Your opinion, but after cleaning thousands of records the Audio Desk hasn’t been an issue for me. The cleaned records play well and are static free.
I previously had (and still have) an Okki Nokki RCM that uses a vacuum to dry records. If there is a distinct advantage to that in practice I have yet to discover it.
I think that underestimates the point a bit: the whole purpose of vacuuming it off is to avoid leaving contaminated fluid to dry on the record.
That said, you could also say it’s my opinion after trying the Audio Desk in a shop as I was hoping I could find something more convenient than my Loricraft. Indeed it was more convenient, but the results were not quite the same (granted, these also vary immensely with the complete regime, not just whether it’s vacuum or not).
If the only time I would be willing to dedicate to clean a record was what the Audio Desk takes, it would probably be the best option, though.
Yeah, OK, but it doesn’t change that I’ve cleaned thousands of records with the Audio Desk and it works great for me. The records don’t come out wet.
On rare ocassion I get a little moisure if I don’t pull the record out straight and it picks up a few drops from the rubber blades. It happens and I pat them dry using a microfiber cloth. No big deal. I love that it cleans a record in about 5 minutes, and leaves them static free (which is not true for the Okki Nokki with vacuum).
I wonder if the vacuum process of the Okki Nokki with the vacuum tube on the record isn’t what causes the static build up problem with records cleaned that way. Maybe that’s why Audio Desk doesn’t use a vacuum? 
Dis the Audio Desk all you want but it’s been a great machine for me, and with 4000 LPs the speed and convenience is a big plus.
I don’t think I “dissed” it. I readily acknowledge it’s very convenient. I still think the ultimate combo would be ultrasonic followed by vacuuming the record dry afterwards, and may revisit this if I find a good way to do it.
As to why AD didn’t do it, I think it’s exclusively due to the form factor of the machine (it would get a lot more complicated to integrate vacuum than just putting a fan in it).
The Okki Nokki is good VFM, but it’s still entry-level… I personally think no slot-based vacuum machine is any better than the other and the real gains happen when you go point nozzle. For the Okki Nokkis of the world you kinda have to lift the vacuum before it is completely dry as otherwise you get static, as you pointed out.
OK, nevermind the dis comment. Yeah, I’m sticking with my Audio Desk for day to day cleaning. I love it. I only keep the Okki Nokki around in case I have to deal with soaking caked on something…what I call record boogers.
I’m interested in the Kirmuss as a restoration device. I have some very old classical LPs and would like to see if it can make them better. I’m hoping my dealer will get one in sometime.
I must say the demo I saw of the Kirmuss device with Michael Fremer flies in the face of conventional record cleaning logic. I personally wouldn’t be comfortable with the process as outlined there, though I’m sure there’s a way of using that machine I could live with.
I think it’s not meant for day to day cleaning, but more restoration.
I have some original 10" and 12" DGG, Archiv, etc. classical recordings from the late 50s/early 60s, and some jazz LPs from the same period that it might be able to improve. Ditto for some classic rock. That’s what I want to find out.
Josquin,
I see some ultrasonic washing machines on eBay, sold for around 250 euros. I know the quality is not like Audiodesk. But have you heard about these? I think they are made in China. As I can’t spend 2k on an Audiodesk , and don’t want to have something like project or Okki Nokki, I wonder how cheap ultrasonic machines could be effective.
There are many on eBay from uk.
Just check out some of the other posts on here and on the PF forums, plenty of happy Okki Nokki users out there, me being one of them. I’ve never encountered static since I started using it about 4 years ago and it cleans/dries perfectly well. I’m sure there’s many makes that are just as effective, everyone has there favourite.
Same principles still apply: avoiding cross-contamination, removing residues from the record, etc. All of those get violated in the video I’m referring to. The fact that it ends with applying surfactant to a record before playing reminds me of LAST Record Preservative… not the kind of practice I’d be willing to adapt.
Mine too
Unpacking them
And installed in the rack
Nicely made product and good value compared to similar from the US
That’s my Keith Monk’s CR502 RCM
Must look out some CD-equivalents!
Try Gavin @Dust&Ink, he is looking at some vertical ones for me (4 letters per divider)
Just ordered some yesterday from Gavin
If you have wooden record dividers just a word of warning don’t put this album near the dividers - The Return of the Durutti Column.
Good to see you posting again, Andy.
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
