Record cleaning - what's your method?

AnthonyI said:
Hmmm, for $250 and being able to clean 6 albums at a time it's intriguing to say the least. Taking a chance on things like this from Amazon is a little less stressful due simple Amazon returns. Of course it ain't the prettiest thing in the world ;)
Click to expand...
I’d be more worried about damaging my records. Plus this one doesn’t dry so you’re stuck with using one of those dish racks to dry the albums
 
Joe Mac said:
To anyone in Dublin or nearby I have a spin clean and an almost full bottle of fluid that I’d be willing to donate to a good home. You’ll have buy the cloths yourself because i want to keep those. It’s a nice starting point to getting into cleaning records!
Click to expand...

you could try here too

UK Members

You need to make your print stick, seem split solution more widely known :) You not done that before ? If i have a nice printed sleeve i want to keep but has a split i run the stick down it then run along it with fingers - If its a dark sleeve and you can see a small white paper line then a...
www.needlesandgrooves.com www.needlesandgrooves.com

Irish Members

If the U.K. members can have one then I think we have to deserve one too! @panino @loughman @PineapplePhantom @Jmcg85 @Murfocakes A new home for us. Please invite along anyone you know. Overseas people please feel welcome to come and badger us about this beautiful little wet island! Also to...
www.needlesandgrooves.com www.needlesandgrooves.com
 
I have a vinyl stack in combination with a generic cavitation bath, I’ve never really understood why having to wipe a record dry with a microfiber cloth is such a big deal. I have learned that you will not successfully clean records if they are too close together, I only clean two records at a time with my vinyl stack which has a capacity of three. As long as the frequency the cavitation bath is within the proper range for records then in practicality it’s not any different than other ultrasonic systems short of drying.
 
Dylanfan253 said:
I have a vinyl stack in combination with a generic cavitation bath, I’ve never really understood why having to wipe a record dry with a microfiber cloth is such a big deal. I have learned that you will not successfully clean records if they are too close together, I only clean two records at a time with my vinyl stack which has a capacity of three. As long as the frequency the cavitation bath is within the proper range for records then in practicality it’s not any different than other ultrasonic systems short of drying.
Click to expand...
My experience wiping records dry with cloths is mostly that they develop intense static charge. But that's an environmental thing and I acknowledge it varies climate to climate.
 
Dylanfan253 said:
I have a vinyl stack in combination with a generic cavitation bath, I’ve never really understood why having to wipe a record dry with a microfiber cloth is such a big deal. I have learned that you will not successfully clean records if they are too close together, I only clean two records at a time with my vinyl stack which has a capacity of three. As long as the frequency the cavitation bath is within the proper range for records then in practicality it’s not any different than other ultrasonic systems short of drying.
Click to expand...
The thing is, at some point, the labor involved in cleaning records becomes a deterrent. That's true for me, certainly, and it seems to be true for many who've commented in this and/or the Humminguru thread. One of the attractions of the typical ultrasonic cleaner is that you put the record in, set the cleaner running, then walk away and come back when the record is clean and dry. Labor costs are nil. I agree with you that it's no big deal to dry a record with a microfiber cloth, but to do that to 10, 15, 20 records per cleaning session requires a fair bit of labor. Not much of a gain (labor-wise) over some other forms of cleaning (ignoring for the moment potential differences in how well they clean the records).
 
I understand everyone has their own goal and motivations for cleaning and everyone’s lifestyle doesn’t allow as much free time as I have. Subjectively I think the process is pretty efficient and you can clean about 18 records an hour with a diy setup and manual drying. Many records require multiple cleanings no matter what system you use and I feel like that’s something some people may not realize going into it. I have cleaned approximately 3500 records with this setup, I’m on my second cavitation bath from Amazon, the first one blew a transistor. I also would purchase a kirmuss machine if my current setup fails as it seems like a great value for what it is and I think it’s something that anyone who can afford it should consider, their surfactant seems to be quite good buying their machine gives you access to purchase the surfactant.
 
Last edited:
Dylanfan253 said:
I understand everyone has their own goal and motivations for cleaning and everyone’s lifestyle doesn’t allow as much free time as I have. Subjectively I think the process is pretty efficient and you can clean about 18 records an hour with a diy setup and manual drying. Many records require multiple cleanings no matter what system you use and I feel like that’s something some people may not realize going into it. I have cleaned approximately 3500 records with this setup, I’m on my second cavitation bath from Amazon, the first one blew a transistor. I also would purchase a kirmuss machine if my current setup fails as it seems like a great value for what it is and I think it’s something that anyone who can afford it should consider, their surfactant seems to be quite good buying their machine gives you access to purchase the surfactant.
Click to expand...
It's good to have this info about the Amazon cavitation bath. Thanks. I'd wondered about whether mounting the records close to each other would allow for proper cleaning, so your discovery that cleaning two records at a time is best makes sense. 3,500 cleanings would be hard to argue with! 🍻
 
I’m sure on paper it somehow leads them to believe that they have proper spacing but in practicality it’s pretty obvious that it’s not enough. That kirmuss audio surfactant is anecdotally pretty amazing, I highly suggest it if you can get your hands on it.
 
Cleaners of the world: are you cleaning your 40+ year old used records (that look clean) expecting them to play with zero pops? Or do you hold a certain truth that used records will never be fully restored to their once pristine selves.
 
Melt Face Molly Drop said:
Cleaners of the world: are you cleaning your 40+ year old used records (that look clean) expecting them to play with zero pops? Or do you hold a certain truth that used records will never be fully restored to their once pristine selves.
Click to expand...
Depends completely on the used record. No reason a 40+ year-old record couldn't play well and quietly, so I think it really comes down to how that record has spent its life until the point it's in your hands. But if your point is that expectations should be realistic, then yeah, I agree that the likelihood of a perfectly quiet play should have some association with the age of the record.

But thinking about this makes me realize that cleaning records has become similar to other aspects of being a vinyl junkie in that there's always the question of whether the result might be better with a more effective system, whether that's referring to a cleaning process or a turntable/cartridge/phono pre-amp/speakers, etc. Crazy.
 
Last edited:
Melt Face Molly Drop said:
Cleaners of the world: are you cleaning your 40+ year old used records (that look clean) expecting them to play with zero pops? Or do you hold a certain truth that used records will never be fully restored to their once pristine selves.
Click to expand...
a well-kept record played on well-kept equipment should sound pretty damn good even after 40 years. I’ve got a bunch of original pressings that sound borderline immaculate, and better than a lot of new-from-factory pressings I’ve bought of late.
 
Russ I said:
But thinking about this makes me realize that cleaning records has become similar to other aspects of being a vinyl junkie in that there's always the question of whether the result might be better with a more effective system, whether that's referring to a cleaning process or a turntable/cartridge/phono pre-amp/speakers, etc. Crazy.
Click to expand...
This is exactly where I'm at. To the point that I've sold records that didn't meet that particular standard instead of going down the rabbit hole of upgrading my equipment. I want to "settle" but the more I learn, the more I just can't. I believe it's called @Mather Syndrome.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top