Audio Desk vs Klaudio - ultrasonic record cleaners

This thread is to get opinions comparing ultrasonic record cleaners from Audio Desk versus Klaudio.

Online, I've seen two reviews of the Klaudio unit, which get into comparisons with the Audio Desk unit.

Positive Feedback:
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue69/klaudio.htm

Analog Planet:
http://www.analogplanet.com/content/klaudio-kd-cln-lp200-ultransonic-record-cleaner-reviewed

 

Good post. I was not aware of the Klaudio unit. Like Mikey, I own the Audio Desk Systeme RCM which I bought unseen/unused because of the superlative reviews it had received. Nothing I have experienced since obtaining the device has made me regret making the investment.

Reading the reviews of the Klaudio I see a couple of things I like the sound of: using distilled water (only) which is cheap (as opposed to the dedicated concentrate required by the ADS machine). I also like the option that the user can turn on the blower only in order to facilitate drying without going through another wash cycle. Although it happens very rarely, periodically the ADS will leave a couple of drops on the surface of a newly washed LP. I have taken to leaving a clean soft washcloth (of the type used by humans) by the machine in order to pat dry any of that sort of remaining water drops.

What I don't like in what I read about the Klaudio: awkward filling, more apparent suspended dirt in the water as it doesn't it go through a filter. I disagreed with the Positive Feedback reviewer's assertion that there was no apparent difference in the amount of cleaning time on the ADS. My experience, and that of every other reviewer I have read has suggested otherwise. (For this reason and others I thought that Fremer's review was a bit more balanced overall whereas the PF reviewer was clearly trying to establish the superiority of the Klaudio unit). The PF reviewer states that the Klaudio does not use a filter as though that is a positive design characteristic. It is hard for me to see why that should be.

But the biggest thing I don't like is this bit, taken verbatim from the PF review: "the KLaudio won't always remove—like an Audio Desk Systeme or VPI machine—all the surface schmootz that can obviously be picked up by the stylus. According to the folks at Klaudio, "the transducers are working on loosening up the caked-in grime and dust which has settled into the grooves and against the vinyl." Tim suggested a squirt of compressed air or a quick wipe with a microfiber cloth prior to cleaning for records with pet hairs or other surface debris should do the trick. One addition note. Like the Audio Desk Systeme, records cleaned with the Klaudio still on rare occasion gunked up the cartridge stylus. The only thing that I can think this is due to is that the record was treated with some agent like Last."

Wait a minute….I thought the idea was to clean the record? Is the reviewer saying that the Klaudio cannot get everything out of the grooves and asserting that the VPI machines and the ADS do not either? Or is he saying that none of the three systems do an absolutely thorough job? I have experienced nothing that suggests the ADS is not getting 99.9% of whatever crud is in there out of the grooves. I've not noticed any gunk on the stylus after playing an LP I'd just put through the ADS. I had a VPI 16.5 for many years and there is no question to me that that machine does an incomplete job of cleaning relative to the ADS. (I cannot speak of experience with other VPI RCMs). So the idea of having to add another step in the cleaning process (compressed air or whatever) is a non-starter for me. You just spent $4K on a record cleaning machine and…?

But in the end, I will defer to Mike Fremer as he has reviewed both machines and comes away with more of a "pick one" perspective. I do like the two points that I alluded to initially regarding the ADS solution and the dry-only option. I'm not altogether certain they make up for the negatives of the Klaudio, such as they are.

Mike Fremer speaks to the sonic improvements heard from records cleaned on both machines and I think that is important to keep in mind to anyone thinking about their cleaning needs.

 

Thanks to Turnaround for starting this thread. I am a newbie, and hopefully not too misbehaved by hoping to broaden it a bit by adding the Ultrasonic Audio V-8 to the mix.
http://www.analogplanet.com/content...-cleaning-machine-cleans-8-records-10-minutes

The CableCo kindly cleaned a few of my LPs on the Audio Desk Systeme (ADS). The result was above my expectations in the 6 "dimensions" listed below. (They are not a normal-ortho set, but experientially distinct.)

*In each dimension I would like to know the relative strengths of the ADS, Klaudio and V-8.*

1) Years ago, a friend who was a recording engineer demo'ed for me the "fine white mesh" that sonically lies over virtually all the intended program on LPs, which is not on a high-quality tape of the same program. I had come to think of this as detail on the LP, but at that time learned that it was spurious "noise". The noise is quite "white": not particularly confined to any audio band. The level of this noise seems to me to correlate with the general modulation level on LP. The ADS substantially reduced this whitish noise.
2) ADS'ed LPs (like Calvin, I do occasionally verb words) exhibit clearer room acoustics. I *think* this is because my ear/brain can more easily distinguish the direct sound front the reverb, and so I can hear the room as itself.
3) ADS'ed LPs exhibit better "thereness": even listening through my Stax 009s as if they were a window into the venue, instruments and vocalists sound more spookily "there".
4) ADS'ed LPs allow better discernment of individual instruments in choirs: e.g., a "violin section" becomes clearly a "group of violins".
5) ADS'ed LPs better reveal the "action" of instruments, i.e., how they are actually producing the sound. E.g., you better hear the different flows of air associated with trombones and flutes, or again, the interaction of a vocalist's cords, cavities, tongue, etc. In the latter case, diction is more easily understood as an important byproduct.
6) ADS'ed LPs make metallic percussion sound more metallic. This is really a subset of 5), I suppose, but it's so important to me I am artificially separating it out.

I realize that complete answers are not possible, as there are so many variables involved in the operation of these three cleaners, but guidance you can offer would be appreciated.

 

I have had the AD for about a year and 300+ records cleaned. I love the machine, it did ruin a LZ test pressing label which sucked, and the lips and water drops can be a pain in the ass. The ease of use and quality of the cleaning is what makes it for me. If I need to run a record through a vpi or spin clean before I can clean it in a 4K$!!!!!!! machine are you kidding me! I splurged for it and don't regret it at all. It makes listening so much more enjoyable. I still get black gunk on my stylus after 1 or 2 playings from some older records, that i have run through 5 plus cycles. The thing I love the most is that I can by almost any good looking but dirty used record at a show and know i can clean and play it in under 10 minutes. An it will 9/10 times be extremely quiet and enjoyable. Example found a Springsteen wild and innocent for 3 bucks today, ran it through the AD it played perfectly, couple pops maybe 5. Quick, easy and effective. Some of the best money I have spent on records. I would get to crazy with contamination and other bs with the VPI, this takes all the OCD out of it for me. As a side note the "Revirginizer" product is the real deal. I use it for noisy original pressings or VG+ that I want to try to get to NM/EX. It works great. A bit expensive but I only use it on rare and special records.

 

What's the "Revirginizer"?? It sounds like something most of us would like to own.

 

It like one of those peel off facial masks but for vinyl. You spread as if you're doing like a wood glue kind of thing except it dries much quicker usually about 4 to 5 hours depending on how much air circulation there is and it really takes off just about all the dirt and grit and just about anything at the bottom of the groove. you notice a pretty big difference. I did a Beatles revolver Parla phone original and the difference in noise was pretty dramatic after the revirgination process , so definitely highly recommend it comes off cleanly and easily and it's totally water-soluble so if any get anywhere easy to clean up. 50 a bottle. Does about 18 records.

 

So, where do you get the stuff?

 

http://recordrevirginizer.com/order.html

took about two weeks to CT

 

How does the Audio Desk do with one sided records? This is what has always bugged me about systems that hold a record perpendicular to a surface, I always manage to get a few labels wet. I guess this is relatively minor when compared to the audio quality you get out of super clean record.

 

The Audio Desk does fine with single sided records. I've cleaned a few of mine with it. The only thing that ever goes wrong with mine is the "water droplets" issue that a couple of others posted about. I use paper lens cleaner sheets to soak them up, or compressed air to blow them off. I think the very best method to dry the record after ultrasonic cleaning would be vacuum system that didn't touch the record surface yet is powerful enough to suck all the water off in one or 2 revolutions.

 

I have a couple like the MOV titles AIC/BM, some water drops here or there, but I think it is worth it.

 

For anyone with an AD and water droplet problems, here is a pic of some little flaps I cut from a piece of tablet blister pack, stopped my droplet problems. The long thin part of the flap just slides in at the bottom of the round blade slot between the plastic and rubber. I found the droplets were forming on the underside of the round slot from there they were blown onto the deadwax/label and most labels on new records don't like water (unlike 70's records).
Tried to copy/paste pics but doesn't work.

 

Worked it out

http://i1368.photobucket.com/albums/ag181/davidm123/ADrcm_zps3c11c921.jpg
http://i1368.photobucket.com/albums/ag181/davidm123/ADrcm2_zps53dd943e.jpg

 

IMO you prob have too much water in the AD if it's accumulating there. That's what my problem was. Try only using 1/2 of the cleaning solution as well because during extreme agitation it will also cause bubbling which can accumulate there and then blow onto the labels during the drying.

 

Unfortunately I used to get the fan blown droplet problem even when the water level was low, I also have to use a piece of nylon cable tie in behind each blade to push them closer otherwise any LP under 180g will not dry properly. I've had my AD for about 15months, for the 1st couple of months it dried fine, have had the flaps & pieces of cable tie installed for a couple of months now with near perfect results.

 

Locally in New England I take some of my older records to the Record Genie. He travels around to various high end stores and sets up for a couple of days cleaning records. He uses two Klaudio and two Audiodesk machines. He gives you a choice of which one you want to use. I have used both and found no difference in quality, after they were cleaned. He charges $2.75 per record. He also demagnetizes w/a Furutech demagnetizer and you get a free record sleeve in the process.

 

I had the fan blown droplet problem you speak of when my water level was too high. Once I kept the water level at just at/above the sensor trigger then I never had any issues with droplets getting on the label. If you're batch cleaning a lot of albums then you can get some water buildup inside the machine which will cause some drying struggles. If you're just doing 1-2 per day as you're listening then it shouldn't be an issue. I questioned the dealer on drying and they wrote me "The Rubber Wipers are not designed to dry or Squeegee the record, they are designed to keep large drops of fluid from riding up the record. If the records are being cleaned, and are for the most part dry the machine is functioning as designed." The Klaudio doesn't have any wipers and uses just basic distilled water and I don't recall reading about any drying problems with those units.

 

I've had my ADS for a couple weeks and so far I'm not quite satisfied. Many old records have not come out as clean as I would nave expected. Any particular tips or tricks? How do you confirm the ultrasonic action. I see tiny bobbles of cavitation on the record surface so I'm thinking that's fine. It seems to have a difficult time with some smears that resemble old smeared fingerprints.

I'm thinking that some of these lp's might need to get a little scrub on the old NG before running through the ADS, but I wouldn't have though that would be necessary. I would say that I shouldn't expect miracles, but for the cost, I think small miracles should be the norm.

 

Your post is interesting to me. I'm sitting on the fence as regards Ultra Sonic Vinyl Cleaners/RCMs. From what I have read, there appears to be a big improvement in the area of sonics but how effective are these devices in removing embedded particles of dirt/debris that you sometimes have to try and dislodge using a toothpick? I have one or two records with this problem. The VPI-17F cannot remove the particles in question even using an enzyme cleaner so I wonder if this new approach (Ultra Sonic) is better in that regard? I will wait a little longer I think until these RCMs become more 'embedded' in the vinyl culture before I make a purchasing decision. All of the 'teething problems' one reads about, particularly with the Audio Desk System, give me pause for thought. I saw a new item on Michael Fremer's website this afternoon regarding a problem that an ADS user has had.

 

I am finding that the results improve dramatically if I hope the button and extend the cycle for three beeps, which is not that much longer, as the "normal" wash cycle is pretty short.

 

On my "dirtiest" records I'll go 10 beeps, I feel like it helps, but I sure as hell didn't do any double blind testing

 

One factor you're overlooking is the convenience of the AD/KL Audio machines. I've had my AD for around 15months and am approaching 1000 cleans, whether it does a better job than other RCMs is only part of the story. With a normal RCM you have to divide your time between listening & cleaning, I am able to spend a lot more time listening and every record that hits my platter has been through the AD.

 

How do these compare to a Keith Monks machine?

 

I hadn't thought of that. That alone makes a compelling case for me to get one of these. But it's important that it cleans very well.

M~