After seeing the power of vacuum cleaning records, I am ready to go ahead with a D.I.Y solution.

Ah, sorry to say, Todd, but you are missing the ancient Buddhist saying: "You can never clean the same record twice." The corollary principle is that repeated cleanings often make a difference. I think @Agitater was on target with many of the things involved in building a record cleaning machine. I'll remain brand agnostic in this thread and have nothing against DIY or semi-DIY. For me, the Hippocratic oath (which is very similar to the Repo Man Code) is the starting principle in cleaning records regardless of method, machine or ancillaries : do no harm.
I had responded to the OP in another thread about manual cleaning and didn't bust his chops about not wanting to spend for a machine. It seems he has taken a step forward by contemplating vacuum within his budget.
I do think you can get very good results with a basic vacuum machine; I have done so, in direct comparisons to my more costly cleaning machines.

 

I appreciate the clarifications guys. I don't think my brain is working right, today. Suffice it to say, most of what I do I've learned from @Bill Hart and I realize not everyone has had the good fortune to get cleaning advice directly from him. I've tried to apply his processes to a very affordable setup and so far, I'm very happy with it. I think OP will be too. Again, thanks for the responses that were probably kinder than they should have been considering the tone of my post

 

I had one of those days on Monday . . . and Thursday last week . . . Tuesday the week before that, etc., etc. (Sigh)

I also benefited significantly from a couple of different distributor demos over the years of a couple of different RCMs. The demonstrations were a huge help to me. I thought I was doing everything exactly as the little user manuals instructed.

Nope.

Afterwards, the RCMs were suddenly working as advertisted.

The other thing I did after purchasing one of those Saidi Audio ultrasonic machines earlier this year (Saidi Audio knocked off the Audio Desk Systeme machines using the same guts apparently), was to spend time watching my dealer use the thing to clean a stack of LPs. Turns out there are several wrong ways to use an ultrasonic too.

 

Like what? Not turning it on?

I didn't know they made ultrasonics too. I've seen a vacuum based RCM they make. I assume it was considerably less expensive than the Audio Desk version. Does it also have a fan for drying? I decided to put together a DIY version as it was cheaper. Still experimenting with it, but so far nothing spectacular vs a vacuum based RCM.

 

I just had a look at Saidi Audio's web site and didn't see an ultra-sonic cleaner (although they do have a more traditional 'wand'-type cleaner). Mind if I ask where you got yours from? I'd be interested in finding out more about it.

 

Absolutely! But that's not actually what I meant. Enzyme/detergent solution strength is just as critical in an ultrasonic bath as it is in a conventional manual RCM like a Spin Clean, or for an applied solution used with an Okki Nokki or a VPI semi-automatic machine. Also, the start position of the LP is important so that its edge engages with the drive wheel in the machine when the cleaning process begins after the cleaning tank fills.

I think that tank volume vs the size of the chosen ultrasound transducer is critical. If the tank volume is too large for a given transducer output, cleaning won't be effective. If the right balance between enzyme/detergent solution and volume isn't made, cleaning won't be effective. So for DIY'ers, those two considerations have to be met in order for users to see who truly thorough cavitation cleaning can be.

The Saidi Audio ultrasonic RCM is a bit more than $1,000 less than the Audio Desk, and is a fully decked-out unit identical to the Audio Desk Systeme. Various drying fans speed selections, various cleaning/cavitation times, transducer intensity setting, fan drying time selection. Works perfectly. Uses the same transducer, drive mechanism, rollers and filter as the Audio Desk unit.

Considering previous threads on the subject, I'm not sure exactly what mishief some people get up to with their LPs. I've read a lot of cleaning process descriptions by audiophiles on this forum (in other threads) and on other boards. To read some of them you'd think that people are regularly dipping the LPs in sewage. A few people at least seems to be spending ten minutes or more on a single LP and still not finding satisfaction with semi-auto RCM, ultrasonic machines and manual Spin Clean-style devices. That means they're either doing it wrong, or they're trying to rejuvenate LPs that the rest of use would simpy throw away.

 

Purchased mine brand new, two months ago from My Kind Of Music in Toronto. 416-850-7945.

Saidi Audio's web site is terrible.

 

Yep re the parameters of bath and transducers. As bbftx pointed out in that monster thread on diyAudio, LPs also act as baffles and reduce cavitation effectiveness. Here's a piece I recently published that contains some general learning on the subject: SIDEBAR ON DIY ULTRASONIC LP CLEANING - The Vinyl Press

 

I as someone who previously owned a Record Doctor, I can say that the they are effective. And it's a good device if you can't afford the more expensive units. But they are a PITA to use. I upgraded to an Okki Nokki and haven't looked back. I personally like the motor driven platter. Is it worth $300 more for a motor and a platter? I thinks so. My collection grew from a few hundred records, when I first had the RD, to thousands of records. The automation and scrubbing on an actual platter make it bearable when you have to clean large batches of records. The Okki Nokki is also considerably quieter than the RD. That being said, having never seen the SqueakyCleanVinyl before today, it looks much easier to use than a RD or the KAB EV-1 because of the platter. I always thought cleaning a cantilevered record was awkward and never even considered a Nitty Gritty as an upgrade option. I will state, I never heard of the KAB upgrade bearing until after I retired my RD, so with that upgrade it might have resolved the annoying wobble with the OEM bearing which might have made it's use a bit more bearable. I'm pretty happy with Okki Nokki, but I did tell my brother about the KAB bearing because I gave him my old RD.

 

I've been messing with ultrasonic and more conventional vacuum in combination for about 5 years or so. I was, like many, very pleased at the ease of cleaning using an ultrasonic alone (I had an Audio Desk), but found that it didn't deeply clean problem records-mainly old, grotty and often rare records. I quickly discovered that a pre-wash, using a strong fluid like the AIVS # 15, vacuum, pure water rinse, then into the ultrasonic made a big difference. I also did the reverse after pre-cleaning and rinsing-putting the record into the ultrasonic for wash only, and vac drying using a point nozzle machine (which has certain benefits over the wand type).
My take, after owning both the AD and the KL, is that DIY gives you more control over frequencies, temperature, the ability to use surfactants of your choice and doesn't pose any issues in terms of removing a wet record for drying by point nozzle. My next ultrasonic will probably be a DIY for these reasons- totally apart from any cost savings compared to the commercial US machines.
If I had to choose between one type or the other, I'd still stick with my point nozzle over ultrasonic. I have written at some length about this, including in a recent article, the link to which is posted here at post # 33.

 

record doctor, 200 us, boom. once get used to how it works it becomes easy to use.

 

Interestingly, IIRC, the Audio Desk Systeme people recommend distilled water only. But I'm putting together that formula from the Audiokarma thread. I'm just waiting on one ingredient that's sitting with the CSIB in Vancouver. With any luck I'll have it in a week, without any luck I'll be waiting till December!

I've been moving closer to a final conclusion that 99.99% of records are what I call a normal lever of dirty. I define normal as, anywhere from moderate to high level of dirt that isn't too ingrained and not that difficult to remove. In these cases any vacuum based RCM will do a good job. VPI, Okki, Clearaudio...whatever, they'll all clean the record as good as each other and they'll work regardless of what fluid you use, AIVS, L'Art Du Son, Scrubble Bubbles, whatever. I even think that in a lot of cases, that all a record probably needs is a distilled water rinse.

For those .01% of records, that's where things might get difficult and different fluids and methods might make a difference.

Most of my used records date to pre-1970ish as well so it's not like I'm buying used records pressed yesterday, so they've collected some dust over the years. When I think of the records that were pressed in late 70's and 80's, some of them don't even have a spec of dust visible!

 

Vacuuming may not be a solution to your problems, but might add to them. Vacuuming and excessive vacuuming can create static electricity which draws dust like a magnet besides creating sound issues.
I never thought about a stylus having to break in, but what I discovered was that a new stylus accumulated a lot of dust in a short time, eventhough I cleaned the record on my VPI HW-17 just before playing it. The cork mat on the VPI helps prevent static electricity. Just playing a record on a TT with a felt 'anti-static' mat created more static electricity. Also putting a cork mat on the TT reduced static build-up from playing.
Even using the built-in pre-cleaning brush on my Shure M97xe, the new stylus still picked up dust. Now after a several hundred hour break-in, the stylus no longer accumulates dust and I don't even use the built-in brush anymore.
Don't get me wrong, vacuuming is good, especially to remove cleaning fluid. I experimented with rinsing using distilled water and vacuuming after initial cleaning. I found it really didn't make a difference. Unless the manufacturer of the cleaning fluid recommends rinsing, I wouldn't do it. Some of the better cleaning fluids have additives which help preserve the records, so rinsing would get rid of these features.

 

Part of what you are describing is inherent in the design of 'wand' type vacuum machines. Point nozzle machines do not create static. However, they are spendy. My recommendation is to buy a factory deal Loricraft (I think they offer seconds or reconditioned machines), or if buying a used Monks, have it gone over by a competent technician. There are also a couple newer, cheaper entrants to the field, but I haven't used them.
The rinse or no rinse thing could be debated. I have heard fluids that made records sound less noisy, but the result was a masking of the music. I don't want that. Frankly, I consider cleaning to be a necessary evil and want to do as little, and leave as little added, as possible. But, I think that is up to the individual user- what one considers important, how much time, money and effort one wants to devote to the process. I can tell you that the folks at the Library of Congress archive believe, as I do, that a "pure water" rinse helps remove fluid/contaminant residue. I think this particularly true when the vacuum process is essentially two rotations--it may get the record dry* but I have little confidence that it has removed all the contaminated fluid. Thus, the rinse. But, I'm sure there's another view or ten.
___________________
*I like the HW17 among the various wand types; the one with the fan is, to me, a very robust machine that is worth seeking out though no longer made.

 

@Bill Hart I'd love to try a Loricraft or a Monks machine. They are sold locally but the price was out of my reach. I did think about buying one and then offering a cleaning service but I figured I'd be spending a lot of time cleaning to make up the budget deficit difference.

It is true that vacuum can result in static build up but I think it's controllable. It's usually excess vacuuming that causes it. In addition, a static gun get's rid of the static for those times you let it vacuum too much. Having been using these types of RCM for over a decade, for me, it's not really a problem and I wouldn't even say it's a disadvantage. Just something you should be aware of.

I think Bill is on the money here. It really is up to the individual to decide what they will tolerate and what they won't

 

My Record Dr. manual warns against over-vacuuming. 3 slow spins to dry (at the most). Never had an issue with static or dust after cleaning and I clean all new incoming LPs and store with a new MoFi sleeve. Later when I play them they are spotless and often I avoid brushing them because they don't need it- even after several plays.

 

@eddiel - I used an old VPI for decades and got very good at it. I found that with the right applicators (that are the most comfortable for the particular user-in my case, for that machine it was the Disc Doctor/Mo-Fi type pad w/ handle) and using two separate applicators and wand/armatures, I could do a very effective job. I used to use Lloyd Walker's multi-step fluids, but once I started to use the AIVS # 15 and lab water, I could accomplish the same result without 4 steps. Great results on a machine that was built in 1981 (mine started life as a 16 and was upgraded to a 16.5-- it would not die-- I gave it to a friend when I moved to Austin). The Monks is spendy. I'm lucky to have it. I bought a relatively new current production machine that hadn't been well cared for and had it refurbished by the guy who does the LOC's work.

 

I've had good results in reducing noise in used records with Phoenix solution from Sleeve City, along with Mofi pads.

 

What he said !

 

I only do 3 vacuum spins. The MoFi sleeve is one of the worst offender for static electricity. Most of the time, when I open a new MoFi record, it has so much static electricity that it's hard to get it out of the lined inner sleeve. I've also found that static-free records develop static electricity when placed in a MoFi inner sleeve. I put the MoFi inner sleeves aside and put the records in new plain white inner sleeves. No static electricity build-up after that. Plastic sliding against plastic creates static electricity.

 

I've gone to the MA Records sleeve--it's some kind of plant fiber. They are very soft, floppy, porous. I found that I was getting lint from the fancy aftermarket HDPE "rice paper type." (I'm not sure anyone makes real rice paper sleeves anymore).

 

interesting, i don't doubt your experience just wonder why mine is so different?

 

Which experience are you talking about?

 

Those are very nice sleeves. A few years ago someone had some at their table at local hi-fi show. I was suppose to go back before leaving to buy some but forgot. They were a bit more expensive than the Mofi sleeves but much nicer. I should look for a Canadian supplier.

 

Give 'em a call in the N.E. Dunno if there is duty to pay across the border, but they were in Japan when I needed to re-up earlier this summer and shipped to me from Japan at low cost, fast. They also make some audiophile recordings, including a well-known recording of the Goldberg Variations. However, it sounds nothing like Leaf Hound: Growers of Mushroom, which is today's pick. Good guys, those.