Record and stylus cleaners

Linntek · Post by **Linntek** » 2011-10-18 12:18

Anyone tried this one

http://www.okkinokki.co.uk/

Seems like a fair price - if it works..

Tony Tune-age · Post by **Tony Tune-age** » 2011-10-18 19:28

Have not seen this before, but it might be worth checking out and comparing with the VPI unit.

ThomasOK · Post by **ThomasOK** » 2011-10-18 20:15

Linntek wrote:Anyone tried this one

http://www.okkinokki.co.uk/

Seems like a fair price - if it works..

It is now being imported into the US and was reviewed recently in the Absolute Sound, might have been reviewed in Stereophile too. Aimed pretty much directly at the VPI 16.5 but is a little more expensive. I was surprised and disappointed to see that the importer raised the price $100 immediately after it received the good reviews. Might have an effect on the reviewer's feeling of value for money.

Also interesting that the above link calls it the 'vip' of record cleaning machines using the same font vpi uses!?

k_numigl · Post by **k_numigl** » 2011-10-18 21:08

Sorry, but it wasn't meant as a joke.
Will try to provide a link to a needle drop tomorrow.
Perhaps it is worthwhile to re-read my previous post.
Klaus

Post by **lejonklou** » 2011-10-18 23:05

k_numigl wrote:For the famous Hannl RCMs there's a 'Rotation Brush' available...

Klaus, could you please tell me what record cleaning machine you have?
Which models does the rotation brush work with?
And what cleaning liquid are you using? I saw that there is a special one from Hannl for the rotation brush.

k_numigl · Post by **k_numigl** » 2011-10-19 09:45

I'm using the most modest of the Hannl machines, the so called
Micro Edition. My idea was to get good build quality but do without
a variety of adjustments (speed and vacuum strength) and I preferred
to apply the cleaning liquid from a hand held bottle. My machine was
originally not equipped with a rotation brush, but could be 'upgraded'
with it and works with it. All modern Hannl machines work with this
brush. (Older versions might use a rotation speed which is too fast.)
My Hannl Micro runs at a fixed speed of about 10 rpm.

I use the 'standard' Hannl X2000 liquid. There is a special formula
available if the rotation brush leads to excessive foam formation (I
guess this contains less detergent), but I could not see any need to
use it.

I continued to wash more records using this' miracle brush', and I'm still
excited. Whatever it is, big orchestra, jazz combo, piano solo, medieval
consorts or singers, opera - it is just unbelievable that the same
disc is spinning before and after washing.

For hopefully pardonable reasons I managed to provide two
needle drops only:

Mahler, Rotation brush:
https://www.hidrive.strato.com/lnk/GNBCtoxh

Mahler,Simple washing
https://www.hidrive.strato.com/lnk/oOhCtzcg

Monk, Alone in SF, Rotation brush
https://www.hidrive.strato.com/lnk/pChhniwN

Monk, Alone in SF, Simple washing:
https://www.hidrive.strato.com/lnk/0PhhHPQw

Mahler is Christa Ludwig singing with Adrian Boult as conductor. A nice
copy. Monk is an early copy with signs of use, but musically
superiour to all other copies I possess. This record has been washed
several times before, inlcuding a Keith Monk treatment (at the dealer's
shop). Files should be played over a Linn DS. LP12 is exactly the
same without any modification of parts or adjustments.

Edit: Self evidently LPs degaussed each time before playing.

k_numigl · Post by **k_numigl** » 2011-10-19 09:53

Sorry, I forgot the record research part. The link below confirms that
the manufacturing process of records does not contain any separation
substances (sorry, in German only). So the question remains: What is
altered by washing the records?

http://www.analog-forum.de/wbboard/inde ... adID=41288

Broccoli · Post by **Broccoli** » 2011-10-19 10:05

Sounds really interesting. I'm thinking one should by one of those machines, maybe share it with a few people to reduce investment cost.

jiddu_k · Post by **jiddu_k** » 2011-10-19 12:40

Just listened to Klaus files.

The difference is really stunning - there´s so much more room and space to the music, bass is a lot deeper and clearer, sound of instruments more natural and separation between instruments much more precise. All these improvement on "sound quality" add substantially to better musical flow (tunedem).

Can´t wait to get my own (already ordered) refurberished Hannl machine (end of month), which already includes the "magic" rotation brush.

I think this will be a major upgrade to my system (LP12,Rubikon,Radikal/dyn,EkosSE,Adikt,Trampolin2,Slipsik).

Thanks for sharing, Klaus!

Tony Tune-age · Post by **Tony Tune-age** » 2011-10-19 12:41

Broccoli wrote:Sounds really interesting. I'm thinking one should by one of those machines, maybe share it with a few people to reduce investment cost.

That's not a bad idea, one of my friends own a vpi record cleaning machine and he'll bring it over periodically for me to use too!

Broccoli · Post by **Broccoli** » 2011-10-19 13:43

My guess is that even new records will have gathered dust, both at the factory and as sooon as you take them out of the sleeve.

I am curious to know how long it takes to clean each side of a record?

k_numigl · Post by **k_numigl** » 2011-10-19 15:04

Broccoli wrote: I am curious to know how long it takes to clean each side of a record?

Presently I let them spin for a couple of minutes 2,3,4 - depending on my
patience. It has to be investigated whether there is a time limit
for improvement or an optimal time span for washing.

I do not think that dust matters much. The impression is that there is some
semi-compressible layer which is adverse to the sound definition and
precision of transcription. But what should that be? (As long as the
reason for improvement cannot be identified, we have to seriously
doubt what we hear, of course ;-))

Post by **lejonklou** » 2011-10-19 15:48

I just compared the Monk files you posted, on my computer.

What an interesting differece! To me, in this low-fi situation, it felt like a teacher and a skilled pupil playing the same piece - where the teacher is trying to show exactly how much weight there should be on each stroke. The teacher is playing on the _rb file.

I do, however, also get the impression that there is occasionally something funny with the _rb file. As if the pitch becomes unstable for an instant. It might very well be my low-fi computer not coping with a piano being playing with true finesse. :)

Klaus, have you compared the Hannl X2000 liquid with L'Art du Son, that Thomas recommends? What are your impressions?

Regarding your edit: 'LP's degaussed each time before playing', I was extremely sceptical of this "tweak" until I heard it in real life. The difference is no less than stunning.

k_numigl · Post by **k_numigl** » 2011-10-20 07:17

Scepticism much appreciated: the only way to cope with reality.

No, I did not survey any other cleaning fluids. While anything can be used
with the Rotation Brush, the method of cleaning is clearly more
important than the fluid itself according to to the producer of the Hannls.

For a survey of fluids, I lack enough similar copies of any record. In
principal, a survey would be straightforward: Buy ten new samples of a
record, wash them in a reproducible manner (e.g. 3 min rot. brushing
with defined amount of liquid, rotation speed controlled), and listen.
One could continue and apply different types of dirt to a record
(sugar (ie Cola %c.), grease/oil, chewing gum, dust, beer & wine,
&c. &c.) and repeat the procedure. But I must say, I'd undertake this
effort with a fully funded labor included EU research project only .......

From theoretical considerations I prefer liquids containing some
alcohol. This helps not only with washing, but also facilitates evaporation
considerably. Despite vacuum cleaning the record surface, some liquid
always remains and has to evaporate. Purely theroretical approach, though.

k_numigl · Post by **k_numigl** » 2011-10-20 07:35

For a test, or for an economic cleaning solution without purchasing
a machine, this could be useful for Germany and around:

http://www.audiophile-vinyl.de/de/Schallplattenwaesche

Post by **lejonklou** » 2011-10-20 10:43

Thanks for your reply.

I don't understand why you would suggest such a thorough and time consuming approach - was that how you picked your Hannl machine among all the RCM's out there?

The normal approach would be to just try L'Art du Son and see how you like it. Thomas has pointed out that with a record that is clean, the fluids used still affect the sound quality.

k_numigl · Post by **k_numigl** » 2011-10-20 12:31

:-)) I don't believe you ......

lejonklou wrote: The normal approach would be to just try and see how you like it.

But I agree, naturally, that the survey can be downgraded
1. to two fluids only
2. to new records only

If one wants to arrive at a result which fluid is better than another,
one still needs two similar records to start with - and one needs to
treat them identically. The latter is quite obvious from the (surprising)
finding that the brushing method makes such a big difference.

I included the action to spoil the records, as I expected that some slightly
upset person would otherwise immediately comment that the
comparison is not much worth for s/h buyers if this is not included.
(Perhaps I imagined myself int he wrong forum.) And to find two
identically dirty s/h records seemed impossible to me.

But the basic answer is as simple as that:
No, I did not try any other cleaning fluids.

ThomasOK · Post by **ThomasOK** » 2011-10-20 17:45

Interesting results with the rotating brush - I had not heard of this system before. I did a little checking and it doesn't look like the Micro is distributed in the US although some of the more expensive ones are - a shame.

It appears I have been remiss in updating my choice of record cleaning fluids - mostly due to forgetting which forum I have posted on. :-( So here is a bit of an update on them.

The best fluids I have found are the Audio Intelligent fluids from Osage Audio. More information can be found here:

http://www.audiointelligent.com/products.htm

The Premium One Step #6 is the best single step cleaner I have found and their three step cleaner simply does a better job than any other record cleaning regimen. I use them on my records and have sold many, many bottles to customers. It is not uncommon to have a first time purchaser of one of these fluids come back a week later thanking me for getting them to try the fluid(s) and telling me how previously cleaned records they felt were intolerably noisy have become quite enjoyable after using the AI fluid(s) on them.

To expand on this: First off the other fluids I have used have been the VPI concentrate mixed with distilled water and a little Isopropyl alcohol, a home brew cleaner a customer brought in that used distilled water with a little alcohol, detergent and surfactant, and the L' Art du Son. Of these I had definitely found the L' Art du Son to do the best job from a musical standpoint and a reasonably good job of removing dirt. However, even the AI One step #6 does a better job of cleaning - removing more noise and allowing the music to be heard more clearly - than the L' Art du Son or the other cleaners.

The AI #6 is the simplest to use of their cleaners, It can be used like any other single step cleaner and can be put in the reservoirs of RCMs with built in fluid pumps like the two bigger VPIs and most Loricraft/Keith Monks models. Its surface wetting is good and pretty similar to others like the VPI stuff.

The best cleaning regimen I have found, although it is time consuming, is the AI three step cleaning kit. This starts with an enzyme cleaner that is left on the record for a couple of minutes and vacuumed off, then their Super Cleaner which is a detergent/alcohol based fluid is put on again for a minute or two and vacuumed off and finally a rinse with AI Ultra Pure Water and a final vacuuming. The combination of an enzyme cleaning stage and a detergent/alcohol cleaning stage gets things out of the groove no single cleaner seems capable of removing and the pure water rinse does make a substantial musical improvement so it should not be skipped. You need to have at least two, and preferably three, brushes to use this system - one for each fluid - as the Super Cleaner kills the enzymes. This method, while more work and slower than just a single cleaning, gives the cleanest record possible and allows even more of the music to come through than the #6 cleaner does. Because of the amount of time and effort involved I don't use the 3 step process on all my records but I do on my most important ones. The surface wetting of the Enzyme fluid is not as good as the others so it takes a little more work to spread it evenly across the record but it is still not bad.

According to AI the Ultra Pure water is not just hyperbole - they claim you would have to distill water 48 times to achieve the same level of purity. I don't know how this compares to other purified waters but I haven't bothered to look into it for two reasons: one, it works really well and two, if you buy the 3 step fluids as a 32 ounce kit you save $15.00 over the separate prices which effectively reduces the price of the Ultra Pure water from $20 to $5. This Ultra Pure water is the base liquid of all their formulas. They also make another detergent based fluid they call Premium Archivist that has no alcohol in it but reportedly works as well as the Super Cleaner as a second step fluid. It is designed for those cleaning 78RPM Shellacs and those who just don't want alcohol in their cleaning fluid.

Interestingly, the manufacturer of the AI fluids feels that scrubbing the record really isn't necessary, or even useful, with their fluids as they are designed to do the work by themselves. He says all you need to do is make sure the fluid is distributed evenly over the surface and remains so for a minute or two for each fluid and the fluids will take care of the rest. Indeed, when I clean my records with the 3 step process I put the fluid on and distribute it evenly and then just brush it for a revolution or two each 30 seconds leaving it sit in-between. I have found this to work just as well as constantly brushing for the full 2 minutes. It would be interesting to see whether the rotating brush gives an additional advantage with the AI fluids.

In reference to the Hannl machines I notice that they recommend care in the use of L' Art du Son fluid and others that foam a lot - recommending removing it from the reservoir ASAP and even flushing it. L' Art du Son is different than other fluids in that it will go bad if left exposed to light so I keep the rest I have in a dark bottle and a dark closet. But I really don't use it much anymore as the AI fluids are so much better. I have noticed that some fluids that don't have alcohol in them can cause mold problems sitting in the reservoirs of record cleaning machines. VPIs own fluid does this if you don't add a bit of alcohol. So far this is not something I have noticed or heard about with the AI fluids.

Finally, I do believe I have an answer for Klaus as to why new records sound better after a cleaning and it does have to do with mold release compounds. This information also comes from the maker of the AI fluids who has done a large amount of research into perfecting the cleaning fluids and has studied what is in the groove thoroughly in order to understand what is needed for best cleaning. We talked about mold release compounds and I had always thought, as I believe Klaus and many others did, that this was something sprayed on the stamper before it pressed the record. It turns out that this is not the case at all. Mold release compound is actually a material that is mixed in with the vinyl that is released by the heat and pressure of pressing the disk and allows the vinyl to be easily removed from the stamper. He is not sure the exact substance used currently but in the mid 1900s it was actually vegetable oil! This compound not only allows it to release from the stamper but is also necessary to keep the PVC pliable. He pointed out that PVC left out in the sun for years has this compound leach out and becomes very brittle. Interestingly, this oil also gradually leaches out of the grooves so even a record that had a thorough 3 step cleaning when new might benefit musically from a single step cleaning after a year or so. The things we do to care for our records!

I know I said finally above but I have another note. Doing A/B comparisons of record cleaning fluids can be even more complicated than Klaus suggests. This is because getting multiple IDENTICAL records is about as easy as getting multiple identical KKs (or virtually anything else). When I wanted to do a scientific test of cleaning fluids a year or so ago I started out with three brand new copies of a Hugh Masekela audiophile pressing. These three arrived at the same time from the same batch of records and were for myself and two others who work here. Before cleaning any of them we compared them on a fully loaded LP12 and found that they were all slightly different - indeed one record had the most musical side one while a different record had the most musical side two! Despite this I cleaned all the records and found that the cleaning fluid used could reverse the order of musical preference. This was when it became obvious that the AI fluids easily outperformed the L' Art du Son fluid. Additional tests at the time showed the musical improvement of the 3 step over the single step cleaning and also the benefit of the "Ultra-Pure" water rinse. In the end it turns out that it is actually simpler to compare cleaning fluids than you would think. This is because the most musical and enjoyable record will be the cleanest record. If one fluid doesn't sound as good as another it is because it is not cleaning as much out of the grooves or it is leaving something behind. So to test two fluids just clean the same record with both listening each time. A record cleaned with the AI 3 step cleaner will sound worse if it is then "cleaned" with L' Art du Son while a record cleaned with L' Art du Son will sound better after cleaning with the AI 3 step cleaning (or even the 1 step). Now I haven't tried a record cleaned with the 3 step AI fluids which was then cleaned by the 1 step but I doubt there would be a musical loss from this (although there might be) but a 1 step cleaned record will be more musical after a 3 step AI cleaning.

So there you have my latest findings on cleaning records. As always I demagnetize records before playing them - it takes no more time than cleaning the stylus and simply becomes an easy part of the process once you are used to it. I wish there was one of those rotating brush Hannl units around so I could see if there was any benefit to the process with the AI fluids.

Finally, (really this time) I know that there are some who swear by the Keith Monks and similar cleaning machines. Has anybody here ever done a comparison of one of these with a VPI/Hannl/etc. style unit with the same cleaning fluid? I don't own a record cleaning machine now as I have access to the store unit but at some point I will buy one for home and would like to know if there really is a difference in cleaning capability of the machines.

SaltyDog · Post by **SaltyDog** » 2011-10-21 01:05

Loricraft puts a lot of emphasis on the brush. The PRC3 came with wooden handled brush. Nylon bristles IIRC that have a specific finish on the ends. I have always just used the brush manually for spreading the fluid and then held for 30 seconds or so.

It makes sense that the part of the brush that gets in the groove would make a difference.

k_numigl · Post by **k_numigl** » 2011-10-21 10:17

Most informative! Thanks, Thomas.

ThomasOK wrote: Finally, I do believe I have an answer for Klaus as to why new records sound better after a cleaning and it does have to do with mold release compounds. This information also comes from the maker of the AI fluids who has done a large amount of research into perfecting the cleaning fluids and has studied what is in the groove thoroughly in order to understand what is needed for best cleaning. We talked about mold release compounds and I had always thought, as I believe Klaus and many others did, that this was something sprayed on the stamper before it pressed the record. It turns out that this is not the case at all. Mold release compound is actually a material that is mixed in with the vinyl that is released by the heat and pressure of pressing the disk and allows the vinyl to be easily removed from the stamper. He is not sure the exact substance used currently but in the mid 1900s it was
actually vegetable oil! This compound not only allows it to release from the stamper but is also necessary to keep the PVC pliable. He pointed out that PVC left out in the sun for years has this compound leach out and becomes very brittle. Interestingly, this oil also gradually leaches out of the grooves so even a record that had a thorough 3 step cleaning when new might benefit musically from a single step cleaning after a year or so. The things we do to care for our records!

This fits to the following comment from the Audiogon Forum:
Chad Kassem (Acoustic Sounds) just created his own pressing plant http://www.qualityrecordpressings.com/
So I called one of the production people there to ask about mold release, cleaning newly pressed records, etc. They were VERY informative, pleasant on the phone, and anxious to share all the information I wanted to hear (which was EVERYTHING!) You really should let your own fingers do the walking, but I'll tell you this much:
"Mold Release" is already incorporated in the vinyl. It's not some kind of separate agent that's sprayed or otherwise applied to the stamper before pressing.
It (the "Mold Release" agent) migrates to the surface of the vinyl record after stamping. And it definitely needs to be removed!
The best method for completely removing the "Mold Release" agent from the vinyl surface (and the least harmful to the vinyl) is steam cleaning.
And last: one "treatment" should be enouugh, but if the raw vinyl had a high percentage of release agent in it, it may continue to "rise" to the surface for up to a year following the stamping. This is less likely to happen these days because computer-controlled vinyl compounders and pressing machines are able to incorporate only as much "release agent" as necessary, plus many premium pressings are stamped at a lower temperature, which helps to keep the "Mold Release" agent from "leaching" out of the vinyl. (End quote from Audiogon)

I did ask at our famous German pressing plant (Pallas) about this, but
they declined to give any hints 'as they could be misinterpreted'. No
comment. I'll try if I can see an optical difference under a microscope,
but it seems the issue is settled: mold compound is used, it is on the
record surface, it is not removed during production, it may creep slowly
out of the interiour vinyl of a washed record. Very good to know, indeed.

ThomasOK wrote: Interestingly, the manufacturer of the AI fluids feels that scrubbing the record really isn't necessary, or even useful, with their fluids as they are designed to do the work by themselves.

If you keep the fluid well mixed (brushing), the concentration gradient
will always be largest at the surface to be cleaned. From my
understanding as well as from this recent experience with the Rotation
Brush I'd expect that all cleaning agents should benefit from such
forceful brushing. We should check this, it's easy enough.

ThomasOK wrote: In the end it turns out that it is actually simpler to compare cleaning fluids than you would think. This is because the most musical and enjoyable record will be the cleanest record. If one fluid doesn't sound as good as another it is because it is not cleaning as much out of the grooves OR it is leaving something behind. So to test two fluids just clean the same record with both listening each time. A record cleaned with the AI 3 step cleaner will sound worse if it is then "cleaned" with L' Art du Son while a record cleaned with L' Art du Son will sound better after cleaning with the AI 3 step cleaning (or even the 1 step).

This is a good idea: to distinguish between cleaning action and residuals.
But it is making any comparison actually more complex, not simpler.
The procedure you describe gives results only with respect to residuals.
What if fluid1 cleans best, but fluid2 leaves less residuals? In fact some
professional cleaning shops recommend cleaning step1 with Hannl fluid
and step2 with l'Art to get best results. My suspicion is that on top of this the
vacuuming (proper english??) method effects the amount of residuals
considerably.

TOK, it would be great if you could download the sample files and
comment whether the difference is in the range/larger/smaller than
what you have experienced in washing with different agents. For
me, the difference is day and night, and if other fluids would further
enhance it in steps like this, I'd make every effort to use them.

ThomasOK wrote: According to AI the Ultra Pure water is not just hyperbole - they claim you would have to distill water 48 times to achieve the same level of purity.

I can't help to comment on this one: maybe 50 times is more correct? :-)
To remain serious, up to date my understanding is as mentioned: that
a bit of alcohol helps to minimize the residuals. I can check this out
by using Hyper Pure Water (52 x (sorry)) as a last step and see what it does.
But at present I've got the Hannl fluid only to do the previous step.

Could different amounts of mold release be a reason for different
records of the same batch sounding different? If so, the evaluation
of the quality of difference pressings of a record need to be treated
with utmost care.....

Whatever you start with, it seems to expand in a research project -
nice or tedious??? BR, Klaus

Charlie1 · Post by **Charlie1** » 2011-10-21 10:33

Hi Thomas, what's the best cleaning machine you've found on the market today, to combine with the Audio Intelligent fluids? You mention VPI and Hannl. I'm not too keen on buying an old Keith Monks, even though many people love them. I've never cleaned any of my records, so not too clued up on all this. Thanks.

k_numigl · Post by **k_numigl** » 2011-10-21 18:37

Just got a bottle de l'art. Will try tomorrow. Klaus

ThomasOK · Post by **ThomasOK** » 2011-10-21 18:51

Charlie1 wrote:Hi Thomas, what's the best cleaning machine you've found on the market today, to combine with the Audio Intelligent fluids? You mention VPI and Hannl. I'm not too keen on buying an old Keith Monks, even though many people love them. I've never cleaned any of my records, so not too clued up on all this. Thanks.

I have really never done much in the way of comparison of the machines themselves and certainly no tune method comparisons of different machines. This is one of the reasons I asked if anyone had done a musical comparison of a Keith Monks vs. a VPI or similar as their suction mechanisms are certainly quite different and many swear by the KM type machines. The only direct comment I can make is that I have found the VPI machines to do a much better job than the Nitty Gritty ones and it does seem to me that the bristle brushes as supplied by VPI and Osage Audio (the AI fluid people - they also sell applicator brushes) work better than the applicators that use felt pads. While I have cleaned records on all three VPI machines (HW-16.5, HW-17 & HW-27) I can't honestly say I've noticed any difference. But then I've never really listened for any difference.

The only other information I have was passed on by the head of Osage Audio - the makers of the AI fluids. They actually use the VPI HW-16.5 as their test machine and he feels there is really no need for anything fancier than that. He said he has tested some other machines (I don't know if any KM style machines is among them) and has found no difference in their ability to remove impurities from the groove. He feels that the 16.5 will do the job as well as anything else and this is based on microscopic inspection of the grooves for quality of cleaning. He also mentioned that it has cleaned some 200,000 records and is still going strong!

I have to say that once you start using the 3 step cleaning technique it is hard to go back. Using that technique also really makes machines with built in reservoirs and brushes much less useful. Since you need different brushes for each fluid and you have three different fluids to apply you have to do most of it manually anyway. So why pay extra money for a reservoir, fluid pump and built in brush that are of limited usefulness? If a simple vacuum only machine does as good a jog, as Osage states it does, why spend triple or more for features you won't use?

So I would have to say that a machine like the VPI 16.5, OkkiNokki or Hannl Micro would seem to be all you need. I believe several of the Loricraft machines dispense with the fluid pump and brush as well so they could be a good choice if that form of suction really is better. However, since they are so much more expensive than the others (Loricraft PRC3 $2395US, VPI 16.5 $550, OkkiNokki $599) I'd still like to hear from someone who has compared the tune on records cleaned on a Loricraft vs a slot type vacuum like the VPI, etc.

Charlie1 · Post by **Charlie1** » 2011-10-21 23:04

Thanks Thomas. The entry VPI is not too much. I am surprised. Will give it serious thought.

k_numigl · Post by **k_numigl** » 2011-10-22 09:59

Records have to dry after washing, so it's time to record the action.
From what I previoiusly 'rotation brushed' I picked 4 records to get
an additional application of a L'Art du Son washing procedure, using
the rot. brush again. This is
Mahler, Sym. 1, Levine, Side 1
Dowland, A. Deller and Consort, S. 3 (of 6)
Tete Montoliu, Al Palau, S.3 (of 4)
Violeta Parra, Pläne, S.1
May not suit everybody's taste but is a variety big enough to arrive at
a conclusion: large orchestra, small ensemble with vioce, piano solo,
and folklorisitc singer songwriter.
The prepartion of the liquid included the mixture 1:50 concentration to
distilled water. I managed to meet 1:40 as an estimate - I ran out of
hyper distilled water which I used to add to LADS, having been too clumsy
to get less than 5 mL out of the LADS bottle and not wanting to pour
anything back.
While getting hypnotized by the eagerly turning brush, I realized that
the back sides of the above records could serve as a comparison for
what LADS alone is doing. Though not having recorded this in its
previous state, a comparison between sides 1 and 2 should give a
rough idea.
I washed with LADS for about 2 minutes (not less) using a timer
(plus minus zero - beautiful piece from Japan, check out if you like
stuff like this). This corresponds to 20 turns of the platter which
rotates at 10 rpm. The rotation brush thus meets each point of the
record 20 times plus. The brush itself is mechanically coupled to
the turning platter and runs at about 120 rpm. One has to understand
how to adjust the height of the brush (it is turned aside for changing
the record), but once I got it it was faily easy: Let the wet brush turn
on the record without applying additional liquid and see that the brush
is wetting the record evenly, voila. The first application of the brush
when staring to work needs a larger amout of liquid, as the brush sucks
up a certain amount due to its many fibres. After the first record side
being washed the amount of liquid used is just normal.
For drying I routinely use three turns, taking about 30 sec.

Needless to say that the shops I checked to get the LADS provided
different but firmly stated opinions on what liquid is best. Hannl,
LADS (this was preferred especially because it produces such a shiny
beautiful surface - responding that I'm interested in the sound left
the dealer speechless), &c..

It is a shame I cannot try the AIs, as there seems to be no importer
here. But at least the forthcoming test should give an idea whether
liquid or brush is the most discriminating aspect.

Record and stylus cleaners

Re: Record cleaning

Applied Art