Audio Desk Ultrasonic Vinyl Cleaner

Discussion in 'Audio Hardware' started by Distortions, Jul 9, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. blakep

    blakep Senior Member

    There are many examples of ultrasonic cleaning and/or rinsing out there (beyond records) using only ultrapure water. A quick google search in fact suggests evidence that the purer the water (ie. significantly reduced particulates) the more efficient the ultrasonics are in producing cavitations. Which may explain why Steve Dobbins and Sonofjim who has posted above have had better results using only a high purity water in the AD.
     
  2. Danglerb

    Danglerb Forum Resident

    Location:
    Orange, CA, USA
    Wikipedia says Ultrasonic activity (cavitation) helps the solution to do its job; plain water would not normally be effective. The cleaning solution contains ingredients designed to make ultrasonic cleaning more effective. For example, reduction of surface tension increases cavitation levels, so the solution contains a good wetting agent (surfactant). Aqueous cleaning solutions contain detergents, wetting agents and other components, and have a large influence on the cleaning process.
     
  3. blakep

    blakep Senior Member

    I guess the million dollar question is whether the residue left behind by wetting agents and detergents in a one step ultrasonic clean in vinyl could be offset by the elimination of those in an ultrasonic clean done strictly with ultrapure water. The experience of one poster in this thread, along with another user that he knows, anecdotal as they are, would suggest that's a possibilty, so it seems that it might be worth discussing or experimenting with.

    I'm not sure what the Wikipedia article's definition of "plain water" is; it quite possibly is very different from reagent grade or ultrapure (which are both very aggressive solvents without any detergents or wetting agents) which is very different again from even store bought distilled or RO.

    Then of course there are other variables such as temperature of the liquid in the ultrasonic bath, the frequency of the ultrasoic clean and the effects that these variables may have on cavitation. Nonetheless, there are strong arguments for using ultrapure as a final step in ultrasonic cleaning to achieve the "cleanest" product, at least in non-vinyl terms. My experience in using it in a cleaning regimen with an RCM is certainly that it should be the last cleaning product that comes in contact with the vinyl.

    So it's quite possible we're in the very early stages of tweaking and developing the best process for ultrasonic cleaning with vinyl and there's still a bit to be learned.

    Not Wikipedia, but an interesting read here:

    http://www.cemag.us/article/development-ultrasonic-cleaning
     
  4. Jim in Houston

    Jim in Houston The Godfather of Alt-Country & Punk

    Location:
    Houston, TX, USA
    I use the nerl reagent grade water with my spin clean and their cleaner then vac with an EV-1, no extra rinse and no residue. I imagine that using the reagent water with the audiodesk solution would yield similar results. No need for additional rinsing.

    Anyone who was at Wardsweb's get together last year heard how clean my records were, Luther (wardsweb) was pretty impressed as I recall.
     
    Doctorcilantro likes this.
  5. Danglerb

    Danglerb Forum Resident

    Location:
    Orange, CA, USA
    Seems like a "design" choice;

    Reagent grade pure water, allows simple air drying via evaporation, but doesn't clean as well.
    Two step, cleaning solution, then either pure rinse or vacuum removal, more complicated, but cleans better.

    One thing pure water alone will not do is remove 100% of mold or bacteria, where some alcohol in the solution has a chance of killing what remains. I wonder how effective pure water would be with any kind of grease or oils which might float to the surface and recoat the LP as its removed.

    Listening is the goal, but I would also use a microscope to inspect the groove before and after.
     
  6. back2vinyl

    back2vinyl Forum Resident

    Location:
    London, UK
    Fair enough, but what if the dirt doesn't sink! Seriously, I can easily imagine that most of the dirt would be held in suspension, especially if it's being agitated by the cleaning process. Blakep says use pure water instead of cleaning solution but that still doesn't get past the problem of dirt being held in suspension and then dried back onto the LP during the blow-drying. If you're using cleaning solution, that will get dried on, too. Ideally I suppose one would use the AD to clean the LP and a Keith Monks to vacuum it dry but that would be a bit crazy by most people's standards.

    I hope it doesn't sound as though I'm trying to rubbish the AD. I'm genuinely interested in getting one but I'm also interested in the Keith Monks and I'm trying to decide which is the better bet. It's actually possible in the UK to rent a Keith Monks for a weekend but like parker, I wish I could rent an AD too.
     
  7. MikeyH

    MikeyH Stamper King

    Location:
    Berkeley, CA


    Fremer talks with inventor of an alternative ultrasonic record cleaner.

    This one sounds and looks like a small version of the one described by Swedish Radio Record Library many years ago.
     
  8. jeff kleinberg

    jeff kleinberg Senior Member

    Location:
    Ct
    I am loving my Audio Deske, about 3 months old 250 plus records cleaned. So convenient and clearly better than my 16.5, more attack and decay on acoustic instruments, not even close. Too bad it costs a fortune(even at an audioshow discount) Highly recommended, seems very durable, I cleaned 40+ records in a row on several occasions. I usually hold down the button for extended cycles on used records, all of them, just in case.
     
    BrokenByAudio likes this.
  9. Bill Hart

    Bill Hart Forum Resident

    Location:
    Austin
    I was on the fence about the Audio Desk Systeme, given not just the price, but the early reports of various problems. I have used a VPI for decades, along with the Walker multi-step fluids, lab water, etc. and it worked well, for relatively modest cost, but record cleaning was an ear-buster and back-breaking exercise. I also did not like the issues of potential cross-contamination by using the same vacuum wand for each fluid (I have multiple vacuum wands for this purpose)*and the obvious problem of contaminating the just cleaned surface when you flip the record to clean the other side by placing it on the RCM platter that just saw a 'dirty' side. (Of course, there are solutions for this too, including precleaning, using different platter mats, etc). All labor intensive. The string machines (Monk, Loricraft, Odyssey) are arguably better in some respects but even slower (particularly if you are using multiple fluids). The ClearAudio Double Matrix avoids the cross contamination problem but doesn't permit multiple fluids.
    I got an Audio Desk last week. So far, flawless, records come out extremely clean, sonically better than the results I achieved using the basic VPI (perhaps something like the ClearAudio Double Matrix or big Loricraft would be a fairer comparison). There are two other things to consider- most of the conventional vacuum machines- whether wand or string-type, don't really 'clean'- you do the cleaning by fluid and brush or pad application and the vacuum just sucks up the fluid. Second, I always wonder to what extent the fluids impart their own sonic signature. Thus, the multi-step fluid process made sense to me, if only because I was removing what was left after the enzyme step, and displacing it with a cleaning fluid, then to displace with lab water, and finally, with Walker's finishing rinse (which I suspect has a bit of alcohol to help evaporation). How much of that stuff ultimately got fully removed from the record was always a question to me. When you think about it, you have all probably had records with scuffs or surface marks that you don't hear at all when you play the record (unless it is a scratch that the stylus senses). What this tells me is that it is what is in the groove that counts, and not how 'clean' the surface of the record looks.
    I think the AD eliminates a lot of these issues by getting into the grooves in a way that pads and surface cleaning probably cannot. Whether the AD fluid has its own sonic signature is a fair question, but I can't hear it (and probably won't, until the next 'best' thing comes along; however, I am not an early adopter of hi-fi gear or gadgets so I'm not planning on buying the 'next' great thing anytime soon).
    The convenience factor should not be underestimated. You can listen to music while cleaning (my RCM is in an adjacent small work room dedicated to the system and you don't hear it at all during the wash cycle, and only faintly during the dry cycle) or just spend time searching through your stacks for more music to listen to. You are not in the room with the machine to hear it, and you are not bent over, toiling with brushes, fluids, scrubbing, fiddling with and cleaning the vacuum wand, shutting off the machine and flipping the record and going through the whole process again, just to get one record clean. (Multiply most of these steps X 3 or 4 if you use the Walker or other multi-step fluid processes). So, it isn't just laziness- it's a way to spend your time on the music, rather than manual labor.
    Although I may still be in the 'honeymoon' phase of this thing, I'm giving it a very big thumbs up because it is a total game changer if you have a lot of records. Before, cleaning was a task I dreaded- now, it is painless and I'm spending more time listening, or culling through my collection, not cleaning. Must be like the invention of the 'washing machine' to make a crude analogy.
    Caveats: most of the records I have cleaned have not been grimey, yard sale numbers, but the AD does seem to remove surface stuff, like fingerprints. Other users have indicated that a really dirty record, or one which has crap on it from the pressing process may need to be pre-cleaned manually, but so far, I haven't had that issue. ( After I got the hang of it, I cleaned a Classic Records 45 rpm test pressing of Stairway to Heaven- a 'single' 12 inch disc and Classic was known to be pretty sloppy sometimes on their 45 rpm records). This came out fine, and sounded pretty amazing.
    Some early users reported issues with different thicknesses of vinyl leaving drops- but again, and this may be a function of running improvements on the machine, I've cleaned all kinds of vinyl, from 'heavy' 200 gram jobs to 70's 'thin' vinyl and no problems.
    At the recommendation of the U.S. distributor, I'm using plain old supermarket distilled water (I have lab water, but went with the l'eau ordinaire). I am using the fluid supplied by AD and bought a small, handheld 'click' counter to keep track of the number of records I clean.
    I'll report back if I experience problems. I think, given how short a time I've owned and used the thing, it would be premature to tell you to go out and buy one based on my experience, but I gotta tell you, for anybody with a lot of vinyl, this thing makes sense. And, based on the reports from other users, including some who had problems with early units, the manufacturer appears to have sorted out the problems.
    Sorry for the over-long post. I am always reluctant to tell people, "Oh, I bought such and such component, so that's what you should buy" because so many choices in this game are personal and system dependent. But man, this thing is, as I said above, a total game changer when it comes to vinyl.
    _______________
    *Some say this is an exaggerated concern because the vacuum function essentially 'self-cleans' the wand of the previous fluid step.
     
  10. Randy W

    Randy W Original Member

    +1

    It's a game changer, for sure. I've been cleaning records for almost 30 years. The last 25 with a VPI 16.5 that I essentially wore out. My entire perspective about cleaning records has changed since I bought an AD. Not cheap, but if you have the collection, well worth it.
     
    BrokenByAudio likes this.
  11. Satrus

    Satrus Forum Resident

    Location:
    Cork, Ireland
    I have read this thread with interest. I use the VPI-17WF with MoFi pads and enzyme cleaners etc. I am pretty fastidious about cleaning records and believe that my process does the best job possible. The prospect of getting even better results though, is always interesting.

    Are we saying that many of the clicks/pops that we hear on playing records result from gunk in the grooves that cleaners such as the VPI and Loricraft models just cannot remove?

    If that is the case, I would love to try the Audiodesk out for a while to prove to myself that it exceeds what my existing set up achieves. I have dead quiet vinyl replay as things stand and noise is not a problem, but there are always a small number of LPs in one's collection with some small problem or another, that makes you wonder.
     
  12. Bill Hart

    Bill Hart Forum Resident

    Location:
    Austin
    Satrus, most of the records I've cleaned so far have very few clicks and pops to begin with because they were very unmolested old copies, or new records. I can tell you that the 'sound' of the clicks and pops is less pronounced (so far, I am still tentative in my conclusions only because I haven't had the thing long enough to say with authority). What I am hearing is more of the music on the record and less of the sound of the vinyl playing, if that makes any sense. I know that sounds like typical audiophile hogwash, but I'd make the same analogy to when I stepped up to my current table/arm- there is less of a sense of a record playing, the quality is more 'tape-like.'
    One thing you might do (and I only know this b/c a few others have tried it), is get someone - a dealer perhaps- to clean several records you own using the thing, then bring them home and compare to the same record(s) (pressing, etc.) using your VPI. And try a couple different kinds of records, say a new reissue that is sonically good and a few older records. (If you are like me, you have duplicates of a lot of your favorite records simply because you keep buying them to find the best ones). There may be record to record differences even among the same pressing, but I'm not sure how much better a comparison you can set up. I suppose if you had one of the machines on loan from a dealer, you could clean using VPI first, play, then re-clean with AD, but then again, you might think a double cleaning would have a sonic affect too. (Or if you reversed the process, cleaned on the AD, listened, then cleaned with the VPI).
    There is also another ultrasonic cleaner that is starting to get play- i learned about it on another forum that I'm involved in. The KL Audio. It's overbuilt, and does not have cleaning pads, like the AD. So, theoretically, even simpler in design and execution (potentially less to go wrong). As i understand it, the KL won't clean the surface of the record since nothing is touching it (unlike the AD, which has the roller-pads), but if what's really important is what is in the groove itself, it shouldn't matter. A few people on that other forum have both machines right now- one is a reviewer, another is just a very well heeled audio guy who is trying them all.

    PS: a few folks who use the Loricraft and the AD have said they reserve the Loricraft for records that need an even deeper clean, but that's been rare. One of users says he prefers to pre-clean really dirty records (or those with pressing gunk) by hand, then go to the AD. So far, I haven't had the need to do this. Another factor which might come into play is static- I found that using the VPI properly eliminated static, or so I thought. Occasionally, I would still have static issues, though. So far, no such thing with the AD. (I re-sleeve everything with rice paper and try to avoid using dry brushes).
     
  13. ssmith3046

    ssmith3046 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Arizona desert
    I like it. When my Okki Nokki gives up the ghost I might look into it.
     
  14. TONEPUB

    TONEPUB Senior Member

    Location:
    Portland, Oregon
    Having had a Loricraft, I can't really say it did a better job at "Deep Cleaning" records. I've used em all and still prefer the AD after a year now.
     
  15. Manelus

    Manelus Forum Resident

    Location:
    Barcelona, Spain
    I previously had a Clearaudio Smart matrix.

    I cleaned about 300 over 2 years and almost gave up on my plans to clean my complete collection.

    Audio Desk betters my previously cleaned records, and I have cleaned ~800 in one month. It’s another game.

    Around disc 600 I began to get too many drops of water left on surface disc. I replaced filter and rollers and everything went back to “normality”. I wonder why.

    Just my 2 cents :)
     
  16. Jim in Houston

    Jim in Houston The Godfather of Alt-Country & Punk

    Location:
    Houston, TX, USA
    They did a follow up review of this RCM in the new Stereophile and said that as an RCM it seems expensive but if a component were to give you the same degree of sound improvement you would consider it a good value.

    The trick, they said, is to think of it as a component.
     
  17. Metralla

    Metralla Joined Jan 13, 2002

    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    It was a good followup.
     
  18. patrickd

    patrickd Forum Resident

    Location:
    Austin TX USA
    I agree that thinking of it that way could make any system investment seem attractive. I run a loricraft and much as I admire it, and sometimes even get into a sort of zone when cleaning, for the most part, cleaning is a chore. The most attractive aspect I read of the AD is the comparative ease of use and ability to get through more LPs than other machines. I am trying to justify the cost by calculating how much time and money I might save on fluids for 1000 records. Then, factor in the sale price of my loricraft, and hey, I see a bargain.....now I just have to convince the wife, lol
     
  19. MikeyH

    MikeyH Stamper King

    Location:
    Berkeley, CA
    One of the reasons I continued to clean my discs by hand was the actual process. Other than the Loricraft type, the vacuum dryers are too intrusive for me.

    I really wanted to make a 'cleaning area' with a couple of spinning platter supports, a big water tray or surface, and a rack for brushes and fluids. I used to play music while I cleaned the next disc, the loudest sound from me was the squeaking of the spray bottle.
     
  20. Bill Hart

    Bill Hart Forum Resident

    Location:
    Austin
    I have now cleaned about 120 records, I changed out the liquid, and rinsed the filter element in some pure lab water. Lot's of gray grime caught in the filter. Interestingly, I've noticed that some records that were cleaned using other cleaners seem to create some 'lather' or foam during the scrubbing/ultrasonic process. If I am right that this is attributable to a prior cleaning process, it suggests to me that perhaps (and I cannot say this is more than speculation, so please don't read this as conclusive condemnation) some of the other cleaning methods are not removing all the fluid. Perhaps there is another explanation - I know that some folks did complain about 'foaming' with the AD early on- it is not that extreme in my case- no bubbling over or anything radical - but in some cases more than others, you see some lather in the bath while activated. The records sound great. My back doesn't hurt. I still have my vacuum machine, but haven't used it.
     
  21. Metralla

    Metralla Joined Jan 13, 2002

    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    I have heard other users reporting the same thing, Bill Hart.
     
  22. MikeyH

    MikeyH Stamper King

    Location:
    Berkeley, CA
    I did an investigation of sorts once. Played part of a clean new record, wiped with a clean carbon fiber brush and looked at the dust with a microscope. That gray grime is vinyl shavings.. looks like soap flakes under the scope.

    Playing a cleaned used record gives pretty much the same result. There's always residue for the brush to find, and it has the same look. Not like actual dirt dust (which is larger and looks more like spiky pebbles) or house dust (which is mostly skin flakes and the associated wildlife).

    Records wear all the time, just slowly if you're careful. The cleaner is collecting the loose stuff (which is of course sitting there in the groove spoiling your music, which is why we're cleaning in the first place.)
     
  23. Bill Hart

    Bill Hart Forum Resident

    Location:
    Austin
    Makes sense. I should do a few experiments, like the next time I refresh the liquid/fluid and clean the filter, only clean brand new vinyl for a while and see what it yields.
    I'm a little compulsive in terms of 'cleaning' - house, cars, countertops, etc. What is maddening is that the 'music room' is closed off to the rest of the house- I'm usually the only one in there. The kitties are not allowed, for obviously reasons. But, I'm constantly dusting surfaces. I assume some of this has to do with the central air conditioning, but it remains an issue in the winter (we don't have forced air heating and in that room, it is a baseboard hot water system). I guess in addition to everything else for my next room, I'm going to have to look at a serious air filtration system, on top of getting the air-con set up to be whisper quiet. (I hate the ambient noise of the air-con while listening, quiet as it is and in Texas, air-con is going to be vital!).
     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2013
  24. Manelus

    Manelus Forum Resident

    Location:
    Barcelona, Spain
    Just my experience, but now I replace the filter way more often than suggested. Cleaning and rinsing it doesn't do the job. I replace it after around 300 discs.
     
  25. Bill Hart

    Bill Hart Forum Resident

    Location:
    Austin
    How frequently have you been replacing the roller pads? My guy said he has washed them out with success, but given the objective here, I don't mind buying new ones. Gotcha on replacing the filter more frequently. (It's sorta like new cars with wrap around service- they do oil changes at 15k mile intervals. In my performance cars, I changed the oil and filters every 2,500 miles).
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine