Clearaudio Double Smart Matrix or Loricraft PRC4

I would Imagine if Lloyd Walker trusted in such as steam cleaning (which IMO is a misnomer, it's actually hot water) that he would endorse such, and market such to compliment his Prelude System.

It's a shame in a way that manufacturers as such cannot participate in these forums, as we could then get accurate-truthful, and useable information straight from the horse's mouth so to speak.

About Lloyd, I don't personally know the man, but I'm quite certain Walker Prelude wasn't originally concocted on Lloyd's Kitchen Table, nor is the final cleaning formulas manufactured in Lloyd's Kitchen Sink.

He no doubt went the full monty, with degreed chemists, testing, analyzation, testing again, on, and on, till his formulas were perfected, and acceptable for marketing.

I assume that after use of his products, that nothing further needs to be done to the vinyl in a near future tense. Just the dusting, and yes, in time vinyl does need to be recleaned. One cleaning, no matter what the product doesn't insure that the record is now going to stay pristine clean for the rest of its usable life. Mark

IME, steaming can be an extremely important and valuable step in a cleaning regimen and I do it regularly. It's particularly effective with really dirty records.

I'm not fond of steamers like the Mapleshade which concentrate the steam in a very small area, favoring a steamer which provides a much more diffuse distribution. I never have a record warping while steaming and wouldn't advocate doing so.

I see no reason for any of the marketers of commercial record cleaning products to endorse steaming as there is really nothing in it for them and it would, in a sense, shed a somewhat negative light on the efficacy of their products.

I'm grateful that companies and people like RRL, Disc Doctor, Audio Intelligent and Lloyd Walker have come up with effective cleaning products (especially their first stage cleaning products) but I'm a lot less grateful that they sell ultrapure water (which is every bit as important, if not moreso, than the first stage of cleaning whether it be surfactant or enzyme based) for five to eight times the price (Lloyd Walker's price) to gullible audiophiles who could buy it from any scientific supply house at pennies on the dollar.

If Lloyd's markup on his tables resembles anything like his markup on his water he must be very comfortable.

I am convinced that the Keith Monks, new or used, is the best you can get for reasons that Syntax explained previously. I don't know what a new one costs, but expect to pay around $2500 for a used one. If you aren't DIY inclined, it is probably worth the price.

FWIW in response to some points made above:

1. We've owned and used a PRC3 for 5-6 years. In all that time I have only once had the thread bind up in the tube. That was less than a year after we bought the machine and I blame operator error. We've had no such problems for years.

2. We've tried steaming, using a device like the ones often recommended on this forum. Maybe it was operator error again, but the results were miles behind what we get from our 4-step AIVS regimen. Someone said Lloyd Walker is a perfectionist and so are we. Steaming didn't come anywhere close to producing acceptable results for us, though it certainly was faster.

3. The Clearaudio solution doesn't match the performance of the AIVS solutions we use, regardless of the RCM you vacuum them with. Koegz's experience that his Clearaudio D.M. worked better than his Loricraft PRC4 was therefore based on different performance criteria than ours.

4. The ultimate test of vinyl cleanliness is not how quiet your surfaces are. One can eliminate clicks and pops with many different methods using many different machines, but that's only the first step. Much harder than that is getting the grooves clean enough so that a very revealing system can reproduce all the low-level information in them. Anyone who touts a cleaning method or machine based on how quiet their surfaces are is not listening at the highest levels. Their statements must be considered in that context.

5. Never tried the Clearaudio RCM's, but as pointed out above the demonstrably inferior physics of slot vacuuming and the constant battle against contaminated felts make them a non-starter for us. No doubt they're faster and if it does a good enough job for some, that's great. To each his own.

"4. The ultimate test of vinyl cleanliness is not how quiet your surfaces are. One can eliminate clicks and pops with many different methods using many different machines, but that's only the first step. Much harder than that is getting the grooves clean enough so that a very revealing system can reproduce all the low-level information in them. Anyone who touts a cleaning method or machine based on how quiet their surfaces are is not listening at the highest levels. Their statements must be considered in that context."

Doug, I couldn't agree with you more. Effective cleaning is about more than elimination of clicks and pops; it's about unleashing the information in the groove. My system is perfectly capable of resolving those differences.

The problem with debates about record cleaning is that it is impossible establish with any certainty a real absolute in terms of process. Everyone is doing something different. Different fluids, different brushes, different amounts of time in terms of leaving fluids on records, different techniques with respect to removal of fluid. Think about the variables.

My comments above with respect to steaming refer to it being used in conjunction with more traditional cleaning techniques (fluid, vacuum, rinse, vacuum, 2nd rinse, vaccum) with steaming being part of the process, certainly not the entire process.

I believe it was Markd who suggested above that better results could be obtained with effective technique and quality fluids and a more rudimentary vac (ie. slot based) than with weaker fluids and a Loricraft or Monks and I couldn't agree more.

Do the Monks/Loricraft warrant their expenditure when used with the very best techniques/fluids. Quite possibly. I won't argue that.

In terms of value for money, I'm not so sure. I've bought and cleaned about 3,000 records with a KAB EV1 in the past 4 years. I utilize a dedicated Filter Queen vac with the KAB and I've cleaned records that I've previously had cleaned on a Monks and there is no comparison. In the end, all that proves is that the fluids used with the Monks were probably substandard in affecting a really good clean.

But it's showed me that technique and fluids are extremely important and that a strong focus on both those can achieve very good results.

I had a chance to buy an older Monks for about $800 before I acquired my KAB 4-5 years ago and don't regret passing on it in the least. It was not in particularly great shape and required some serious money in terms of parts to put it into A1 original shape and had the look of being somewhat like an early 60's Jaguar in terms of what I'd have to do to maintain it and keep it in top operating form.

The KAB (with a very high quality vac), with excellent fluids, steaming and practised technique, offers me everything I'll ever need in a cleaner for $160.

Is a Loricraft/Monks 15-20X better?

Not for me.