I use a Monks-- the traditional model than relies on a thread to act as a buffer between the point nozzle and the record surface. (It is one of the newer models that was introduced after Keith’s son rebooted the company and is called the "Omni"). I also use ultrasonic. The combination of cleaning methods is synergistic in my estimation.
I have not had any "hands-on" with the newer, less expensive Monks design that dispenses with the thread altogether.
Frankly, most of the results obtained from vacuum type RCMs are based on method rather than the machine itself (although I prefer the point nozzle type to the wand type vacuum cleaner for several reasons).
I can get very good results using an old VPI with a good cleaning fluid, rinse, and using separate applicators and vacuum wands for the cleaning and rinse steps. I’ve done back to back comparisons using the old VPI (which is still sold) against the Monks, and for most purposes, I suspect the VPI would be fine at a fraction of the cost of the Monks Omni.
As to questions and concerns regarding ultrasonic, I suppose you must be the judge of that for your own record collection-- I have cleaned thousands of records in my own collection using ultrasonic in combination with vacuum and have experienced no instances of damage, deterioration of sound quality or any of the other potential hazards raised about the risk of ultrasonic cleaning. I’ve owned the Audio Desk and the KL and when the KL dies, will go DIY (with a caveat noted below).
At the end of the day, your objective is to get the record clean and leave no residue of cleaning fluid or other contaminants. This is another reason why method is more important to me than the particular machinery involved. There is merit in DIY ultrasonic, which doesn’t require enormous skill; many go this route for cost-effectiveness. To me, the DIY route would be an avenue for additional features and functionality not found on the commercial made for LP US machines currently on the market and likely cost more than the commercial LP cleaning machines. Obviously, the first commandment applies here: do no harm.
I have not had any "hands-on" with the newer, less expensive Monks design that dispenses with the thread altogether.
Frankly, most of the results obtained from vacuum type RCMs are based on method rather than the machine itself (although I prefer the point nozzle type to the wand type vacuum cleaner for several reasons).
I can get very good results using an old VPI with a good cleaning fluid, rinse, and using separate applicators and vacuum wands for the cleaning and rinse steps. I’ve done back to back comparisons using the old VPI (which is still sold) against the Monks, and for most purposes, I suspect the VPI would be fine at a fraction of the cost of the Monks Omni.
As to questions and concerns regarding ultrasonic, I suppose you must be the judge of that for your own record collection-- I have cleaned thousands of records in my own collection using ultrasonic in combination with vacuum and have experienced no instances of damage, deterioration of sound quality or any of the other potential hazards raised about the risk of ultrasonic cleaning. I’ve owned the Audio Desk and the KL and when the KL dies, will go DIY (with a caveat noted below).
At the end of the day, your objective is to get the record clean and leave no residue of cleaning fluid or other contaminants. This is another reason why method is more important to me than the particular machinery involved. There is merit in DIY ultrasonic, which doesn’t require enormous skill; many go this route for cost-effectiveness. To me, the DIY route would be an avenue for additional features and functionality not found on the commercial made for LP US machines currently on the market and likely cost more than the commercial LP cleaning machines. Obviously, the first commandment applies here: do no harm.