CleanerVinyl-Ultrasonic record cleaner

Anyone want to comment on this ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJIf2I_47ZE

I've tried the glue method years ago,to satisfy my curiousity. Waste of glue and time. It does pick up dirt, but the procedure/process isn't worth it.IMO. 

I hear  the same result with my humble Spin Clean.

The claim of groove damage by US cleaners came, I believe, from VPI. But then, they sell a line of vacuum record cleaners, don't they ;-).

Any comments about this comment?
http://www.hifigem.com/the-gem-dandy-versus-ultrasonic-cleaners.html
This is coming from a well respected analog guy.
Thanks for the feedbacks!

@hiphile-
I haven’t used the GemDandy, though George Merrill has a long well deserved reputation in analog. The main thing that would concern me about his inexpensive approach is that you are apparently using tap water, filled with minerals, and after rinsing, wiping dry, it appears. For the same reason that Merrill criticizes ultrasonics that use a surfactant (cleaning fluid) for leaving fluid on the record, I would be just as concerned about mineral deposits left on a record by Merrill’s method, even though the water is under pressure and the record is ’wiped’ dry. Of course, the reviews say that they got quiet records as a result, so without having used it myself, I can’t say otherwise. That would be a concern, though. Wiping doesn’t necessarily mean that the contaminants (whether fluid or particulates) have been removed- it just means that the record surface is no longer wet.
As to Merrill’s criticisms of ultrasonic cleaners they are:
-the need to constantly change the bath- an issue that is pretty much eliminated by filtering;
-an effective filter that allows full flow but captures contaminants- no argument here;
-even after cleaning in a US, the record may have residue (contamination) from the surfactant, if one is used. I believe that is true as well.

The KL doesn’t use any cleaning fluid to enhance cavitation, but my learning has suggested that a surfactant will enhance cavitation. Getting it off requires a pure water rinse and in my estimation, a vacuum, which is basically what I do. (Note that as mentioned, I owned the AD, currently have the KL and intend to replace that when it goes with a DIY so that I can use a surfactant). The arguments against vacuum in combination with ultrasonic are: greater time, potential static and further contamination of the record surface. Using a point nozzle, like the Monks, pretty much eliminates any issue re static or cross contamination (if you use two mats). More time consuming? Yes.
Everybody has their preferred approach based on the amount of time, money and effort they are willing to devote to cleaning LPs. I’m willing to make those expenditures due to the relatively high investment I have made in older and in many cases, rare pressings- many of which require deep cleaning- many were not "audiophile" records and were not handled accordingly.
I actually think you can get pretty good results with a conventional vacuum machine if you use best practices- you don’t have to spend a fortune on cleaning equipment. I like what ultrasonic does, but if I had to choose only one machine, it would probably be the Monks. The ultrasonic, alone, doesn’t address some grotty stuff that is virtually glued into the grooves, but does help loosen it; in combination with fluids, vacuum and pure water rinse steps, I can achieve extremely good results. At a cost in equipment, time and effort.