acoustically and by means of the LED display. Depending on the dirtiness of the particular disc the length of the main cleaning process can be individually set - simply at the touch of a button.

The VINYL CLEANER - easy to care for

To begin with a quick word regarding cleaning fluid: In order to treat the vinyl as gently as possible, and create the best possible sound, the cleaning fluid, specifically developed for the VINYL CLEANER, avoids the use of alcohol, instead relying on a mild biodegradable mixture with excellent cleaning properties and outstanding antistatic characteristics. Just one container of cleaning fluid concentrate - 2 are included in the delivery package - is enough to clean approximately 100-200 discs (depending on the level of disc contamination).

I honestly do not see anything in this machine, good and desirable as it might be otherwise, that warrants a price of $3,500. What adds insult to injury in my view are the frightening running costs. Let's imagine one has a collection of 10,000 used records which one would like to clean using the Audio Desksystem Vinyl Cleaner, at $14.99 per 100 records for the record cleaning fluid, one would need to spend $1,500 on cleaning fluid, plus, at $99.95 per 4 microfibre cleaning barrels each good for 500 records, an additional $500 for these microfibre barrels, that is $2000 just for cleaning 10,000 records! Surely someone with 2 grams of sense will see the perfect commercial opportunity to erase all traces of this rip-off company by coming up with a traditional suction or brush based automated solution that costs no more than $1000 and has running costs of £20 for the cleaning of 1000 records!

Rant over. I have a flight to catch to Ribeauville right next to Baden-Wurttemberg in Germany, that is less than 190 miles from the seat of Audio Desk System Glass. Talk about a missed opportunity!

Best regards
Rakesh






12-12-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
mem916
San Diego, CA
Posts 52
Joined on 10-14-2011

Post #: 34
Post ID: 17514
Reply to: 17512
Reality price
fiogf49gjkf0d
Hi Rakesh,

Super tired so I'll keep this short:

1) there is retail price and "reality" price for this machine as with everything in the high-end.  Then there is "used price" (typically 50% retail).  "reality" is anywhere from 20 to 30 % off.
2)  100 records per fluid bottle is conservative estimate based on cleaning seriously dirty used records.  Typical for people who already keep their records clean with some other machine (me) is 200 per fluid refill.
3) I don't own 10,000 records.  I don't intend to go on a mission to clean every record in my collection either.  Just the ones I intend to play that day.  Over time I don't know how many I will clean.  Don't particularly care about how much they cost per record either.  The improvement in sound quality justifies an added $2.50 to the cost of each record though for me.  I have spent way more money for less improvement in the sound quality of my system so it is a good deal.

I suggest you find a good deal on one and try it out for yourself.  If you don't like it I am certain you can sell it on the used market for most (if not all) of what you pay for it.

As for the engineering and complexity of the machine, seriously it is very slick.  And there is a lot going on with it and it is extremely well thought out and designed. If you think you can design and build one for less cost that $3500 (including the cost of your time!) go for it.

Mark
12-12-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
mem916
San Diego, CA
Posts 52
Joined on 10-14-2011

Post #: 35
Post ID: 17520
Reply to: 17514
Guess I can't do basic math at 5am!
fiogf49gjkf0d

"Let's imagine one has a collection of 10,000 used records which one would like to clean using the Audio Desksystem Vinyl Cleaner, at $14.99 per 100 records for the record cleaning fluid, one would need to spend $1,500 on cleaning fluid, plus, at $99.95 per 4 microfibre cleaning barrels which each good for 500 records, an additional $500 for these microfibre barrels, that is $2000 just for cleaning 10,000 records!"



Dude that is only $0.20 a record!  Even if you go with the conservative estimate of 100 records per cleaning fluid refill!  I think most people in this hobby aren't going to quibble about 20 cents.  The sleeves I put my records in probably cost more than that.  I don't remember what I pay for a pack of them.

Mark
12-14-2011 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Stitch


Behind The Sun
Posts 226
Joined on 01-15-2009

Post #: 36
Post ID: 17522
Reply to: 17520
Another revolution...
fiogf49gjkf0d
In theory this is a nice machine and it offers a comfortable solution to clean the records.The reality showed - from what I got from owners in the last 2-2,5 years - it is ok at the beginning but after a while they all had endless problems (motor, cleaning, brushes and so on) that it was more or less a pain.And - as usual- it always got Hype from happy buyers but there are also infos out there which show the opposite. And - as usual - the next one was always better/improved...The machine always uses the same cleaning fluid (and there is a lot of it inside), the manufacturer writes, it will be filtered but this works only at the beginning. After a while there is still the dirty fluid used, the filters doesn't work the way they should, same with the brushes.From the cleaning result it is absolutely not comparable to a professional solution (nozzle design) like Monks or Loricraft offers. They are slow, but always superior in the result, and both always use new, clean fluid for the process and they are really dry after that. No matter how many records you clean in a row.
Odyssey4.jpg


Here is a pic from cleaning fluid after using a point nozzle design. Can you imagine to use that all over again?(That was from Mint- or VG++ Records or Reissues)

Can't be superior when you use such fluid over and over again (even when 'filtered'), or?



Fluid.jpg





Kind Regards
Stitch
01-08-2012 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
mem916
San Diego, CA
Posts 52
Joined on 10-14-2011

Post #: 37
Post ID: 17694
Reply to: 17522
Fluid reuse
fiogf49gjkf0d
Hi Stitch,

Well I have now cleaned approximately 120 records on my first batch of fluid.  These have all been either new or previously cleaned (by a VPI) records.  I have removed and rinsed the filter about 3 times.  It collects a some debris.  Today I used a turkey baster to draw some fluid out so I could inspect it and it was still clear.  I am sure a microscope would reveal some particulates but with a simple magnifier I am unable to see any.  I do think using a VPI to pre-clean seriously dirty records is the way to go due to the fluid recycling the audio desk does but I am willing to do that for the few used records I buy.  I took pictures of the fluid if anyone is interested please email me and I will send them to you.  I'm too lazy to post them in this reply.

I am still extremely pleased with this machine.  The only small complaint I have is that occasionally it leaves little drops of fluid here and there on the record that I have to dry off before I put it back in the sleeve.

Mark
10-27-2013 Post mapped to one branch of Knowledge Tree
Stitch


Behind The Sun
Posts 226
Joined on 01-15-2009

Post #: 38
Post ID: 20202
Reply to: 17694
Record Cleaning
fiogf49gjkf0d

When I started with Analog there were only a few record Cleaning Machines avaialble, I bought a VPI 16.5 with my first turntable.

Now, with the analog revival the last 10 years much more units are available now.


Some general info about Record Machines:

Most think that speed/comfort is identical to superior cleaning. That is not true. 

You can't have it all.

Some swear on various cleaning fluids and others think that their removal is the key.


Type: The fast ones


For example VPI, Nitty Gritty, Clearaudio and all which are based on that design (a vacuum slot with 1 soft lip in front of it and another one behind).

The user can choose any fluid he prefers, can scrub the record or not, can choose the time the fluid will stay onto the surface before starting to remove it. This Design is technically very simple and you will find a unit which fits best to your wallet. They all do their job (more or less loud, with some ear plugs are recommended) but after a while they reach their cleaning limit and it is done (Physics: sucking power with a wide slot can‘t serve the same power compared to a point nozzle design). When the lips are wet (specially the one behind the vacuum slot after a few Records, the drying process is not able to clean the record in a way that it will be without noise finally. You have to clean it again later. 


Type: The comfortable ones


For example Audio Desk, a Ultrasonic cleaner and a new Manufacturer, KLaudio.

The AD uses the same fluid again and again, through filters, but from the technical view it is not a final solution. The filters can‘t hold back everything, the user can‘t use all cleaning fluids, it is a comfortable Machine with a lot of technical parts which can create problems after some time.Sooner or later most AD run into Problems, based on its technical Design. 


Type: The best ones

For example Keith Monks, Odyssey, Loricraft. There was only one Design which solved all problems, that was the Keith Monks Design. A point nozzle design which removes the fluid groove by groove, nothing will stay onto the record. It is technically much more advanced than most think, because you need some motors for the Arm, the platter speed and the string which is responsible for a good move of the Arm across the record. The User can try all kinds of fluid, all he need is something which is able to move into the grooves. The removal is done with a point nozzle and high vacuuming power (it is simple Physics, sucking power per diameter) and the record is cleaned groove by groove and at the end it is always dry and clean (except the user flooded the record with so much fluid that it is too much for the nozzle, then he does it a 2. Time and it is done). 

But it is logic, that this kind of cleaning needs time. It was made for professionals who cleaned records all day long and needed the same superior result from the first record to the last (in those days Libraries and professional record dealers, Studios...). 

Keith Monks passed away and Loricraft offered a cheaper copy (more or less, they start cheap and when you want better parts they will charge you for that) from this Design. The Keith Monks was always a final solution. Biting the price bullet and forget. There is also another one available in Germany, the Odyssey, it is from the former Monks Importer, same Design with a few improvements, but with superior technical parts. 

In audiophile discussions there are a few directions (speed, price, cleaning solutions...) and of course, being owner of "the best". 

The definition of the word „best“ is like a car discussion. I think, it is more helpful to show, what is responsible for what and based on that knowledge, every reader can choose the unit which matches his ideas or Phylosophy best.. I hope that my few lines will give some useful information about those units. 

Each unit is better than doing nothing or using a wet towel.



Source Odyssey.jpg



The Records


This is also important imo, some have problems from the pressing plant (modern Reissues for example), you can clean them 15x and you will still hear an improvement, but they will never run really silent. Based on that we have the endless discussions about cleaning fluids, the cleaning time, enzymes and so on. I found the solution for myself: I trash them.

Older records can have groove damage, based on wrong VTF or defect diamond or bad Arm geometry.... then it is done, no way to improve them. Some have pops like mad, that can be based on blisters in vinyl or the owner before used alcohol and that one removed the elastic material in the groove walls. Then they are more or less defect too.

When you want to experiment, go for a normal, cheap, record, 80/90/100gr, made in the 70/80's, when they were sold in millions, the suprise is, they run always quiet, they have a lot of dynamics and when they are dirty, you can use the cheapest fluid and after one run they sound like new again. Music pleasure done right.




Kind Regards
Stitch
10-27-2013 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Jorge
Austin TX
Posts 137
Joined on 10-17-2010

Post #: 39
Post ID: 20204
Reply to: 20203
8 records at once
fiogf49gjkf0d

http://www.ultrasonicrecords.com/


IMHO the less you touch, scratch, brush the grooves the better.

10-27-2013 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,104
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 40
Post ID: 20206
Reply to: 20202
Last Call for Alcohol
fiogf49gjkf0d
Stitch, you said something that I have heard many times from many sources over the years, namely, alcohol removes the elastic material in the groove walls. Now I wonder how much better my old LPs would sound if I'd never used alcohol.  I meant to pay attention for some audible effects over the decades, but I have to admit that as my records have aged along with me, I have marked no audible problems that I can attribute specifically to alcohol in the cleaning fluid I use.

We've had long threads on the subject of cleaning fluids, so, to stay on the topic, what ingredients - in do you use in the cleaning fluid for your Odyssey machine?

Best regards,
Paul S
Page 2 of 3 (54 items) Select Pages:  « 1 2 3 »
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  Stop buying the records cleaning fluid?..  I think it is all about oil....  Analog Playback Forum     3  18704  09-28-2008
  »  New  Michael Fremer Continuums…..  Pre-manufactured box speaker...  Audio News Forum     54  404986  01-21-2006
Home Page  |  Last 24Hours  | Search  |  SiteMap  | Questions or Problems | Copyright Note
The content of all messages within the Forums Copyright © by authors of the posts