You don’t need a large feature set on a vacuum RCM. You need something to rotate the record and some means to deploy the vacuum function to remove the fluid/contaminants. The Nitty Gritty is a bit odd in that it does not have a full sized platter to work the record, and their machines with which I’m familiar (older) all utilized vacuum on the underside of the record.
The various wand machines, like VPI, Okki, Project, SOTA (if it still made) should be evaluated largely for robustness. When I used that type of machine, I had two separate vacuum wands mounted to separate arm pillars so I could switch out the cleaning fluid and rinse fluid wands in seconds. Its a small monetary investment that helps you keep the cleaning and rinse steps separate, along with using different applicators for each.
There are a million different ways to clean, everyone has their preferred machine, fluid, applicators, technique, and sequence of steps. I spent a fair amount of time digging into this, and really dug down by spending the day with the folks at the Packard Campus of the Library of Congress that does intake on their collection.
I’ve experimented with various methods, fluids, applicators and the like. I can’t say I’ve owned and used every type of machine but after devoting a lot of time to the process, there are a few simple truths:
If you have a large enough investment in records, a good set up, which doesn’t have to be terribly expensive, is vital. I got to the point where it was worthwhile for me to buy a big Keith Monks (Omni) and have owned and used several different made for LP ultrasonic machines. You can go fancy or cheap on all of this stuff: one way to do it is a basic vacuum RCM and DIY ultrasonic.
The main thing is method, not the brand names of the machinery. (Though a cheap ultrasonic machine may crap out on you-- but that has happened to expensive ones too).
Neil Antin’s latest version of his paper on Precision Aqueous Cleaning of LPs is essentially a reference to the materials science and chemistry of record cleaning and is very deep and thorough. Nonetheless, Neil starts with a simple manual clean that involves no machinery and gets good results because his methodology is sound.
As to being phobic about wet cleaning, I think you have to deal with that on your own. I don’t see anything scary about it; I mean, you cue your turntable and if you drop the stylus too fast for some reason, or mishandle the tonearm, you’ll not only risk a record but a potentially expensive cartridge. Like anything, the more you do this, and know about it, the better results you can get. But, the main objective to me isn’t the sonic "lifting of veils" or the dramatic change in sound quality that is like "upgrading a new component"™, it’s that you’ve removed contaminants from the record that reveal its full potential, sonically, and enables you to preserve the record for a lifetime or more without leaving contamination in your wake or adding to it by the "cleaning" process.
The various wand machines, like VPI, Okki, Project, SOTA (if it still made) should be evaluated largely for robustness. When I used that type of machine, I had two separate vacuum wands mounted to separate arm pillars so I could switch out the cleaning fluid and rinse fluid wands in seconds. Its a small monetary investment that helps you keep the cleaning and rinse steps separate, along with using different applicators for each.
There are a million different ways to clean, everyone has their preferred machine, fluid, applicators, technique, and sequence of steps. I spent a fair amount of time digging into this, and really dug down by spending the day with the folks at the Packard Campus of the Library of Congress that does intake on their collection.
I’ve experimented with various methods, fluids, applicators and the like. I can’t say I’ve owned and used every type of machine but after devoting a lot of time to the process, there are a few simple truths:
- Do no harm-- a bad "cleaning" is worse than no cleaning- you are contaminating the record, and could even damage it. (Perhaps part of the source of your worry).
- If you want to keep it simple, I’d recommend a good basic vacuum RCM without all the bells and whistles- you don’t need two sided reverse cleaning with fluid dispensers. You can manually clean the record-- that’s how most of the vacuum machines are designed anyway, and simply vacuum off the fluid.
- Dry doesn’t mean clean. Residue from cleaning fluid bound with the contaminants that the fluid is supposed to help remove can leave you worse off than no cleaning. See first point, above.
- I believe in a rinse step using some level of purified water.
- There is also a synergistic relationship between manual/ vacuum cleaning on one side and ultrasonic on the other. I use both manual/vacuum and ultrasonic to achieve good, consistent results.
If you have a large enough investment in records, a good set up, which doesn’t have to be terribly expensive, is vital. I got to the point where it was worthwhile for me to buy a big Keith Monks (Omni) and have owned and used several different made for LP ultrasonic machines. You can go fancy or cheap on all of this stuff: one way to do it is a basic vacuum RCM and DIY ultrasonic.
The main thing is method, not the brand names of the machinery. (Though a cheap ultrasonic machine may crap out on you-- but that has happened to expensive ones too).
Neil Antin’s latest version of his paper on Precision Aqueous Cleaning of LPs is essentially a reference to the materials science and chemistry of record cleaning and is very deep and thorough. Nonetheless, Neil starts with a simple manual clean that involves no machinery and gets good results because his methodology is sound.
As to being phobic about wet cleaning, I think you have to deal with that on your own. I don’t see anything scary about it; I mean, you cue your turntable and if you drop the stylus too fast for some reason, or mishandle the tonearm, you’ll not only risk a record but a potentially expensive cartridge. Like anything, the more you do this, and know about it, the better results you can get. But, the main objective to me isn’t the sonic "lifting of veils" or the dramatic change in sound quality that is like "upgrading a new component"™, it’s that you’ve removed contaminants from the record that reveal its full potential, sonically, and enables you to preserve the record for a lifetime or more without leaving contamination in your wake or adding to it by the "cleaning" process.
