I have been planning a version of that for years , but with wet cleaning but finally said F-it and will just by a Klaudio or a Audio Desk. Wanted to build a clone Klaudio but just decided there would just be to much $hit all over the place, all in the name of proving it can be done for way less.
Having one compact cleaner sitting on the shelf,drop the record in, come back in five, winner winner chicken dinner!
Watching Mikes Unit do its thing, the decision was made right there and have not thought about DIY since.
P.S. click the Amazon link and read the description, pretty poorly written for the US / Canadian market. I do like their attachment to go around a drill bit.
P.P.S. I sure wish they would bring back the original Sound Guard.
Using a Loricraft or Monks vacuum along with AIVS enzyme based cleaners and distilled or reagent grade water can get a record as clean as a good ultrasonic. However, the horizontal machines take much longer, require multiple steps and cause a lot of mess.
A well organized ultrasonic with filtering does not require a rinse.
I've never seen an equipment list from Folsom. What do you use for cleaning records?
Require? Who cares. You cannot get a record as clean with an ultrasonic alone, filter or not, as you can by doing ultrasonic then vacuum rinse. The reason is simple, once stuff is broken free it doesn't have to move out of the grooves. This has been confirmed many times. But no alcohol in the rinse or you can get static without something to neutralize that effect. You're just wasting money though if you're mixing stuff into the rinse.
I have that RCM and an ultrasonic. But I need to make a new record holder for the ultrasonic.
And I agree that just a vacuum sure does consume more time. Although I really want to know if any off the shelve enzyme cleaners are safe. I assume many "record specific" are off the shelve rebottled with a surfracant.
I should add my vacuum RCM takes VERY little time to do a rinse. Using a small nozzle would be super annoying for the task. The small nozzle is useful for two reason, the primary one probably being it increases the time the cleaning agent is on the disc, the second is the possibility of more suction but honestly I doubt it has too much or the record wouldn't turn.
That's utter nonsense Tima. A filter doesn't suck anything off of the grooves. The stuff that ultra sonics break loose can resettle on the groves as there's no impetus for them not to unless you have enough water flow that the ultrasonic won't work correctly. And I've seen point nozzle machines ("small") - I specifically addressed them.
I just told you I have this, and an ultrasonic cleaner (not sure if that's the exact one). The thing for turning the records is homemade and silly, I need to replace it.
The stuff that ultra sonics break loose can resettle on the groves as there's no impetus for them not to unless you have enough water flow that the ultrasonic won't work correctly. And I've seen point nozzle machines ("small") - I specifically addressed them.
You're confusing vertical with horizontal machines. "Resettle on the groove" doesn't happen. Why? Because the records in an ultrasonic unit stand vertically and are continually struck by imploding vacuum bubbles. Most dirt/gunk dissolves. Tank water continually pumped through a filter removes particles and dissolved solids - which is what a vacuum does, although the filter returns clean water to the tank.