$100 RCM - Record Cleaning Machine ***

Looks interesting! The "base" part is a re-purposed CRT swivel stand. I picked up a couple at Princess Auto around a year ago and use one as a cleaning platter before passing through my vac cleaner (with a mat on it of course).

 

Yes, the seller makes no secret of the fact that the base is purchased, not printed. He even has a video on his site about how to use it with his kit form RCM.

 

>>>FALSE.

 

I've used an ultrasonic and would dispute this

 

I applaud the fellow who came up with this- is it the least expensive commercialized (i.e, non-DIY) vacuum set-up available?
I do think vacuum cleaning is important and I use it in conjunction with ultrasonic- if you've read some of my other posts, you'll know that I'm machine agnostic- and willing to go to some lengths to compare and evaluate the results (though I can't claim any scientific basis for it, my findings are based entirely on results). I think you have to do a couple of things to clean a record:
you have to loosen whatever foreign matter is in the grooves; and
you have to effectively remove it.
How you get there- any number of different approaches.
The positive of vacuum is that it enables you to lift the contaminated fluid (hopefully, having fully loosened and suspended the contaminants in the process- something I've that I've found in required multiple cleanings in some cases). The negative of the vacuum is the potential to further contaminate the record and create a static charge. (This problem is largely minimized with point nozzle machines but they tend to be very expensive).
I've found that ultrasonic (using both top commercially available ultrasonic machines designed for LPs) did not completely remove some stuff that was heavily embedded into the grooves- I'm not talking about surface stuff like fingerprints, but stuff you can't see but can hear. Some records required more aggressive fluids, agitation and rinsing, sometimes repeated cleanings of this type, along with vacuum to remove the fluid- to completely eliminate what sounded like groove damage. I love the convenience of the ultrasonic type machines and also like how they work in combination with a vacuum machine. Depending on the machines, you can reverse processes, and finish on vacuum (at least with a point nozzle) after an ultrasonic cleaning.
But, we are talking about budget cleaning here, and ultrasonic, even DIY ultrasonic, isn't this cheap (and likely won't be, though I've seen kits that, combined with a simple rotisserie mechanism, using a 'generic' ultrasonic bath, are far cheaper than the Audio Desk or KL).
I've never used a Spin Clean, but can tell you that I would be concerned about residue left in the bath from prior cleanings. I pre-clean virtually every record before it goes into the ultrasonic, to minimize such 'bath pollution' for precisely this reason, even if I wind up 'finishing' the record with the point nozzle vacuum.

 

I've got perhaps a naive question to those of you who have used alternatives to the ShopVac style vacuums: We've got a bagless vacuum we don't use since it doesn't do the job on our cats' hair. Is there any reason I can't use that to vacuum water off records? While not designed as a ShopVac, everything goes into the container anyway... would probably take the filter out first, but aside from that are there any other considerations?

EDIT: Hoover's live chat says no, it'll ruin the machine. Not too worried about... but don't want to electrocute myself. Still curious to hear any thoughts.

 

The shop vac I pictured was only $20. I don't think I'd use a non water model to do this.

 

A very reasoned post. I agree with all of your points, though I've not had the opportunity to use an ultrasonic. I have found that here in Pittsburgh, where mold is a real problem, that I can get an old record sounding presentable after it's first cleaning, but that when I wait a day and clean it again is where the real benefit comes in. My theory (and it is only that) is that the first wash with mold cleaner/iso kills the mold, then it being dead for a day releases it's "grip" allowing the cleaning the next day to more thoroughly remove the spores.

 

Ah, the 'Burgh. Grew up there. Jerry's started after I left. Are you talking about mold as in organic growth? I'm very afraid of any record so contaminated, that stuff is hard to kill. I don't think regular record cleaning fluids are enough. It's biohazard time.

 

This looks very nice but I too wonder how it compares to the KAB ev-1. That's the one I had been saving up for instead of a spin clean.

 

I have had excellent success with the Sporacidin Enzymatic Mold Cleaner. Especially when used two days consecutively. Records that you wouldn't dream of putting a needle to played like new afterward.

 

To my cleaning method this is better, plus it is half the price.

 

I already own a RCM but this little device should be a wakeup call to the 'big boys' who charge a lot for essentially the same rig but in a much more glorified package at several times the cost. This stuff is not rocket science. A vacuum is a vacuum.

Ultrasonic is where I am going next with RCMs and I am thinking about making my own, if I can find an ultrasonic unit cheaply enough.

 

My apologies. I didn't see the wav files. Unfortunately I can't seem to open them in my browser to listen to them. Nevertheless it appears that you only supplied a comparison of uncleaned baseline and after cleaning by your $100 RCM that results in an improvement in fixed clicks. This confirms that the $100 RCM does some degree of cleaning -- which I have no doubt that it does.

My question was regarding your assumption that your sink cleaning regimen is superior to the Spin Clean. You raise a legitimate concern about the Spin Clean re: the re-use of water (which others have also raised). However, in practice I've personally found this to be a non-issue (as have others) -- perhaps because unless you replace brushes/pads after cleaning every LP, in theory even with rinsing the pads/brushes you're still getting some cross contamination. You really haven't provided any evidence other than supposition that the Spin Clean is inferior to your sink cleaning regime.

Unless I'm missing something, all you've shown is that $100 RCM does indeed clean records, but not whether it is better or worse than the Spin Clean.

 

They both use an external vac so assuming there are no faults with either device I'm guessing they'd perform about the same.

I use a Record Doctor III (similar to the KAB but with a built in vac), and I will say the platter aspect of the $100 RCM is appealing. I scrub my records on a platter before running them through the Record Doc and have found a big improvement vs cleaning it directly on the RCM. You can't really get a good scrub going when the record is sorta teetering on the RCM.

 

I addressed that. I said that I didn't have my capture system available when I used my friend's Spin Clean, but the approach I took when able should at least validate me as having a clue.

 

This system looks very intriguing , but what I did not see in the video is the actual cleaning/scrubbing of the record!!!

I don't believe any cleaning method that doesn't scrub the record is going to work.

 

The scrubbing is done to whatever degree you like with a cleaning fluid and a brush. I believe most RCMs work in this manner.

 

I bought a 3D printed vacuum wand that he sells and use it in my DIY record cleaner machine that I'm very pleased with. I got it all before he posted that item, otherwise I would have bought it! Otherwise, I'm very pleased with his product and how well it works for very cheap.

 

So I took my RCM over to my friend's house who has the Spin Clean. He took a Spin Cleaned record which he felt was still noisy and cleaned it again on this machine. He was quite impressed with the improved quietness and plans to buy one of these for himself now.

 

Not sure about scrubbing being the only way to clean. Some fluids advise its only agitation that's needed to loosen the gunk. For example,Disc Doctor Miracle Cleaner. Also Melody Mate advises just to spread the fluid around and let it sit there for 10 seconds or so then vacuum off.

 

New to vinyl but even just eyeballing some of the used records I've purchased it's clear I needed something - so I bought this thing. I may need to get a similar, small shop-vac as well; we have a very beefy shop-vac but it's a 2 or 3 inch hose. Maybe they have adapters at Lowe's or something?

 

Oh, I don't see this at all. I can't think of any analogy to other types of cleaning I've done that hasn't required the need for some rubbing to take off grit or oil. I think creating light friction through rubbing is almost required to clean anything!

Okay, I'll be the cheapo guy in this thread. It's $100 plus $30 shipping. I honestly find this setup still to0 expensive to consider. The price seems high to me for just the two plastic attachments. . If he did this for less then $50 shipped, I would be jumping at the bargain, but I think it's too pricey. Many years ago I also built a DIY rcm, using a shop vac and a nozzle with a slit and felt pads. The whole process was just very unwieldy to me and I only used it a few times. There's a lot to be said for an all-in-one rcm box. Add another $30-$40 for a shop vac and you're at nearly $200 and it doesn't even come with a lazy susan, so another $100 for a self-contained unit may be worth it, imo.

 

To the OP, thanks for reviewing this. I am definitely interested in this unit. The spinning seems a lot more stable than the Record Doctor or KAB unit. I may give this a shot at some point during the new year. Either that or Pro-Ject's new RCM once that comes to market.

 

I think you need to do what works for you. As Tim185 pointed there are some fluid manufacturers who recommend against aggressive scrubbing. Brian Weitzel, for example, who developed the RRL fluids which are now the Mobile Fidelity fluids was very against scrubbing, recommending carbon fibre brushes for application of fluid.

Obviously, that type of brush is useless for scrubbing, but it is extremely effective at pushing the fluid deep into the groove where it can do what it is designed to do: loosen and suspend any detritus/oils etc within the fluid so it can then be vacuumed away. Paul Frumkin who developed the AIVS fluids and Jim Pendleton who currently owns and distributes AIVS are also in the "agitation" and soaking as opposed to scrubbing camp.

I've been cleaning records for 11-12 years now using CF brushes to apply fluids, utilizing further agitation and longer soak times with really dirty records with very good results. The little experimentation that I did with scrubbing (using the Nitty Gritty brush-it's possible it was not well suited to the job) very early in those days did not end well; I figured a ruined a couple of pretty decent records by scrubbing and abandoned it for the agitation/soak method which I personally find is much more effective.

The fluids are obviously doing the heavy lifting in this type of cleaning so they may be much more important and critical to the end result than with someone who scrubs more aggressively.