Vinyl Cleaning - The Dirty Truth Letter from Mat Weisfeld, VPI Industries

[Golucid]

Originally Posted by o0OBillO0o

David-

What's the service interval for each?

$4000 and done may be worth it for a number of reasons. hmmm. Would a good metric be cost per clean? VPI? Audio Desk?

Then back up to the service interval when would have to replace things on the KLAudio?

Another measure would be time to clean a record.

The one thing we may never know is reliability and failure rate. Of course in cars is a must to report, but RCMs run by cottage industry - not likely.

Bill...

The VPI HW27 Typhoon is service free. I've had two of them. The first one, for many years with never an issue. The second one just recently purchased. The owners manual in both did not suggest interval 'service'. There is reasonable care...keep it clean and do not use harsh chemicals.

The Klaudio and Audio Desk owners manuals do not suggest any interval 'service' either. There is reasonable care...keep it clean and do not use harsh chemicals.

However, if any of these RCMs break down, that's not a service, that's a repair. Prices for repair, that I do not know. As you know, the issue with the Klaudio that I had generously handled under warranty.

Prices? The Klaudio MSRP is $4,000 and of course, Ivan offers this at a discount to AA subscribers. The Audio Desk MSRP is $4,000 - $4,250 and the VPI HRW 27 Typhoon MSRP is $2,500. Of course, all these prices are negotiable. With the exception of the Klaudio [I didn't know Ivan yet, sadly] I purchased the VPI at a 25% discount and the Audio Desk at a 30% discount.

Time to clean the records, well...thats a large variable. I am OCD about. For me, each record navigating through all the machines 15 minutes.

Failures rates...scary!

[Golucid]

Originally Posted by jdandy

David.......According to the Autodesk Instructions a cleaning solution is also required to be added to the distilled water. That adds to the operating cost, as do the brush replacements after every 500 washes.

Yes, I thought I had typed that portion in! In addition to your FYI. The Audio Desk REQUIRES A PROPRIETARY CLEANING FLUID. Use of a fluid other than what Audio Desk markets shall invalidate your warranty!

Thanks, Dan. I'll re-edit my post above.

[jdandy]

David.......My question with respect to the proprietary cleaning fluid Autodesk requires and sells is how does it get rinsed off the vinyl before the record goes into the drying cycle? Even your VPI record cleaner requires a rinse and vacuum cycle. This is one of the advantages I see with the Klaudio record cleaner. Nothing but distilled water and ultrasonic waves are applied to the vinyl. No residual cleaning agent residue is left in the grooves. From my point of view any residue left on the record, proprietary or not, doesn't strike me as a good thing.

[Golucid]

Originally Posted by jdandy

David.......My question with respect to the proprietary cleaning fluid Autodesk requires and sells is how does it get rinsed off the vinyl before the record goes into the drying cycle? Even your VPI record cleaner requires a rinse and vacuum cycle. This is one of the advantages I see with the Klaudio record cleaner. Nothing but distilled water and ultrasonic waves are applied to the vinyl. No residual cleaning agent residue is left in the grooves.

Dan...as you recall from my other threat post, I use the Kaudio for the final clean cycle that theoretically removes residual cleaning agent residue.

On point is that my OCD cleaning requirements exceed likely every one on AA. I expect perfection! For me, snap crackle pop and static is intolerable and unacceptable -- with the exception of the ever so slight sound of the stylus traveling through the grooves and this is heard at the lead, track transitions and end points of the vinyl.

My threshold is fragile, I get bent out of shape if I detect any abnormality/flaw/etc.

[Whart]

Originally Posted by Golucid

Dan...

On point is that my OCD cleaning requirements exceed likely every one on AA. .

Not necessarily.....

[Whart]

Originally Posted by MasterLuJr

I tend to agree with Capcom on this. No manufacturer is going to say a product they don't make is better. That's just simple logic, I don't care if we're talking any product. I could call numerous CEO's and ask them why product "X" they produce is better than product "Y", and they would all be able to give me a logical sound answer. When we get into quality audio products they all, usually, have advantages as well as disadvantages.

Now when it comes to record cleaners I would say that their isn't one perfect machine out there. I've seen, and/or used about all of them out there. My personal favorite is the KL Audio. It does a great job and has unbelievable ease of use. I think one of the major issues with vinyl and cleaning is the production of the actual vinyl. It's not perfect, depending on the mold/when the pressing was done/did any imperfections get into they vinyl from the air during processing(dust,etc).

I'll give you a really interesting example when it comes to vinyl. A customer brought over a record he wanted to hear. We ran it through the KL audio then played it on the system. He loved the way it sounded, but couldn't understand how come he didn't hear a "pop" at one point he had always heard. This customer also had a KL Audio cleaner. So he went home and played the record. Guess what, it had the pop at the same point as he was use too! He ended up upgrading his cartridge. When he went to play his favorite record at his home, no pop! Now could it been the cartridge/stylus causing the "pop", unknown. Maybe it was gone just from more cleanings on the KLaudio. The audio industry, especially vinyl, has thrown some really unexplainable occurrences my way over the years. I will say, without a doubt, vinyl is more popular then ever! I've also found vinyl lovers to have their own particular set of preferences from types of tables/arms/stylus/cables/cleaners/fluids/and I could go on lol These users will swear that the combination they use produce the best sound and that's the beauty to me. Enthusiasts all have different likes and dislikes. At the end record cleaning machines are subjective. No one can truly do a blind test due to the fact of how vinyl pressing is done. David I thought you did a great job on your comparison thread! I think the best anyone can do is list the advantages/disadvantages of a machine/technique for others to take in. Your post truly did a great job at that! One thing probably everyone will agree on is that their isn't any magic machine that can do it all perfect. Maybe vinyl is meant to be imperfect and that's part of its beauty.

I think this is basically spot on. When I went to the restoration facility at the Library of Congress, one of the 'cleaning rooms' had both the Monks and a VPI Typhoon. One of the restoration specialists interviewed agreed that multiple cleanings were often necessary, but did not express any preference for different methods at each step. Part of their mission is to restore very old records-78's- to get them to a high state of play as part of a process of digitally archiving the material. At the time of my visit, they had not yet experimented with ultrasonic for LPs.
Aside from cost, time and effort (and the tendency of some cartridge/phono stage combinations to emphasize surface noise, as you point out), the condition of the records - in particular what contamination they suffered-makes a difference too. It was only when I started acquiring a lot of 40+ year old UK pressings that didn't improve in a single, good cleaning by any method that I doubled down and started to explore combining multiple methods for 'problem' records. And, my methods, machines, fluids vary, depending on the record. I'm entirely machine agnostic, I use what gets me the best results on a given record. But, that does mean multiple machines, fluids, and steps for the "problem" records.

[Golucid]

Originally Posted by Whart

I think this is basically spot on. When I went to the restoration facility at the Library of Congress, one of the 'cleaning rooms' had both the Monks and a VPI Typhoon. One of the restoration specialists interviewed agreed that multiple cleanings were often necessary, but did not express any preference for different methods at each step. Part of their mission is to restore very old records-78's- to get them to a high state of play as part of a process of digitally archiving the material. At the time of my visit, they had not yet experimented with ultrasonic for LPs. Aside from cost, time and effort (and the tendency of some cartridge/phono stage combinations to emphasize surface noise, as you point out), the condition of the records - in particular what contamination they suffered-makes a difference too. It was only when I started acquiring a lot of 40+ year old UK pressings that didn't improve in a single, good cleaning by any method that I doubled down and started to explore combining multiple methods for 'problem' records. And, my methods, machines, fluids vary, depending on the record. I'm entirely machine agnostic, I use what gets me the best results on a given record. But, that does mean multiple machines, fluids, and steps for the "problem" records.

The take away here for me is that they are using a traditional RCM.

No matter how many times over and over cleaning my vinyl through any of the ultrasonic RCMs, it wasn't until I used a physical contact RCM (VPI) that I reached sonic nirvana.

I am in a unique position, I concurantly have and use all three machines everyday and am able to compare.

[Whart]

Originally Posted by Golucid

The take away here for me is that they are using a traditional RCM.

No matter how many times over and over cleaning my vinyl through any of the ultrasonic RCMs, it wasn't until I used a physical contact RCM (VPI) that I reached sonic nirvana.

I am in a unique position, i simultaneously have and use all three machines everyday and am able to compare.

The three being the AD, the KL and a big VPI, right?
I've made essentially the same comparisons, owned both ultrasonics and also use a vac machine, as mentioned (still have an old VPI, but using the Monks). If you try the new Clearaudio 'sonic,' let us know. I can try it, but right now have too much on my plate, so that's not going to happen immediately.

[Golucid]

Originally Posted by Whart

The three being the AD, the KL and a big VPI, right? I've made essentially the same comparisons, owned both ultrasonics and also use a vac machine, as mentioned (still have an old VPI, but using the Monks). If you try the new Clearaudio 'sonic,' let us know. I can try it, but right now have too much on my plate, so that's not going to happen immediately.

Yes, all three.

Tell me about that Monks. I am intrigued. Since you have had these machines, you decided on Monks. Why? This must be true winner!

[427]

I use the V8 ultrasonic cleaning system and I can't live without it. Nothing out there will clean as many records as effortlessly and quietly as these tanks. They have their faults as well, but really the amount of records I come home with each week I can't get clean any other way. It's like doing the laundry or running the dishwasher, in less than an hour after work I can have 32 records cleaned run through the tank while I do other things during the 10 minute cycle.

While they are drying I can clean up the covers, pulling stickers and dusting them. I don't vacuum dry as it can introduce more static, not to mention I don't want to listen to it. In fact the best thing about cleaning this way is with the heat and ultrasonic the records expand and contract a bit. This action pulls out every bit of static on the record, when dried a light wipe with an old cotton lint rag and any dust falls to the floor. Into a new polly sleeve and the covers they go and then to the library. I can pull records to play and they don't even need to be dusted prior to the needle drop.

Now these Chines tanks do not last forever and my first one died after 1600 records @ around 40 hours run time at a replacment cost of $350. That said there is steps I learned not to kill the tank early so my second tank has cleaned 2300 records and is going very strong. Looking at the tanks or any cleaning method we want to reduce cost per disc, time and our hearing loss, these tanks fit the bill to do large collections at pennies per record and restore excellent sound quality.

The first 1600 I cleaned in less than a month, lately I have been pissy farting around and been using this method for around 8 months.

Anyone else clean 3,900 records in that time?