The best, most effective, in my experience, is ultrasonic. I use this. It's not inexpensive, but you didn't specify a budget.
5 responses Add your response
I combine methods- vacuum cleaning and ultrasonic. Much is in the method.
I prefer the point nozzle type vacuums to the wand type, but at a price.
For ultrasonic, though I’ve owned the Audio Desk and still own the KL, mentioned by @cleeds -you can achieve an even better feature set for ultrasonic by going DIY.
Some folks go that route as a cost saving, but if you buy a high grade US machine, like an Elma, add an external water filter and pump, and even a modest disc spinner, you aren’t getting away much cheaper, but you will arguably have an even better ultrasonic set up. (I’ve had no issues with the KL, but would like to eventually go to a machine that allows a surfactant, control of temps, frequency and have filtration).
I’ve done enough cleaning using different methods to conclude that almost every record is sui generis, and that you may need to use different techniques, and repeated cleanings, depending on the particular copy. Some records clean up easily; others require more work. I buy a lot of used, older copies, and those aren’t always cleaned effectively by a single ultrasonic pass. New records and audiophile records that have been well maintained since new, may require very little cleaning.
There are a million different ways to clean (well, maybe not a million) but so much is in method and what I consider to be ’best practices’ in terms of keeping your applicators and vacuum contact points clean, using a pure water rinse step and a cleaning fluid that is effective, but can be removed from the record once the cleaning part is done. I think you’ll find that every one has a preferred method, but the main objective to me is to do no harm and leave no residue on the record. A bad cleaning is itself a form of contamination. I have no preferred brand of equipment I’d advocate.