Doug- the methods seem to work synergistically. I know people who swear by ultrasonic alone, but suspect that their records are already pretty immaculate and they are just going for that extra dimension in sound that comes from an ultrasonic clean. Me, on the other hand- I’m dealing with 45+ year old records that have not been properly cleaned, if at all, often seem to have some sort of sludge or other contaminant, and ultrasonic alone proved ineffective to completely remove this ’stuff’ (some of which I suspect is cigarette or cooking fumes, as well as stuff that may have been put on the vinyl at some put to give it a sheen or perhaps to reduce surface noise). In any event, I have succeeded in salvaging a number of records I would have ordinarily written off as a lost cause, some quite valuable or difficult to find. On the other hand, just using the Monks alone, which gives a very good result with few of the drawbacks of a wand machine-- deeper, more effective vacuum in my estimation, no static and far less fuss in terms of cleaning the vacuum contact area-- still seems to lack that final ’finish’ that the ultrasonic provides. And, the question i had posed to you-- better late than never-- was reversing the process by washing in US and vac drying on the point nozzle. I have been advocating a used Loricraft plus a DIY US machine for this purpose at far lower cost than the Monks + KL. (The Audio Desk doesn’t permit you to remove the record between wash and dry cycles; though you can easily do that on the current KL, the manufacturer recommends against it because it can apparently wet the electronics in the machine). There is also a less expensive Monks now which I haven’t tried.
So, DIY ultrasonic plus a point nozzle (Monks or Loricraft) can not only be more cost effective, but possibly, more effective in result. I still use the AIVS No. 15 plus lab water on the vacuum machine side, but frankly, I get the same results on the Monks using the Hannl fluid that Syntax recommended followed by a lab water rinse. I think it has to do with the point nozzle’s effectiveness, and less to do with the fluid. But, whatever machines and fluids used on the vacuum side, it seems like the combination of methods works extremely well for me. And though I’m not terribly patient, I can get a good work-flow going; the Monks is actually quicker than you’d think, and the ultrasonic takes time too, though less labor intensive, so I’m running both machines simultaneously. Enough! You get the point. Thanks for responding.
