Vacuum Record Cleaner Rreplacement

I get most of my records from from garage sales and such, and they are typically pretty dirty. My record cleaning protocol is to run them through the vacuum record cleaner then the ultrasonic cleaner. If they have fingerprints or mold I’ll put them through the Neil Antin’s method. I’ve done it this way for years with good results.

Unfortunately, my venerable Music Hall WCS-2 needs a new cleaning wand and I’ve been told from numerous sources that the parts are no longer available. I started the hunt for a new vacuum cleaner and found a suitable replacement. Before I pull the trigger, I wanted to determine if I really need a vacuum cleaner if I’m using the ultrasonic. I’ve used both cleaners in succession more from habit than any practical reason, though I’ve convinced myself that the vacuum cleaner gets the big chunks off first and the ultrasonic does the fine, deep cleaning. I don’t know if this is true or not.

I’d like to know the thoughts of the group. I’m more than happy to buy another vacuum cleaner, but could always put that money toward something else if it is not needed.

Thanks in advance for your help.

jrcotner05-12-2026 12:18pm

...
85 posts total
View entire discussion

richardbrand Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 1,385 posts 05-18-2026 at 10:40pm Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete @antinn Thanks Neil I for one find this level of discussion very helpful indeed when sorting through the weeds! May I just add that, according to the paper I referenced earlier, the size of the bubbles produced is also affected by temperature
richardbrand Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 1,385 posts 05-18-2026 at 11:23pm Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete @kevemaher Don't they listen to their own LPs? That's a fascinating idea! Frankly, I am horrified when a record store offers to play my new record to check for defects . Doing so would immediately turn it into a second hand item in my view! Most likely they would use a DJ-style deck with an unknown amount of stylus wear. If played through loudspeakers, they would risk emptying the store of customers (Mahler is not for everyone, after all). The noise floor of the store may exceed the defect level and most headphones are not that revealing. I have no objection to manufacturers sampling their output, provided the samples are not sold as new. Sampling can show overall trends - like the wear on masters - but obviously cannot detect every faulty record. In reality, I think manufacturers expect a return rate and factor that into the cost of doing business. What they don't seem to factor in is reputational damage. But apparently most records are bought by people who have no means of playing them anyway. Of the six sets (12 disks) of Mahler 2 sold by my record store, only one set has been returned so far. Deutsche Grammophon (DG) in Europe seem to have a new tactic to reducing returns. They don't supply in the first place. I am still waiting for Rachmaninov Piano Concertos ordered in January, and recently released Paganini ordered a month ago, all from Presto Classical. Presto are particularly responsive and helpful. The have refunded my money on defective records from DG's sister company Decca after asking for photographs of the damage. In one case, it was obvious from a line of detritus caused by abrasion from Decca's new, glossy, thick, carboard inner sleeves. In another case, it would probably have needed an electron microscope, which requires destruction of the record. Presto asked me to destroy the record after getting my refund which seems reasonable especially as I bought the CD in the same purchase. Never had to return a CD ...
kevemaher Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 410 posts 05-19-2026 at 12:38am Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete @richardbrand I may be misunderstanding your post. Implied in what I said is testing. Don't they sample LPs to see if the pressing processes are creating audible problems?. This is a simple QA process. I was not suggesting that they should have played the LPs I bought. I believe that the wooshing is not a single item issue. Their test pressing should have caught the problem. I might be mistaken in thinking this was a process problem rather than a one off problem. I don't know what can cause this sound. Does anyone know?
lewm Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 14,669 posts 05-19-2026 at 03:06am Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete I have several re-issue LPs on reputable labels, like Classic Records for one example, that exhibit major distortions. Unfortunately for me, I waited too long after purchase to discover the problems and so cannot realistically expect any help from the manufacturer.
richardbrand Details Discussions Posts This discussion Message User 1,385 posts 05-19-2026 at 06:07am Copy Comment URL Report Comment Edit Delete @kevemaher I believe that the wooshing is not a single item issue It will be interesting if my second copies "whoosh".in similar places. They are Australian pressings and Aussie quality control is normally pretty laid back in a "she'll be right" sort of way. I have a feeling that whooshing is a vinyl consistency problem, but have no proof. There are stories of vinyl being recycled, labels and all, which could explain why you get similar whooshing on both sides. In Australia, the seller is held accountable for substandard goods, not the manufacturer, though the seller can in turn claim against the manufacturer. Not a good look for a small record store against the mighty Universal Music Group! Testing in general is a complex subject. Before software was engineered, the quip was that testing could only prove the presence of bugs, not their absense. Even today, most software is developed using debugging tools instead of engineering discipline Playing a record seems to be a bit like attending a live performance. You never know what might go wrong next . Adds to the sense of occasion ...