Great thread - I just took delivery of the Audio Desk, but haven't really unpacked it yet. We don't have that many lp's, but do have some that are 40 years old, and have a nice enough hi fi that the expense fits in with the system overall. I'll read the thread and hope to find some suggestions about best practices.
Good read Jim, thanks for sharing your experiences as I will have some disposable income in a few months but I am on the fence about investing in a UCM so the more opinions the better for me. I do have one questions if you know the answer? I am curious why the vinyl would remain statically inert after cleaning? As an engineer, I can't think of what mechanism of the cleaning would provide this continuing benefit? Being it is just a piece of vinyl material I would expect it to pick up static post cleaning due to handling under the right conditions like low humidity. Look forward to yours or anyone else's thoughts.
Jim- a great and thoughtful post. I agree that something is awry, but I'm not sure it is the generic bath that Optimize is using. Although I've only owned the 'made for LP' US cleaners so far, there's a considerable history of DIY using these 'generic' US baths- and that's the way I intend to go when my KL croaks using a high grade US bath. Perhaps one of the problems is that the cheap US baths aren't reliably generating the claimed frequency, but the biggest issue I've read about them is that they simply fail after a bit of time. I suspect something else is going on. The methods in DIY vary- they seem to run longer times at slower speeds. There is, as you may know, a monster thread on DIY Audio about building a US bath; from that, Rush Paul wrote a succinct article summarizing the learning from that thread and since then, several other pieces have appeared with variations on methods and equipment. (The original thread on DIY Audio is now over 200 pages long with over 2000 posts, a lot to digest). I wonder if Optimize is hearing the residue of chemistry that remains on the record but I'm speculating. I wonder if someone who is near Optimize can visit with him and help him. @Optimize -what city are you in or near? Perhaps you could post over at DIY Audio in that thread- happy to supply a link, and ask one of the many participants there if they are nearby and could help you by looking at your set up and seeing what is happening....
I haven't yet discussed LP construction and the use of additives to the water bath (will have to wait until some time next week). However, US cleaning should not be used all the time for extended times. It should be part of a 1st time cleaning process (different for new albums and dirty older albums), but used minimally thereafter. Overuse will not make LPs better. If an album is so bad that it can't be US cleaned in a normal cycle (or two) then maybe you should start with a thin coat of diluted glue to remove the major grit.
Great post! In my case, I thought that the high frequencies developed a slightly more brittle quality after the US cleaning. I would not entirely disregard the psycho-acoustic explanation.
Thanks hammr, great insight. This was my concern with the Kirmuss unit in that you had to keep running cycles if you saw the "soap" residue after the first cleaning and spraying again with the surfactant. With the Kirmuss it sounds like you might have to do 10-20 minutes total of repeated cycles until the foaming stops. Do you think this long-repeated exposure in one session could damage the LP?
In my case the US cleaning produced better resolution of high frequencies. Maybe the brittleness you experience is US just exposing a flaw in the system or setup? I have had such issues in the past.
This might be partially true, as I now realize that I played these records with my Technics 1200G and the Ortofon 2M Black, which is a ruthless combination as far as clarity goes. But I also tend to think that it was, for whatever reason, a psycho-acoustic effect, since the brittleness is not as apparent when I play these records now. That said, I am still puzzled and a little concerned about the disparity of methods and frequencies used by the various Ultrasonic manufacturers (Audio Desk, KLaudio, Degritter, Kirmuss) and its effect on the grooves.
I have now cleaned about 300 LPs with my Audio Desk, and have heard nothing but positive results and improvements on many records. Not a single negative experience. I do still find that some records that are very dirty benefit from a presoak on my Okki Nokki and I am keeping it for just that reason.
I purchased an Elma P-120H which has 2 available frequencies, 37 and 80. Currently I am experimenting with 6 minutes at each frequency. My bath is heated to 30 degrees C and it stays at that temperature pretty consistently. I am going to try different combinations of cleaning time and frequency to see if I can hear a difference. It is not a controlled experiment because each LP has its own form and level of "dirt." BTW, this is great discussion. Thanks to everyone for their detailed comments.
I just discovered another benefit to me of the Audio Desk US cleaner. My father bought a lot of classical records from Music Heritage Society in the 60s-80s. He always sprayed them with some record "preservative" junk and never cleaned them otherwise. Over the decades that stuff has congealed into a sticky substance causing the MHS poly inner sleeves to stick to the records. They've never been playable, and I got unsatisfactory results with the Okki Nokki RCM. This morning I refreshed the filter, rollers and fluid so I cleaned a record I don't care about just to test it all works OK. It was one of those MHS records. Lo and behold, the AD US cleaner made that record playable again. And it's pretty good one to boot (Hindemith Clarinet Quintet and Quartet). After playing one side I checked the stylus with a magnifier and it has no more schmutz on it than it would playing a normal record.
I am curious, what factors swayed your decision to buy an Audio Desk versus a Kirmuss? I have owned both, so I know from actual use which I prefer. But the impression without trying them (yet) is what I am interested to hear about.
Yes, ultrasonic can be very effective. I had a George Benson album that had a lot of background noise and clicks. I don't even remember how many times I had cleaned it on the VPI. At the end I thought it was hopeless. It took one ultrasonic cleaning to remove most of the noise and the clicks.
Hi Warren, I know you weren't asking me, but since I recently went through that decision process I thought I'd share to add to the discussion. Although (even on sale) the AD was nearly 3X the price, I opted for it. I would have gone for the Kirmuss were it not for the whole "foam" business. I don't understand it and have seen contradictory explanations for it (though not from the mfr). That all seemed like more thought and energy than I am willing to give to cleaning. I do really like the AD, I must say.
Some of those MHS records are really good. I have quite a few, and haven't listened to them in years. I think RL did some of the mastering FWIW.
That's the one! Are you pre-cleaning? How are you drying? What rotisserie are you using? Chemistry? and recirculating pump and filter?
Yeah, they are all over the map. MHS licensed them from other labels. There is some great stuff on them and there is some real garbage. I have a couple hundred, mostly Bach. I will start picking through them and see if I find some gems.
I think this is interesting, because in the 80s, I sprayed all of my records with every kind of those preservatives: mostly Sound Guard, Last, and Groove Glide. I must have used them very conservatively or rubbed the heck out of each record after applying, because all of my treated records play VERY quietly, sound like new even after many plays, and don't stick to anything. So, after 20 to 30 years, I am still very glad I used those substances. I think they are responsible for my old, many-times-played records still sounding exactly like new. Also, after all these years of playing these records, I have never noticed any wear of my cartridge. My cartridges have been replaced a few times, but only to upgrade; never because of any wear noticeable in sound nor visible through my Shure inspection microscope. I used to clean every record with a Nitty Gritty before application of the junk, and then never found a need to clean any of the records again; never any static electricity and no accumulation of dust at all. Any small specs on the record slip right off with the use of a carbon fiber brush. So I LOVE that I used those preservative products years ago. I think if anyone has these records that were originally treated, and who thinks the records were polluted by it, a simple clean now will remove the excess while still allowing enough to remain, that the preservative aspect is still active, providing anti-static dust rejection and lubrication against the stylus. I think you should applaud and appreciate that your father thought of providing protection to his old records, so that you can still enjoy them after all these years. I have records from my father's collection, he was an audiophile, so always dusted off before every play, but they all have permanent dust noise (to a small extent) which does not completely disappear from cleaning by an Audio Desk, a Kurmiss, or a Nitty Gritty. In the days of my father, tracking forces were higher than now, as he used very low compliance cartridges compared to now and very heavy tonearms.
I am following Tim A.’s approach. I have a pump and a .35 micron filter. I will be using the Kuzma RD if it ever gets here.
Oh, I want to hear from MANY people how they perceive the difference before actually using the various machines available. The two things I didn't like about the Audio Desk is (1) it gets stuck sometimes and stops turning, so it is not really start-and-walk-away. And (2) I don't like that it is air dry without wiping and without vacuum. I think deposits from the cleaning solution (even though mostly distilled water) could (well, definitely do, to some extent) remain after the simple air blow-dry process. Come-on: Why can't a $4000 to $5000 machine provide ultrasonic cleaning AND vacuum drying? And why can't we do 5 LPs at a time? The thing I like most about the Kirmuss is that 2 or 3 records can be cleaned at the same time. If the extra work (from Dr. Kirmuss's theories) is correct and necessary, then it is worth the extra time and trouble. If not, you don't have to do it at all. Kirmuss recommends distilled water only in his machine, so you could just stop there, with a well cleaned record and no possibibily of any remaining deposits at all. Or, you could use the Audio Desk additive, if you like it better, and then either vacuum dry with a Nitty Gritty/RecordDoctor/VPI or quickly hand-dry with a micro-fiber cloth to really have a pefectly clean record with no deposits remaining. This would be easier than the Kirmuss procedure and faster than waiting for the Audio Desk's blow dry cycle. Again, I did not find the Audio Desk to be safe to use unattended. And yes, all other RCMs have a procedure, that gets tiring. If the Audio Desk gets stuck half-way through the cleaning process, it is upsetting that it was so expensive and yet you cannot trust it to operate the way it should... well, that was my experience.
The only machine right now that can do ultrasonic (although it is not strictly ultrasonic but rather sonic vibrations) and vacuum is the Clearaudio Double Matrix Pro. I have seen one in person and it did an amazing job in cleaning one of my LPs but it is very expensive ($6000).
I have never seen a record get stuck once it is spinning. Sometimes you have to nudge it to start. Have you seen a record stop spinning? There are issues with vacuum cleaning too. You have brushes contacting the record which themselves for certain have particles in them unless you clean them every record which is impractical. Maybe you need a rinse step but the air drying shouldn’t add any dirt.
My dealer is a Clearaudio dealer and they don't carry the Double Matrix Pro because they say the Audio Desk works better for $1500 less.
I wonder if that is an unsubstantiated “dealer” line. As we know all these dealers love to make claims about stuff that they hardly know. Maybe your dealer doesn’t fit this category but many do. I have heard a lot of great things about the Double Matrix. And I have nothing against the AD. I used to own one and liked it.
