How effective is the ultrasonic V-8 lp cleaner?

If you own this unit, how effective are the results Vx the more traditional VPI's or Nitty Gritty's that are not ultrasonic?
I suggest DIY.

All you need is an ultrasonic bath and a frame to hold a motorized spindle. If you are at all handy, it's not hard.

That's what I did. I use a German Elmasonic machine, industrial quality, running at 80 KHz. Does 4 records at a time. Results are far better than with my 16.5.
I have the V8 and it definitely works well. I usually clean between 4 and 8 records and run a 10 minute cycle. You have to be careful to center the records over the 4 ultrasonic modules so that the cavitation generated encompasses all the LPs evenly.

Recently, though, I have been reading the VPI forum on which Harry W has been writing about his experments with US cleaning. He believes US cleaning can/does affect high frequency information in the vinyl. He cites an example of this as he cleaned and played the Reiner Scheherazade with and without US. He likes the US because he cites the end result as sounding like tape. But he does cite his reservation by writing he has to boost the high frequencies on playback because he believes some very fine cues are removed by the US process. But, he further writes that he will continue with US because he likes the "tape-like" quality of the end result and is comfortable compensating by adjusting the high frequency on playback.

Personally, I am of mixed emotion on this issue. I think I have experienced what he is talking about, but am not 100% sure and have put US cleaning on hold while this issue is sorted out. I am still cleaning like I always have with the VPI 17F, AIVS Enzyme and Archivist solutions, followed by a water rinse. I used to use the V8 for the water rinse, but have gone back to doing that on the 17F until I make a decision on US.

I am very interested in learning about other users' experiences and if they are concerned about this same or other issue(s).

John Tverdik, Ops Mgr, Stillpoints
I've been using my V8 for about a year and have been very satisfied with the results. Records that appeared ruined from fingerprints and other contamination came back very well indeed. A few came back well enough to be played on my high-end table (you can follow the system link to see what I run).

I did find that the suggested time, temperature and fluid mixture did not give me the results I was looking for. I ended up settling on 20 minutes at full agitation, no heat, distilled water with an ounce or two of isopropyl alcohol-based commercial RCM fluid (had a sealed gallon of LAST fluid hanging around, so used it). Works beautifully.

I ran through our entire vinyl collection of about 400 or so, most of which was already very clean. It all sounds new to my ears, and I do not detect any damage to high frequency signal (or anything else). My hearing may not be as good as it once was, but I'm satisfied that the vinyl is not being damaged.

Because the V8 is a batch unit, it isn't something I run unless I have several used records to do. It isn't practical for regular usage or appropriate for new vinyl. For those applications, I stick with my old-school Discwasher brush, LAST cleaning fluid and LAST mold-release agent for new records. That combination has been successful for me since I started using it 30+ years ago.

The build quality of the ultrasonic tank is sufficient to the task and has all the features you could want. I don't find the aquarium water filter useful and the rotisserie system could easily be done DIY to a higher finish standard. However, the price of the V8 system is fair if you count how much time and hassle would be involved in a DIY project, and it is a far better value IMO than the Audio Desk Systeme or KL Audio products. Audio Desk Systeme also has infrequent but persistent rumblings of poor quality and customer service / support. Unforgivable in a $4K discretionary purchase consumer product.
Can someone tell us what the frequency in kHz of the V-8 is?

Terry, which model Elmasonic did you use?
Allvinyl, that is the first test which I tried. I was perfectly ready to write off the cost of the US cleaner rather than damage my records.

Testing paradigm: cleaned two records thoroughly with 15 minutes of US. Treatment: I then immersed them half way in the US tank, without rotation, and let them cook for two hours. When I played the record, it played about a second of clean record and a second of cooked record, as good an ABA test as you could imagine. I heard no difference, nor did others who witnessed the test. What I did notice was an absence of high frequency distortion.

Lloyd, I am using a P-60H, rebranded as a Fisher Scientific.

Since my first posting above, I have returned to the cleaning method which I used in the test, 2 records at a time. The results are obvious: records sound clearer, and surface turbulence is observed between the records and on each side. With 4 records, there was no surface turbulence between records, hence limited cleaning action, leading me to conclude that at least one wavelength must be allowed between each record (3/4 inch for 80 KHz).
Terry9, great post. A very thoughtful approach.