 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
107.215.180.109
is anyone aware of a good comparison of current sub-$1000 record cleaning machines?
interested in knowing how models from vpi, nitty gritty, music hall, okki nokki etc stack up.
the best record cleaning machine under a grand is?
thanks
-andre d
Follow Ups:
Actually, two testimonials ...for VPI.#1...
I purchased my 16.5 used ...it was in very sad shape (still is), but it was only $50, so I could not leave it behind. Turns out, looks don't matter. Despite the cracks in the housing and the rust on the motor, five years and hundreds of cleansed albums later, it still works like a charm. If there is an RCM out there that is better, well, I'm too cheap and far too satisfied with the cleanliness of my records to care.
#2...
Back when I was in the biz I worked in shop in a college town. This was right about the time of the advent of the evil silver discs, so students still had records. Lots and lots of records.
Our shop cleaned records, for a buck a piece (including a new sleeve), on a VPI 17.
One morning when we arrived at the shop there was a line outside of dozens of students carrying bags and crates filled with records. Turns out a pipe had burst in one of the dorms the night before and lots of records got soaked.
Over the next month students kept coming and coming and we cleaned THOUSANDS of records on our VPI 17 ...and it never missed a beat. When that episode was over, we continued to clean records on that machine for four more years, when we finally retired it.
I'm sure there are other makers of RCMs that do a fine job. Based on my satisfaction with how clean my records are, with VPI's longevity and their propensity for customer service, I'll be sticking with VPI.
Dean.
PS: The only other RCM I have experience with is my right arm wielding a Discwasher brush.
reelsmith's axiom: Its going to be used equipment when I sell it, so it may as well be used equipment when I buy it.
Edits: 04/16/14
I've had a 16.5 so long I can't even remember when I got it. I think it's the audio-related piece of equipment I've had the longest. I have no idea how many records it's cleaned, upper hundreds at the very least, more likely in the thousands.
Yes, the case is warped and a corner opened. Closed it and sealed it. And it's still working great cleaning records.
Side note: For the last few years, I have been using Disc Doctor fluid per instructions with excellent results. Not sure, but I think that fluid was designed with VPI RCMs in mind.
I bought mine as a shop demo over 25 years ago. Still works like a champ.
.
"The problem with quotes from the internet is that many of them just are just made up."
-Abraham Lincoln
I have a Nitty Gritty, but use it seldom. If the record is really dirty, I steam it...comes out pristine.
Gives me a chance to trot out my Shop-Vac twice a year
I've previously used my late Fathers Nity Gritty and borrowed VPI HW 16.5
from a dealer friend and find my DIY rig actually is capable of better results
the little plastic el cheapo hardware store wet dry vac has a lot more balls than any of the commercial RCM's I've used and I have the luxury of metering the precise amount of suction with my thumb I drilled a small hole in the vacuum hand tool.
I've found the most critical single aspect regardless of the machine being used
is the record cleaning solvent, I prefer Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab Super Record Wash (32 Oz) (RRL) as it lifts and suspends the crud from the groove
I use a carbon fiber (AQ) brush to distribute the solvent.
The RRL also contains a Vinyl lubricant component to restore whatever
was lost in the cleaning process, DIY solvents particularly the ones containg Alcohol typically leave a dry groove and do a piss poor job of actually suspending whatever crud has been dislodged.
.
Back when I first started wet cleaning/vacuuming, I tried many combinations of cleaners and rinses and found that grocery store distilled water as a rinse put noise back on the record.
I also found that 2 applications of most any cleaner beat one application of the best cleaner.
Now I clean with Mobile Fidelity (RRL) Super Deep and vacuum, then a Super Wash rinse and vacuum. Result is very quiet, good sounding LPs.
Seems there's always at lest one poster in these threads that insists his method leaves a disc totally noise free. Don't know what to make of that. Did his service in the Artillery?
The play after the wash is the key to just using tap water.
If i play right after i rinse it off/dry it. It sounds fine. AND will not have crackle afterwards either.
If I would just put it aside and play a few days later? no, it is noisy.
So YES the record does have something left which playing it right off takes care of.
Really.
There was a "wet playing" craze 7 or 8 years ago that went away but I wonder if it isn't a good idea, regardless of the liquids used, to play immediately after vacuuming as Elizabeth suggests.
do you really want your stylus to serve as a groove-cleaner? I don't. I wonder whether Elizabeth has examined her stylus under a microscope, post-play post-cleaning.
However, I think it is more likely that Elizabeth's observation has to do with static electricity build-up, which if correct makes the whole point moot.
I'm given to believe that Milwaukee tap water will make your records taste and smell like cheap (Duff) beer ;-)
Regards Ferd
I can think of nobody who would be a better expert in cheap beer.
Opus 33 1/3
There are several water works. The main city one beingcloser to it the water is MUCH better.
As you move further away the water mains etc add to the problem.
I grew up on the East side and the water was great. Now I am somewhat further away and the water taste is not great. But it STILL is pretty clean water. (Compared to other cities on rivers.. I pity folks on the Mississippi.. downstream Yikes!)
One added benefit of Chicago dumping billions of gallons away from lake Michigan (into eventuaally the Mississippi) is they help keep it all clean by drawing the water on down towards them from us.. So we (Milwaukee) do not drown in our own filth)
Chicago has sued Milwaukee and won about making us dump clean water only.. We still dump sewage when big storms arrive.. But sice Chicago is drinking that water... LOL
I pity folks in the SouthWest and Cali about not having water.. We have gazillions of gallons here on the Great Lakes.. And not giving any away either...The Great Lakes Compact sees to that.
I went to high school in Chicago and am firmly convinced that if the
cosmic Big Kahuna ever decides to give the planet an enema the nozzle goes in there.
I much prefer Wisconsin, I currently live in Beloit (The Paris of Southern Wisconsin ;-)
Regards Ferd
I believe it's pronounced "Bel-wah" (or, when pronounced phonetically, the sound a quarter makes when it's dropped in the Rock River).
;-) are you resident of this fine city ?
Beloit born and bred! Currently residing in Madison.
I lived in Madison for 25 years, then after the IRS cleaned me out, I lost my house and business and had to relocate, I considered Tuscany, Provance Palma Majorca and then it hit me Beloit ;-)
What is the important aspect of the RCM for you? In other words how automated do you want the cleaning process to be?
The reason I ask is that you can get the most important part for very little - The KAB EV1 is the Nitty Gritty design that you use on your own vacuum cleaner. You manually turn the disc after you have manually applied the fluid and washed the disc with your own applicator and brush etc.
The commercial RCM automate the process so you are paying for convenience by having the fluid reservoir internal to the machine complete with a pump, and a vacuum module. BUT for the ultimate clean, it still comes down to what you do to prepare the record.
I use the KAB EV1 and I normally wash my records in batches of 6. My process is to apply a pre wash of Isopropyl alcohol/distilled water, then enzyme cleaner. Then the disc is washed in tepid water with dishwashing detergent. Finally rinsed before vacuuming on the EV1.
Each disc takes me 6 mins.
The final result I believe is a more detailed clean than the RCM. Apart from the dishwashing part, none of the pretreatments are recirculated as they would be in a RCM.
The KAB EV1 will save you heaps and give you the benefit of a Nitty Gritty, but I think you also get a better clean! (Well I would think that wouldn't I!)
Regards
Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
Hi, Anthony,
I use two EV-1 RCMs to clean records. One for the cleaning solution stage and the other for the rinsing stage. Having a separate RCM for rinsing minimizes contamination of the felt strips from the washing cycle.
Regards,
Tom
Hey, neat idea!!
Do you have the problem where the moment you have a clean record...the dust has already settled on the surface by the time you get to the record player?
Drives me nuts!!
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
I was going to get rid of my first EV-1 and just buy a powered RCM like the 16.5. But the more I thought about it, I figured manually cleaning records probably ended up with records just as clean or cleaner than any motorized RCM; just not nearly as convenient.
So instead of buying a 16.5 I bought another EV-1 for rinsing. (And saved enough money to buy a Fozgometer and a KAB SpeedStrobe kit.) The separate RCM seems to be working because I rarely hear any surface 'crackle' anymore, even with records that look like they should sound pretty bad.
Dust is the enemy, no doubt. But as John says, a carbon fiber brush does the job. And besides, if the record stayed perfectly clean forever I wouldn't need to have two RCMs. :-)
Regards,
Tom
That's where the carbon fiber brush comes in handy. ;-)
Dude! Six minutes!I use whatever concentrated fluid that VPI sells and mix it with distilled water. What happens after that is the best that I can expect. After all, it's just a record.
Edits: 04/15/14
Oh, did I forget to mention I have OCD? ;)
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
Nothing wrong with taking more time if you believe you're doing a better job.
Is that a good answer? If you can't afford a new one, buy a used one and try it out.
Seriously, it's a simple and robust machine that does what it's supposed to.
A truly noisy machine. After 2000 records, I couldn't take it any longer - even with headphones on, my body rattled after a session of cleaning. I mothballed mine and bought a Clearaudio Double Matrix Pro.
I never do that many at a time. There have been a few occasions where I did more than a couple of dozen and did wear earplugs.
My HW-17F is noisy only when the vacuum is on. It's not very noisy when applying fluid and brushing the LP. I basically clean one or two records right before playing because it is rather monotonous to clean a large number of records in succession. I used to do that when I first got the machine, but now most of my records have been cleaned and they stay clean if replaced in their protective sleeves immediately after playing.
The main thing I'm concerned with is getting my records clean. I think my VPI HW-17F does an excellent job. I guess it would be nice to have a quiet cleaning machine, but I spend so little time cleaning records compared to listening to records that the noise is not a significant factor to me. My HW-17F has been working like new for over 20-years and I couldn't ask for a better machine.
Best regards,
John Elison
I keep my HW17 in my basement workshop. I cannot understand why quiet running has anything to do with the goodness of a RCM, unless one lives in an apartment building with thin walls and thus also lacks a workshop. I keep the RCM in a separate space, because I also cannot imagine cleaning LPs while also trying to listen to music, which is another reason I don't care about RCM noise. Those are two separate preoccupations, one is drudgery, and the other is a pleasure.
Edits: 04/16/14
yes, good clear answer.
and how does the new cyclone compare?
thanks
-andre d
The Cyclone system vacuums in both directions giving even better cleaning and is still much faster than an ultrasonic machine. We have compared the ultrasonic machines (we have a $4000.00 one) to the Cyclone and can only say you should compare before spending the money. I'm cheap, to me it would be wiser to spend the extra money on new records that need minor cleanups occasionally which the 16.5 will do with speed and perfectly.
BTW, Myles Astor showed electron microscope shots of the grooves after being cleaned by his 16.5, if there is no dirt in the grooves exactly what is the ultrasonic doing to change the sound????????? And it does change the sound in profound ways and not always for the better. Are we really getting the dirt out of the liquid fast enough or is it being plated back on or in some ways burnishing the sharp ridges in the grooves??? We need more data on this before telling everyone that it is perfect, I remember that phrase for CD!!
HW
HW,
I'm happy that you're back. Cheers from a happy owner, Zach
There was a post of a release from VPI a couple of days ago where they explained that the MW Cyclone was expensive to manufacture, and as a result would be made as an upgrade to the 16.5.
The best I can figure is that the Cyclone is reversible (not sure what that does for you - turn the brush around) and has a much quieter vacuum pump.
Apparently, there will be an upgrade kit for the 16.5? At least it was hinted at. In any event, I've never had an issue with the 16.5 other than a few screws coming loose that hold the "platter" to the motor spindle.
I had no idea the VPI is vacuum pump based I thought only the Keith Monks or Loricraft RCM's used vacuum pumps, correc t me if I'm wrong.
Regards Ferd
What do you mean ? (unless of course you're being sarcastic (I've expounded and pontificated on the subject extensively) ;-)
In case you're not, I apply several drops of solvent distribute it over the record surface with an AQ CF Brush then vacuum up the solution containing the suspended crud then place the record in a drying rack, next I play the record and give it a quick once over with a Hunt to remove any of the post cleaning remnant crud dislodged by the stylus, I find my records becoming progressively quieter this way. After that I just clean my styli and use an AQ brush on the records f
Since you are a pontiff of LP cleaning, have you ever considered following up your cleaning ritual by rinsing the LP surface with distilled water, before placing it in a drying rack? I found that makes a worthwhile difference with my VPI HW17, by removing residual cleaning fluid and crud from the grooves that was not removed by the first pass of the VPI vacuum wand. (My preferred cleaning fluid is a mixture of water, propanol, and non-ionic detergent.)I once came to the conclusion that the Walker Audio protease-based cleaning process works a little better than the above, but the extra steps did not seem worth the effort, except for especially loved LPs.
Edits: 04/18/14
Being THE record cleaning Pontif I always assumed I was infallible, no ? ;-)
I always rinsed using RO (reverse Osmosis) water before I adopted the use of RRL wash as the manufacturer convinced me a rinse was no longer necessary
and likely even counterproductive as it would rinse away RRL's vinyl lubricant component.
BTW I have an RO system as I'm also an aquariast and keep S.E. Asian Loaches which require jungle type water.
I'm a biologist, and I have a reverse osmosis purifier in my lab at work. Distilled water goes in, and de-ionized distilled water with a resistance near to 20 Mohms/cm comes out. Probably way overkill for cleaning LPs.Do you know what is the nature of this "vinyl lubricant"? If it is petroleum-based, it ought not to be very soluble in water, but I suppose that the suction could pull it off along with water rinse.
Edits: 04/16/14
I don't have a clue ?
I found myself enamored with the idea of the lubricant renew RRL claimed
I had no reason the question the concept as in practice the RRL seemed to
do the job better than all the other solvents I used.
Whatever the lubricant I'd imaginne it's a proprietary (trade secret)
Regards Ferd
The VPI has always had a vacuum pump, or motor, whatever you want to call it. There's one motor for the spindle and the other for the vacuum.
How did you think the VPI worked?
A vacuum pump is a sophisticated rather expensive device it operates nearly silently, VPI and all the other traditional commercial RCM's use fan based vacuums, entirely different technologies (which are about as silent as an F18 Hornet on afterburner at takeoff ;-)
No RCM with the possible exception of the Ultrasonic RCM's do nearly as good a job as the vacuum pump based RCM's such as the Loricraft or Monks.
I really don't care how they do it; pump, motor, fan, whatever. Vacuum is vacuum, it's negative pressure at a given value.
As far as Keith Monks goes, I would expect a machine that sells for over three times the price of the VPI 16.5 to do a better job. But from what I recall, didn't the original company declare insolvency?
The son is now running the business. They have a new redesigned model out.
Thread isolated suction tip like the Loricraft.
And yes, it has a vacuum pump system.
http://www.stereophile.com/content/keith-monks-discoveryone-record-cleaning-machine
????????????
-Wendell
Hi Wendell! We use a vacuum motor that will lift mercurey 120", more than enough to microscopically clean the grooves of any LP.
HW
It's obviously not.
What else is important other than picking nits? Nit on.
-Wendell
It makes a significant difference, with a vacuum pump based machine you not only do a much better job removing the crud but can clean records while listening to your records,
That's nit picking ?
Since I don't clean records while listening, yes. Better job? Perhaps. Where is the data that is not simply anecdotal?
-Wendell
Using your reasoning what difference does the particular model SME 3009
arm make ?
I mean they were all manufactured by SME, mount cartridges, read the grooves, no ? ;-)
Suspect you can't if you are comparing RCMs to tonearms.
-Wendell
How am I supposed to quantify the differences in vacuum pump based RCM's vs traditional RCM's ?
However I have had some of my records cleaned by a friend with a Monks
these are records I'd cleaned repeatedly previously, and in most cases the results with the Monks were perceptibly quieter and seemingly more dynamic
and this BTW mirrors the experience of others on this forum and others.Google or VA search if you're actually serious and not just being argumentative.
BTW Wendell do you happen to be a personal injury attorney or are just being obtuse ?
Regards Ferd
It's quite easy, buy all three types, sit down with customers, clean their records and see which does the best job. HP did this in TAS 30 years ago, it beat the thread nozzle type by a wide margin and was 1/7th the price. That still is the case and in fact the new bidirectional vacuum machines are even better.
Looking over an old issue of TAS the other day and most of the companies and dealers advertising are now gone, we are still here, kills you doesn't it!!!!!
The grand Kahuna audiophile poobah HP liked your machine better that does it, the end all definitive answer forever ;-)
You are so utterly full of it you old Pirate.
I am old but I don't wear a bandana or an eyepatch!!
;-)
You asserted their superiority. If an opinion, enough said.
-Wendell
There is no question, the nozzle (monks/loricraft) type machines do a much better job than a slot (vpi/nitty gritty) type machines.
It's all about removing all the cleaning fluid and dirt from the record fast enough to prevent evaporation from re-depositing the dirt back on the record.
With a nozzle type machine the record surface that's under the nozzle goes from full wet to full dry in an instant.
I built my own nozzle type machine. The vacuum pump cost me $60, I had a donor turntable and spent another $20 at the hardware store for the other bits and pieces.
Mine is fully manual but I don't mind. Drawing the arm slowly across the record becomes second nature after a very short time.
The hardest part is getting really good thread.
Monks and Loricraft used to use The Celebrated Tolbot #30 but it's no longer being made.
I scored some from a tackle shop in England.
The thread that Loricraft is using now is not as good, not as supple.
BTW, No Empire turntables were harmed in the making or use of this record cleaning machine.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Looks like a nice machine you've made! I'm in the process of building something similar myself. If you don't mind me asking, what pump did you use?
I'm not familiar with the design (Monk's or yours) ... is the thread involved in cleaning or just suction ... perhaps to create a gap between the nozzle and record?
Never trust an Atom, they Make Up everything!
"perhaps to create a gap between the nozzle and record"That's the only reason for it being there.
It's just a spacer.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Edits: 04/16/14
Beautiful !
I admire your resourcefulness and engineering prowess.
I wish you were marketing Tre' RCM's I'd be your first customer.
Regards Ferd
I build tube amplifiers also.
I have built a few for others but don't like to.
I would much prefer to help others build but with you in Wisconsin and me in California........that's not going to happen. :-)
If you decide to "give it a go" I would offer whatever help I can over the phone.
Building a nozzle type RMC is not hard but there were a few tricks that I had to figure out. I would be willing to past them on to you.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
The war on "Slot VS. Nozzle" was over in 1980 when HP cleaned a record on his brand new perfectly working Keith Monks machine and then on the 1/7th the price HW-16. The Monks cleaned record sounded cleaner after going through the 16 but it did not work the other way around !!!!!!!!
Can we not change history because we like to do it, this test has already been done!!! The motor in the HW-16.5 will lift mercurey 120", more than enough vacuum to clean any disc microscopically clean.
HW
"The war on "Slot VS. Nozzle" was over in 1980 when HP cleaned a record on his brand new perfectly working Keith Monks machine and then on the 1/7th the price HW-16. The Monks cleaned record sounded cleaner after going through the 16 but it did not work the other way around !!!!!!!!
Can we not change history because we like to do it, this test has already been done!!! "
So Harry's test is the end all beat all, end of story?
That doesn't sound very scientific to me.
"The motor in the HW-16.5 will lift mercurey 120",.........."
I not sure what you mean.
The way I understand it, vacuum is measured in inches Hg. Normal atmosphere pressure is 29.9" Hg.
If we connect a vacuum pump to a closed container and lower the pressure by 29.9" Hg we have a perfect vacuum, 0" Hg. This is not doable. It would take a pump capable of "pulling" 29.9" of mercury and as far as I know there's no such thing.
You must be using a different form of measurement.
"....... more than enough vacuum to clean any disc microscopically clean."
I'm sure there is enough but that's not the question.
Does the part of the record surface that's below the vacuum slot go from being fully wet to fully dry the moment the vacuum is turned on so that there is no chance of evaporation and re-depositing of dirt?
If it does then there is no advantage in the nozzle type machine over your slot type machine.
This would mean that the pads would also have to be completely dried the moment the vacuum is turned on, otherwise some of the cleaning fluid (and dirt) would be left behind to evaporate on the surface of the record while waiting for the record to come back around to the pads (and vacuum slot).
If your machine does all that then I'm all wrong. It certainly wouldn't be the first time.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
My core question and the reason I believe that nozzle machines are inherently superior;
"Does the part of the record surface that's below the vacuum slot go from being fully wet to fully dry the moment the vacuum is turned on so that there is no chance of evaporation and re-depositing of dirt?"
Here's the answer I found in the directions of use for both the HW 17 and the HW 16.5
"13. After the record has completed two revolutions, move the VACUUM switch down to the off position. When the Vacuum Pickup Tube lifts off the record rotate it until it points toward the back of the unit.
Two revolutions are usually sufficient to remove all of the cleaning fluid and leave the record completely dry. If some fluid remains on the record, turn on the VACUUM switch for two more revolutions."
It is my contention that, at least part of, the cleaning fluid that is left on the partially dried record surface that leaves the vacuum slot area will evaporate while waiting to come back around to the vacuum slot for a second attempt at drying.
It is my contention that any evaporation of the cleaning fluid will leave some of the dirt, that was suspended in that cleaning fluid, on the surface of the record.
It is my contention that this process will repeat itself for any subsequent revolutions necessary to completely dry the record.
With the Keith Monks that I used years ago at a local Hi-Fi shop and the nozzle type machine that I built, the record surface is completely dry as it leaves the nozzle area and therefore there is no evaporation or re-depositing of dirt possible.
Now, how much difference does any of this really make in the real world?
I have no idea!
I just wanted everyone to understand the reason behind my thinking.
Thanks.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Why doesn't someone using a electron microscope show us to difference. any one ?
Already done in TAS 20 years ago. Clean is clean, anything else is changing the record.
I have used the VPI for many years with all kinds of fluids. It does a nice job but just recently I purchased an Ultrasonic V8. This machine is far better than my VPI. It not only gets read of more clicks and pops but it really improves the sound of the record. Much improved high frequency response and much more low level information. I know this is a $1500 machine but you should look at it as if you are getting a new preamp or new speakers. It is that good and I have no connection to the company
Alan
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
