2. analog
  3. 1322020048

Different Results between Record Cleaning Machines


The last thread on Record Cleaning Machines (RCMs) in 2009 covered the simple to the exotic in machinery.

RCMs haven't changed much since then, but AIVS has released 'Solution 15,' an enzyme cleaning solution, to augment their three bottle cleaning kit.

I have an older VPI RCM (the 16, not the 16.5). After cleaning with AIVS chemistry on my VPI my records, one Warner Brothers (Sweet Baby James), one RCA (Bridge Over Troubled Waters), both from 1970, didn't sound as quiet as the LPs cleaned on my friend's Loricraft using exactly the same chemistry and very similar technique. We noted a couple of things.

First, the stylus collected a *huge* amount of gunk --particularly from what was, at least chemically, a record cleaned with care, and according to AIVS instructions.

Second, after playing a couple of songs, we stopped, cleaned the stylus again, and played once more. The sound was drastically improved. Anyone have experience similar to this?

I'm a little skeptical about using an expensive TT, cartridge and stylus for auxiliary record cleaning.

Was it the 'gunk removal' that led to better sound with the second playback? Was the mold release compound coming off in globs with the needle carving its way down to the sound? Why was so much material caught on the stylus? And why didn't the RCM collect more of it?

Is the answer too obvious?

The VPI's vacuum motor is brand new. The table sounds like its bearings are arthritic when it rotates, but beside that, it turns with considerable torque.

Thanks in advance for any experience you might have about this.

At the moment I'm considering a Loricraft purchase. Anyone have a Lorcraft for sale?

Happy Thanksgiving,
128x128cdk84
rodman99999
6,039 posts
 
I owned an original VPI 16(purchased in 1981), and now own the 16.5(using VPI's fluids). Many of the records in my possession, were cleaned with the first, then treated with LAST(once). I've always pre-play cleaned with a Discwasher D3 or 4 system and have NEVER experienced the least bit of gunk buildup, on my styli, which have always been treated with STYLAST(every 3 discs). Clicks, pops or any other extraneous noise during disc play, to me, would be extremely annoying. The vast majority of my albums(those purchased after my first VPI RCM), are still free of those distractions.
markd51
762 posts
 
If you are considering the Loricraft as an upgrade, it certainly is a very fine machine. I strongly doubt that any here, such as my friend Doug Deacon, would retrograde from his Loricraft back to any wand style RCM.

The Loricraft I understand takes some knowledge to understand its operational features, which I have read Doug write about here (search the archives). Understanding the machine will no doubt be beneficial to extracting its best performance.

Still, I'll defend the VPI 16.5, or others similar to, either from VPI, or others like Clearaudio, that with the proper cleaning products, and techniques such issues as you have experienced should not be happening.

Hard to say where the shortcomings are, but as I understand about the older VPI model 16 RCM, the Wand is attached-glued to the Lid of the Machine. That it is possible you are losing vacuum pressure from a poor seal-fit of parts with this older Vacuum Wand design?

All newer VPI Machines use a vacuum wand assembly that has a good fit tolerance, for better vacuum suction with very little vacuum leakage, if any.

Others, such as the Clearaudio Smart Matrix-Smart Matrix Pro is a very nicely made machine.
cdk84's avatar
cdk84 OP
70 posts
 

Thanks to your responses I've discovered that my Model 16 was retrofitted with the spring-loaded 16.5 vacuum wand and a new top. Therefore there isn't the problem endemic to the 16, where the vacuum tube was attached to the lid of the machine.

I'm at a loss to explain the performance I've seen. I am a meticulous photographer, thoroughly versed in the use and effects of time and agitation of fluids. Further, I know the AIVS solutions work beautifully: I've heard their results on my friend's system. Nothing short of stunning.

The vacuum wand is adjusted to the correct height and parallel to the platter because I found it causing the platter to stop rotating and readjusted the height to prevent stoppage.

The vacuum tube slot is supposed to be angled slightly toward the front of the machine --according to the user's manual-- and I've done that, too.

Hope someone out there has the answer. Thanks for your input thus far: it still seems a mystery to me.

Best,
David
markd51
762 posts
 
From your descriptions, all sound well.

One thing that is an unkonwn to me, as I never seen the inside of a model 16 machine, is where, and how the vacuum motor is positioned-situated within the machine, and by how and what means does the vacuum motor cause suction at the vacuum wand?

At least with the model 16.5, the priciple is basically simple, you have a vacuum motor butted up against one side of a baffled recovery tank, and in essence the vacuum wand at the other. There is a foam rubber seal on the 16.5 RCM, where the vacuum motor face butts up against the recovery tank. If this goes bad, which it can over time, proper sealing will be compromised, there will be a loss of vacuum pressure, and as well possible fluid leakage may occur at this area.

With my 16.5, basically all the fluids are off the record within one revolution. I do another revolution as insurance.

And as many others have found, more revolutions than 2 usually accomplish nothing more than than building a static charge due to a now dry wand rubbing the record's surface.

About the only other unknown I can think of mentioning, was what records did you note this with? Was this with just a few records that were used, that you've noticed this just lately, and only one occasion, or does this seem to be the norm, no matter what records you throw at your machine?

I ask this because records coming from some unknown source could possibly have been cleaned, and treated with something very stubborn to remove.

And that a repeat cleaning again had been the possible cause of positive results? Mark
decibell
69 posts
 
I'm using a VPI 16.5 and have cleaned appr 1500 records with it. The Loricrafts stronger vaccum effect is of course superior, but I achieve excellent results with my VPI as well. I use MFSLs brushes with replaceable pads. The brushes are fine enough to reach into the grooves. With careful pressure applied, these brushes plus a good cleaning fluid (my favorite is from discdoc.com) and a good rinse with lab water should get you very close to the loricraft. I have never had gunk on my cartridge tip from a dirty record after it was cleaned like described. Try this first, before spending big $$$ on a Loricraft.
More to discover