There has always been contention over which out-of-the-box desktop RCM works best or is better. For a while there was the Audio Desk and KLaudio (KLA) machines, then Degritter came on the market. Another brand named Kirmus is also on the market, though in my own view it cannot be recommended.
Each of the units, including KLA has its pros and cons.
KLaudio - KLaudio machines sold well and were popular. Made in S.Korea, KLaudio did offer US based support. The company started adding some interesting tank solution filtration options and various add-ons, then unfortunately they went out of business.
The fundamental problem with the KLaudio machines is that using anything in solution besides water voided the machine's warranty. The company claimed it did not know how surfactants might damage machine internals. That is a function of machine design. Owners of KLA machines claim excellent results.
While water is a solvent, the bottom line is that using surfactants (soaps if you like) as part of a cleaning solution yields better results than water alone. There can substances on records such as fingerprint oil, greases, etc. that are not water soluable. Smashing cavitation generated vacuum bubbles against the side of a record alone can remove some residue and yield a cleaner record, however having surfactants in the water can do a more complete cleaning generally. Almost all industrial uses of ultrasonic cleaning use surfactants appropriate to the item being cleaned.
Fwiw, both Audio Desk and Degritter include bottles of cleaning agents meant to be added to their tanks of water.
Degritter - the Degritter is relatively new and like any brand new mechanical device it has had some some problems come up with their machine. However, thus far the company has been attentive to end-users and responsive in offering fixes and updates. Degritter machines are sold through on-line retailers in the US. It is not clear the extent to which they have US-based support and in some cases machines get returned to Europe for repair. The machine is controlled by a microprocessor and its operation can be updated via software. That is a positive feature though it is still basically a mechanical device with a pump, motor to turn the record and a fan.
Ultrasonic cleaning involves the generation of bubbles of vacuum in the cleaning tank. When these vacuum bubbles hit a surface (the record) they explode, and their released energy impacts against the surface and can dislodge substances foreign to that surface. The frequency applied to an ultrasonic cavitator determines the size of the vacuum bubbles that it generates. The lower the frequency, the larger the bubble, the greater the explosive force.
The main problem with the Degritter, imo, is that it runs its ultrasonic cavitators at 120kHz. This is high compared to other machines. This high frequency generates more and smaller bubbles than a lower frequency, so there is a greater distribution of vacuum bubbles, however their explosive force is considerably less than bubbles generated at 40 or 80kHz. Degritter is sensitive to this issue and claims their high operating frequency as a feature. Ideally, a USC RCM operating at two frequencies (low and high) will clean a larger percentage of residue types based on particle size.
The Degritter does have a removable water tank. This means you can do a separate rinse step after using their cleaning fluid; ideally you'd want two tanks, one for cleaning solution and one to fill with clean distilled water and no cleaning solution.
Audio Desk (AD) - this machine is a hybrid; it relies more on its four soft rotating brushes to clean a record with assistance from a single ultrasonic transducer. AD does not disclose its operating frequency. Because of the rotating brushes the AD operation is mechnically more complex than a machine without brushes. The brushes will get dirty over time. They can be cleaned several times in a washing machine, but ultimately will require replacement from the manufacturer; at ~$100 the brushes are somewhat pricey.
The AD also uses cleaning fluid, one vial of which (~$20) is claimed to clean 100-150 records. The downside here is re-using the same tank of solution over the time it takes to clean those records. The tank solution grows dirtier with each record cleaned. The AD has no rinse step, thus the water on the record when it is dried by the unit's fan is the wash water with residue in it. The Audio Desk does have a smallish non-spec'd sponge filter that operates passively; this filter will collect dirt but does not thoroughly clean the tank solution.
All None of the single-slot desktop machines have easy access to their cleaning tanks and are very difficult to clean. Over time residue (sludge) builds up in the tank and on any operating mechanics exposed to the cleaning solution. That means that whatever solution is in the tank will have residue in it. When the record is dried by a fan that residue can be left on the record. A key to avoiding (or at least reducing) that problem is to use active filtration with a decent absolute rated filter anytime a record is in the tank.
Unfortuneatly none of the current machines have decent filters (although KLaudio had an option with a more robust filter.) The Degritter has a small in-line replaceable plug filter but its porosity rating is not spec'd. It is possible to assemble an effective filtration system to use in conjunction with a desktop machine, especially if the tank has a drain plug.
All of these machines will get a record cleaner than it was before cleaning. Under nominal conditions each offers push button convenience. Each has its advocates. It is also possible to get a record cleaned using a vacuum type machine (such as the OP's VPI) and to get it just as clean as using an ultrasonic. However, the horizontal oriented RCMs take more time (only cleaning one side at a time) and with water flying all over the place are considerably messier than putting a record in a tank. But with patience they can do the job and they do make rinsing simple. One option is to use an ultrasonic to clean and a horizontal vacuum to rinse and dry. This takes more time and uses more space.
There is no clear methodology for gauging cleaning effectiveness. (You cannot clean the same record twice.) Imo the best judge is listening: if the record sounds clean, it is clean.
Imo, a key to the viability of the vinyl medium is keeping records clean. All efforts to do so are applauded.
|