2. analog
  3. 1322020048

Different Results between Record Cleaning Machines


The last thread on Record Cleaning Machines (RCMs) in 2009 covered the simple to the exotic in machinery.

RCMs haven't changed much since then, but AIVS has released 'Solution 15,' an enzyme cleaning solution, to augment their three bottle cleaning kit.

I have an older VPI RCM (the 16, not the 16.5). After cleaning with AIVS chemistry on my VPI my records, one Warner Brothers (Sweet Baby James), one RCA (Bridge Over Troubled Waters), both from 1970, didn't sound as quiet as the LPs cleaned on my friend's Loricraft using exactly the same chemistry and very similar technique. We noted a couple of things.

First, the stylus collected a *huge* amount of gunk --particularly from what was, at least chemically, a record cleaned with care, and according to AIVS instructions.

Second, after playing a couple of songs, we stopped, cleaned the stylus again, and played once more. The sound was drastically improved. Anyone have experience similar to this?

I'm a little skeptical about using an expensive TT, cartridge and stylus for auxiliary record cleaning.

Was it the 'gunk removal' that led to better sound with the second playback? Was the mold release compound coming off in globs with the needle carving its way down to the sound? Why was so much material caught on the stylus? And why didn't the RCM collect more of it?

Is the answer too obvious?

The VPI's vacuum motor is brand new. The table sounds like its bearings are arthritic when it rotates, but beside that, it turns with considerable torque.

Thanks in advance for any experience you might have about this.

At the moment I'm considering a Loricraft purchase. Anyone have a Lorcraft for sale?

Happy Thanksgiving,
128x128cdk84
cdk84's avatar
cdk84 OP
70 posts
 

Thanks to your responses I've discovered that my Model 16 was retrofitted with the spring-loaded 16.5 vacuum wand and a new top. Therefore there isn't the problem endemic to the 16, where the vacuum tube was attached to the lid of the machine.

I'm at a loss to explain the performance I've seen. I am a meticulous photographer, thoroughly versed in the use and effects of time and agitation of fluids. Further, I know the AIVS solutions work beautifully: I've heard their results on my friend's system. Nothing short of stunning.

The vacuum wand is adjusted to the correct height and parallel to the platter because I found it causing the platter to stop rotating and readjusted the height to prevent stoppage.

The vacuum tube slot is supposed to be angled slightly toward the front of the machine --according to the user's manual-- and I've done that, too.

Hope someone out there has the answer. Thanks for your input thus far: it still seems a mystery to me.

Best,
David
markd51
763 posts
 
From your descriptions, all sound well.

One thing that is an unkonwn to me, as I never seen the inside of a model 16 machine, is where, and how the vacuum motor is positioned-situated within the machine, and by how and what means does the vacuum motor cause suction at the vacuum wand?

At least with the model 16.5, the priciple is basically simple, you have a vacuum motor butted up against one side of a baffled recovery tank, and in essence the vacuum wand at the other. There is a foam rubber seal on the 16.5 RCM, where the vacuum motor face butts up against the recovery tank. If this goes bad, which it can over time, proper sealing will be compromised, there will be a loss of vacuum pressure, and as well possible fluid leakage may occur at this area.

With my 16.5, basically all the fluids are off the record within one revolution. I do another revolution as insurance.

And as many others have found, more revolutions than 2 usually accomplish nothing more than than building a static charge due to a now dry wand rubbing the record's surface.

About the only other unknown I can think of mentioning, was what records did you note this with? Was this with just a few records that were used, that you've noticed this just lately, and only one occasion, or does this seem to be the norm, no matter what records you throw at your machine?

I ask this because records coming from some unknown source could possibly have been cleaned, and treated with something very stubborn to remove.

And that a repeat cleaning again had been the possible cause of positive results? Mark
decibell
69 posts
 
I'm using a VPI 16.5 and have cleaned appr 1500 records with it. The Loricrafts stronger vaccum effect is of course superior, but I achieve excellent results with my VPI as well. I use MFSLs brushes with replaceable pads. The brushes are fine enough to reach into the grooves. With careful pressure applied, these brushes plus a good cleaning fluid (my favorite is from discdoc.com) and a good rinse with lab water should get you very close to the loricraft. I have never had gunk on my cartridge tip from a dirty record after it was cleaned like described. Try this first, before spending big $$$ on a Loricraft.
syntax's avatar
syntax
2,193 posts
 
Try this first, before spending big $$$ on a Loricraft..

The Loricraft has another big advantage:
You can use it without Earplugs.
markd51
763 posts
 
No question about that Syntax, simplest way out with a VPI 16.5, acquire a cheap set of headphones like one would use at the Gun Range. And isolate yourself somewhere where you disturb no one else.

My own VPI 16.5, with its mods is pictured on Osage Audio-AIVS's site, under "RCM Museum. Adding a 4" hole in the back of mine, to add a Cooling Fan made the machine even louder yet. And trying Dynamat did nothing but probably add another 5 lbs of weight to an already heavy machine.

Thin blanket insulation lining the inside of cabinet probably would've been more beneficial, but doubtful if the machine's roar would be dropped by more than a few db at best.

About the only solution, would be to totally isolate the vac motor, and relegate it to a seperate cabinet underneath the machine.

As I understand it, some type of highly specialized vacuum motor that would be quiet, will also likely be costly as well.

VPI had to make a number of decisions, to market an affordable machine to the masses (16.5) that had a vac motor that was powerful, yet easily obtainable, and relatively inexpensive.

Thus the vac motors (Ametek-Lamb) are virtually identical to what you'll find in commercial Shop Vacs, or commercial walk behind Floor Scrubbing Machines, and it's why they sound quite similar.
More to discover