|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
74.202.99.106
The answer, of course, is yes. BUT ...
I was recently very fortunate to pick up a never-used Mini Pro 1 for $50 from a classic audio cliche: a wealthy obsessive who had purchased a lot of expensive gear and records but had sold everything except for 1,100 Beach Boys albums and the forgotten Nitty Gritty (he told me that he had spent $40,000 on a turntable and couldn't figure it out so he sold it on eBay. He couldn't even remember the brand! *sigh*).
When I asked if he wanted to sell it I didn't realize it was the $1,500 Mini Pro 1 but knew it was a top-end model. He said that he had never plugged it in and the bag of accessories, including an unopened bottle of cleaning fluid, were piled on top of it. He wanted $25 but I gave him $50. Nice of me, huh? I passed on the Beach Boys collection, despite the 21 copies of "Pet Sounds" from various countries.
The Mini is very convenient as it cleans and then dries both sides at the same time but there are things about it I don't quite like. It almost feels like a very expensive toy for casual vinyl lovers. The main issues is that the top of the record (Side A for future reference) gets plenty of cleaning fluid via a hand-operated pump but delivery to Side B is pretty spotty. It gets damp, and maybe that's enough, but I've always gotten better results from a nice, even spread of fluid.
So I've found myself letting the machine do a few rotations and then flipping the record over so Side B gets more liquid love. But this absolutely negates the machine's main selling point of convenience, plus it's messy. Also, no matter how many rotations you use during the drying cycle, there is always a line of fluid left on one album side; not a big deal but it has to be dealt with before returning the record to its sleeve.
I kind of hate to say it but so far I prefer my old method of cleaning a record by hand using a beater turntable for support and then drying it on an ancient fully manual Record Doctor. It's more work but I'm assured that the record is cleaned the way I like. That method also uses a LOT less fluid as I control every drop.
I'll keep using the Mini for new records as it's easy but for used vinyl I'm sticking to my caveman set-up. Anyone else find that simpler is usually better?
Follow Ups:
I had the same issue, so i removed the felt on the bottom row, then drilled the holes to a larger diameter, then replaced the felt; voila...PLENTY of fluid to the bottom of the record.
Thank you ; I will try also
Interesting! I'll give it a shot.Thanks.
I hardly use my Nitty Gritty.....its good, just not worth the trouble for me to clean my records...maybe once a year...and only those that are in constant rotation.
Had mine for about 12 years.
Yes, it has it's idiosyncracies, like all record cleaning machines. I think it does a good enough job and I've refused to obsess about it.
Oh, and yes, $50 sound pretty damned good.
"If people don't want to come, nothing will stop them" - Sol Hurok
I have a MiniPro2 and I can empathize with the "bottom" side seemingly not getting wet enough. I have found that once my top side is wet the bottom requires about 10 more pumps to saturate. Then all is fine. I actually do scrub both sides prior to putting on NG to vacuum off, then I do the wetting with whatever is in the reservoir (Pure solution mainly) and vacuum again. My LPs are very clean and sound great!
Yeah, it takes a lot of extra pumps, which means a lot of fluid expended, including way too much winding up on the top side. If I made my own fluid I guess I wouldn't care as much.
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: