The advantages of Rush’s approach are manifold: you can control heat, degas, filter using an external reservoir (which the newish KL does), use a surfactant and change the frequency if you opt for models offering such features. (Elma, for example). You are still in under the cost of most of the commercial US designed for LPs (save, perhaps, the V-8, which is a commercialized DIY type set up).
My best results come from pre-cleaning using AIVS No. 15, vacuuming using a point nozzle (Monks, but the Loricraft is essentially the same concept), rinsing using reagent grade 1 water and then running the record through the US. I had the AD, currently have a KL and when that goes, will go DIY-- I can use a surfactant, and do a reagent water rinse and vac dry on the Monks. My experience with these things tells me that the added step of vacuuming using point nozzle gets more of the contaminants out of the grooves than air drying, forced or passive.
I don’t go to these lengths on every record, but some of the older obscure/rare records aren’t always pristine, even at higher prices. Those really benefit from the pre-cleaning, and the post US vacuum on the point nozzle. There is no static or contamination issue using the Monks. (I have multiple mats, a wet and ’dry’ one). I’ve managed to get many records with wispy tracing distortion, and some which sound like the grooves have been damaged, to a very high state of play using these combined methods.
My work flow, while it sounds time consuming, is fairly efficient with both types of machines running simultaneously.
If a record looks pristine, I’ll give it a milder pre-clean on the Monks using the Hannl fluid (which @Syntax turned me on to a few years ago), a pure water rinse and then into the KL.
I’ve also changed inner sleeves to the MA, which is some sort of woven material. It’s less prone to scratching, doesn’t seem to leave any inner sleeve ’lint’ and, unlike putting it an HDPE sleeve, allows some air flow.
My best results come from pre-cleaning using AIVS No. 15, vacuuming using a point nozzle (Monks, but the Loricraft is essentially the same concept), rinsing using reagent grade 1 water and then running the record through the US. I had the AD, currently have a KL and when that goes, will go DIY-- I can use a surfactant, and do a reagent water rinse and vac dry on the Monks. My experience with these things tells me that the added step of vacuuming using point nozzle gets more of the contaminants out of the grooves than air drying, forced or passive.
I don’t go to these lengths on every record, but some of the older obscure/rare records aren’t always pristine, even at higher prices. Those really benefit from the pre-cleaning, and the post US vacuum on the point nozzle. There is no static or contamination issue using the Monks. (I have multiple mats, a wet and ’dry’ one). I’ve managed to get many records with wispy tracing distortion, and some which sound like the grooves have been damaged, to a very high state of play using these combined methods.
My work flow, while it sounds time consuming, is fairly efficient with both types of machines running simultaneously.
If a record looks pristine, I’ll give it a milder pre-clean on the Monks using the Hannl fluid (which @Syntax turned me on to a few years ago), a pure water rinse and then into the KL.
I’ve also changed inner sleeves to the MA, which is some sort of woven material. It’s less prone to scratching, doesn’t seem to leave any inner sleeve ’lint’ and, unlike putting it an HDPE sleeve, allows some air flow.