Vacuum or Ultrasound record cleaning machines?

The common knowledge is of course ultrasound is better and they are usually much more expensive than Vacuum machines yet I keep hearing from a couple of my local record sellers that they prefer good ole vacuum cleaning. What do you guys think?

 

Why not both?

Ultrasonic is an immersion cleaning method. Then you have to remove the liquid carrying suspended contaminates, so vacuum.

 

I have and use both routinely, first a dip in my DIY ultrasonic unit (~$160), then on the Record Dr. vacuum machine (~$199).

 

I have a Nitty Gritty and a Record Doctor. I think scrubbing with a water/detergent/alcohol/wetting agent fluid, then vacuuming it off is a perfect method for getting a record clean. KEY DISADVANTAGE: it involves work and active participation. KEY BENEFIT: any contaminates are physically sucked off and discarded.

I also have a Audio Desk Ultrasonic. KEY ADVANTAGE: Drop the record in, come back 5 minutes later. Its done. KEY DISADVANTAGES: (1) any contaminates go back into the cleaning solution, to which future records are exposed. (2) record is air dried, not sucked clean, so if there are any contaminates in the cleaning solution, it just dries there on the record. You gotta change fluid before that becomes a problem.

I disagree about "common knowledge". I would rather say, "the latest audio press raves about ultrasonic". Well, it is NEWER technology , and therefore the latest topic for discussion in the press, but that doesn't mean it is "BETTER". Plus the commercially available units are more expensive, so to justify their cost, they MUST write about it as "BETTER". Otherwise, it wouldn't be even worth discussing.

 

For me, who used to have US but no longer (will be changing that with Xmas money), on a very bad record, if vac + AI15 + dry + US + air-dry doesn't fix it? Nothing will. Also for new records, a quick dip in a US bath is mostly all that's needed. Handy for those days when you get 3-4 new ones and can prep them altogether.

 

Through the years I have always cleaned my records as I got them using a Nitty Gritty manual machine, now I have a KL Audio Ultrasonic machine that I am slowly cleaning all my records with... I think they are already clean for the most part I check the water of the ultrasonic every time I use it and change it as needed...

 

When I think of Ginger and Maryanne I come up with this> Why not both?

sean

 

I don't understand. Why would you clean again, records that have already been cleaned?

 

I have an ancient Nitty Gritty and an Audio Desk machine. The Audio Desk is extremely easy to use and is great for someone as lazy as I am. Both machines are capable of doing a good job of cleaning. On a few rare occasions, I have found that a record that had been cleaned very thoroughly on the Nitty Gritty has come out sounding better after a cleaning with the Audio Desk. I think it is possible for one machine to remove crap that the other machine is less capable of removing. For those concerned about deposits left on the record by the Audio Desk air drying method, I suppose a rinse in distilled water and a vacuuming would at least allay such concerns.

Also, with really dirty records, it might make sense to first clean them on a vacuuming machine before cleaning in the ultrasonic machine to increase the number of cleaning cycles before the fluid has to be replaced. This is not so much of an issue with the KL because it just uses distilled water, but, the Audio Desk uses a not that cheap cleaning solution that is added to distilled water.

 

This is a very subjective topic, from many years of trial and error, my preference is the following :
For all new records or ones that I believe to be fairly clean I use my Keith Monks.
For all other records I first run them through my ultra sonic and then use the KM on ‘wet’ but instead of applying solution I have a spray bottle of distilled water , and then use the suction on ‘dry’. I do this because I noticed that whatever I do , after ultra sonic without a ‘rinse’ the needle picks up residue. Again this is just my 2c, and I am sure others have a perfect ultrasonic solution that leaves no resudue !lol

 

I think another disadvantage of vacuum based systems is that they can leave the record statically charged, whereas the air dry system of the Audio Desk system would completely avoid that problem.

 

Simply because the ultrasonic requires only distilled water and when I used the nitty gritty I used chemicals, now I want to be sure all of my records are chemical free. Also have a new cartridge and want to keep it as clean as possible, so I don't play any records that have not been through the ultrasonic cleaning process...

 

I have both systems and use a vacuum along with a spin clean for really dirty albums. The Audio Desk has a filtration system so I don't know why many are worried by contamination and other debris and I only use distilled water, no cleaner.

 

I've used an Audio Desk, a VPI 16.5, and a Record Doctor. All do an equally fine job. The advantage of the Audio Desk is ease of use. If I had thousands of records to clean that's the way I'd go. Since I only have hundreds of records, I own a Record Doctor.

 

I did a somewhat controlled experiment with several records that I had duplicate same sounding copies. One copy of each was vacuum cleaned a couple of times while the other was ultrasonically cleaned. There was an improvement in the US copy vs the vacuum cleaned copy but it was fairly subtle. If one concentrated closely there were places that sounded a bit clearer with the US copy. If one didn't listen closely then the main difference was fewer extraneous occasional noises. I mean those occasional light little blips, blurps or light pops which come and go quickly but are not caused by damage to the record. I have a revealing system but not state of the art so I think US is only a no brainer for the latter.

 

I use both methods; the combination is synergistic and better than multiple cleanings using one method alone, especially if you are buying older records.
I've owned the AD, have the KL, and after it goes, will go DIY- not necessarily to save money, though you can by going DIY, but for greater flexibility. I also use a point nozzle vacuum machine (e.g. Monks, but Loricraft and a few new cheaper entrants may be available now).
After using the AD which does employ a surfactant, and the KL, which doesn't --just "purified" water--I became convinced by a lengthy discussion with the manufacturer of factory sized ultrasonic systems that using a surfactant improves cavitation.
But then you have to remove that residue and I don't think that air drying (forced or passive) does that to the degree vacuuming with a pure water rinse does. Though the KL allows you to zero out the dry cycle, I was told by Tim at KL that removing a 'wet' record risks water damaging the electronics. I'm not sure how easy it is to remove a washed, but not dried, record from the AD. Given all of this the DIY makes sense, not only from a budget stand point, but from a work flow standpoint.
The DIY method also allows you to add a recirculating pump with filter, something that KL added as a feature to their latest model. (The AD already has that sponge like filter built into the unit). Bench top US units from Elma (not the cheapest and not specifically designed for records) have multiple frequencies, heat control and degassing (which also improves cavitation). You then need to buy or built a rotisserie.
There is no static issue using a point nozzle vacuum, but those tend to be expensive.
I think if you only handle new or pristine vinyl, you can get away with just the US.
But, my ratio is 10/1 or 12/1 older records to new.
If I had to choose only one machine, it would probably be the Monks. I do like what the US machines add to the result in terms of SQ. I've written about a lot of this on my blog. Some of the latest entries are from Tim Ackerman aka Tima, who assembled a DIY system using a pretty cheap US bath, and a home built pump/filter-recirculating system (though his use of the Kuzma rotisserie adds to the cost over other devices, like the Vinyl Stack). His latest installment which I posted about a week or so ago showed the amount of crud that the filters picked up. Tima is using a very mild surfactant and isn't doing a post wash rinse and vacuum (though he has the ability to do so).
Even though I'm typically pre-cleaning before using the US, I replace the water at 30 record intervals, or sooner if I get lazy and have a new record that I clean only using the US. (I use clean room wipes to clean the tank on the KL, and the only time I find residue is from new records that haven't been pre-cleaned).
PS: the starting point for DIY is probably Rush Paul's article posted on Audiogon and in Positive Feedback Online, where he summarizes the learning from that insanely long thread on the subject from diyAudio.

 

Both!

 

Is it really common knowledgee that they are better? I don't think they are. I tried both and I do not find, so far, that Ultrasonic cleaners do a better job at cleaning a record than a good quality vacuum based cleaner.

I had records cleaned on one of this multi thousand dollar Ultrasonics as well as my own DIY version. I'm still experimenting, still willing to give it a shot and still hoping my experience so far is just coincidence but I don't know if I will ever feel differently.

To me it's no surprise that some local sellers prefer the "good ole" vacuum cleaning method.

 

I would agree that vacuum cleaning followed by ultrasonic or vice versa is the way to go. Both systems have their strengths it seems to me and like somebody here has already said the dirt that one method cannot remove will be removed by the other one. Also, US Cleaning does not fully clean the contamination in the dead wax but the typical vacuum RCM will take care of this easily! Both systems used in tandem have provided me with the quietest vinyl I have ever heard. It’s great.

The dual system has also given me a new ‘respect’ for standard U.S. vinyl. It is remarkable how well my standard U.S. Vinyl has cleaned up, no noise at all. For some reason US Cleaning seems to work fabulously well on U.S. records, in my experience.

 

I use a record doctor. It is great, and so have no complaints. Usually run a record through it upon purchase. Very anal about storage of records though so the one cleaning does the trick.

 

Scrub with Triton X-100-> Ultrasonic -> Deionized rinse with a few drops of alcohol -> Vacuum

The scrub gets rid of the big stuff and the ultrasonic gets rid of the micro-clingers. The difference this process makes in vocal texture is stunning.

 

Just tried out the ultrasonic tank with a vinyl stack. Was not prepared for the absolutely eardrum-killing frequencies. Will only be cleaning on days alone in the house, it seems.

 

I am a US convert. I acquired a Chinese 40hz 10L machine and a Vinyl Stack. I use Rushton's cleaning formula.

My process:

Spin Clean pre clean to remove most debris, including larger bits. Distilled water rinse.
US clean at 35'c using Rushton's formula. Distilled water rinse.
.33 RPM / 1 rev per 3 min / 5 rev in 15 min
Vac dry using a Nitty Gritty machine.

I notice a lot of effluent at the bottom of the Spin Clean tank -and- a surprising amount of effluent at the bottom of the US tank. This represents debris NOT taken off by the spin clean.

Sonic results are mostly excellent. Background noise level of non damaged LPs is below the noise floor of my system. On many LPs I no longer hear a "shhhhhh/swooosh" sound as the noise floor. Damage is still audible, and may be more noticeable in contrast to less background noise. I hear clearer midrange, cleaner and more extended treble. Better transient response. Better reproduction of very subtle audio cues such as brass and string instrument overtones/harmonics, room air and space around musicians. I suspect that over time a layer of dirt etc becomes bonded to groove walls. US cleaning removes this layer exposing low level sonics original contained in the grooves, but covered up by the accumulation of dirt etc.

On some LPs I hear an increasing amount of tics/pops as I get closer to the label. I have experimented with a bit more water in the tank and that may have helped.

I do notice that I get a build up of debris on my stylus after playing a US cleaned LP for the first time after cleaning.

The improvement from US cleaning is audible and repeatable.

 

Your description summarizes very well what the result of a good cleaning will do--more information, including hearing more gremlins if they are the result of a bad pressing or damaged grooves.
As to build up, my suspicion is you still aren't getting all the crap off the record.

 

Yes that is probably true. However, I did not notice stylus buildup when using the Spin Clean and Vac Dry alone....only after adding the US machine to the process.