Is the Audio Desk REALLY an Ultrasonic Cleaning Machine?

I have had my suspicions that the Audio Desk ("AD") was not truly an Ultrasound cleaner when I went to visit a record store that had the KL cleaner and watched it in action and listened to it.

I recently purchased another ultrasonic cleaner and watched the water as it vibrated creating extremely small bubbles and the water shimmered. The AD, OTOH, produces much larger bubbles and most importantly makes no sound like the KL or my new machine does. Ultrasonic cleaners are loud and buzz and yet I hear none of it in my AD.

I tried insulating my ultrasonic cleaner in a wooden box that I made with sound deadening board attached to the insides and still it could be heard quite loudly (I disassembled the box and will use it with many modifications to house records in my listening room).

So what gives? Is it a scam or something? Yes, it cleaned my records OK but my new far less expensive machine did a better job!!

I bought this machine when it was $480 a few weeks back. See any similarities with another machine selling for far more?

https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B077D643D2/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o08__o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

I also bought this to filter the water and which does a fine job

https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B0002DIRPU/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o05__o00_s04?ie=UTF8&psc=1

 

Have you a cat or a dog they will tell you if the sound is ultrasonic

 

Ultrasonic cleaners of different brands may work at different frequencies and result in larger or smaller bubbles.

 

But they all produce a distinctive noise which is absent in the AD

 

Have been living with the Audio Desk Pro for a few months now and started to wonder whether it was actually cleaning (deeply) at all - many records still crackly after cleaning. Went at a crackly record with a goat hair brush and some fluid - crackle gone. Bought a Nessie (hoover type) cleaner and tested - records that the Audio Desk leaves crackly, the Nessie left silent...

You *can* see the bubbles forming in the liquid during "cleaning", but whether they are actually doing what they should - I'm not so sure... Starting to think it's the rollers that are doing the (superficial) surface cleaning, while the deep grooves are largely untouched.

 

There is so much hype about ultrasonic cleaning during the recent years that a lot of people expect a perfectly silent record after cleaning it ultrasonically. I was one of them when I bought my KLaudio a few years ago. I already had a VPI 16.5 but I was never happy with how certain records, mostly classical and acoustic music, remained noisy after repeated cleanings.
I thought that the KLaudio will make a difference, but in my case, these same records remained noisy. I sold my KLaudio a few months later and went back to regular vacuum cleaning with the good ol' VPI. Together with a pre wash at the Spin Clean, I found that the 16.5 gets the job done as good and in many cases better than any ultrasonic system that I 've tried (before I bought the KLaudio, I assembled a homemade ultrasonic system which I still have).

About the AD, whether it is an US system or not, it seems to me to be more of a hybrid system that uses both ultrasonic frequencies and regular scrubbing to clean. The sound that an ultrasonic makes, as far as I know, depends mostly on the frequency used. In the case of AD the frequency is, according to the manufacturer, proprietary.

In any case, I cannot believe that thousands of consumers and reviewers all around the world have been fooled by Audio Desk to believe that it is an ultrasonic system while it is not.

 

Some interesting points from competitor Degritter's Taniel in this thread on Discogs:

Discogs Forum - Ultrasonic Record Cleaning Machine - Degritter

"Both AudioDesk and Degritter are marketed as ultrasonic cleaning devices. However we have serious doubts if the AudioDesk machine is actually using ultrasonic cleaning. The reasons for this are the following.

First: It is using an external 24V DC adapter. It is a fact that ultrasonic cleaning technologies require at least +/-200V AC voltages to achieve proper action. Step-up conversion is needed if 24V input is used, but it makes no sense to have a power module first limit the voltage and then have another module to raise it. It drives up the cost and lowers efficiency;

Second: We measured the power output of one of 2018 year AudioDesk models. While it was washing the record it was consuming 40W. This is the power that the machine would require just to power the rolling brushes and pumps. Proper ultrasonic cleaning requires 120W+ to achieve results (two common 60W 40 kHz transducers). We would expect to see a power usage of at least 200 W while running, pumps, transducers etc. included. We’ve also measured the KLAudio, which uses 200W+ and it has 4 transducers. Degritter uses 350 W at peak."

 

Should be simple enough to take one apart and look? I’m not volunteering

 

So obviously you've never taken one apart! Nothing simple about it.

There is definitely ultrasonic stuff going on. It's pretty much in evidence when you start the machine or run a cycle without a record. There are lots of tiny bubbles and I have no idea what effect the solution has on the bubbles. I can't see bigger bubbles being better, nor do I think you need the huge US transducer of one of the medical/industrial machines to clean a record.

The hugely excessive price tag on the AD makes it an easy target for folks to pick apart, but it is much more than an ultrasonic cleaner and those of us that have bought one did it for the convenience as well as the quality if the cleaning. If it involved mounting my records on a skewer and having a sophisticated routine, I would just not clean them or go back to my old Nitty Gritty manual cleaner which was a PITA. Lots of folks love messing with their records and think it's all part of the fun of vinyl - I am certainly NOT one of them!

Yes the AD is vastly overpriced and horribly designed from a physical construction standpoint, but it is hardly a fraud, it does a good job for what it is designed and is incredibly simple to use. My only complaint is the noise, but it is what it is, anything with a fan of decent velocity will be noisy.

 

If you really want to test your ultrasonic cleaner, stretch a small piece of aluminum foil over a wire frame (or, you can just wrap a single layer of aluminum foil tightly over a fork -- just make sure that the aluminum foil is stretched tightly over a gap)... Hold it in an operating ultrasonic cleaner and the aluminum foil should disintegrate in a minute or so....

 

I doubt the AD has that kind of power. Besides the cleaning solution is way too pricey to contaminate!!!

 

I seriously doubt that filter is doing anything. A sediment filter with 1 micron particle retention is the gold standard and the filter in the link is just a bag filled with chunks of charcoal.

 

My experience with the audiodesk and the audiodesk pro (Audiodesk has an EXTREMELY GOOD trade in policy) has been 99% positive. Occasional wet spots left on a record is my only gripe, but the newer models allow one to run on fan/dry mode only. Hold the button down for 6 beeps. Presto.
The machine effectively eradicates surface noise on most of my lPs and makes the music sounds as if it's of a higher definition than prior to an AD cleaning.
I bought mine after using someone else's to clean a rare Herbie Hancock Piano album that had some bad crackles and snaps. What I heard post cleaning instantly sold me. I could not believe how good the album sounded and I decided that this was a necessary component for me. There was no going back to hand cleaning after that.
I also don't have the time to be hand cleaning records. I work too much as it is, and when I'm not working to make money, I don't want to be working to clean records. One caveat I will say it that I never just set my machine for a minute. I always do at least 2 or 3 minute cycles. I just don't see the point of setting it only for a minute. Give the machine time to do its work.
I understand that the AD is a very expensive device. The replacement brushes and fluid are obnoxiously over priced. That bothers me more than the cost of the machine itself.
I also understand that my record collection, modest as it is, is still worth 10s of thousands of dollars when I do the math.
My cartridges are worth thousands as well.
I want my daughter to be able to listen to my (her's then) collection long after I'm dead and gone, so it's imperative to keep them as clean as possible now. For me, I see the machine as in investment and an insurance for my collection, and the proof of the Audio Desk's effectiveness has been in the sound.
I can't speak for anyone else's experience with the machine. Only my own.

 

And this is why I'll never use ultrasonic cleaning on my records. If it disintegrates foil, it's not getting near my vinyl.

 

Without any knowledge of the product you say this filter does nothing. WRONG!! It may not trap the smallest of particles but it does trap most of debris and after numerous record cleaning sessions my water is still clear. The heavy debris falls to the bottom of the tank where it remains. The foam is fairly thick at around .5" and it traps particles well - that is what is was designed for.

Before commenting on something, you should buy one first and use it and come to your own validated conclusion and then express an opinion.

 

As Bayou Tiger said, US machines vary in strength from industrial to home use just like lasers. I seriously doubt any US record cleaning machine has the power to destroy aluminum or anything else except for the most fragile of materials/objects like a phono cart as someone here found out.

I do know for a fact that GE used/es an US machine to clean parts of the the largest electric motors you have ever seen with a special cleaning solution that their chemists formulated - the tank was HUGE. I was in the building and watched it in action in Charlotte NC when I bought rare car parts (for a 1966/67Datsun Roadster) from the guy who was a floor manager back in the early 90s and he took my friend and me for a tour of his plant. They had numerous vats of different solutions to clean the parts. A car frame he had which I bought was put into a de-rusting vat and then dipped into a galvanization tank and then dipped into a paint tank just like they do today with car bodies and the 30 YO frame came out looking like new.

 

How do I find out more about their trade in policy?

 

I have a make-it-yourself ultrasonic cleaner which I've been using with great success since 2017.... It uses this ultrasonic cleaner:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0140M8H76/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1

If I take a piece of aluminum foil, stretch it over a loop of wire attached to a wooden stick, it'll make holes in it after about 10 seconds and disintegrate the aluminum foil totally after about 40 seconds.

 

Just pray it doesn't break down as you have to send it back to Germany and they'll fix it starting at about almost $2K. BTDT and now it sits in a pile of its own parts until I get the time to figure how to remove the motor. Moreover, its construction makes it almost impossible to fix.

It is really a disposable machine, especially for those of us not living in Europe. The fact that AD doesn't have an 'authorized' repair center in the US is deplorable.

If I knew then what I know now, I would have never bought an AD. Period. Who can afford a disposable $4K machine?

 

Bolded the salient points of my own argument/experience with AD. I would have preferred the Degritter. It seemed a better built option for a bit less money, but its release was delayed and then delayed again, and final pricing was more than had been suggested during the beta period. In the meantime, the AD Pro went on sale for 25% off and I pulled the trigger. It suits my lifestyle perfectly, which is to say that I can set it running and read liner notes or otherwise occupy myself for a few minutes (go grab a glass of wine, for instance).

It is a bummer that AD service is both far away from my location, and apparently quite pricey. I will carry on with it until or unless it breaks down, at which time I will examine the latest options available for repair or replacement. I will not go back to scrubbing and vacuuming. Not because it's not effective-- it is, or at least it can be-- but because it requires too much time, too much active involvement on my part. My time is no more precious than anyone else's, but unfortunately I spend too much of it preparing for work, getting to work, working at work, and getting home from work. Labor-saving devices do more than save labor, they help to "create" time.

 

I think it’s the price tag more than the hype. $4k is way too much money to pay for non-perfect results.

 

I pray (not literally. I don't pray) that none of my gear breaks down...
My Japanese cartridges. My Chinese amp that needs to get freight shipped to Arizona to be serviced. My Korean Phono stage that gets shipped back to Korea to get worked on. Etc...
The importer, Ultrasystems, has been extremely communicative with me and easy to work with when I wanted to trade in an original model for credit on a new one. It's difficult for me to justify any of the money I've spent on this hobby other than the love I have for it.
Everyone has to create their own algorithm when it comes to spending money on this kind of stuff and the risk vs reward with this hobby. For me, the Audio Desk made such a massive improvement in sound quality that it made sense to invest in it. More sense than disposal high cost tubes that I love. Than cartridges that last 500-1000 hours. Than any of that stuff that is truly disposable.

 

I wouldn't buy mine again, though I love it and even though I have had to cut in to mine to do the repair, I still preferred that to even shipping it off to a repair center (foreign or domestic). I had a moment of weakness when I justified it in my head, but with my little collection of 1000 or so Lps (down to 800 or so now), it really made little sense.

 

It’s a tough calculation to make. Collection size is a factor, sure, but how many of those even need cleaning should probably be a bigger consideration, I would think. Chances are a good number of the records already cleaned with a vacuum system are fine, depending on storage conditions and how much they get handled. It would almost be smart to invest in something like US right up front, when starting a collection, so as not to “waste” money on less effective methods, but who starts a record collection in a position to spend thousands on cleaning?

 

Yes, it's a tough proposition, but what in this hobby is not? As to the vacuum being "good enough", that's really the rub, the cleaning from the next tier does get stuff that the others left behind, and many times improved over records that seemed to be pretty pristine. For me it's trying to decide whether it would allow me to keep records that I have owned for 40+ years that were dirty more than bad. I can't imagine anyone starting out springing for one of these, but who knows! We live in the age of $5000 being perfectly acceptable as a cost of entry for a good vinyl setup!