VPI HW-17 - brush too short?

I am relatively new to vinyl but had collected a sizable number of records in a short period of time. In order to better dedicate my time to music instead of record cleaning, I bought a used VPI HW-17 here at A'gon. However, I found that the accompanied brush is probably just about 4 inches - the "effective length" is even shorter when the brush holder is clipped slant into place during operaion. Therefore, aside from LP of really short grooves a large percentage of surface cannot not brushed up - still need to manually clean the inner grooves, totally defeating the purpose of getting a RCM. Tried to find info on replacement brushes online, but no word on if they come in difference sizes??
Sounds like you have the 45 rpm tube installed. You will need to get a 12" (LP) size tube for it. You can buy from VPI or numerous online sources.

Hello, Mofi, I think the original poster is referring to the scrubbing brush not covering the entire surface of the LP when placed upon the record to auto-scrub, and not the vacuum wand, or to do with fluid removal with vacuum wand.

I'm not that familar with VPI 17, or typhoon, which have auto fluid dispensing, and auto scrub feature, but others here might be able to steer you towards another, 3rd party brush which works better than the VPI, and that will mount to the holder assembly?

I know this defeats the purpose, and the additional cost spent for the model 17, but many forego using these brushes, for other types. These other types would of course have to be hand held, but do have the advantage of cleaning every last area of a record, and do it in a better way, without risk of vinyl damage.

The consensus of the VPI Brush, is usually 70% of users don't like it. It is not that effective, and some have noted scratching. Many particular vinylphiles, who use an RCM of some sort, and have run the gauntlet, usually switch to multiple step cleaners, such as AIVS, or Walker Prelude. This means they typically use a dedicated brush, or pad for each cleaning step, as well as for a final pure water rinse.

IMO, these methods produce the finest results, and the two cleaners I mention above are generally believed to have no peer.

I use Mobile Fidelity, or Disc Doctor Brush Pads for my cleaning-rinsing steps, they work great. All are labeled, so there's no chance to mix them up. Mark
The regular brush does cover the whole side for 95% of all records, so agree with MoFi, you must have the 45 brush installed. And Markd51 sums it up perfectly, it is better to wash and rinse records by hand, e.g., with Disc Doctor brushes and fluid, then use the VPI 17 only for a vacuum rinse stage.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding.so please forgive me if I have, but I feel one should of course use the Vacuum fluid removal on any process, whether any type of cleaning step, or the final rinse step. Vacuum removal is much more efficient, getting more of the contaminants, and filthy fluids off the record this way That's the whole purpose of these RCMs.

I am well aware of many purists in this group, who probably take cleaning much more seriously than I do, and hence their reasons for upgrading from RCMs like the VPI-Nitty Gritty, those that possess a slotted wand, and move on to much more costly-sophisticated machines, like the Loricraft, Monks, which are said to reduce the possibility of cross contamination (As well as possible abrasion from the wand contacting the record).

While the "cross contamination" issue, even though fairly slight, is probably a real one with these lesser machines, this issue can be lessened considerably, by the simple use of spare vacuum wands. A simple swap that takes about 3 seconds, and the cost for spare wands is not overly expensive.

I won't go into the other benefits of the string feed machines like Loricraft, as their owners well know their advantages, and disadvantages, which to mention a couple, is more meticulous upkeep-maintainence, and a bit longer cycle time per step.

We havent heard back from the OP, to confirm what the possible causes were, but (and again, I'm guessing cause I don't own one of these), but others may be correct, the wrong brush on board, or improper positioning of the brush?

Doesn't the brush on the 17/17F just clip into a holder? Meaning, it is basically the exact same brush, that comes with the 16.5 RCM, but held by a bracket? Mark
Markd51, Lloydc, Mofimadness,

Thanks for your replies and suggestions. It is indeed brush positioning issue. I carefully examined the brush assembly last night, and found that with a little bit brute force the brush holder can actually be rotated further more to make its tip pointing at the platter axis - hence covering most of the surface. The brush assembly was a bit stucked probably because of age.

However, I found that HW-17 is indeed not very effective, especially on noisy (no visible dirt though) records. Some of those don't even get noticeable improvement after multiple cleaning sessions and have to be cleaned manually using alcohol based solution. I also found that, at least in my collections, RCA "dynagroove" records tend to look mint but sounds noisy even after extensive cleaning. I read somewhere saying "dynagroove" is a special way to cut grooves in order to compensate groove distortion. Is it because of this dirts tends to get into grooves easier, or this special shaping makes it easier to damage the grooves?