Vacuum Record Cleaning
Machines - a Subjective & Objective Comparison
Clicks, pops and dirt are perhaps the worst enemy for vinyl playback. As you
will gather from this site, I am a bit of a cheapskate, so parting with the
equivalent of 300 records or so would be a decision I would not take lightly.
But there was always a nagging doubt - is the method I use to clean vinyl adequate?
Could I do better with a different solution, device, or even automated machine.
I suspected not.
I
had an offer from uk.rec.audio.vinyl to clean up a couple of my worst LPs. To
find out if a vacuum record cleaning machine (RCM) would improve on my own method,
I cleaned and recorded 2 LPs, a Julian Bream guitar collection and a jazz collection
from Ella & Louise (shown on the right before any cleaning). Both these
LPs were not mint and had a small amount of residual clicks and pops that were
still there after my cleaning regime. After all, I knew that my method was fine
for mint LPs, if there was any improvement to be had, cleaning with the vacuum
RCM would show an improvement.
I
cleaned the the LPs and recorded side one from each onto my computer. Then I
sent them off and they were cleaned and returned in new clean sleeves. I recorded
them again so that I could compare the number of clicks and pops. Initial impressions
were that it was slightly cleaner than it had been originally. I made sure the
old recording (my cleaning) and the new one (RCM cleaning) were the same length
gap before and after and counted the clicks and pops using WaveCorrector. The
one I did after my cleaning came out with 502 clicks found. After the RCM it
had 480. Not such a a huge difference objectively, although subjectively I thought
it was better.
Then
I thought I should play it again and see, as there had been a little dust picked
up by the stylus and I had noted that sometimes records played quieter the second
time after cleaning than the first. This time it came out at 375, which is significant
for such a dirty old thing.
The
second LP was the Verve Ella Fitzgerald & Louis Armstrong shown in the picture.
This has some wear and scratches. It also had some ingrained dust that was noticeable
in quiet passages, but still overall the record was playable. This is the sort
of record you only buy for £1 if you really want it, which is what I did.
After my cleaning 2226 clicks were detected. On return from Keith there were
2350 (second play). A further clean produced a figure of 2162. None of these
were really significant changes. My conclusion was that this was the sort of
record that is not going to ever get any better using standard record cleaning
methods, maybe one of the 'miracle' record cleaners might make a difference,
but I have my doubts.
So
what is the conclusion? If you are expecting to get miracle results on your
used or old vinyl, a RCM may not be the magic wand you hope for. Users of RCMs
are very quick to jump in and point out that scratches etc will not be fixed
by a RCM (true). I had been told that the RCM would work wonders on the ground
in dust on records (like the one in the picture), but these tests do not bear
this out. It is also compounded by the fact that most records in this condition
will also have audible scratches as well as the dust. My method is perfectly
adequate for a small collection of used vinyl as it will move dust and dirt
and remove it from the record surface. am still a cheap skate, but I would have
to admit that the vacuum RCM would seem to be a useful addition to allow you
to get the most from the majority of your vinyl if it is in VG or better condition.
If you have more than about 500 LPs and have a spare £250 or so then it
would be a worthwhile investment. For records graded G+ or worse (Goldmine guide)
it is likely that physical damage is going to overshadow the benefits of cleaning,
no matter what your method. That is not to say that cleaning is unnecessary,
just that there will still be higher levels of surface noise.