Audio Desk vs Klaudio - ultrasonic record cleaners

Discussion in 'Audio Hardware' started by Turnaround, May 22, 2014.

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

    chipcarter Member

    For what it's worth: I've owned first the AudioDesk and now the KLAudio (sold the AudioDesk). My very brief impressions are as follows.

    (1) The KL does indeed "feel" better built.

    (2) They take up different amounts of space: the KL is significantly wider but thinner, whereas the AudioDesk is more "squat" (less width, more depth). This may make a difference in terms of your shelving plan.

    (3) The ultrasonic cleaning zapping/crackling of the KL is significantly louder than the cleaning cycle of the AudioDesk (not a problem for me as it's in a separate room when running).

    (4) The AudioDesk is marginally faster to fill and easier to drain than the KL (for me). That said, the filling and draining procedure on both is sufficiently fast and easy that it doesn't make a difference to me.

    (5) The drying cycle noise level is about the same for both.

    (6) Both seem to clean about equally well.

    (7) I would not-infrequently still have remaining water droplets on the record after the drying cycle with the AudioDesk; that never happens with the KL. (Replacing the wiper blades on the AudioDesk diminished, but did not eliminate, this issue).

    (8) The AudioDesk sometimes would sometimes not start rotating the record for cleaning without a nudge by hand; the KL never does that. However, the KL sometimes won't stop its cleaning cycle (that is, if I put in a record and walk away, it will continue to run wayyyyyy past the set time, pretty much indefinitely until I come turn the whole unit off). This happens roughly once every 20 records or so, and seems more likely to happen when I've been running a big batch. The AudioDesk never did that.

    (9) I do hear noticeable audible benefits on records cleaned on either machine. A cautionary word, though: A lot of the early reviews of both machines used superlatives (like, "equivalent to the impact of a new or upgraded stereo component;" "dramatic improvement;" "stunning;" etc) that just aren't justified in my experience with either/both of these machines. The most significant benefits I've experienced are (a) significantly fewer clicks and pops (which is significant for my Ortofon 2M Black, which is not at all forgiving of clicks and pops); (b) static is completely gone (even after taking a given record off and on of my VPI Classic's aluminum platter several times, and pulling it in and out of its sleeve several times); (c) a noticeable, but not dramatic, improvement in "clarity" of the instruments and vocals, probably due to what I gather is called a "lower noise floor" in audiophile-speak; (d) the sheer speed/convenience. Those are all real benefits, so I don't mean to knock either machine. I paid significantly less than full retail price by buying each one used, so I'm happy enough to consider these benefits to justify the cost. But: I would not believe the hype that either of these machines is the equivalent of buying a new amp or a new set of speakers or "dramatic" in terms of the magnitude of before-and-after difference. It didn't change my life; just made my life easier and my music listening marginally more enjoyable.

    Two caveats to the above:

    Perhaps I am not blessed with a sufficiently "golden ear" to hear the dramatic improvements that (some of) the reviewers claimed.

    Also, I don't own or buy thrift store/garage sale records, so the absence of "dramatic" sonic improvements may be limited by the fact that most of my records aren't terribly dirty in the first place.
     
  2. Monsieur Gadbois

    Monsieur Gadbois Senior Member

    Location:
    Hotel California
    I've not have this issue with my unit, maybe is because mine is a newer unit(different handle bars) which I purchased 3 weeks ago.
     
    audiotom likes this.
  3. Bill Hart

    Bill Hart Forum Resident

    Location:
    Austin
    I have used AIVS No. 15/reagent water on a VPI, the Audio Desk, the KL and the current big Monks. They all have their merits, and it is different horses for courses (depending on the particular condition of a given record), as well as budget, and the amount of time and effort you are willing to expend in the 'cleaning' process. I know some people- who are very sophisticated vinyl listeners with serious playback systems- who are at a point where they only want to pop a record into the machine and let it do its thing. For them, the ultrasonic is the way to go.
    I buy a lot of older vinyl and some of it is valuable, but still needs 'work.' The ultrasonic machines are one tool in the arsenal.
    My current preferred method, mentioned in the 'Best Practices' thread, is to take a pre-cleaned record (I don't put dirty records into the ultrasonic for reasons I can explain if necessary), run the KL for 4 minutes or so, wash only, and vac/nozzle dry it on the Monks. The results are a 'best of both worlds' for me, right now, based on my experience, in that the ultrasonic is doing its thing to loosen the embedded crap in the grooves, but the Monks pulls it off the record more effectively than 'blow drying' function of either the AD or KL. It isn't much more time consuming, but it is more labor intensive, and I've managed to get pretty good at it. I use reagent water in the KL.
    Short of either commercial ultrasonic, both of which are expensive, there are the DIY options, including that semi-commercial product marketed by a DIY-type, called the V-8. The one problem with DIY ultrasonic seems to be the drying function- most seem to go with some sort of 'air dry.' My approach would work in that scenario- build an ultrasonic (or 'shouldda had a V-8') and buy a used Loricraft. I think there are plenty of them that were sidelined by people who bought the AD or KL. :)
    Frankly, I've gotten very good results using the AIVS No. 15 + lab water on some of these old pressings using a basic VPI machine (mine's ancient). But, the Monks is definitely a better vacuum machine, at a price, and the ultrasonics have their merits too.
    Whatever approach you adopt, I believe that multiple fluids and methods tend to work better than a single method. Is there a short-cut? Maybe, but I'm still trying to figure that out. For new, out of the shrink vinyl, I'll often just drop the record into the ultrasonic. But, for those old records that have seen their share of contaminants, I don't think that's a complete solution for several reasons. I don't want to write a longer than usual post- my posts tend to be prolix anyway- but, I'm pretty agnostic when it comes to machines, fluids and methods.
    I do like the KL because I can do wash only, I can use reagent water in it, and it doesn't require any additive fluid- which I don't object to on cost grounds- after all, we're talking luxe pricing for these machines, but because I want the 'finish' of the record to be in lab water, without any additive. For that reason, I change out the water in the KL pretty frequently, if I am cleaning records that have any residual surfactant or fluid from another cleaning process.
    I also like the KL because you can access the reservoir directly- I bought a box of clean room wipes, and everytime I change the water, I wipe down the insides of the tank with these clean room wipes (they are polyester, no lint, non-impregnated cloths).
    Enough!
    Have fun. To me, the more engaged I am in the cleaning process, the less boring it is. Others can't stand cleaning records, so for them, the ultrasonic is a complete solution.
     
  4. Tommyboy

    Tommyboy Senior Member

    Location:
    New York
    If an ultrasonic cleaner does not remove gunk from a record and one has to resort to a VPI to clean a dirty LP for a pre clean, then why spend $4000 in the first place? I'm not trying to be sarcastic , but just wondering what the advantage is.

    I'm thinking of buying one , because I'm tired of using a VPI and wood glue.
     
  5. Monsieur Gadbois

    Monsieur Gadbois Senior Member

    Location:
    Hotel California
    Great review as usual, Bill. :thumbsup:

    I'll definitely give KL + vac dry a try, makes a lot of sense. I'll also try using lint-free wipes for tank cleaning.

    Still new at this...lots to learn.
     
  6. Bill Hart

    Bill Hart Forum Resident

    Location:
    Austin
    Fair question. I'll give you my perspective, others may have additional or different views.
    A fair number of records can be cleaned very effectively using an ultrasonic, with virtually no effort. (I'm cleaning those or finishing others in the ultrasonic while manually cleaning others on different machines). I would include in this category many, but not all, new records.
    For more troublesome records, these still benefit from ultrasonic cleaning in several respects- the ultrasonic clean can reach some stuff that the enzyme/lab water doesn't, plus it is a nice 'finish' step, leaving you with a record that is very clean and dry after multiple steps. By 'troublesome,' I'm not referring to records that have surface detritus, like paper liner lint, or even the odd mark or fingerprint. Instead, I've found that some records that you would give up as trashed aren't damaged, but there is foreign matter, contaminants, including tar from cigarette or other smoking materials (very common on early psychedelic and hard rock records) which are a beyootch to get off the record. What you often associate with groove damage caused by kludgey tonearm/record players/nasty 'needles' that chewed up the grooves, creating noise, sibilance and crackle, may actually be embedded crud. The worst is that gluey stuff that sometimes gums up your stylus if you soften it, but don't remove it- I usually think that's either smoke tar or some cleaning spray that was wiped on the record to make it look better.
    Here, record grading, even if honest, doesn't tell the whole story~ it can be a pretty hard to find certain pressings, even a high prices, that don't have some sonic warts. I've been able to bring some of these back to a very high level of playback- not all of them (there is no magic bullet) by using a combination of steps, including ultrasonic. Is it worth all this trouble? - kind of depends on what condition these records are in and how valuable/rare they are.*
    I know several folks that rely almost exclusively on ultrasonic machines- people with big, serious systems, extensive vinyl collections, and they don't bother much with their other machines or have gotten rid of them.
    I went through a couple of weeks without an ultrasonic- having sent my Audiodesk back for a retrofit 'precision top' and waiting for a KL through my regular dealer. I 'only' had the big Monks- and while that is still considered one of the best RCMs- some 40 plus years after first released (and mine, which is fairly new, has been completely gone over by the guy who services the institutional machines for Monks in the States), I still missed the ease and complementary performance of an ultrasonic machine.
    Is all this a necessity? Hell, no. But, with a large record collection, the ultrasonic makes life easier and adds an additional dimension to the cleaning.
    And if you are buying old vinyl, you probably will want to have more than the ultrasonic. I can pre-clean a record pretty fast on the Monks, or go for a long enzyme soak (which you can do with a VPI or even without an RCM). The key, before sticking anything in the ultrasonic, for me, is to start with a basically clean record, so I don't pollute the ultrasonic bath as quickly; not just 'dirt,' (e.g. lint or other foreign matter), but residue of other cleaning fluids, which I also regard as a contaminant, particularly when it is a mix of fluid and the crap that you've released from the grooves. So, you gotta get that off the record in the pre-clean, in my estimation, before popping into the ultrasonic. And, as many others already do, I'm big on a pure water rinse to completely remove this stuff, or effectively displace it, before going the next step.
    I've been experimenting a lot with machines, approaches and fluids in the last couple years, and it is a ongoing learning experience. I don't mean that this is in any way the 'last word' as far as I'm concerned, but share my findings and experience for what it is worth.

    ____________________
    * I like to think that, even in the early days, before record cleaning machines were commonly available, I took pretty good care of my records. And I have copies I bought in the early 70's that still play well. But, I've bought a considerable number of hard rock and psych from the late 60's and early 70's and these benefit from multiple cleaning steps. It may not be worth the effort for a record that is commonly available cheaply, but for those rare birds- might make the difference between having the right pressing, or not having the record at all, at least in a high state of playback quality.
     
  7. Bill Hart

    Bill Hart Forum Resident

    Location:
    Austin
    Tran, just to be clear, the vac dry is really only a benefit if you are using a point nozzle machine, otherwise, you are running back into some of the issues associated with wand-style vacuum machines, including contamination of the vacuum lips and static. I also use a huge amount of fluid when pre-cleaning using ezyme/lab water on a machine like the VPI, but far, far less fluid on a machine like the Monks. Happy to explain more in a PM if you like.
     
    Monsieur Gadbois likes this.
  8. Tommyboy

    Tommyboy Senior Member

    Location:
    New York
    Thanks Bill!
     
  9. audiotom

    audiotom I can not hear a single sound as you scream

    Location:
    New Orleans La USA
    Here is my initial comments on a thread I started on Audiogon in March in tha Analog forum
    My kl audio has cleaned flawlessly with great results.
    I have cleaned well over 500 lps so far
    This has been an incredible machine
    I've stopped buying reissues and rediscovering my lps

    Kl Audio LP200 ultrasonic record cleaner insights


    I did a bit of research a few months ago on the Audio Desk ultrasonic cleaner and thats where I found out about the KL Audio CLN LP200unit. I was attracted to the much more powerful motor, no rollers to replace and using distilled water rather than a cleaner.

    Let me start that I have a Loricraft and used the Walker 4 step program but shortened it to a clean\rinse setup. Still ten undivided minutes of your time a side to clean. After a while I didnt bother with mint or new records.

    Table Galibier Gavia, Triplanar Arm, Zyx Universe cartridge

    I have quckly and efficiently cleaned more records in 3 weeks than I have for the three years I have had the Loricraft. And it was hardly an inconvienance, not a major chore

    I have cleaned a number of Walker\Loricraft records again with the KL Audio. The results are jaw dropping. Dead quiet, no static pops (sometimes dont even zerostat). The biggest issue is resolution, getting down and removing that last bit of material and the resolution, body, separation of instruments, timing, passion and air around the notes is enhanced. Modest pressing sound like audiophile. I have ran into a few noisy records, probably dug out by the last stylus but most everything else has been so overwhelming. Low level detail is to die for.

    The machine is a tank. Everything impeccably manufacturered. You can set the ultrasonic to 1-5 minutes and the drying 2-4 minutes I spit out a record every 8 minutes while I watch tv from the next room. It drys very effectively but isnt that loud

    This machine is not cheap at $4k but what it does is like a very serious component upgrade. Highly recommended for someone with a serious vinyl collection and setup
    Audiotomb (System | Threads | Answers | This Thread)

    03-08-14
     
    MisterBritt likes this.
  10. audiotom

    audiotom I can not hear a single sound as you scream

    Location:
    New Orleans La USA

    I haven't had this issue with the Ultrasonic not shutting off

    I bought my KL in February
     
  11. audiotom

    audiotom I can not hear a single sound as you scream

    Location:
    New Orleans La USA
    Micheal Fremer's reveiw speculating that the "unfiltered" particals in the water would be pounded against the vinyl in the cleaning process

    This is totally disseminated in the reserve tank. A slight color change in the water
     
  12. jeff kleinberg

    jeff kleinberg Senior Member

    Location:
    Ct
    I went from a Vpi 16.5 to the AD, I buy VG and above records and have never had trouble getting them clean. I think about 99% of good quality used records can be effectively cleaned with the AD in a one step process. The KL maybe less given it can't even remove fingerprints. That's why I went AD, the scrubbing rollers. More cost to operate definitely, but the convenience is more than worth it to me. I usually do 5-6 cycles on heavily used but not abused record. My dirtiest record which I'm usually not in a hurry to hear, I save for the end of a water/roller cycle.
     
    Tommyboy likes this.
  13. Watching the video now. While the price is nice(r), this thing just seems to DIY with lots of moving parts that could break. I don't know...
     
  14. My understanding is that the KLAudio, when tested by another reviewer, was able to remove fingerprints. But honestly, if you're buying a really dirty old used record with lots of fingerprints and crud on it, it's not that big of a deal to clean it with chemicals on a regular RCM before putting it in the Ultrasonic. Personally, I don't buy that many super dirty records. I just want to be able to drop a record in and come back later for it.

    I don't like the fact that the AudioDesk has all of this other stuff you have to buy that ain't cheap. The fluids and brushes are kinda pricey and will add a lot to the total cost of ownership, not to mention the risk that the company stops making the parts.

    The few reviewers of these products seem to believe that the sound quality from the two machines is pretty much a wash. So why buy the AudioDesk that is just as expensive and requires additional costs?
     
  15. I personally think that the way Fremer presented that whole thing was a bit shady. I read it the same way the KLAudio people read it which was that Fremer was kinda schilling what those in sales call FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) for the AudioDesk people with the whole thing sorta implying that the V8 and the KLAudio might be using frequencies that are too powerful and will degrade the vinyl.

    The fact that he quotes the AudioDesk team for 3 full paragraphs of FUD without letting the others reply in the article (the KLAudio people respond in the comments section and are rightly annoyed) shows me that Fremer had a bit of an agenda here.

    If he didn't, he should update his review and point out that the KLAudio people say it would be easy to see that the machine isn't hurting the vinyl by using a brightly colored record rather than a standard black which will look like dust particles.

    Anyway, just my opinion on his review.
     
    audiotom likes this.
  16. Bill Hart

    Bill Hart Forum Resident

    Location:
    Austin
    The stuff I'm talking about as problematic isn't really stuff you see on the record- a lot of old records can look good and sound trashed (conversely, you can have a record with surface hairlines and discolorations that sounds fine). The really embedded crap- whatever it is (and I think that varies, from bad past cleaning efforts that may have glued stuff to the record- fluid residue, etc.- to a whole variety of other contaminants) probably requires different things to loosen and remove it. Thus, the multiple steps/different approaches. The ultrasonic, using cavitation to get into the grooves, is one other approach. I'm not sure why Audio Desk needs a fluid to enhance cavitation action since conventional ultrasonic cleaning, for other things, doesn't necessarily require any additive as far as I know. Most of the experienced long term users of the AD seemed to reduce the amount of AD fluid used for a variety of reasons.
    The other issue is getting the fluids off the record- which is another reason I like the KL- using reagent water. Sure, if you run it too long with the same water, you have the potential to contaminate a record with whatever chemicals are in the bath that got pulled off of previous records.
    I think the Audio Desk is significant because it was the first ultrasonic cleaner for vinyl that worked as a commercial product (though there had been DIY'er's using ultrasonic before the AD). It was a revelation when I first started using it, after years of toil over the VPI (which had gotten very time consuming using the 4 step Walker regime). The ease of use alone makes the approach a winner. If you have an AD and are happy with it, there is probably no reason to run out and buy the KL.
     
  17. This is awesome! Thanks for the great info. Exactly why it's so much better to hear from someone without any interest in overselling something. :)
     
  18. Upinsmoke

    Upinsmoke Well-Known Member

    Location:
    SE PA
    That can apply to just about all of the small army of reviewers out there. Money, future business in the reviewing business, free or radically reduced review items, etc. all apply to biases in this realm.

    Thankfully the next two purchases I'm going to make are already pretty cemented for me. Harbeth speakers is one. The other is replacing my VPI table.
     
  19. I know, but this one felt a bit different. It's not often that a reviewer will let a competing manufacturer subtly imply that the "other guy" doesn't know what they are doing. Even though Fremer says to take what the AudioDesk guy says with a grain of salt, he then lets the guy go on for three paragraphs.

    He could have simply taken what the AudioDesk guy said, paraphrase the main point and then get a quote from the KLAudio people. The fact that he didn't and definitely seems to bend over backwards to subtly imply that the AudioDesk is better despite concluding that sonically they are pretty much the same, is what makes this review seem particularly worrisome.

    I'm sure it isn't anything financial, but who knows. More likely, Fremer just knows the AudioDesk people better/longer and is giving them every benefit of the doubt.
     
  20. Bill Hart

    Bill Hart Forum Resident

    Location:
    Austin
    Brian, I wouldn't attribute ill-motive to M. Fremer. In my estimation, reviewers have X time to assess a product and write up a review, and have other lives, projects, whatever. (Fremer is a fulltime audio guy, and his plate always seems to be full). Perhaps his speculation about the 'particle bombardment' was a little unfair, but I don't necessarily attribute that to an agenda to shill for Audio Desk. Just sayin'.
     
  21. Upinsmoke

    Upinsmoke Well-Known Member

    Location:
    SE PA
    It's the plausible deniability factor being added to his comments. By saying to take with a grain of salt then 3 paragraphs continuing on the part that sticks is the three paragraphs. Not the "grain of salt". Once my subscriptions run out to TAS and Stereophile I'm letting them end. Unless I get the same deal I did last time - 2 years for $5 each. The material matches the smell at times in my special "reading room".
     
    Brian Gupton likes this.
  22. I don't think he's shilling for them (see my last comment). And certainly laziness is as likely an excuse as any other, BUT... he's gotta know that his review for a niche product like this could sink or swim a fledgling company. Anyway, not really a big deal to me personally. I just think the way that article was written was a bit beyond pure laziness.
     
  23. audiotom

    audiotom I can not hear a single sound as you scream

    Location:
    New Orleans La USA
    The Audio Desk came out earlier than the KL Audio
    Fremer and the audio rags embraced it, gave it great reviews, etc
    It was listed as one of the most significant components in a number of audio mags
    It just so happened that Audio Desk did significant advertising in the mags and websites

    The Audio Deck is a great machine, my friend has one and he is envious of my KL.
    They have had a number of issues, some of which have been resolved with later revisions

    I am glad to hear that both are viable and has similar sonic results.
    I feel the KL is better built and not having to use cleaners or use rollers is a big plus to me

    I question if Fremer has an ulterior motive as he's already sang the praises of the Audio Desk and his portrayal of KL Audio has "just another run ultrasonic rcm" with fears of damaging the vinyl. Funning I find that most of the time he wants to go into great detail in evaluating a product

    If you are considering a $4k machine (well worth it to me)
    you owe it to yourself to check out both models
     
    Record Genie and Brian Gupton like this.
  24. hvbias

    hvbias Midrange magic

    Location:
    Northeast
    From what I have read on other message boards and one friend, most people are buying these machines based on long term user feedback and not Michael's review. He put up that review of the KL early on, and in my experience you need some long term experience with cleaning machines, fluid, technique etc before one can form solid opinions. I think most people already know about the long term reliability issues of the AD which makes the KL a very easy decision assuming performance is similar on both, which IMHO they are not.
     
  25. audiotom

    audiotom I can not hear a single sound as you scream

    Location:
    New Orleans La USA
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine