You presume that the "best sounding" copies are not old pressings; I think that's a mistake. I'm not suggesting that OGs better new reissues as a "rule" but question your assumption when you state that "The audiophile who is after best SQ possible should buy the best editions of recordings of interest and unquestionably will be best served with an ultra sonic RCM." (emphasis added). I use both types of machines FWIW.
Some thoughts on record cleaning machines and alternatives
As many of you know I have some experience using record cleaning machines. This is not, repeat NOT, a discussion about what might be the best record cleaning machine. Frankly I neither know nor care. What this is about is the approach that you might take depending on your needs. Let me start by first addressing the types of record collectors that might need to consider a record cleaning machine (RCM).
The audiophile with priority on sound quality
The record collector with priority on the music itself with SQ of secondary importance
Obviously there could be some who are both, but to keep this organized, we'll deal with the two types separately. The audiophile who is after best SQ possible should buy the best editions of recordings of interest and unquestionably will be best served with an ultra sonic RCM. Which one? I dunno. From what I can learn all US machines achieve similar results sonically, but there have been issues with longevity of some brands. I bought a HumminGuru, and one year in of moderate use my machine now needs a new water pump and solenoid valve. Customer support is excellent, but longevity is a question mark. By contrast I have been using VPI machines since 1986 and have never needed anything other than new brushes for scrubbing the records. VPI machines are just about bullet proof.
The record collector, with a collection spanning decades and many old records of variable condition is more likely to be happier with a vacuum machine. These are more suited to removing the grunge, finger prints and what not that old records seem to accumulate. Also, old records usually have small scratches, wear from repeated play, or from being subjected ot an old or worn stylus etc and no RCM can fix those problems anyway. So, the vacuum RCM is just as effective as the US for all practical purposes on old records. Also, if you collect and clean old records in batches, the vacuum RCM is considerably faster in use. For those who value their time the vacuum RCM has added appeal.
Next, I want to mention the fact that not everybody needs a RCM. There are manual washing machines like the Spin Clean or the new EZ Washer from HumminGuru that do a terrific job and are more than adequate for the occasional record cleaning chore. These should also be considered for the US RCM owner who runs into the occasional batch of old, dirty records because the US machines do not do as good a job of scrubbing off things like finger prints. So, a first clean with one of these manual washers, followed by a run through the US RCM makes a lot of sense.
Saving the best for last, for those who want to take a deep dive, I want to recommend Neil Antinn's book, which is available for free on line and is the definitive resource on the subject. Here is the link; thevinylpress.com/precision-aqueous-cleaning-of-vinyl-records-3rd-edition/
I hope this is useful and let me know how you do.
- ...
- 64 posts total
I use both types of machines too FWIW, which forms the basis for my comments. I do presume that the best sounding copies are not old pressings. That has been my hard won experience at least in the jazz genre. It may not mirror your experience of course. I have a friend who strongly prefers original Blue Note mono records and he puts his money where his mouth is. He pays hundreds for an original, I will pay forty for a Tone Poet. Invariably the original is cut off below about 50-60 Hz, Rudy Van Gelder explained that he had to do that because the tone arms of the day would jump right off the record if he tried for deeper bass. Usually on old copies the highs are either gone altogether due to wear, or the record is scratchy. By comparison, the on the remastered Tone Poets Kevin Gray can provide deep bass, the records are clean and new so the mids and highs are crystal clear. We both think we're right. We agree to disagree, remain friends and love the music. So it is all good. |
I seek the best sound quality, and I stopped using my ultra-sonc machine, because I heard no improvement over my traditional, vacuum RCM. If there was some strain-to-hear-it improvement, it was not worth the time, noise, and effort of the ultra-sonic machine. I have a revealing system, and seek out white hot pressings. Yet, to my ear, my ultra-sonic machine provided no sonic improvement over my traditional VPI machine. Also, ultra-sonic machines are not too good at cleaning heavily soiled pressings. They are good for the clean-up crew (in a manner of speaking). They do the detailed touch-up work. Whereas, a traditional RCM will quickly whisk away clumps of filth.
My ultra-sonic needed repairs just shy of the warranty end date. And I had to ship it to Germany (not a single authorized repair shop in the USA). Argh! My ultra-sonic machine needs distilled water, which evaporates. So if I only need to clean a few records, then I have to fill the tank with distilled water. And due to my infrequent use, the water evaporates by the next time I want to clean any records. I got tired of that, and stopped using my ultra-sonic machine years ago. My VPI 16.5 machine does a great job. As good as a current model? Maybe not? But how much better can it be? I use record cleaning fluid and a brush, wipe off the record, and the vacuum dries it off and picks up any dust that the brush might have missed. Finding a better sounding pressing will do more for sound quality than any RCM. But when you land a better sounding pressing, you are back at square one, where you want it to sound as good as possible. For me, my VPI 16.5 machine gets me there (or 99.9% of the way there). |
I just had to run upstairs and inspect my latest ultrasonic cleaning effort. Three of the batch were secondhand and quite badly marked. They look like new now. The other three are brand new and look it. I follow Neil’s recommendations, using Sorbitol for the wash, and Infotol for rinsing. I don’t use distilled water, just Canberra’s best tap water that has gone through a Britax ion-exchange process. I double the cleaning time to 60 minutes to make sure the water reaches 40 degrees C, and air dry for several hours after rinsing. The ultrasonic machine is a no-name Chinese one but I suspect many similar brands come from the same source. I do not think it is truly ultrasonic because I can hear it. I don’t like the idea of physically scrubbing records, and I don’t believe vacuum can remove very small particles either! I use a carbon-fibre anti-static brush before every play, and after if I remember. The first sleeve a cleaned record sees is a Nagaoka anti-static one. Many second-hand records sound like new, and I put that down to modern stylus shapes ’bridging over’ wear from older stylus shapes. Have just discovered that the bookshop that sells me second-hand classical records for A$5.50 each is closing permanently in the next fortnight. No doubt I will have to drop my standards and go dirtier. |
Purchase a,... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLwmfacmzRM and then realize that you never ever apply a brush until the record grooves are fully flushed and devoid of hard particles that brushing will grind into/scratch the surface.
DeKay |
- 64 posts total