CleanerVinyl-Ultrasonic record cleaner
Any comments about this comment? http://www.hifigem.com/the-gem-dandy-versus-ultrasonic-cleaners.html This is coming from a well respected analog guy. Thanks for the feedbacks! |
@hiphile- I haven’t used the GemDandy, though George Merrill has a long well deserved reputation in analog. The main thing that would concern me about his inexpensive approach is that you are apparently using tap water, filled with minerals, and after rinsing, wiping dry, it appears. For the same reason that Merrill criticizes ultrasonics that use a surfactant (cleaning fluid) for leaving fluid on the record, I would be just as concerned about mineral deposits left on a record by Merrill’s method, even though the water is under pressure and the record is ’wiped’ dry. Of course, the reviews say that they got quiet records as a result, so without having used it myself, I can’t say otherwise. That would be a concern, though. Wiping doesn’t necessarily mean that the contaminants (whether fluid or particulates) have been removed- it just means that the record surface is no longer wet. As to Merrill’s criticisms of ultrasonic cleaners they are: -the need to constantly change the bath- an issue that is pretty much eliminated by filtering; -an effective filter that allows full flow but captures contaminants- no argument here; -even after cleaning in a US, the record may have residue (contamination) from the surfactant, if one is used. I believe that is true as well. The KL doesn’t use any cleaning fluid to enhance cavitation, but my learning has suggested that a surfactant will enhance cavitation. Getting it off requires a pure water rinse and in my estimation, a vacuum, which is basically what I do. (Note that as mentioned, I owned the AD, currently have the KL and intend to replace that when it goes with a DIY so that I can use a surfactant). The arguments against vacuum in combination with ultrasonic are: greater time, potential static and further contamination of the record surface. Using a point nozzle, like the Monks, pretty much eliminates any issue re static or cross contamination (if you use two mats). More time consuming? Yes. Everybody has their preferred approach based on the amount of time, money and effort they are willing to devote to cleaning LPs. I’m willing to make those expenditures due to the relatively high investment I have made in older and in many cases, rare pressings- many of which require deep cleaning- many were not "audiophile" records and were not handled accordingly. I actually think you can get pretty good results with a conventional vacuum machine if you use best practices- you don’t have to spend a fortune on cleaning equipment. I like what ultrasonic does, but if I had to choose only one machine, it would probably be the Monks. The ultrasonic, alone, doesn’t address some grotty stuff that is virtually glued into the grooves, but does help loosen it; in combination with fluids, vacuum and pure water rinse steps, I can achieve extremely good results. At a cost in equipment, time and effort. |
bdp24, I don't think Harry has been testing Us cleaners for nothing. I’d bet on VPI to release their own line of US cleaners. pbnaudio, I followed Rushton’s article for equipment. (I’m a Audio Desk owner BTW.) One set of rollers for the AD cleaner costs half the price of my current US cleaner. I am still a big proponent of steaming and continue to do so currently as my first line of defense. My unit has a heating element, which is essential, IMO. (Steamimg/heat?) Just replacing the units I own, using the AD fluid w/ distilled water (in both) was a revelation. My personal feeling is a larger tank area is needed for superior results. Mine is a 10L. I believe at least 1 inch of space between lps, as Rushton writes, enhances the cavitation process.(The more space the better). Sometimes I just go for it and put in one or two at a time. Does life get any better? I’m glad you posted you’re just using distilled water and no additive with excellent results. It has been somewhat disproven on the DIY Audio forum that the Aquafina water MF recommends isn’t as pure as reported. This is probably not hard to research. This will hopefully inspire others to take the next step for a US cleaner. It really doesn’t need to be complicated. whart, I appreciate all of your comments/work. You don’t mention steaming anywhere in your thoughtful/thorough posts. |
@slaw- Hi, Slaw. I haven't really experimented with steaming. I know you have. Is there a point where the vapor condenses to hot water on the record surface? Is there a particular steamer that you prefer? I remember the threads touting it as a good preliminary step in the cleaning process, and more recently, a Fremer video demonstrating how he removed pasted-on paper/cardboard from a flood-damaged record. |
