New KL Audio Record Cleaning Machine

[jdandy]

I owned the original version of the KLAudio Ultrasonic Record Cleaner. It is the one with the separate internal reservoir tank and washing basin. After every 50 LP's I drained the tank into a gallon jug then poured it into a white ceramic sink to inspect for impurities and any possible black vinyl bits. I never saw any black bits in the water or on the bottom of the ceramic sink. After washing 50 LP's the water was only slightly dirty with suspended accumulated debris. I always refilled the reservoir tank with fresh distilled water for the next 50 LP's. This process gave me excellent results with a four minute wash and a three minute dry cycle. Records came out completely dry and very clean. Many of the LP's had less than four plays on them since new. I don't own any LP's that I purchased used. Cleaning used LP's would most likely require more frequent water changes. All in all the KLAudio Ultrasonic Record Cleaner is a fine product that is well built. It certainly doesn't get any easier to clean an LP. You simply insert an LP in the top loading slot and cleaning begins automatically once the washing basin is pumped full of water. Once the four minute cleaning cycle is complete the ultrasonic transmitters shut off, the water is drained back into the reservoir tank, and the air dryer begins its preset timed cycle. When the drying cycle is complete the machine beeps and the record rotation stops. You lift the LP from the slot and it is immediately ready to play.

I don't know if I would like an external water bucket sitting around under the table as required by the new tankless version. The original design is simple, easy to use, easy to drain and keep clean, and does a fine job of cleaning records. That's all I asked it to do and it did it quite well.

 

[bzr]

Not if you have clean water to start with.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're missing the point. For some reason, some brands of distilled water did not get the record wet. Others did.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mike, I haven't missed the point at all. What I am saying is that if the record is left wet, within that fluid there will be contamination. The dryer the record after being in the ultrasonic bath the less chance of the fluid leaving a crud or residue on the surface of the album. To have a pump & chamber circulating the water & then say that the contaminants fall to the floor of the chamber, well.... Is it the ultrasonic vibration & the water that cleans or is it the ultrasonic action/vibration & the water carries the contaminants until the tank is emptied & cleaned? My vote is for both so this really opens a whole new can of worms, hence the need of filter etc. etc.

 

[Mike]

Mike, I haven't missed the point at all. What I am saying is that if the record is left wet, within that fluid there will be contamination. The dryer the record after being in the ultrasonic bath the less chance of the fluid leaving a crud or residue on the surface of the album. To have a pump & chamber circulating the water & then say that the contaminants fall to the floor of the chamber, well.... Is it the ultrasonic vibration & the water that cleans or is it the ultrasonic action/vibration & the water carries the contaminants until the tank is emptied & cleaned? My vote is for both so this really opens a whole new can of worms, hence the need of filter etc. etc.

OK, the record was not getting wet at all, that's what I was saying. When I asked KR, they said it was different types of vinyl that caused that. Well, I found it was actually different types of distilled water. My thinking, and I could be wrong, is that as the record is spinning, you should at least see SOME moisture on the record. When i used certain brands of distilled water, I did not see that. The record was spinning (in wash cycle) and it was bone dry.

Thoughts?

 

[cmalak]

I owned the original version of the KLAudio Ultrasonic Record Cleaner. It is the one with the separate internal reservoir tank and washing basin. After every 50 LP's I drained the tank into a gallon jug then poured it into a white ceramic sink to inspect for impurities and any possible black vinyl bits. I never saw any black bits in the water or on the bottom of the ceramic sink. After washing 50 LP's the water was only slightly dirty with suspended accumulated debris. I always refilled the reservoir tank with fresh distilled water for the next 50 LP's. This process gave me excellent results with a four minute wash and a three minute dry cycle. Records came out completely dry and very clean. Many of the LP's had less than four plays on them since new. I don't own any LP's that I purchased used. Cleaning used LP's would most likely require more frequent water changes. All in all the KLAudio Ultrasonic Record Cleaner is a fine product that is well built. It certainly doesn't get any easier to clean an LP. You simply insert an LP in the top loading slot and cleaning begins automatically once the washing basin is pumped full of water. Once the four minute cleaning cycle is complete the ultrasonic transmitters shut off, the water is drained back into the reservoir tank, and the air dryer begins its preset timed cycle. When the drying cycle is complete the machine beeps and the record rotation stops. You lift the LP from the slot and it is immediately ready to play.

I don't know if I would like an external water bucket sitting around under the table as required by the new tankless version. The original design is simple, easy to use, easy to drain and keep clean, and does a fine job of cleaning records. That's all I asked it to do and it did it quite well.

Dan...you talk on the past tense, so do you no longer own the Klaudio RCM? If so, why did you sell? Curious if you had some issue with it after a while or if it was just a case of you cleaned all your records and you weren't buying new ones often enough to justify keeping it around?

 

[cmalak]

Mike...i think you also have the Audiodesk Ultrasonic cleaner. Any thoughts on the comparison of these two units?

 

[Mike]

Mike...i think you also have the Audiodesk Ultrasonic cleaner. Any thoughts on the comparison of these two units?

Can I plead the 5th? I also have the ClearAudio Double Matrix. [emoji51]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mike]

The build quality of the KL is second to none and IMO, paired with a VPI 16.5 or similar, it would be a great solution. Call me old fashion, but I like the ultrasonic to break up the gunk and the vacuum to suck it away.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jdandy]

Dan...you talk on the past tense, so do you no longer own the Klaudio RCM? If so, why did you sell? Curious if you had some issue with it after a while or if it was just a case of you cleaned all your records and you weren't buying new ones often enough to justify keeping it around?

Cyril.......I did sell the KLAudio Ultrasonic Record Cleaner. I was not unhappy with its performance in the slightest. My entire vinyl collection is just over 130 LP's. I buy a new LP about five times a year if I'm lucky. I find the prices are ridiculous and the quality is hit or miss on the remastering and the pressing quality. I cleaned the LP's I own twice, put them in new MoFi inner sleeves, and play them when I feel like it. They are clean as a whistle. I let the KLAudio machine sit in the control room of the studio for about three months doing nothing with no intention of purchasing new vinyl so I made the decision to sell it. The KLAudio RCM lasted one day before it was snapped up. That owner still has it and the KLAudio is still doing its job for a happy owner.

 

[cmalak]

Mike/Dan...thanks for the responses. I'm sitting on 400-500 LPs and about half have yet to be cleaned and the notion of spending 6-8 mins per record on my VPI 16.5 standing up keeps me from making any inroads into the "to be cleaned" section. And then I did the mental math on how much money I spent on those records and they are sitting there not being listened to. So thinking about something like the Klaudio or the AudioDesk units. [emoji848]

 

[bzr]

OK, the record was not getting wet at all, that's what I was saying. When I asked KR, they said it was different types of vinyl that caused that. Well, I found it was actually different types of distilled water. My thinking, and I could be wrong, is that as the record is spinning, you should at least see SOME moisture on the record. When i used certain brands of distilled water, I did not see that. The record was spinning (in wash cycle) and it was bone dry.

Thoughts?

I've noticed the same with different types/brands of dist. water on different albums. I also believe it may be the release agent used from the pressing as I have albums where I'm sure that crap is still in the grooves. Some of these albums that I am susceptible about have been cleaned upward of 4-6 times.

 

[Restock]

OK, the record was not getting wet at all, that's what I was saying. When I asked KR, they said it was different types of vinyl that caused that. Well, I found it was actually different types of distilled water. My thinking, and I could be wrong, is that as the record is spinning, you should at least see SOME moisture on the record. When i used certain brands of distilled water, I did not see that. The record was spinning (in wash cycle) and it was bone dry.

Thoughts?

The degree of wetting the record is a function of the surface tension of the water. The less impurities (surfactants) in the water, the more surface tension and the drier the record. The more impurities in the water, the lower the surface tension and the wetter the record.

So from your description the water that does not wet the record is likely more pure.

If you add photo flow as suggested, the water will have less surface tension and spread better on the record ...but it also means there is more stuff in the water.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mike]

The degree of wetting the record is a function of the surface tension of the water. The less impurities (surfactants) in the water, the more surface tension and the drier the record. The more impurities in the water, the lower the surface tension and the wetter the record.

So from your description the water that does not wet the record is likely more pure.

If you add photo flow as suggested, the water will have less surface tension and spread better on the record ...but it also means there is more stuff in the water.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A great explanation. Thank you.

 

[bzr]

A great explanation. Thank you.

Must have been the accent...