advertisement


Use RCM

Fergus said:
As with any cleaning fluid rinsing is not optional.
Click to expand...

Never rinsed in my life. Pointless when 75 or 80 % of the fluid is distilled water (20/25% IPA) and that is extracted by vacuum. Maybe for other, proprietary mixes it may be advisable, but can't see why.

murphydog said:
I’ve recently acquired a Moth rcm. Could I ask for recommendations for a reasonably priced fluid?
Click to expand...

Cheapest has to be DIY with isopropyl alcohol (1 litre 99.???...% for economy) and distilled or similarly purified water plus photographic surfactant if you can get it in small enough quantities, or unperfumed quality (Fairy?) liquid. Approx. ratio 4:1 water: IPA + dash of surfactant. Mix in quantities as required and keep in fridge. A little squeezy bottle is useful with nozzle/small spout to distribute a line of fluid on the record with the platter spinning.

Bear in mind many reports of L'Art du Son (enzyme based?) going 'mouldy' if kept for many months.
 
I use a Loricraft machine. completely gets rid of static on new records and from on I don’t have any trouble at all. Many of my records have only been cleaned once by me. I use art du son or whatever it’s called. I’ve had a bottle for a few years now, only mix up small amounts at a time and I’ve never had it turn mouldy. I keep it in my understairs cupboard where it’s cool and dark. The machine was a lot of money but now I’ve got it i’ll Never sell it as long as I own a turntable.
 
Ellenor said:
I use a Loricraft machine. completely gets rid of static on new records and from on I don’t have any trouble at all. Many of my records have only been cleaned once by me. I use art du son or whatever it’s called. I’ve had a bottle for a few years now, only mix up small amounts at a time and I’ve never had it turn mouldy. I keep it in my understairs cupboard where it’s cool and dark. The machine was a lot of money but now I’ve got it i’ll Never sell it as long as I own a turntable.
Click to expand...
I too have had a Loricraft for many years. It’s much better than the Nitty Gritty machine that I had before it. I’ve been lucky and never really had any issues with static.
 
misterdog said:
I've never done it, though would just pour from the bottle and spread with a mini paint roller and foam head.
The 24 hour wait for the glue to dry and then having to do the other side put me off.
Though there are now faster drying PVA glues.
Click to expand...

I spread the glue thin enough that it only takes a few hours to dry. If you can put the record somewhere warm that helps.

I can't imagine a paint roller being a good way of spreading the glue. Fingers or a piece of card would be my choice. You want enough accuracy that you can cover the last groove without going onto the label, and cover the first groove without going over the edge. I should think a paint roller would make that difficult. I don't think foam helps either, it just soaks up glue which you then have to rinse out. I have glued stationary discs several times and fingers worked fine.
 
Mike Reed said:
Never rinsed in my life. Pointless when 75 or 80 % of the fluid is distilled water (20/25% IPA) and that is extracted by vacuum. Maybe for other, proprietary mixes it may be advisable, but can't see why.



Cheapest has to be DIY with isopropyl alcohol (1 litre 99.???...% for economy) and distilled or similarly purified water plus photographic surfactant if you can get it in small enough quantities, or unperfumed quality (Fairy?) liquid. Approx. ratio 4:1 water: IPA + dash of surfactant. Mix in quantities as required and keep in fridge. A little squeezy bottle is useful with nozzle/small spout to distribute a line of fluid on the record with the platter spinning.

Bear in mind many reports of L'Art du Son (enzyme based?) going 'mouldy' if kept for many months.
Click to expand...
Moth do their own fluid. Don't know what's in it, but I acquired a quantity from my dealer when I couldn't be arsed to make up my own fluid any more. Works a treat.
 
Chops54 said:
That's a good idea misterdog. I have a Velvet Vortex here and it does need a seperate rinse tank.
Click to expand...
I’m planning to buy a Velvet Vortex in February and then let the records dry naturally on a Knosti rack I have. Are you suggesting that rinsing them in ionised/distilled water prior to drying would be beneficial?

I was going to get the pro-ject vacuum machine but some one suggested the VV would be a better use of £400. Are you happy with yours?
 
AndyCC72, I do like the VV. The ultrasonic action gets the crap off the record but leaves it floating in the cleaning solution so I rinse my records after cleaning.
 
AndyCC72 said:
and then let the records dry naturally on a Knosti rack I have.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's me but I cannot understand the rationality of cleaning a record then leaving it to collect airborne dust etc. This especially as drying/ evaporation would, i.m.o., be less effective in a vertical position and also take some time, even in a warm atmosphere.

To my mind, if you're going to wet-clean a record, the whole process, including sleeving, should be effected in the shortest feasible time. Why separate elements of this process when there are so many proven machines capable of doing the whole job? I just don't get it.
 
Mike Reed said:
Maybe it's me but I cannot understand the rationality of cleaning a record then leaving it to collect airborne dust etc. This especially as drying/ evaporation would, i.m.o., be less effective in a vertical position and also take some time, even in a warm atmosphere.

To my mind, if you're going to wet-clean a record, the whole process, including sleeving, should be effected in the shortest feasible time. Why separate elements of this process when there are so many proven machines capable of doing the whole job? I just don't get it.
Click to expand...

The problem is, especially if you use something like L'art du son, that the RCM might miss a bit (it can happen if the wand skips or momentarily loses suction), then when you re-sleeve, the liquid remnant is spread across the LP. So, I leave mine to air dry while I'm cleaning the next. In any case, the LP is open to the elements for 45 minutes odd when you play it! Obviously, for 99% of the time, the RCM removes all of the liquid.
 
Chops54 said:
AndyCC72, I do like the VV. The ultrasonic action gets the crap off the record but leaves it floating in the cleaning solution so I rinse my records after cleaning.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the response.

After rinsing do you then leave to air dry on a rack?
 
Mike Reed said:
Maybe it's me but I cannot understand the rationality of cleaning a record then leaving it to collect airborne dust etc. This especially as drying/ evaporation would, i.m.o., be less effective in a vertical position and also take some time, even in a warm atmosphere.

To my mind, if you're going to wet-clean a record, the whole process, including sleeving, should be effected in the shortest feasible time. Why separate elements of this process when there are so many proven machines capable of doing the whole job? I just don't get it.
Click to expand...

I'm torn between the Pro-ject VCS s2 and the Velvet Vortex. The Pro-ject because it does the 'whole job' and the VV because it's an affordable ultrasonic cleaner & which by all accounts will clean the records better. If I go for the VV there would be no vacuum drying as I'm not springing for a machine that does that on top of the cost of the VV.

I'd be really interested to hear from a anyone that has compared the two (or even compared the VV with something similar to the pro-ject) and to understand which they preferred and why.
 
AndyCC72 said:
I'd be really interested to hear from a anyone that has compared the two (or even compared the VV with something similar to the pro-ject) and to understand which they preferred and why.
Click to expand...

I've not compared them directly but I am familiar with using ultrasonic baths and I'm sure they're pretty effective. Most record cleaning systems like the VV are pretty Heath Robinson though i.e. a lab bath with some mechanism bolted on to rotate a record (or a few at a time) and are pretty cludgy to use. The other difficulty is the need to filter the bath solution or to flush it it out and replace the large volume. You must also consider the temperature of the solution as the cavitation causes the water to heat up, which might cause damage or even ignite IPA in extremis. Some baths come with ports for connecting tubing, which would allow for connection of a pump and cartridge filter system; I reckon that's the way to and I've seen it done. Some people use a combination of cleaners, vaccum and u/s to wash and then rinse.

I went with the Project VCE, it's great. The project solution is fine too, but I use water/IPA very occasionally.
 
Chris Harris said:
Happy New Year to you all !! Spaggons Den - I use the Latest Project RCM with great results, I live between Colchester and Ipswich if that's any help !
Click to expand...
Hi Chris,

It looks like I have been able to secure a try of one a bit closer to where I live so I shall go with that one for now but thank you for your very kind offer.
 
gavreid said:
Most record cleaning systems like the VV are pretty Heath Robinson though i.e. a lab bath with some mechanism bolted on to rotate a record (or a few at a time) and are pretty cludgy to use. The other difficulty is the need to filter the bath solution or to flush it it out and replace the large volume. You must also consider the temperature of the solution as the cavitation causes the water to heat up, which might cause damage or even ignite IPA in extremis.
Click to expand...

That's pretty damning, and I didn't know about the cavitation consequences, though in reality this is unlikely to be a serious issue, i.m.o. That you're cleaning in contaminated fluid, albeit filtered, and having to jettison the lot at some point doesn't sound that good. Is there notification of this point or is it purely subjective?

I don't know how much the average reservoir holds and how many cleans that is effective for, but somehow, I feel that it would exceed the amounts used on individual sides of an LP on a vac. RCM. Whereas these are tried and tested cleaning machines, I feel that ultrasonic machines are still in their infancy. If vertical cleaning, which seems the only design in town, is to be retained, a facility for the reservoir to temporarily empty to allow a vacuum finish surely can't be beyond design capability. The record can then be removed for final evaporation similarly to leaving it on the platter of a standard RCM as at present.

I reiterate that i.m.o., the cleaning process is only complete with the removal of fluid from the grooves and it seems to me that this relatively recent technology has concentrated only on half the process. Maybe I'm misinformed or have the wrong end of the stick here, but I do find this baffling. I don't care how superior the ultrasonic process is, there's no way I'd entertain it currently without a vacuuming facility.
 
Mike Reed said:
...I reiterate that i.m.o., the cleaning process is only complete with the removal of fluid from the grooves and it seems to me that this relatively recent technology has concentrated only on half the process. Maybe I'm misinformed or have the wrong end of the stick here, but I do find this baffling. I don't care how superior the ultrasonic process is, there's no way I'd entertain it currently without a vacuuming facility.
Click to expand...

That's why some people use a combination of machines and dry on a vaccum system after the U/S bath. Others, however, won't touch a vacuum because of the faint marks left by the brush, seal etc etc.
 
wylton said:
The problem is, especially if you use something like L'art du son, that the RCM might miss a bit (it can happen if the wand skips or momentarily loses suction), then when you re-sleeve, the liquid remnant is spread across the LP. So, I leave mine to air dry while I'm cleaning the next. In any case, the LP is open to the elements for 45 minutes odd when you play it! Obviously, for 99% of the time, the RCM removes all of the liquid.
Click to expand...

I've never used anything except an IPA based fluid, though friends have used L'Art du Son etc. I really cannot see (on my 16.5 with IPA) how anything CAN be missed. Taking the fairly standard sequence of fluid application and (brush or pad) spread whilst revolving, then scrub followed by soak, then another sweep or two, then extraction, I can't see how sufficient pockets of fluid can be left which do not evaporate in a minute or less (on the platter for me; fewer surfaces for record to touch). Vacuuming will not fully dry a record; how can it?

Certainly, the LP is theoretically being contaminated whilst playing but you do have a stylus ameliorating any build-up, which should be mostly non-existent anyway with clean records, stylus and care.
 
gavreid said:
That's why some people use a combination of machines and dry on a vaccum system after the A/S bath. Others, however, won't touch a vacuum because of the faint marks left by the brush, seal etc etc.
Click to expand...

Ye gods! Two machines to do the one job? I only have my experience and that of friends with other machines to go on. I have yet to come across marks left by the felt strips (or whatever). Nor any marks left by the supplied brush. I did try a paint pad once upon suggestions within a thread here many moons ago, but found it unwieldy and potentially much more likely to trap detritus which could cause scratching. Besides, I found the 'scrub' episode almost unmanageable with a pad but my 16.5 is a bit limited in space/interior ergonomics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top