Of course you can clean records manually, but not well.
There are many posts both on cleaning fluids and on various record cleaning machines. |
As I said before, I don't think your statements can be proven, and I very much doubt if they are true. But since this is a forum of opinions and Pawlowski6132 seems to want to believe you, there is nothing more that needs to be said.
Thanks for contributing to the discussion. |
Stltrains, I think there are great variations among the record cleaning machines also. I used a Nitty Griddy and later a VPI which I used for years. Then while stuck in the UK after 911, I heard and bought the Loricraft. I think the vacuum around a clean string beats anything I have ever tried.
I have always found that using it on records cleaned on other machines or manually results in a great improvement. Yes, there are cheaper ways that do substantially improve record performance. Then there is the question of which fluids to use. I am just in awe of the sound now from vinyl. |
Cjsmithmd, in the part of Texas where I live, the underground water has a high sodium content. We use a reverse osmosis filter on the water we drink. Some chemist friends say that they use such water as it is purer than distilled water. They thought I was crazy for using store bought water. I have been just using ozed water since when mixing L'art du Son vinyl cleaners.
I do no rinse with either the L'art du Son nor the earlier favorite AudioTop Vinyl.
With the L'art du Son, I thoroughly scrub the records with the Loricraft nylon brush. I copied this from what I saw Loricraft doing at CES. With one scrub and one vacuum, I am at about 2 minutes per side with the Loricraft.
The problem with the AudioTop is that the cleaning fluid evaporates too quickly for the Loricraft.. |
Audiofeil, I doubt you can guarantee that your records are just as clean. What would you use as proof?
All that I can say without further proof is that I found the records cleaned with the Loricraft were freer of pops and clicks and had greater resolution than those cleaned with the VPI.
I have also owned Nitty Gritty, several models of the VPI, and long ago a Keith Monks machine.
It all well and good to save money and to be satisfied with your cleaning methods, but stop the nonsense of saying you will guarantee it is as good as any record cleaning machine. In my experience, this is just not so nor will I guarantee that that I can prove to you that my records are cleaner. They just sound cleaner. |
Pawlowski6132, I am not telling you that you may be damaging your records. I don't know. I was just suggesting evaluation criteria for making the judgment of whether the best record cleaning machines do better than your method. I know for example that some record cleaning machines are better and that some cleaners are better.
I would suggest, however, the vacuum you use may not equal that on record cleaning machines.
Years ago even after the Keith Monks machine had been invented, I used to clean my records with soap and water and later with Diskwasher fluiid. I rinsed them and dried with a cotton cloth. I know that I did little if any damage to them and that modern cleaning machines can clean them much better than what I was doing then. I also know that the Loricraft is superior to earlier machines I used and that L'art du Son is the best cleaning fluid. At least in my experience.
Your posting suggests that you believe there is nothing better than what you are doing. I was taking exception to that statement. |
Pawlowski6132, I think it would take some work with a microscope to check whether your method removes as much debris, whether it adds scratches, and whether it damages the wall of the vinyl as compared with the best record cleaners. There is also the concern with the L'art du Son of not removing vinyl molecules. Finally, there is the question of how much extra time your method takes and how much you value your time.
If you like what you hear, I would suggest you just move on. |
Hdm, I guess the real question is whether a small fan operating with a very small orifice has more vacuum than a large fan with a large orifice. As I said, I doubt any of us has the information to know what to tell him as to why a quality record cleaner might outperform his method. He should be happy with his technique until he has the opportunity to hear the benefits of a better system. I don't like his attitude that he is waiting. |
Pawlowski6132, it would have to be the vacuum. Everything else is largely the same in most instances. Your are using the steam, but most merely apply the cleaner and scrub and then remove the fluid or dry. I suppose some machines have applicators and some merely have you spread the cleaner around, but I think that is minor.
I think the benefits of the Loricraft and Keith Mooks is the vacuum being at one point on the record and moving outward across the record while riding on a string. You can actually hear the liquid being slurped off.
Audiofeil, you had me going as your comments are so close to what one hears too often both here and on AA.
I have actually seen microscope pictures of grooves using the Loricraft and other machines, and I have heard of the tests of cleaners removing some vinyl. These were by the manufacturer, however. I know of no such work by any reviewers. |
