Michael Fremer's record cleaning process....

Whart: Please explain for me, why you just stated, (something like) "Frogman gave you a solid",...

I really feel that statements such as these, without "personal backup" of those statements, serve only to "stir the pot" rather than reach a valid conclusion! Would you not agree? Kind of reminds me of Qdrones comments? Hey?

It's one thing to talk the talk, another to walk the walk. I've walked the walked, all by myself and am armed and ready to defend my positions on my own, thank you very much!

I've got the time, I've got the will, I've got the collection, I've got the (personal) experience,I've got nothing to lose. (Except maybe that most here seem to want to have other's experience as their reference! I have my own experience as my reference!!

There are some silly posts here in need of correction/clarification:

First of all, I never wrote that the KLAUDIO machine "pits" records. You can read the review here for yourself:

http://www.analogplanet.com/content/klaudio-kd-cln-lp200-ultransonic-record-cleaner-reviewed

The inference that anything I do write is ad driven is offensive and just plain idiotic. Right: I'll sell my credibility for an ad. If you believe that...well fine, enjoy...

Had the KLAUDIO arrived first I'd have bought that. It is better built and had some better features. However I continue to prefer the roller fluid applicators and the mild surfactant that the KLAUDIO warns against using BUT both are great.

Let's see what else I've "learned" thanks to this thread:

I use a Keith Monks machine (not true).
I use an elaborate cleaning regimen that takes forever and described it in a story I wrote (not true).

The great part of this thread is that others first corrected these errors.

But one last thing: someone wrote that I have done a "...great job marketing myelf."

Nothing could be further from the truth. I have NEVER "marketed" myself. Ever. Wherever I am in this business (and that place is for others to judge) is simply the result of how people have responded to what I've written for all of these many (I started at TAS in 1986) years and nothing more. I had no "game plan", "20 year plan", or any kind of ambition in this business.

I did, however, believe when I started that vinyl is the most musically satisfying format to sit down and listen to and I still do. So I advocated that, even though I was advised by all that I would be heading towards a dead end....

So all i can say is that the best part of wherever it is that I am (and from what I can see it's a pretty good place!) is the result of how others read me and not because of anything willful on my part...

Why does recommending the mono "Revolver" have to do with those other Beatles albums? That I do not understand. This is not a competition among Beatles albums is it? In other news, I hope no one ever "bows down" to anything I write! It is simply my opinion and nothing more, nor do I represent it to be anything but...before I wrote a word about this subject I read all about it, never "bowing down" to any of it, but being guided by it and learning from it. The years I read TAS from its inception to when I began writing for it were years in which the magazine imparted an incredible wealth of knowledge and excellent guidance. For one thing it dragged me away from Stereo Review, which had "guided me" towards believing that only measurements counted, which had greatly diminished the sound of my system and with it much of my listening pleasure.

To Slaw: If a reviewer recommends CSN or Who's Next from Classic or whatever, that is their opinion. It is not a "wrongdoing". You are inconsistent.

I try to explain how a reissue sounds compared to an original before saying whether I'd recommend it or not. More recently on analogplanet I provide 96/24 files of originals versus reissues and let readers decide and comment for themselves.

The results are interesting: virtually all of the time everyone agrees on the sonic differences but which they prefer results in a "split decision".

That is why it's most important to describe the sonic differences rather than simply issuing blanket "recommendations". And if you do recommend something you'd better explain why in clear language.

Over the years readers who trust what I write know whether they will like something whether I do or not because of how it's described. Same with gear...

my taste is not really relevant. What is, is that I accurately describe the sound....