Best value record cleaner/cleaning system

 slaw,

Last I heard from Dave Burton @ "Record Genie" .com Is that he really has NOT made money but does stay busy with his record cleaning services and three (3) young kids.
If I stay focused; I can clean (5) records in an hr. Will I complete all of my 3000 LPs with my process. Absolutely Not. I will get all of my special recordings done and listen to them.
Using just my Audiodesk; I clean LPs as I want to listen. Only special recordings get the full enzyme, rinse, Audiodesk, rinse treatment. The full treatment does really make a difference over just the AD clean only.

You're correct that "full treatment" does make a big difference.

Regarding the OP's point as to the best value... I may have misinterpreted that as to include (lowest cost = greatest impact) as part of that "best value term".

Regarding a Spin-Clean. Based on what I've read and seen in print, I'd go with the Gem Dandy over it, mainly because in the (initial cleaning), the dirt/crud that comes off of the record won't go into a bath that the next lp will see.

jayh,

Check out Rushton's thread.

nkonor,

We've visited on the Rushton thread. I believe we have mostly the same equipment and processes except for, (in my experience) one factor...I do the steam clean as my initial step.

I've cleaned many records with out the steam/DWDC, and put them through my 16.5, then the Audio Desk. Then later added my steam regimen, and the results were positive. I posted on Rushton's thread not too long ago about my experience with the Neil Young lp. The result in my system was noticeable. The result in KC's system was like a component/cable/cartridge upgrade, IMO. He had his $10K statement phono stage playing. So, the more resolution of one's system, the more of an impact that a great cleaning method can offer.

Steamings'  benefits: ( I hold the lp over a sink while I steam so the lp is washed off)

(1) You can spread any fluid you choose onto a record.
(2) The addition of heat that other inexpensive options, and most others'  don't allow for, along with a great cleaning fluid, removes a very high percentage of contaminants.
(3) It has a built in rinse factor.
(4) You're not using old dirty water to clean any other lps.
(5) Inexpensive.

Steamings' negatives:

(1) Labor intensive.

The method Rushton uses with his filter is very well thought out and solves one of the main problems with US cleaning, the re-use of contaminated water.

Happy listening

The other major benefit I failed to mention above is the ability to clean your lp cleaning tools and velvet lips on your stationary vacuum cleaning machines. I could argue that over time, this benefit alone would pay for the steamer in the absence of having to buy new velvet pads/ tools over time.