Sublime Sound
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
It is a new ultrasonic record cleaning machine sitting in a sound dampening case. It is next to my Loricraft RCM at my LP cleaning station and record storage space. The idea is to be able to clean more records quietly, and more quickly, and hopefully more effectively than my other methods. It is in my home office, so I plan to clean LPs while doing work on the computer.
HAHA, then you'll want to listen to them...and no more work ;-)
Seriously curious how you like vs the Loricraft. I've had some experience here vs my Monks. I'll save my opinion until you form yours...I know you'll put some careful thought into it...
Hi, congratulations to your new record cleaner. Personally I believe that ultrasonic cleaners are the most effective type and I'm curious to read about your thoughts of your comparison to your old cleaning machine.
Out of interest: did you compare it to other ultrasonic record cleaners before you bought it, e.g. the Gläss Vinyl Cleaner?
Out of interest: did you compare it to other ultrasonic record cleaners before you bought it, e.g. the Gläss Vinyl Cleaner?
I expect Peter to determine the ultimate number of cleaning cycles per LP based on the thickness of the vinyl.
Now that is just too much, Mad. I'm falling off my chair laughing. I have read that LP thickness can be a challenge for some ultrasonic cleaning machines. Syntax has posted that results improve if the unit is placed on a isolation platform and one uses a specialty cryo treated power cord. I'll be testing different brands of distilled water.
Thank you jackelsson. I will be testing different cleaning combinations. I suspect that mold release compounds will still need to be removed with enzymes and my Loricraft in a pre cleaning cycle before the ultrasonic clean, but time will tell. I plan to clean records on one machine and then listen and then clean on the other machine and listen again. If I do this in reverse order, I should be able to learn if a second cleaning improves things or not and then which machine is more effective. I'm open to suggestions.
I did not compare this to other ultrasonic cleaners before buying it. I did read many reviews and user comments comparing this KL Audio to the Audio Desk. There are a few direct comparisons on the net. Mine is a very slightly used unit which I found at a great price. I will post my impressions as time allows.
Nice Peter. When you get a chance, could you measure the noise level when using the silencer? Just curious how well it works.
I know the Klaudio RCM works very well, and is very convenient to use. If I had not already owned an Audio Desk I would have purchased a Klaudio when it first came out.
Thanks Sean. Here are the results with my Radio Shack SPL meter, dB C weighted:
1. Wash cycle - 70 dB, with Silencer, 52 dB
2. Dry cycle - 71 dB, with Silencer, 55 dB
The interesting thing is that the wash cycle sounds much louder but it is a higher frequency noise. I am currently using the 5 min cycle for dirty records. The noise even with the Silencer, is somewhat annoying because of the high frequencies to which I am sensitive. (Kind of fatiguing like bad digital, if you know what I mean). I had thought I could clean a batch of 10 LPs while reading/working at the computer, but I'm now not so sure. I want to protect these ears and high frequencies irritate me. Unfortunately, I may have to move the machine to a different location, further away from my desk. The dry cycle is fine, just a mild fan noise.
I am more optimistic about the audible results of the cleaning process. The Silencer is an absolute necessity if you are in the same room as the RCM for any amount of time, IMO.
Awesome. Thanks for doing that.
I know what you mean about the high frequency noise the Klaudio puts out. A local dealer let me try it out at home for a few days awhile back. I think you will be happy with how well it works.
I have always liked those Mágico speakers, also liked the small designs from them - congrats for a great system and a nicer setup.
Thanks so much, Flez. Very kind of you. Things are improving further with the addition of the ultra sonic cleaner. I'm pretty impressed so far. Surprised, actually. I will write more once I gather my thoughts.
I have now cleaned quite a few LPs with my new KL Audio RCM. I have tried different cleaning cycle times and drying cycle times. I have mostly cleaned records that have been previously cleaned with my Loricraft Audio PC-4 Deluxe machine using a four step process with the AIVS fluids. I had thought these LPs were already very clean, but the KL Audio further improves the way they sound. Most LPs were cleaned with one five-minute wash cycle and one four-minute dry cycle. The handful of records that had quite a few ticks and pops were cleaned with two five-minute wash cycles followed by one four-minute dry cycle.
I also bought a sound proof enclosure called the Silencer. Here are the results of its efficacy using my Radio Shack SPL meter, dB C weighted:
1. Wash cycle - 70 dB, with Silencer, 52 dB
2. Dry cycle - 71 dB, with Silencer, 55 dB
The interesting thing is that the wash cycle sounds much louder, but it is a higher frequency noise. The noise even with the Silencer, is somewhat annoying because of the high frequencies to which I am sensitive. I had thought I could clean a batch of 10 LPs while reading/working at the computer, but now I’m not so sure. I want to protect these ears and high frequencies irritate me. Unfortunately, I may have to move the machine to a different location, further away from my desk. The dry cycle is fine, just a mild fan noise.
I still have to try cleaning records that have not been previously cleaned with the Loricraft, and I may try reversing the order to see if the Loricraft improves LPs that have already been cleaned with the KL Audio. I should add the obvious: this is the most convenient cleaning machine that I have ever tried. It is a joy to use and it is built to a very high standard.
I am very impressed with the cleaning results that I have gotten so far. The LPs look pristine when they are finished and they are completely dry. I had bought this machine thinking it would simply be more convenient to use than my Loricraft, and it might eliminate a few ticks/pops. Boy was I in for a surprise. I am reminded by what an experienced analog guy once wrote. I think it was either Doug Deacon or Mike Lavigne. Paraphrasing: “A good cleaning method is not so much about removing pops and ticks as it is about hearing more into the music.” A clean record allows you to hear more information and become more deeply involved in the listening.
Hall information: My very first impression was from hearing Cantata Domino, Proprius PROP 7762, and being shocked at how much larger the stone cathedral in which it was recorded sounded. At first I thought the singers were further back in the soundstage, but the more I listened, the more I realized they were standing in the same place in my room, but now my room boundaries further disappeared and I was hearing those singers in the vast space. The reverberations from the voices and organ were cleaner and better defined the dimensions and character of the recording venue.
Resolution: The next impression was from the Janaki String Trio, Yarlung. I heard an increased sense of, and appreciation for, the contrast between string texture, the movement of the bow against the strings, and the resonance of the wooden instruments’ bodies. The three instruments were more distinct sounding, the timbres more unique and accurate, and the overall impression was more natural. The sense of clarity increased. The overwhelming impression I get from hearing the BSO is the incredible clarity of the sound. This string trio now reminded me of that. On “This One’s for Blanton”, the piano sounded less “tinkly”. Brown’s bass had more body, more fullness, and it was more extended. I became very aware, for the first time, of Brown’s fingers moving up and down the neck and squeezing the strings. On “For Duke”, M&K RealTime Records, the brass was extraordinarily dynamic and the sound was piercing, but it was less shrill, less fatiguing. It just sounded cleaner, less distorted and more natural.
Room fill: At some point a couple of years ago I began to pay attention to the distinction between the size and location of the instruments or voice within the soundstage and the sound as it leaves those images and fills the space around them and then the listening room. The newly cleaned records now produce an even greater amount of room filling sound. It is as though the sound from the instruments, voice, piano, violin, trumpet, is greater and freer, leaving its source to more completely fill the listening room with its energy. The sound is more effortless, more enveloping.
My audio friend Al M. came over last night to listen to my newly cleaned records. After hearing a few, we listened to my recording of Beethoven’s “Kreutzer” Sonata with Heifetz on RCA Victor Living Stereo, LSC-2577. I had not yet cleaned it. We listened to the first movement and he remarked on the quality of the sound of the violin, the transients, the tone, but he said that the piano did not have quite as much body as he has heard before from this recording in other systems. I then took Al upstairs to demonstrate the use of the KL Audio RCM. We listened to the first movement again without changing anything else. He heard the differences immediately and said that the piano sounded fuller and much better now. The violin also had more energy.
At the end of the listening session, I asked him for his thoughts. We did not want to influence the other with our own thoughts, so Al asked for a piece of paper and wrote down his impressions. I then told him how I thought the KL Audio improved/changed the sound of my LPs. I basically described what I wrote above. He then told me what he had written on the Post-It Note: 1. Cleaner, 2. More energy, 3. More body of piano.
We heard pretty much the same thing. The improvements are easily audible in my system. The KL Audio RCM has increased my enjoyment of my music collection. I had been contemplating buying one for some time now and am very glad I finally did it. It allows me to hear deeper into the music. I am still experimenting with how to optimize its use, and it does indeed reduce the numbers of pops and ticks, though it has not yet fully eliminated them on some of my records. Perhaps it never will. I may try multiple repeat washing cycles on one LP to see if I can get it really silent without damaging the vinyl.
What a great addition to my vinyl system.
I also bought a sound proof enclosure called the Silencer. Here are the results of its efficacy using my Radio Shack SPL meter, dB C weighted:
1. Wash cycle - 70 dB, with Silencer, 52 dB
2. Dry cycle - 71 dB, with Silencer, 55 dB
The interesting thing is that the wash cycle sounds much louder, but it is a higher frequency noise. The noise even with the Silencer, is somewhat annoying because of the high frequencies to which I am sensitive. I had thought I could clean a batch of 10 LPs while reading/working at the computer, but now I’m not so sure. I want to protect these ears and high frequencies irritate me. Unfortunately, I may have to move the machine to a different location, further away from my desk. The dry cycle is fine, just a mild fan noise.
I still have to try cleaning records that have not been previously cleaned with the Loricraft, and I may try reversing the order to see if the Loricraft improves LPs that have already been cleaned with the KL Audio. I should add the obvious: this is the most convenient cleaning machine that I have ever tried. It is a joy to use and it is built to a very high standard.
I am very impressed with the cleaning results that I have gotten so far. The LPs look pristine when they are finished and they are completely dry. I had bought this machine thinking it would simply be more convenient to use than my Loricraft, and it might eliminate a few ticks/pops. Boy was I in for a surprise. I am reminded by what an experienced analog guy once wrote. I think it was either Doug Deacon or Mike Lavigne. Paraphrasing: “A good cleaning method is not so much about removing pops and ticks as it is about hearing more into the music.” A clean record allows you to hear more information and become more deeply involved in the listening.
Hall information: My very first impression was from hearing Cantata Domino, Proprius PROP 7762, and being shocked at how much larger the stone cathedral in which it was recorded sounded. At first I thought the singers were further back in the soundstage, but the more I listened, the more I realized they were standing in the same place in my room, but now my room boundaries further disappeared and I was hearing those singers in the vast space. The reverberations from the voices and organ were cleaner and better defined the dimensions and character of the recording venue.
Resolution: The next impression was from the Janaki String Trio, Yarlung. I heard an increased sense of, and appreciation for, the contrast between string texture, the movement of the bow against the strings, and the resonance of the wooden instruments’ bodies. The three instruments were more distinct sounding, the timbres more unique and accurate, and the overall impression was more natural. The sense of clarity increased. The overwhelming impression I get from hearing the BSO is the incredible clarity of the sound. This string trio now reminded me of that. On “This One’s for Blanton”, the piano sounded less “tinkly”. Brown’s bass had more body, more fullness, and it was more extended. I became very aware, for the first time, of Brown’s fingers moving up and down the neck and squeezing the strings. On “For Duke”, M&K RealTime Records, the brass was extraordinarily dynamic and the sound was piercing, but it was less shrill, less fatiguing. It just sounded cleaner, less distorted and more natural.
Room fill: At some point a couple of years ago I began to pay attention to the distinction between the size and location of the instruments or voice within the soundstage and the sound as it leaves those images and fills the space around them and then the listening room. The newly cleaned records now produce an even greater amount of room filling sound. It is as though the sound from the instruments, voice, piano, violin, trumpet, is greater and freer, leaving its source to more completely fill the listening room with its energy. The sound is more effortless, more enveloping.
My audio friend Al M. came over last night to listen to my newly cleaned records. After hearing a few, we listened to my recording of Beethoven’s “Kreutzer” Sonata with Heifetz on RCA Victor Living Stereo, LSC-2577. I had not yet cleaned it. We listened to the first movement and he remarked on the quality of the sound of the violin, the transients, the tone, but he said that the piano did not have quite as much body as he has heard before from this recording in other systems. I then took Al upstairs to demonstrate the use of the KL Audio RCM. We listened to the first movement again without changing anything else. He heard the differences immediately and said that the piano sounded fuller and much better now. The violin also had more energy.
At the end of the listening session, I asked him for his thoughts. We did not want to influence the other with our own thoughts, so Al asked for a piece of paper and wrote down his impressions. I then told him how I thought the KL Audio improved/changed the sound of my LPs. I basically described what I wrote above. He then told me what he had written on the Post-It Note: 1. Cleaner, 2. More energy, 3. More body of piano.
We heard pretty much the same thing. The improvements are easily audible in my system. The KL Audio RCM has increased my enjoyment of my music collection. I had been contemplating buying one for some time now and am very glad I finally did it. It allows me to hear deeper into the music. I am still experimenting with how to optimize its use, and it does indeed reduce the numbers of pops and ticks, though it has not yet fully eliminated them on some of my records. Perhaps it never will. I may try multiple repeat washing cycles on one LP to see if I can get it really silent without damaging the vinyl.
What a great addition to my vinyl system.
Dear Peter,
i also have this machine and i was more impressive on better quality than for his clean.
He clean very well but in some my records even if with 3/4 wash i listen always some pops and ticks,
but is incredible how the record sound better in every parameter
i also have this machine and i was more impressive on better quality than for his clean.
He clean very well but in some my records even if with 3/4 wash i listen always some pops and ticks,
but is incredible how the record sound better in every parameter
Yes, it is not so easy to get rid of all the pops and ticks. I have tried two 5 minute wash cycles and then one 4 minute dry cycle, and that helps. I will continue to experiment with multiple wash cycles, but it does not eliminate all pops and ticks on the worst records. But, as you say, the records do sound so much better after a good cleaning with this machine.
I listened again to Sonny Rollins, Way Out West, last night after additional cleanings on my new RCM. I’m noticing that 2-3 cleanings are better and that results are cumulative. Something else is fascinating. I remember when I first got this LP. It was clearly an early stereo recording and the three musicians were placed precisely at the left and right channel speakers. I loved the music but was never really impressed with the imaging, soundstage, palpability, or depth and 3D quality of the sound. The recording lacked all sense of Presence. It was flat and not fully involving.
REVELATION: Over the last year or so, I have been getting pretty involved in making small, incremental improvements to my system. I started a thread on this subject, calling it "sweating the small stuff." I removed the glass from my paintings, covered the fireplace mantle with a heavy furniture blanket, sent my cartridge back for a rebuild due to a slightly skewed cantilever, improved my ability to dial in VTA, applied DeoxIT to all of the male and female connections, and most recently, I bought a new ultrasonic RCM. The Sonny Rollins LP has been transformed by some combination of all of these small improvements. Presence is now incredible, the sound no longer comes out of the speakers but is spread out in front of me. It is palpable, dimensional, there is depth and more realistic scale. I can imagine the musicians performing in the room. (well not quite, but much more so than before.) They are no longer small and localized at the speakers. They are now layered and Sonny moves a bit around the mic. They are between and behind the speakers and the speakers are no longer the source of the sound. This last bit is key.
I don’t know how to explain it, but this simple early stereo recording that once sounded flat and 2-D, is completely transformed. The music is now ALIVE. I think fas42 talked about this with electronics, and how, when the system is properly sorted out, all recordings sound better. I’m at a loss to explain it, but it really sounds different from how it did a few years ago. I'm now going to play some other LPs from that same era to see if the improvement is universal, but right now, it seems that all of these small changes are working together to create a much more involving musical experience.
REVELATION: Over the last year or so, I have been getting pretty involved in making small, incremental improvements to my system. I started a thread on this subject, calling it "sweating the small stuff." I removed the glass from my paintings, covered the fireplace mantle with a heavy furniture blanket, sent my cartridge back for a rebuild due to a slightly skewed cantilever, improved my ability to dial in VTA, applied DeoxIT to all of the male and female connections, and most recently, I bought a new ultrasonic RCM. The Sonny Rollins LP has been transformed by some combination of all of these small improvements. Presence is now incredible, the sound no longer comes out of the speakers but is spread out in front of me. It is palpable, dimensional, there is depth and more realistic scale. I can imagine the musicians performing in the room. (well not quite, but much more so than before.) They are no longer small and localized at the speakers. They are now layered and Sonny moves a bit around the mic. They are between and behind the speakers and the speakers are no longer the source of the sound. This last bit is key.
I don’t know how to explain it, but this simple early stereo recording that once sounded flat and 2-D, is completely transformed. The music is now ALIVE. I think fas42 talked about this with electronics, and how, when the system is properly sorted out, all recordings sound better. I’m at a loss to explain it, but it really sounds different from how it did a few years ago. I'm now going to play some other LPs from that same era to see if the improvement is universal, but right now, it seems that all of these small changes are working together to create a much more involving musical experience.
Last edited:
Great stuff PeterA, 'sweating the small stuff' is clearly paying off! Next week, we are going to play around (a little bit) with the Stillpoints Aperture panels placement. It seems low male voices are not as clear as they could be...i always thought it was because the resistor on the midrange cones for the Wilson had to be boosted when originally setup. but we shall see if it is something else in the system setup before we try to crack open the Wilsons and resolder resistors...boy, the newer Wilsons sure are better this way...pop a new resistor in and voila...done!
Thanks Lloyd. Yes, I've found that once the system components are well matched and the room/system are dialed in, sweating the small stuff can take one's system to great places. It's that last few % which can make a tremendous difference to overall enjoyment.
Good luck with the panel placement. Your system seems to have evolved slowly over time and your decisions seem well researched and deliberate. This approach plus your willingness to experiment and spend time working at it seems to be paying off.
Good luck with the panel placement. Your system seems to have evolved slowly over time and your decisions seem well researched and deliberate. This approach plus your willingness to experiment and spend time working at it seems to be paying off.
Hello Peter,
My experience is exactly the same as yours. With this Sonny Rollin album and my old system with YG and room acoustic setting, I used to hear saxsophone come out almost directly from the speaker. I read someone in this forum mentioned that with this album the recording was done like that. And I listened to this album at my friends place with his Herbeth. The same thing happened. So I really took it granted that how it supposed to be. With my current system, it is obvious that the saxophone comes from behind the speaker and Sonny did move around like you said indeed. I dont think the difference comes from my gears at all. They come from my tuning of room acoustic and the system setting. I also have the KL Audio, but I dont think it contributes to this though.
Kind regards,
Tang
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |