Vacuum or Ultrasound record cleaning machines?

I'm loving everything you have said. I've seen people declare that with the Pro-ject rcm, that the record needs no more than 2-3 revolutions in both directions, and if it takes much more than that, then something is being done wrong. That already sounds like bulls**t and I'm glad you have further yet boosted my confidence in my method of at least 10 revolutions in both directions.

 

Well said. I'm very happy with my Clear Audio vacuum machine - takes some work - but it can be enjoyable.

 

Currently I do a 2 step cleaning. First clean with a Spin Clean to get the heavy grime off, then vacuum off the dirty solution. Then do another cleaning with a Record Doctor V and vacuum off the dirty solution. I have found there is no real rule on how many revolutions it takes to completely dry the LP with the RD RCM but have found a couple in each direction is ususally not enough.

I am sure I could do even better with mutli step cleanings with different solutions but have found this cleaning method ususally gets rid of almost all of the snap, crackle and pops on old and new vinyl. I have a new pressing of Bowie's Ziggy Stardust Soundtrack which was very noisy right out of the sleeve. After the above cleaning it is now quiet as it should be for new vinyl.

Also bought a couple of Elvis Christmas song LP's for he coming season for a buck each at the huge Brimfield, MA flea market they have a few times a year. The jackets were falling apart and the vinyl was dirty with lots of surface marks. I figured they were going to be very noisy to unlistenable but after cleaning they are very acceptible with just some wear and tear background noise and hardly any pops or clicks left. A bargain at buck each as I will only bring them out during Christmas season.

Thinking about getting another Spin Clean to use as a rinse at the end and may invest in a US cleaner come bonus time at my company in June to get rid of those few stubborn clicks and pops on the old vinyl the RCM can't seem to eliminate. I usually treat myself to some electronic gadget at bonus time so a US cleaner may just fit the bill this year.

 

VPI 16.5 is all I will ever need. For really dirty records I will hand clean first.

 

Does a manual (shop vac with vinyl vac attachment) work equally (or better) as well as a auto vacuum system?

 

I haven't used a manual set up like that but there's plenty of people on here that have (and elsewhere) and they're reports indicate it's an effective method. I think a lot depends on your over all procedure (e.g use good fluid, rinse appropriately) and how good the vacuum is (and a shop vac will have plenty of power). Assuming all else is equal as long as the shop vac + vinyl attachment remove the liquid I think you're records will be clean.

 

The only thing I would add is that a lot of power isn't what is needed-- just enough. So, if one builds a vacuum RCM, you ought add something that allows you to adjust the air flow--many vacuum cleaners (not RCMs) have an adjustable slot like panel which can reduce vacuum power by opening it and reducing vacuum. Too much power isn't good and could not only attach to the record but potentially damage it, so by experimenting on some trash records, you could figure this out. If you wanted to get scientific about it, you could probably measure it against the figures of some commercial RCMs if there was a way to adapt a vacuum pressure measuring tool to the fittings but that is probably unnecessary.

 

Thanks for the response. I use a “vinyl styl” basin with goat hair brushes first step. My solution is 90% distilled water 10% isopropyl alcohol, with 0.3% triton X-100. Second step is vacuum, followed by a distilled water rinse and another vacuum.

 

My shop vac is 1.5 hp

 

I've found 3 processes are required to get the a dirty record really clean. Before I'm accused of having an over-the-top case of OCD, I don't use all three methods on every record. Heck, some I don't bother cleaning at all, but for the right ones, I employ a suction machine (VPI Cyclone), a manual deep scrub (Disc Doctor brushes), and an Ultrasonic final cleanse (Klaudio).

The VPI gets the most work as it might be used for a pre clean (with either L'Art Du Son or VPI fluid), an enzyme clean (AIVS fluid), or to suck up Disc Doctor fluid after a manual scrub. I have a separate wand/pillar set up for each.

All that to say if I could have only one machine, it would a suction type like the VPI or better yet, a suction string machine like the Loricraft (big money, slow process, but oh so effective).

If I was on a strict budget, I'd use Disc Doctor brushes manually and let the records air dry.

If money isn't an issue, I'd use what I have now, plus a string machine for the final step, after an Ultrasonic cleanse. That would be a bit tricky as you would have to turn off the drying cycle on the Klaudio and very carefully lift the wet record out of the machine. You don't want water dripping in the machine where it shouldn't. You'd also need two Loricraft/Monk mats. Now that's OCD!

Bottom line, a suction machine plus Disc Doctor brushes makes for a great cleaning system at a reasonable price. Add the ultrasonic if you can afford it. That would be my advice.

 

Also my experience.

 

So, here's a question for those using a suction-type machine like a VPI. Do you use a separate wand/pillar for the detergent and rising steps?

Thus far, I've not done that. My thought is that when I rinse the record with lab water, it's going to remove the same detergent I just sucked up, only now much diluted. Plus, the record will eventually end up in an ultrasonic bath.

I don't know, two wands/pillars for each step seemed like overkill. What do you think?

 

Yes. You want the rinse step to be as pure as possible. It does make a difference and the cost isn't great, pretty much a one time expenditure, with double the cost of replacing the velvet lips. (Although I guess you are using each set half as much so maybe that evens out- I suck at math).

 

I'm no guru on vacuum systems, but just from experience, can tell you that tells only part of the story-- length of pipes or hoses, diameter, aperture on point of contact with record, etc. That's why I suggested a little experimentation rather than 'spec'ing' -- you know what I'm referring to with those fittings that allow you to let room air into the hose to reduce vacuum strength? I never did a home brew vacuum RCM, but I know there was some talk about one of the commercial machines (no longer made) having too powerful a vacuum suction.

 

There are a few DIY solution type posts floating around the net (some from here IIRC) and here's one example:
Osage Audio Products, LLC

In their examples they use a 1 hp machine. As Bill Hart has mentioned, horsepower is only part of the equation. I would say 1.5hp is fine but you should experiment with the attachments. As long as the suction isn't so strong as to pull the record up or stop it from rotating you should be fine.

 

Got it. Follow up question: Do you use just one wand/pillar for all rinse steps, regardless of the detergent used in the first step? Or, do you have separate rinsing wands/pillars after your #15 rinse, pre-clean, etc.

If it's the latter, I'm going to end up with a whole lot of wands!

 

One wand for cleaning fluids, another for pure water rinse. Keep 'em clean, rinse after done, I used a toothbrush to lightly scrub the velvet (perhaps that wears it out sooner, but I didn't apply any pressure). Rinse your applicators too. I use a variety depending on need and circumstance- brushes in some cases to apply, including water for rinse stage, those MoFi or Disc Doctor type are pretty good for agitation type fluids (AIVS No. 15), though my preferred applicator for that is the one Lloyd Walker sold as part of his Prelude fluid kits, since they are directional. (I don't know if Walker sells only the applicators, I got them when I was using his fluids, but since switched to AIVS No. 15 for the dirty, needs work records and use a milder fluid from Hannl which I apply with a brush for the less dirty records).
FWIW, the string/nozzle types don't take that long to run a record--the Monks spins fast and once I'm in a groove, I can crank through a lot of records. The biggest time factor is letting the fluid sit and agitating if you are using an enzyme type. And of course, multiple steps. But I am only doing two steps - fluid/vacuum and rinse/vacuum, apart from ultrasonic.

 

Thanks. FYI, my research found that Walker does not sell their brushes separately, only with the kit.

 

I vacuum manually using an old turntable. It does create suction that can lift the record up but I have no trouble turning the platter as it sucks up the water. I can usually see grains that have been brought to the surface that the vacuum removes.

 

For those using "lab grade" water for the rinse...

What are you using? What is your source?

I've read there are 3, perhaps 4 levels of purity in lab grade water. Thus far, I've only used AIVS lab grade water. No idea what level it is and I have to believe there is an more economic source. Can one make it themselves from RO, distilled and/or ionized and filtered water?

Now I'm thirsty...

 

You need some pretty expensive equipment to get to Grade II, Grade I equipment is really expensive and the consumables alone will cost a lot of money. Millipore, which makes the equipment to process water for lab grades, provides the following information on grades: http://www.emdmillipore.com/US/en/w.../tutorial/grades/eSqb.qB.3lUAAAFAcqlkiQz8,nav
After you look at the grading chart, go to the tabs on the left- one will be techniques- and it will explain how further processing increases purity.
As to sources, Grade I is only sold in the States at this point by lab supply outlets and will not ship to a domestic address even if a home business. I buy Nerl Casco Grade I, and have switched sources a few times. It comes from Thermo-Fisher Scientific. I had to establish my bona fides to get them to ship, and used my lawyer's office as a receiving destination. PITA.
Not sure you need Grade I. The Library of Congress uses deionized, and they probably make it, but if you see how much stuff they go through there, it probably makes sense.
Oh, and don't drink that stuff!

 

I have, and use, both a Nitty Gritty vacuum machine and a ClearAudio ultrasonic cleaner. The Nitty Gritty is at least 20 years old. I run it completely manually (I even took off the rubber wheel that turns the record. Run manually, I can "scub" the record back and forth and turn the record in either direction for both cleaning and moisture removal. I also use felt pad cleaning brushes (the applicators from LAST cleaning and record preservation) to scrub the records.

With any new used records, I first clean them thoroughly on the Nitty Gritty machine. That way I will be transferring the absolute minimum of crap to the ClearAudio machine. After the initial cleaning, I rarely bother to clean a record again. If a record is getting dusty, I clean it on the Nitty Gritty.

Both machines, independently do a good job of cleaning. But, on a few records, I was surprised to find that what I thought was old "damage" to records I purchased new and cleaned thoroughly, turned out to be something that can be cleaned away by the ClearAudio machine. The ClearAudio is also good for someone who is lazy--it is something that needs no attending while it does the cleaning job.

I have also seen the KLAudio machine in operation. It seems to work well too, but, it is a bit noisier (a silence box can be bought for that machine). The KL also has options that allow for automatic cleaning of multiple records at one time. The KL machine uses only distilled water which, probably, means less of an issue of deposits left on the record after cleaning (ClearAudio uses a cleaning solution added to the distilled water), but, it may also mean less thorough cleaning (the ClearAudio machine also employs spinning brushes to scrub the record surface). Of course, if I were concerned about residue deposits, and if I were not so lazy, I could do a distilled water rinse of the record on the Nitty Gritty machine as a final step.

 

This was my experience as well, causing me to double down on any record that exhibited any sort of groove distortion or tracing noise after cleaning. Not all records improve, but some get to a very high playing standard as a result of multiple cleanings using different methods.

 

I'm getting back into vinyl after decades away. I recently inherited several boxes of jazz 78's from the 1940s, most in relativley good condition but all pretty dirty. I've just been using a manual Spin Clean which has been sub-optimal. I'm considering an US cleaner or a Record Dr. vacuum system. I've read through a lot of these posts, but I'm wondering if there's a particularly good way to clean these records. Thanks!

 

Both is better.

I use a Spin Clean as a pre-soak for only the oldest and dirtiest records. The vacuum machine (VPI in my case) sees the majority of records, at least one pass with RCF and one pure water rinse. Finish it off in the US (Klaudio in my case). You certainly don't need all three approaches on every records, but you'll be armed to tackle any record cleaning job with them.

For your 78s, be sure to use a RCF specifically formulated for them and of course, you'll need vacuum tubes specifically for 78-sized records. Same goes for an US machine; most will need an adapter to work with 78s. Otherwise, they clean like normal vinyl.