Mr Kirmuss, Here you refer to your additive as an "ionizing surfactant" and as an "ionizing detergent", and as being "bipolar" in one instance. So, obviously that would be different from either Photoflow or Triton X100/Tween20, which are non-ionic detergents. When you say "bipolar", I wonder whether it is a Zwitterion. If so, how does that work to attract the cleaning agent into the grooves of an LP? Maybe it's a trade secret, but thanks if you see fit to respond.
Kirmuss audios ultrasonic record cleaner
I just noticed the new ultrasonic record cleaner now available from Kirmuss Audio for $800.00 and would like to get some input from people that already own an ultrasonic machine on what they think of this unit. I was just getting ready to start getting my ducks in a row to build one but for the cost of this unit why bother, besides I have enough to do already. What say you?
23 responses Add your response
Hello everyone! Thank you for those of you that have bought our groove restoration (not cleaning) system. I would like to answer some questions that have been unanswered, or need some clarification. 1) ISonic is not our machine. iSONIC is a reseller/distributor. While we use the same overseas manufacturer, it is reasonable for us to use a a well developed ultrasonic machine. This said: Both the OE manufacturer and we at my own facility in Shenzhen make changes to machine that belong to our Company, Our IP of record. Further, the record suspension assembly we have a patent for does not damage records and holds them without damage to the labels. The machines are not the same, and ours will not damage records. 2) As to our ionizing surfactant: vinyl records repel water. Sonics need to attract the plasma wave to the record. Just adding soap or a solvent in an ultrasonic's bath in a home made DIY or professional made system and keeping a record in a sonic even for hours in an ultrasonic will never remove what is in the record grooves. This as both the water in the tank and the record hold the same charge. They repel each other. We use our ionizing spray to temporarily change the charge of the record. The plasma wave from our 35 KHz transducer (with a 503 MPH wave) is attracted to the record and then brushes in the surfactant into the grooves. Repeated steps are needed as the ionizing agent is removed over time as the record spins in the distilled water. (By the way the 1.4 ounces of 70% IPA in 1.78 gallos of water is not part of the cleaning process, it is used to kill the dormant and live fungus that ends up in the ultrasonic's s tank.) The goat hair brush with a 15 micron diameter after each 2 or 5 minute cycle when brushing onto the record the ionizing agent sees a whitish material appear. This is what the sonic in its previous cycle "softened". (Just placing a record in a sonic without this repeated process sees no groove cleaning as the charge of the record in the water returns to the same as the water (with or without a cleaning agent in the basin)). We stop the back and forth process of applying our ionizing agent when the pad dried, goat hair brush, no longer brings up materials softened by the prior cycle in the machine. IS YOUR RECORD and GROOVES CLEAN, AND RESTORED? Our process as described lets you see the process. 3) Number of records that can be processed. We may process 4 records simultaneously. Processing time for all 4 records depends on the provenance of the record : 5 , 6 or 7 two minute cycles, or 4-5 five minute cycles. With our patented process one sees what is left in the grooves. And when the grooves are clean with release agent removed. 4) Operation: Over the cycles where we re-apply the ionizing agent to the record; we remove first the films left over from prior cleaning methods used that were air dried or vacuum dried. We then remove the release agent of a new pressing or one that is 70 + years old. It is here where most of the pops reside, where dust has been micro-welded by the heat created by the dyne of the needle into the release agent. Release agent released, we now see between 1.3 and 4+ dB gain in signal over floor from your cartridge. 5) Sonic Frequency: Higher the frequency, smaller the cavitating bubble, higher the speed of the plasma wave created. One would assume as a layman higher is better. Care and Caution: Vinyl is soft. Using an ionizing agent on a record inserted into a sonic that operates at 40 KHz or higher damages the record. Do not use our bipolar agent outside of our system. Added: pouring our surfactant into the basin of some ultrasonics such as Audio Deske sees the pump seize. This where their cleaning agent in the tank mixes with what was removed from the record and our diol. Adding our surfactant into any sonic's bath serves no purpose as one needs to ionize the record over repeated cycles. Our surfactant in the bath does nothing to the restoration process. 6) Other mixes: Photoflow is not to be used in any cleaning process. It was designed for repelling water in the development of film and photos (paper). To avoid water spotting. To clean a record we need to attract a cleaning agent and process to the record. Proof to the statement: Pouring soap and water or a cleaning agent on a record that is suspended horizontally sees the water "pool", "float" on the record. The water droplet size is larger that the 30 micron groove width, and is repelled, so if one reviews the above, one can see the logic we bring to the record groove restoration process. Hope the above responds to some of the points raised. As The Absolute Sound in March 2020 stated: Billed as a record restoration device (not just a record cleaner), you'll be rewarded with a more spacious soundstage and truer instrumental timbre. In April 2020: It works with time and patience. Questions: Contact me, Charles Kirmuss, KirmussAudio . We are all custodians of records. Our process can restore the brilliance to records new and old, even ones that were owned by your parents and grandparents. Removing the polishes from other cleaning agents may expose the many surface scratches on the record, but now with release agent removed, the needle now rides on the true mirror of the lacquer as represented by the stamper. |
I don’t follow their recommended procedure. I tried it but I prefer my current method as noted in my previous post. See the link below for their products. https://www.kirmussaudio.net/index.php?route=product/category&path=60_67 |
I have the Kirmuss. Although I have not compared it to any other ultrasonic cleaner, I am pleased with its performance. I tried their record cleaning chemical but I changed to using Tergikleen. My method consist of doing a per-clean with my spin clean and Wash it cleaner, followed by the Kirmuss and Tergikleen. Then I vacuum clean with my project and TM-8. As as far as their other products are concerned I will vouch for their record brush. I believe all of the accessories that come with the Machine may be purchased separately from their website. |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
I have a Kirmuss preordered and it should be arriving by the 15th of next month. But in comparing the I-Sonic someone has mentioned above, the I-Sonic is basically lacking a motorized spidle to rotate the Records and is basically not set up for cleaning Records, specifically. It’s set up for carberators and jewelry, the listing on Amazon says. The I-Sonic is cavitating at a higher frequency which Kirmuss says is inappropriate for safely cleaning Records and shellacs. I’m happy to spend extra to get a device that takes the risk and manual labor out of the equation. Time is the most valuable asset each of us has. If I can spend a little extra money to have more time to do the things that make me happy, then it’s worth the cost. |
| Post removed |
@islandmandan, $200.00 versus $800.00 sounds good and will follow your lead of checking it out on DIY, with that said and the fact that you have an ultrasonic cleaner , could you give your opinion of the Kirmuss as far as anything you see that might or could be an issue if I decide to go that way. Thanks |
