Of all the uncertainties that plagued this total vinyl newb when I finally got around to buying my first proper grown-up turntable, the one I struggled with most was how to deal with the onslaught of old vinyl devotees telling me that if I didn’t follow this, that, or the other rule precisely, I might as well not even bother. Getting a turntable that won’t let me set vertical tracking angle? Absolutely scandalous! And replace that felt platter mat immediately! With cork. No, wait, acrylic. No, wait, rubber. No, wait, leather. No, wait . . . kozo washi! Truth be told, I’m glad I ignored most of the mandates and explored all of these things in my own way and on my own time. But I must admit, I wish I’d listened to the people who told me that there’s simply no substitute for a good wet-cleaning system. It doesn’t necessarily have to be something like the Record Doctor X ($599.95, all prices USD). But it has to be something.
It could be a ritual as simple as spraying Simple Green All-Purpose Cleaner on a dirty record, giving it a scrub with a carbon-fiber brush, and rinsing it with distilled water. It could be any number of Spin-Clean clones. It could be a 3D-printed DIY attachment for your shop vac. But a nicely built wet-cleaning machine with a vacuum motor to suck out all the surfactant and residue was something I latched onto pretty quickly as a must-have once I figured out that wet-cleaning records was going to be a new addition to my Zen practice.
So I purchased the Record Doctor VI ($329.95, although I got mine for $299, with $22-ish monthly Affirm payments until it’s paid off). The little sibling of the Record Doctor X was going to be my review for this month, so impressed was I with my own purchase. But right after I sat down to start putting fingers to keyboard, Record Doctor distributor Pangea Audio Distributing reached out and asked if I’d like to audition the step-up model.
And, I mean, why wouldn’t I? Here was a fancier, powered version of a product I already loved, with two vacuum heads instead of one, so it sucks the juice and grit off of both sides of a record at the same time.
But let’s back up and discuss what these things are on their own terms. The Record Doctor VI is the latest base version of the beloved record-cleaning machine that includes a hand-spun platter and LP clamp, with a felt-covered slit opening attached to a vacuum motor. You place a record on it, then spin the platter by hand while distributing the included cleaning solution over the record and into its grooves with the included goat-hair brush. Wash one side, flip it, run the vacuum cleaner while spinning the platter, repeat, and you’ve got yourself one clean record without needing much, if anything, in the way of cleanup. So, what makes the Record Doctor X different/better? Well, a lot of the differences are tied to the setup and operation of the devices, so meet me under the next subhead for a deeper dive.
Setting up the Record Doctor X
There are, primarily, two major things separating the Record Doctor X from the VI. The first is that the platter isn’t hand-powered. There’s a bidirectional switch controlling a motor that turns the platter, making the process of spinning the LP whilst applying and vacuuming out the cleaning fluid more automated. The X also has a removable power cord, which is a nice touch, as the built-in cord of the VI makes it a little more difficult to store and transport discretely.
There’s also a swing arm on the X with a second sweeper-strip-covered vacuum port, which will lock into place if the vacuum motor is turned on, effectively sandwiching your dirty LP between two vacuum nozzles. The more pedantically minded among you may have put together from that last statement that the swing arm doesn’t lock into place in any way, shape, or form when the machine is turned off; that, coupled with the spring that pushes it back up and off the record when the motor is disengaged, results in the whole thing feeling a little wobbly and tenuous.
But perhaps it’s for the best, given that I quickly figured out I really needed to remove the arm altogether before taking my record off, simply because there’s not quite enough room for my shaky hands to do the lateral shift after the lift that’s necessary to avoid bumping the vinyl into the metal arm.
As you might expect, given that this thing is effectively a souped-up wet/dry vac for records, it has to have somewhere to vent exhaust and somewhere to store the liquid and dirt it extracts from the grooves of your LPs. The exhaust port fires downward, which goes a long way toward keeping noise manageable, and there’s a little plug you can remove on the bottom of the unit to drain stored fluid.
The company recommends draining the reservoir after you’ve cleaned 25 records, but what they don’t tell you is that this is probably only necessary if you clean that many in a day or maybe a weekend. I’ve cleaned, I think, 20 records in the past month using the Record Doctor X, and when I uncorked the reservoir, I had just a few dribbles to deal with. In other words, if you’re not going on a cleaning spree, most of the fluid will likely evaporate before too much can accumulate.
One other setup consideration worth keeping in mind—and one major difference between the Record Doctor VI and X, in my experience—is that the X is probably best installed in a dedicated location. My VI lives in an out-of-the-way shelf in my two-channel listening room, covered in the cloth cover it came with. When I’m ready to clean a record or three, I pull it out and drag it to the kitchen, use it for however long, then wind up the power cord, place the cloth cover over it again, and put it back on its shelf.
The X, on the other hand, with its somewhat fiddly swing arm, not to mention its larger size, works best when it’s left in one spot with the arm gingerly inserted—not to the point where the spring compresses, though. So take that into consideration when making your purchasing decisions.
How does the Record Doctor X perform?
The process of cleaning an LP with the Record Doctor X is a bit less intuitive than it is with the VI, so it’s worth spelling out here, step by step. First, you place a record over the spindle in the middle of the foam platter, which is pretty much perfectly sized to cover a standard LP label. Then you turn on the motor—in either direction, really—and apply the included cleaning solution, or your own if you so choose. Using the goat-hair brush, you spread the solution around the record, making sure it gets down into the grooves. Then you flip the LP over, apply more fluid, work it into the grooves on that side, and install the LP clamp over the spindle.
Unlike with the Record Doctor VI, the clamp for the X screws onto the spindle to make sure nothing slips during the vacuuming. With it screwed down and with the whole deal spinning, you turn on the vacuum motor, gently push down on the swing arm until it suctions into place, let the LP spin a few times until it’s dry, and then unscrew the clamp and remove the swing arm (an optional but highly suggested step). Given that one of the vacuum nozzles is on top and visible, it’s a little easier to see at a glance when the record is for-sure dry.
Then you need to re-sleeve your LP in a poly-lined sleeve. That’s not optional. You won’t find that advice in the manual, but I’ve found that if you clean a record and put it back in a paper sleeve, the next time you play it, it’s going to not only have pops and crackles, but it’s also going to be a staticky dust magnet.
I learned this lesson once and for all when I picked up a relatively nice copy of Al Di Meola’s Splendido Hotel for something like four bucks, plus or minus some cents. (I didn’t keep the receipt.) It had a few visible scratches, very light, but it had just been ultrasonically cleaned and I figured playback would be acceptable.
But when I got it home and dropped the stylus on it, the record sounded noisy as heck, with more snap, crackle, and pop than I could tolerate. I was just about to file it away in a crate of questionable-quality records—most of which I inherited from my mom and only listen to when my patience battery is completely recharged. But when I was re-sleeving the first disc, I noticed that it looked like someone had been sniffing nose candy off of it. The little fibers from the ancient paper were positively packed into the grooves of the record, and my Ortofon 2M Blue stylus had been angrily announcing its every encounter with them.
I came to a couple realizations nearly simultaneously. Realization the first: two LPs of nearly equal condition from one two-record set, both housed in identical sleeves, gave me an amazing opportunity to clean them separately on the Record Doctor VI and X to compare the results. Realization the second: I had no clue how to objectively compare the results other than to listen to them both and wave my hands generally in the direction of any perceived improvements.
So I did what any good nerd would do: I bought a pocket microscope. A cheap one. Like, an $18 one. But a good one nonetheless. I then took before photos through the microscope of the last track on side 2 and side 4 of the album, both as close to the matrix code in the dead wax as I could get, just to help me make sure the after photos were reasonably close to the same spot. Next I cleaned one LP with my Record Doctor VI and the other with the Record Doctor X, then took the after shots, moving the microscope around a bit just to make sure I hadn’t missed any debris purely by chance.
Before we get to the objective stuff, first a few subjective impressions. After cleaning and re-sleeving the platters in some Sleeve City sleeves (say “sleeve” one more time, I dare you! I double-dare you!), both discs of Splendido Hotel earned their rightful spot in my proper record collection. Honestly, it now sounds about as good as a 44-year-old record owned by anyone other than Joseph Taylor possibly could. A few tiny little pops accompany the worst scratches, but the surface noise is all but gone and the music is a delight to listen to.
OK, but surely the double suction and motorized operation of the Record Doctor X means that it cleans better, right? Well . . . in all of my testing, I’d say they came out about even. There’ve been a few times I thought the VI did a slightly better job, but who’s to say I didn’t apply more cleaning fluid on those sides, or scrub them a little better, or they just didn’t have as much gunk in them to begin with?
Here you can see the before and after shots of Splendido Hotel, side 2. This is a somewhat lively part of the song “Al Di’s Dream Theme,” although I’d say the after photo is probably closer to the start of the track. Also, apologies for the differences in lighting. I think I had the microscope ever so slightly tilted in the second shot, so the built-in light raked across the edges of the grooves a little more. Still, I think the results speak for themselves.
And here, by contrast, is a rather subdued passage from “Bianca’s Midnight Lullaby” on side 4, and to be frank, I’m not sure how far apart they are, but it’s a short song, so not far at all. Again, there’s not much need for commentary here, although I should again apologize for the raking light, a likely consequence of the fact that I was being more cautious with microscope placement after I’d put in the effort to clean the record.
If you’re reading this on Browsh or have visual impairments and can’t see the images, both before images show record grooves littered with little white spots of debris, and both after images show clean-if-somewhat-worn ridges and valleys without a bit of schmutz in them.
But which is which? Side 2 was cleaned with the Record Doctor X and side 4 with the Record Doctor VI. I think the only way I could do a better comparison would be to have two copies of the same record in the exact same condition.
Another great test—and one I didn’t scrutinize with the microscope because these records are just too damned valuable to run the risk—was the copy of the 20th-anniversary two-LP release of the Wicked original Broadway cast recording I bought last year with no intention of ever playing, because I didn’t even own a freaking turntable back then.
When I did finally get my ’table, it was one of the first records I cracked the shrink on. And the first time I played it, my heart was broken. As I said on a recent episode of the SoundStage! Audiophile Podcast, it sounded like someone dragging a rake through a sandbox full of kitty litter with a bit of musical accompaniment. So I ran the first disc through the Record Doctor VI and the second through the X and—again, I can’t objectively illustrate this—they both came out the other side sounding about as good as new vinyl can sound.
I don’t have a lot of other experience with new vinyl, given that the only new release I’ve bought since last month is King Gizzard & the Lizard Wizard’s recently released dad-rock masterpiece, Flight b741, and it didn’t need cleaning. Not immediately, at least. But you know what? I might eventually run it through the Record Doctor anyway because, as hinted at above, I’ve found that wet-cleaned records simply have less static and as such attract less dust in the long run.
But I’m making my way through a long backlog of sealed vinyl I’ve collected over the years or received as Christmas gifts, and I’d say that about a quarter of them really did need cleaning, right out of the polyolefin. So this sort of thing isn’t merely a necessity for people who frequent used record shops or thrift stores.
What other wet-cleaning solutions should you consider?
Bottom line: While roughly comparable in their cleaning capabilities, the Record Doctor VI is $270 cheaper (MSRP) and, frankly, easier to operate overall. I think spinning the platter by hand gives me more control over how I distribute the cleaning solution, it allows me to wiggle the platter back and forth a little if I need to really scrub a specific spot, and I like the fact that my records aren’t held in a screwed-down grip. The threads on the spindle of the X scare me a little, to be honest, and I feel like I have to be ten times as careful when putting a record on to clean it. The VI is also easier to store, easier to move from one spot in the home to another, and it has fewer mechanical parts prone to wear and tear or electrical failure.
Another potential advantage of the VI is that you can put a piece of wax paper over a portion of the vacuum slot, which will allow you to clean 45s. With the X, I couldn’t figure out any way of making this work, since it attacks records with suction from both the top and bottom, and holding two pieces of wax paper in precisely the right spots is just more dexterity than my middle-aged hands can muster.
For an even cheaper solution, if I’ve got a batch of records I need to clean, I’m more likely to reach for my Big Fudge Record Friend ($61.95), a Spin-Clean clone that also comes with a handy drying rack. You do need to towel the records off with a microfiber cloth, and you have to spin the records by hand between two cleaning brushes. But it does a nice job and I can easily clean 30 records in a go using the same tub of cleaning solution and distilled water.
The Pro-Ject VC-E2 compact record-cleaning vacuum machine ($499) is also worth considering. The vacuum arm for this one is sturdier and steadier, from what I’ve seen, although getting it into position involves lifting it up and repositioning it. Interestingly, there’s only upwards suction here—no dual vacuum slots working simultaneously. On the upside, though, Pro-Ject also sells an optional adapter for cleaning 7″ records. On the downside, the thing vents up top, below the record itself, which just doesn’t seem like a smart idea to me.
There’s also the very popular 3D-printed Squeaky Clean Vinyl MK-III ($135), but it requires you to add your own shop vac to the equation, so it’s not a really fair comparison.
If I had screw-you money, on the other hand, I would have my sights set on the VPI Industries HW-16.5 record cleaning machine ($999). I’ve also seen this one in action, and it’s robust as heck. The swing arm actually swivels freely—it drops itself down onto the record when you turn on the vacuum and swivels completely out of the way when you’re done cleaning—and the motor that spins the platter is much more consistent and powerful than that of the Record Doctor X.
TL;DR: Should you buy the Record Doctor X?
I’ll admit, the automated features of the Record Doctor X didn’t appeal to me as much as I thought they would. And it didn’t clean my records better than my VI. But that’s not to say there’s nothing going for it. If my wife were the keeper of our record collection and in charge of cleaning, I would probably opt for the X because she has more severe manual-dexterity issues than I do, thanks in part to her Ehlers-Danlos syndrome symptoms, and I think spinning the record by hand against the vacuum pressure of the cleaner might be a bit much for her after a record or two.
So if you have similar considerations, or you simply like a more automated approach and think the $270 price delta is worth it, the Record Doctor X does a great job. I just think a lot of people will be better served by the cheaper, easier-to-use, more portable Record Doctor VI. It’s still the best vinyl-related purchase I’ve made, aside from my turntable itself. I’ll tell you this for free, though: whatever wet-cleaning system you buy, make sure to buy some poly-lined sleeves to go with it, and get your records out of that godawful paper.
. . . Dennis Burger
dennisb@soundstagenetwork.com
Associated Equipment
- Integrated amp: NAD C 3050 BluOS-D
- Speakers: Paradigm Studio 100 v.5
- Speaker cables: Elac Sensible
- Turntable: U-Turn Audio Orbit Theory
- Record cleaner: Record Doctor VI
- Power conditioner: SurgeX XR115
Record Doctor X Dual-Sided Record Cleaning Machine
Price: $599.95
Warranty: One year
Pangea Audio Distributing
5500 Executive Parkway SE
Grand Rapids, MI 49512
Phone: 1-866-984-0677
Website: www.pangeaaudio.com
