Vacuum Record Cleaners

[steve f]

I find Kirmuss' personality so unbelievably pompous that he has zero credibility with me. He makes certain statements that also don't make sense, for example that ONLY HIS ultrasonic cleaner has the right frequency to clean records. ONLY HIS brush gets down into the grooves far enough and ONLY HIS cleaning solution doesn't do permanent harm to your valuable recordings.

This really sounds like audiophile bullshit to me. I would never ever spend a penny with him nor his company.

Everybody has to use Tergitol. Since you are only putting in a little bit,Dawn detergent is likely just fine and is the favorite of all manner of technicians and mechanics for cleaning dirty stuff. It rinses off fine. And you really don't even need to use detergent since alcohol in small percentage breaks the surface tension of water better than most detergents.

A good friend of mine who is nuts about vinyl and has multiple cleaning maschines likes his new Loricraft the best. Back in the day I met Keith Monks. His record cleaning machine was one of the very first and probably the best back in its time. He also built a unipivot arm that was terrible because it had four mercury pools for contacts. Not only did it exhale mercury vapor into your listening room but "mercury wetted contacts" widely used in electrical power gear, have the mercury and contacts protected from atmospheric oxygen. Not so his arm. It was a nice try.

I remember that tonearm.

 

[Angsty]

Since my original posting, I purchased a Humminguru in 2022. It was a lot cheaper than traditional ultrasonics and I’ve been very happy with its performance. It cleans more deeply than my old Record Doctor.

 

[dogberry]

I've been through a VPI 16.5 and a Nitty Gritty vacuum RCM. I gave them away once I bought a Loricraft PRC-4 Deluxe. Like the Keith Monks, it is a point source vacuum, and the vacuum is applied through an ever renewing strand of cotton thread. It is quieter than the other vacuum machines and does a better job. I was impressed when I heard the BBC had bought several to maintain it's record collection. The choice of brushes, solutions and rinses is left to the user and however much effort he wants to invest. Whilst I've used it for 11-12 years now, I did add a Degritter a year ago. I still use the Loricraft for gross cleaning - it keeps most of the contamination out of the Degritter's tank, which is re-used for 20-30 disks. Using one and then the other means a record, unless scratched, will come out as silent as a CD. Then it goes in a new inner sleeve and is marked as having been cleaned. Before play each and every time I use a Furutech Destat III and a photo blower brush (one of the big powerful ones, like a Rocket Brush). Nothing touches the disk after cleaning except air and the stylus.
I don't try to go through the whole collection doing this, but rather just do each one before I play it, IF it has not been done already. Eventually I'll get them all. Should surface noise come back, then it will be time for a repeat, but not until then.

 

[Angsty]

There are some occasions where I have found that a newly acquired used record is so dirty that it requires a run through the vacuum record cleaner followed by the ultrasonic. That’s true less than 5% of the time for me; the majority of the time the ultrasonic works its cleaning wonders alone.

I do use a very dilute surfactant solution with the ultrasonic to help break surface tension when cleaning and dry a bit faster.

 

[MoreWatts]

Record cleaning is essentially a fetish within the vinyl world. One has to balance their pursuit of a quiet record with the stupidity/nostalgic nature of the medium. Face it, no one would "invent" vinyl records today as an audio storage/playback mechanism. Even a new record is never as quiet as digital, and to expect a 50 year old slab of neglected toxic waste, that was acquired for $3, out of a dusty bin, to play noise free, is delusional.

Record cleaning is no different than sighted audio evaluation. People that spend hours scrubbing and drying, or those that spent $$$ on fancy machines, will tell you these devices perform magic. Bull. Only a new record can be somewhat guaranteed to be undamaged and unworn. Any noise left behind after any of these cleaning methods is record damage, as all of these cleaning methods are adequate to clean a record. The OPs observation that his results improved, when he washed correctly, indicate such.

In a silly medium where sound is reproduced by dragging a suspended rock through a canyon of vinyl, reproduction of the original signal can only be achieved if the canyon is free of external debris. External debris encountered by the suspended rock will either be pushed out of the way and dragged behind the rock (dust build up on the stylus), or will be rolled over by the rock, with unmusical noise as the result. Which means you usually gotta clean used vinyl records.

The least OCD method is to use a method that cleans one record as you play another, without actually having to stand over that record to clean. Otherwise you have a "cleaning vinyl and listening session" rather than just a "listening session." The machines that spin both sides of a record, continuously and quietly through solution (while you sit and listen to another record), and then dry quickly with a vacuum blast (during record changes), are the least OCD way to clean records.

I don't know if any of the ultrasonic cleaners allow for a quick vacuum dry, but they do clean both sides simultaneously. The Nitty Gritty Mini Pro 1 wets, scrubs and vacuums both sides, with the least hassle of any method. I do not recommend this machine because it is better, but because it makes the record cleaning process easier. It is definitely not cheap, and no record cleaning machine is, because the economy of scale for production is non-existent. This machine, and its associated precious fluids, is inadequate!? Refer to paragraphs 1 and 2.

Vinyl (and reel to reel tape?) is already such a time suck, that the normal rituals/hassles/TIME, of just playing a record, require a "listening session." Why add to that with OCD cleaning rituals?

BTW, if there is another machine that performs quiet, unsupervised, cleaning with simple vacuum dry, please inform. Does the Kirmuss machine, for instance, vacuum dry within the machine, after some sort of fluid drainage?

For reference, I own ~1500 LPs, and wish I had bought the 2 sided Nitty Gritty, instead of the 1 side at a time, Nitty Gritty.

Listen to, don't obsess over, your LP collection.

 

[DVDdoug]

I never had a record vacuum or anything exotic or expensive. Like everybody else I had a Discwasher. Then for "deep cleaning" I used Discofilm which you spread-on and it dries to something like dense Jell-O that you can peel-off. There are a few similar products and some people do the same thing with white glue.

...I never noticed a difference in sound after cleaning, but cleaning before playing might reduce damage.

(I no longer play records. Occasionally I digitize one.)

 

[Robert C]

Since my original posting, I purchased a Humminguru in 2022. It was a lot cheaper than traditional ultrasonics and I’ve been very happy with its performance. It cleans more deeply than my old Record Doctor.

I'd also like to recommend the HumminGuru. I've had it for about a year and it's perfect for home use. I've also used a Keith Monks and homemade ultrasonic bath cleaners in a music archive.

I use a cleaning solution of purified water (from the pharmacy) and Kodak photo flo in a 70:1 ratio. Two minute clean, five minute dry.

 

[MoreWatts]

The Humminguru looks awesome.

Note that it checks my boxes (unattended operation, post 25), is cheap (in comparison to most machines), and ultrasonic "is better." A few questions:

I assume the spin and wash cycle is quiet enough to not influence a listening session.

Does the dry cycle apply a vacuum, or heat, or blows air across the surface, to speed the process? Is this quiet time, so a listening session can continue?

Is everyone voiding the warranty with the use of a surfactant? Is distilled water alone adequate? According to anecdotal online reviews, surfactant use is "better."

Does the machine clean, drain and dry, without further operator input, until the record is removed for play (or storage)?

Does the record need to be removed immediately, or can it chill in the machine while you finish your current listen?

Thanks for any info.

 

[Burning Sounds]

I have a 30 plus year old Nitty Gritty 1. It's still going strong (and still makes an absolute racket. ) I recently replaced the felt pads on the vacuum aperture and it has done a great job on the 7 inch singles I've been buying this last year to populate my jukebox.

 

[Angsty]

Answers regarding the HumminGuru:

“I assume the spin and wash cycle is quiet enough to not influence a listening session.”

Not really. I generally clean in a different room than I play.

“Does the dry cycle apply a vacuum, or heat, or blows air across the surface, to speed the process? Is this quiet time, so a listening session can continue?”

It has a fan which blows air across the record to dry it without heating. The drying mode is too loud to really listen to music while using, but it’s not as loud as my vacuum record cleaner.

“Is everyone voiding the warranty with the use of a surfactant? Is distilled water alone adequate? According to anecdotal online reviews, surfactant use is "better."”

Maybe. The manufacturer has started selling their own surfactant to use with the machine. I find that very dilute (~1:50) use of my regular vacuum record cleaning fluid is enough to get optically better results than with distilled water alone. I can’t really say that they are quieter, but they are shinier and could potentially move up the grade rating half a mark or so.

“Does the machine clean, drain and dry, without further operator input, until the record is removed for play (or storage)?”

Yes. You manually pour water into the cleaning chamber and the rest is automatic.

“Does the record need to be removed immediately, or can it chill in the machine while you finish your current listen?”

I’ve left records in my HumminGuru for several hours before putting them away. Probably even overnight.

 

[mash]

Has anyone tried the HumminGuru ultrasonic stylus cleaner (S-DUO)? Looks interesting but I would be concerned about damaging the stylus/cantilever.

 

[dogberry]

I have one on order, being intrigued by the statement it actually uses ultrasonic frequencies (110kHz) and the stylus sits in a water bath. I have one of the numerous "ultrasonic" stylus cleaners sold under many names, that is plainly NOT ultrasonic. That doesn't work any better than a carbon fibre stylus brush, and I suspect those two items apply more force to the cantilever than a true U/S. How the epoxy holding the stylus to the cantilever stands up to 110kHz remains to be seen. Maybe I should run it a few dozen times on an old cartridge before using it on a good one?

 

[Angsty]

I've had excellent results using a stylus brush wet with distilled water. If the stylus can tolerate water, I'm not sure if the S-DUO would do better for me.

 

[mash]

I currently use the groovewasher stylus brush with their stylus cleaner. It certainly seems to work but I'm also a little leery of the potential damage the brush might be doing. Its a little hard to tell just how good the brush works. I ordered one of the cheaper USB microscopes to see if that can actually give me a better view of my stylus.

 

[JeffS7444]

I used to own a Nitty Gritty, which probably was about the same as that RD-branded machine. Never noticed a performance difference between models, though more $ bought more convenience. My first thought would be to try alternative cleaning fluids.

 

[rgpit]

I have a moth RCM that I’m about to use for the first time. Until now I have been using a disco anti stat. It’s just an acetone bath with a brush, but at £50 gets very good results and therefore massive bang for buck. I don’t have a microscope to verify the differences though, I guess I could run a proper test and record the difference and analyse the results. The anti stat seems to render minging old 33s crackle free and shiny so the extra £550 I spent on the moth may well turn out to give diminishing performance returns. Mind you, the motor runs at over 70 db so at least I have the joy of sitting at my dining room table with ear defenders on shaking the house whilst the rest of the house hold hide under their beds thinking the apocalypse has arrived.

Are you certain you're using ACETONE? I think that will dissolve the record album.

 

[MattHooper]

The Humminguru looks awesome.

Note that it checks my boxes (unattended operation, post 25), is cheap (in comparison to most machines), and ultrasonic "is better." A few questions:

I use the Degritter ultra sonic record cleaner. It would check your boxes except one: it's expensive.

I listen to lots of records but didn't want to turn record washing in to a second hobby. I wanted as good a wash as possible as easy as possible and was willing to pay if someone could come up with that. I got in on the early Degritter kick-starter price so got a good deal.

Basically you put a tank of distilled water in, a bit of surfactant, then you can drop a record in, hit wash, walk away and come back to a fully washed and dried record (uses a fan to blow it dry). It's nice because I can listen to a record while it's being washed (mine is in the basement).

Another nice feature is you can vary the fan noise by a large amount. The lower you make the noise the longer it takes to dry, but that's ok. Usually I'm upstairs doing something else so I have the fan on high power to dry quickly. But if my son is downstairs watching TV I lower the power so the fan noise is quiet.

As for the effect: I find it usually makes a noticeable difference in both the reduction of record noise and the clarity of the sound. Drum cymbals (and anything else) that might have sounded a tiny bit grungey or gritty will tend to sound clean and pure after a wash. Sometimes it makes no difference at all, but usually it does. In fact it's sometimes made huge differences. Occaisionally I've had a record that sounded like it had been dragged out of a garbage bin - like trying to listen through a haze of white noise. After a wash it literally sounded like a brand new record. That's unusual, but pretty impressive when it happens.

 

[Martin]

I use a Squeaky Clean with a $20 wet/dry vacuum. Works great.

Martin

 

[Angsty]

I use the Degritter ultra sonic record cleaner. It would check your boxes except one: it's expensive.

I listen to lots of records but didn't want to turn record washing in to a second hobby. I wanted as good a wash as possible as easy as possible and was willing to pay if someone could come up with that. I got in on the early Degritter kick-starter price so got a good deal.

Basically you put a tank of distilled water in, a bit of surfactant, then you can drop a record in, hit wash, walk away and come back to a fully washed and dried record (uses a fan to blow it dry). It's nice because I can listen to a record while it's being washed (mine is in the basement).

Another nice feature is you can vary the fan noise by a large amount. The lower you make the noise the longer it takes to dry, but that's ok. Usually I'm upstairs doing something else so I have the fan on high power to dry quickly. But if my son is downstairs watching TV I lower the power so the fan noise is quiet.

As for the effect: I find it usually makes a noticeable difference in both the reduction of record noise and the clarity of the sound. Drum cymbals (and anything else) that might have sounded a tiny bit grungey or gritty will tend to sound clean and pure after a wash. Sometimes it makes no difference at all, but usually it does. In fact it's sometimes made huge differences. Occaisionally I've had a record that sounded like it had been dragged out of a garbage bin - like trying to listen through a haze of white noise. After a wash it literally sounded like a brand new record. That's unusual, but pretty impressive when it happens.

Pretty much the same with the HumminGuru at a $500 price point and no variable fan speed (always "high power").

 

[mash]

Here is a review of the HumminGuru that does some comparison with the Degritter. Not sure that some of his tests are valid but there is some interesting info buried in the review about how each works. He's a big fan of the Degritter, so his conclusions aren't necessarily surprising.

Despite that (and other similar reviews that I have read), I'm leaning towards the HG. $3,000 dollars for a cleaner is just a LOT of money compared to the other components in my system and/or my total record spend. Also, I typically purchase new vinyl or VG+ or better used discs, so I'm not asking my cleaner to perform miracles from old garage records. The HG should still be a step up from the Groovewasher system that I use now and I can always pass my HG down to one of my kids (2 are into records) down the line and upgrade to something like the Degritter.