Firstly, I'd like saying that I have respect, and admiration for Lloyd to try to bring improvements to products in this market for us end users. Even though you may not respond Lloyd, I hope at least you will read this, or that your aquaintances will pass this onto you, that my hat is off to you for your attempts.
I did have good interest in this product, I of course own a VPI 16.5, and have interest when there's a way to squeeze every last bit of performance from it.
This product though, seemed to be plagued by myths from the get go. Just two days ago, I read a description by MusicDirect, claiming the VRT Wand doesn't even touch the Record's surface in operation. Just too much confusion from end users, and the dealer network of what is fact, and what is fiction.
The evidence I found of an 80mm slot, versus the original 100mm slot by VPI just doesn't make any logical sense to me. How is this then faster, when a person has to go back, and take towel, or Kleenex to pick up at the LP's extremes with what the VRT Wand has left on the LP sounds like a unworthy trade off to me.
Drawing Bar Vacuum is not the 16.5's shortcoming. The Motor VPI placed in that machine in fact could substitute for a Vacuum Motor in a Tornado Floor Scrubbing Machine, and in fact that's what many of these machines use, an Eletek-Lamb Rotary Vacuum Motor.
It is Volume of fluid pick up that is needed, not a higher suction rate, which is more than adequate. Any more probably has the fluids actually drying before the Wand can pick them up. This in turn will actually leave more deposits on the LP, than successfully remove.
Harry intended the Vacuum Wand Tower to be automatically adjustable to any thickness-weight of LP. It sounds like the VRT Wand ingorned this design parameter, and by being so touchy to get properly adjusted by an ebd user, it actually goes against the proper operation, and intended design of the VPI RCM's.
Other firm beliefs I have, it that cross contamination is something that is over-hyped, that the VPI Wand, and it's Velvet Strips are a substantial cause of this. I'd truly like seeing microscopic analysis of this.
And yes, I understand the operation of other machines, like the Loricraft, in that the Vacuum nozzle does not touch the surface, but I also understand this machine can also be a bit finnicky on fluid pick-up, getting complete pick up of fluids, and if it doesn't, then in truth one will not fair much better, if fluids are left to dry on an LP's surface, and with them, residues, and contaminants.
I do see a downside of the possibility-potential of a bare Vacuum Wand doing damage to Vinyl. Would you then take this bare Wand, and wipe it across your beloved new Corvette's Paint Job? Don't you think Harry W has gone down this same road, and went down it years ago with experimentation, and testing of different designs, and materials?
In normal operation, and taking care to properly use the 16.5, or other VPI RCM's, the stock wand is not prone to breakage, only if you make the error of dropping-forcing the 16.5 Lid on the Wand when it is swung out of the way, will the Wand crack-break.
I do believe though, that a thicker walled acrylic tube would-could be an advantage, and a re-design of the 16.5 Lid-Hinges, so that the Lid cannot accidentally crack the Tube would be worthy improvements which shouldn't add any substantial price increase of the 16.5 RCM.
One of the other issues I do see with the VPI Machines, and the possibility of "cross contamination", is the Cork Platter Mats. A better material I feel would be advantageous. Some have found simple ways around this. A better material (rubber) that is easier to clean-keep clean, like on more expensive Loricraft, Monks, etc would help.
I'm sorry to be blunt about my recognizance of a product that apparently just didn't seem to do what it was supposed to do.
