Ultrasonic LP Cleaning vs. “Thread Type” Cleaning (Keith Monks/Loricraft/etc.)


Many dealers now tout ultrasonic record cleaners as the ultimate, yet companies like Loricraft and Keith Monks continue to introduce new “thread type” (or “string”) record cleaners.

There was a recent discussion in one of Michael Fremer’s on-line columns (https://www.analogplanet.com/content/sme-loricraft-introduces-upgraded-thread-type-vacuum-record-cle...) announcing a new thread type record cleaner from Loricraft. In the comments section, several owners of thread type cleaners praised them and one person stated a “thread type”was better than their own ultrasonic cleaner.

I’m interested in hearing from those of you who have experience with BOTH types of record cleaners, and what you perceive to be the pluses and minuses of each.

As for myself, I’ve been plodding along for years with a VPI 16, and I would like something that is faster to use and that will run for more than an hour without overheating. 😎
128x128vinyl_rules
Bob nailed it
Kidding aside I'm on the same path and don't know what to get yet is it US or a thread machine. My home situation might change soon (for the best), right now I'm financially stranded and on small town home but following this thread, thanks OP
@whart 

Thanks. I saw an earlier draft, but this is quite encyclopedic.

Congratulations to all involved!
I have to second whart's thoughts on Neil Antin's ebook on vinyl cleaning.  It is incredibly detailed and covers all aspects of obtaining cleaner vinyl. Highly recommended.   The takeaway for me is that no one singular system is complete in terms of ultimate cleanliness. For those who want a one step one and done, ultrasonics are likely the best bet.  I have a VPI 16.5, V-8 40 khz  US tank, Clearaudio double matrix, and a Degritter (just purchased). I have used them singly and in combination. Each addition hasn't necessarily removed pops and ticks, but has improved the "texture" of the sound.  I have not used a Monks type cleaner because when I started cleaning records, it was an older (not necessarily outdated) technology.  For completists and those who have very revealing systems, a 2 or 3 step process will give the best results.  So to me it's not so much an either/or situation.  Mechanical cleaning with detergents/enzymes followed by ultrasonics is superior to either alone. If you are using any form of detergent, a final rinse will improve sonic quality and can remove any "veil" that remains.  There is an excellent discussion on the Hoffman forum on this as well under "degritter".  It is not limited to that device.
@orthomead- I just want Neil to see your kind words by including him in this thread @antinn. I published the piece so I'm hardly neutral (in the interest of full disclosure) in viewing Neil's work as the most comprehensive single source of information for cleaning records. And, also for what it's worth, there is no single method or piece of equipment that I (or Neil as far as I know) advocates as a magic bullet. 
I'm glad you like the "cross-cleaning" of using both mechanical and ultrasonic. I came to that conclusion several years ago with some high value records that needed more than a pass through the ultrasonic. Ditto on final rinse step.  I treat this as a learning process, rather than claiming expertise. Neil has real expertise, and we are lucky he's also an audiophile!
best,
Bill Hart
Learning process vs claiming expertise, lot’s of wisdom in that statement 

I use enzyme / Walker 4 step in a nitty Gritty with Aerospace grade clean wiper over slot so can be changed each disc., ditto with wipes for brushes. U Sonic on my additional tool wishlist.

for the new records are clean crowd buy the Antin recommended black light…. And see the truth