We Vinyl Ultrasonic or Vacuum Cleaner?
I have been working at rebuilding my Windham Hill collection. Many times I can find sealed copies versus used. My preference is for sealed if the price is sane.
The question is with new copies, is there any advantage of running them through a CleanerVinyl 132kHz ultrasonic tank versus my OkkiNokki vacuum cleaner?
Any thoughts on the subject are appreciated.
Seems to be par for the course. We get a TOTL choice that costs eye watering money, or we get a choice from budget conscious sellers that sells for minimum cost and performance, and little to nothing in between. Spent a bit of time looking at the Humminguru and it looks like a Degritter, but has the power levels of a Vevor tank or less. Perhaps the smaller wash chamber offsets the power needs. But not even a shadow of the ultrasonic strength. |
Have yet to get a new record that isn't already dirty. There is usually a film on the record. Also packed in cheap paper, so bit of that on the record as well. First thing I do when opening up a new record, clean it, then put new sleeves on the inner and outer parts. The couple times a new uncleaned record has been played, my needle had crud all over after one side. On time thought it was a bad recording, turns out it was a dirty needle |
@dogberry Thanks! I've been using Sleeve City's Diskeeper Audiophile Inner sleeves. Which do you prefer. I never thought about continually replacing inner sleeves. Replacing the sleeve after each cleaning is really going for it! Expensive but I guess there's a payoff. |
The HG is actually deceptively powerful because the tank volume is very small - 400 ml (the record spins very close to the transducers) vs the DG 1400-ml and the HG is 40-kHz while the DG is 120-kHz, and as the kHz increases, the power necessary for cavitation increases. However, the HG has two 30W transducers (one on either side) while DG the four75W transducers (two on either side) which gets better coverage of the record. |
