I have enjoyed the Flux HIFI for over a year. I use it about every 30 albums, not for each play. Still use a good stylus brush for each album side.
Flux HiFI Electronic Stylus Cleaner
I treated myself to the Flux HIFI electronic stylus cleaner. I knew I had to get over the $150 price tag and just give it a try--I can always return it to Music Direct.
Well, the thing works as advertised. The result in sound quality was surprising. Even though I thought I had great cartridge hygiene, the Flux shows me my methods are not as good as I thought.
I highly recommend this product if you enjoy vinyl. I have to think in addition to sound quality I would see a better stylus life and less record wear.
Well, the thing works as advertised. The result in sound quality was surprising. Even though I thought I had great cartridge hygiene, the Flux shows me my methods are not as good as I thought.
I highly recommend this product if you enjoy vinyl. I have to think in addition to sound quality I would see a better stylus life and less record wear.
37 responses Add your response
I own the Audioquest version of the Signet, and it works in much the same way as the Flux, based on what I read and photos. It's very effective; the first time I used it on a well used MC, a big gob of dust fell out from the innards of the cartridge body; that was very satisfying. But I also use Magic Eraser. Nothing beats ME for convenience, and I therefore use it before every play. Since the key to the benefits of cleaning the stylus has to do with doing it in the first place, I have come to favor ME. It's like brushing your teeth after every meal. Have any of you compared ME to the Flux or the Signet or the Audioquest/Signet? Maybe using one of the vibrators can be likened to a regular dental check-up, not daily care, at least for me. |
I used a Signet SK305, at my shoppe, every few plays, for a couple years. Kept the stylus on my demo system’s Sonus Gold/Blue pristine. Still looks like new, sitting in it's box, on my desk. I’ve seen them sell for over $85.00(used), on eBay. Probably should list it. Can’t really say why, but- I’ve always used Stylast and a brush, at home. |
Once a month I might have to wipe off a thread of incidental dust that gets through otherwise my stylus does not get dirty. Every blue moon I'll clean off the cartridge, cantilever and stylus with alcohol on an artists brush. Due to static charge the cantilever and cartridge will collect a fine layer of very fine dust over time. I also never clean my records or use any thing on them. You just don't let them get dirty in the first place. Clean record + dust cover + conductive sweep arm = best no hastle record and stylus care. If you buy used records or have a lot of old records that have been subject to less than optimal conditions than an ultrasonic cleaner is the way to go. Record cleaning stuff did not come along until the early 80's when people started spending megabucks on Hi Fi. For those of us that started collecting records before then we had to figure out a method on our own or our records just got chewed up and we had to clean off the stylus after every side. The #1 enemy is static electricity followed by environmental pollution like cigarette smoke (pot also) and cooking fumes. If a record is not charged dust that falls on it will blow right off. If the record is charged dust and environmental pollution will get sucked right down into the groove. It will not just blow off and record brushes won't remove it. Your stylus becomes your main record cleaning devise. The problem for most vinylphiles is that they play their records without a dust cover and do nothing to discharge the record which you have to do while the record is playing because that is when the static charge is generated. 20 minutes out in the open generating thousands of volts of static electricity is plenty of time and charge to fill the grooves with dust.. Use a dust cover and a conductive sweep arm that is connected to ground and this does not happen, at all. None of it. Some of us started making conductive sweep arms in the early 70's and most of the best turntables had dust covers. We took camel hair artist brushes and ran fine copper wires almost to the end of the bristles so that they would get close but not contact the record then tied the whole mess to a metal wand, created a unipivot stand and we were in business. I remember one fellow who made one out of an older tone arm. Then in the early 80s they started making conductive carbon fiber brushes and several years later one company finally released an arm with carbon fiber bristles. There are several available today. They should be a lot more popular but the industry would rather sell you expensive machines and gunk to choke up your records further. Then for some reason audiophiles came to the determination that dust covers ruin the sound which is comical as far as I am concerned. I suppose given a bad design this could happen but dust covers usually make things sound better because they attenuate air born vibration. No echo. I think what happened was manufactures started coming out with crazy designs that were difficult if not impossible to mount dust covers to and dust covers add to the expense. So, you just get everybody to believe they are bad news, the mythology solution. Cheap and effective. On the other side of the argument what is more important, the condition of your records or a theoretical detriment to your sound quality. I guarantee that things will sound a lot worse once your records are chewed up. The problem is so bad that most people have no idea how quiet a medium records can be and switched entirely to digital sources like uberwaltz and noromance:) |
Mijo, We've been over this ground before. Dust covers, used while the LP is in play, are very bad for SQ, and it's not comical to think so. You apparently do not hear a problem, which is fine. Most others do, as was suggested by the responses you got last time you aired your preferences, including my own response. Dust covers are harmless only when the turntable is sitting idle. I and most others find that styli accumulate "gunk" (dust and probably tiny fragments of vinyl plus whatever was on the LP beforehand) during play, dust cover or no. Cleaning the stylus at least periodically if not after every LP is a worthwhile exercise therefore, in my opinion. Also, since I purchased my Xerostat in the mid-70s (probably 1972) in the UK, I have some direct evidence that the obsession with record cleaning goes way back before the 1980s. I think you'd find that the Discwasher products are also "ancient". A friend of mine in college in the 1960s, had one of those brushes that ride on the LP ahead of the tonearm, of the kind you like. The only part of your post with which I can agree is the notion that it is a good idea to avoid or eliminate static charge on the LP surface, so much as that is possible. |
Dear @jbhiller : Yes, the electronic stylus cleaner really works. I own the Audio Technica one that if I remember was the first company to offer in audio market. Afeter AT came Signet ( that's was part/member of the AT group. ) and latter on Audioquest and now the one you bougth. In the past I used more frequently than today. I noted that if I use at the begin of a listen session then from the very first note the cartridge shows its normal quality performance, as if its suspension sttle down because normally my cartridges sounds " normal " after around 10 minutes of playing. Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. |
There certainly WERE record and stylus cleaners before the 1980’s. I bought my first Cecil E. Watts Preener and Stylus Cleaner in ’68, as well as that company’s Dust Bug, which was a narrow cylindrical-shaped velvet-covered tube on the end of a clear plastic arm. It was pulled inward at the same rate as the cartridge, keeping the LP dust-free as it played. Watts also made a more sophisticated cleaner named the Parastat. I then bought the original Discwasher when it was introduced in the early-70’s, followed shortly by the Zerostat. Decca in England was offering their carbon fibre brush back then too. And Keith Monks was making a vacuum record cleaning machine in the mid-70’s, long before Nitty Gritty and VPI introduced theirs in the early-80’s. Why do some people insist on making statements which do nothing but reveal his/her ignorance of hi-fi history? |
Pulled the trigger Amazon UK was £115.....and it arrived monday Flux arrived and used a few times ...its doing its job ..i've no
experience of other "ultra sonic or sonic" cleaners ....I'm using it
prior to each session and in combination with VP Dustbuster which i use
after every LP ..plus the records are cleaned with an anti static brush
prior to playing each side ....my records have never sounded better |
Not to change the subject, but since we are talking about record noise and static, I bought a anti static blower on ebay at 60.00 or 70.00 dollars. I rigged it up to a computer monitor arm and run it on low over the record as it is playing. I hear a vast improvement in the reduction of tics and pops along with a lower noise floor. I use it everytime! |
I live in a small apartment. So, no. Listening at concert levels would get me evicted in a hurry. My Linn LP12 sits slightly behind the front plane of my ML electrostats. The airborne vibrations I'm talking about are created by my speakers' playing back the music that originates in the grooves of the records I'm playing on my turntable. I only listen to one turntable at a time; and with the dustcover closed. Can you explain the theoretical sonic advantages of listening to music played back on your turntables with the dustcovers open? Thank you. |
My experience with the FLUX HIFI - Ultrasonic Electronic Stylus Cleaner, has been mixed; I received it at the beginning of Dec., 2022, and it worked amazingly well .. very happy. However when I went to use it two weeks later, the only thing that worked on it was the little LED light, no ‘vibration‘ at all. As everyone occasionally gets a lemon, and I had purchased it thru Amazon ( with Music Direct being the seller), I figured, no problem .. I just a wanted an exchange. Here’s where a five week odyssey of dealing with Amazon customer service ( definitely not based in the US) began. The item was not returnable due to it being listed by Amazon as a “hazardous material” item. I told them it wasn’t. Music Direct told them it wasn’t. But five weeks of talking to representatives, then being transferred to a “management team member” I kept hearing the same script, even though they were very nice, actually seemed to want to help, but would call me back saying they were still working on it. Near the end of my patience I called back again yesterday, only to hear the same runaround and that the return window had had long closed, despite Amazon having a supposedly 90 day guarantee, and other team members saying they would process a ‘no return’ refund. Anyway, I was once again transferred to management where a very nice lady was able to get me full, ‘non-return’ refund in ten minutes. Made me wish I’d bought from Music Direct , directly in the first place, but Amazon had the better deal. |
@dogberry appreciate the information about the Humminguru S-Duo! I currently use a HiFi Flux but after looking at the Humminguru, it does seam like a much better way to clean a stylus. Maybe when the Flux goes caput? |
My initial experience with the S-Duo:
|
Having gone through this, I did look at the Hudson Hi-Fi Cleaner, especially as it sells for around $35 as opposed to the $149 retail for the Flux Hifi .. The Hudson version vibrates at around 222hz according to one of the answered questions on the Amazon site. ( The Flux Hifi vibrates at a similar hz, if I recall correctly ) These lower vibration frequencies seem safer to me on a delicate stylus, though I’m only guessing here. Although it’s hard to tell from pictures on Amazon, the bristles on the Hudson seem different to those on the Flux, and may be possibly coarser, than the ones I’ve personally examined on the Flux. The Flux Hifi was added to Amazon in May of 2018, and is made in Germany, while the Hudson version was added to Amazon in February of 2021, and is made in China. So to say that the Hudson is a much cheaper Chinese knock-off may not be entirely inaccurate. So there’s that .. |
Don't forget to consider the amplitude of the cleaner's vibrations. My Hudson, be it vibrating at my estimated 100Hz or your reported 222Hz, has vibrations that wiggle the stylus and cantilever considerably. Way more than a record groove could. The S-Duo makes such fine amplitude vibrations that the cantilever does not move perceptibly. Now what I do not know is how the epoxy or whatever holds the stylus on to the cantilever will cope with either kind of cleaning vibration. I would guess, and it is a guess, that tiny amplitude vibrations at 40kHz are less likely to destroy the glue than large amplitude low frequency—222Hz—vibrations. I suspect more force and larger movements are more damaging than small forces, and small movements at higher frequencies. That's why I'm experimenting with older cartridges and seeing what happens. I do have a couple of USB microscopes, but I don't know where they are after a recent move. So, if Amazon and the seller do their thing correctly, I have a rather expensive USB microscope and stand (an updated version of Fremer's recommended device for SRA adjustment) on the way. It may be I shall be able to take some comparative pictures. |