Kirmuss Cleaning System Discuss?

@dwette I have a similar system.  I use an Audiodesk for my initial cleaning.  I like that it is a physical cleaning as well as ultrasonic with the rollers.  I use the Audiodesk cleaning fluid.  I follow up with a rinse/wash in a Degritter using only the Degritter rinse fluid.  90% of the records I clean are very nearly as quiet as a CD and have at most one or two minimal clicks or pops.  If there’s no physical damage most records play as mint.  I am convinced that there is no better cleaning system currently available, though it ain’t cheap.

I have a Kirmuss. I also have an Audio Desk. The Kirmuss system is way too fussy, manually involved and time consuming. After some successes with it I ended up not using it for well over a year, mostly because I couldn't deal with the fuss and time.

Now I have changed my approach.I was about out of the Kirmuss fluid which is very expensive, and didn't want to follow that tedious procedure any more. I bought a vial of Tergikleen and now use that. I run used/dirty records through the Kirmuss with Tergikleen for 20 minutes (10 minutes and then flip the sides...not that flipping makes a difference). Then I run them through the Audio Desk. I use the Audio Intelligent Vinyl Solutions ultrasonic formula for that.

I've been getting much better results than I ever did with the official Kirmuss process, and the cost of consumables is vastly diminished too.

^ Exactly ditto. Except that I have added a DIY ultrasonic to my HW-17, using the latter to dry the LP after cleaning in the former. For really dirty used LP’s I pre-clean in the kitchen sink (well, above the sink) using the info in the Neil Antin "book". Any ol’ record cleaning brush (or even the paint brush pads used for doing edges), and Liquinox (by Alconox) as a detergent for removing very heavy, dried on schmutz (love that word ;-), the LP held by one of those record "handle" devices available on ebay for peanuts. Then a thorough rinse using tap water (the horror!), and into the ultrasonic tank filled with distilled water. Dry with the HW-17, then hit with the Furutech DeStat III, a fantastic anti-static device.

If an LP needs scrubbing, I put a loose cork platter mat on top of the one attached to the HW-17’s platter (for the dirty side), removing it after cleaning the top side (with a hand held brush; the attached one in the VPI is used only to dispense distilled water) and flip over the LP. The HW-17 is also handy for a quick dusting (it takes only a minute to do both LP sides); hand held brushes just don’t work in my experience (my first was the Cecil E. Watts Preener, my second the Discwasher), but if you must use one get yourself a DeStat III (to neutralize the inevitable static charge left behind), far better than the Zerostat.

Kirmuss? Life is too short!

Mijo, Your hubris in unabashedly recommending whatever it is you have already decided upon as the only and best choice for everything is so bald-faced that I find it inoffensive and sometimes even charming. You got wherever you are by thinking and experiencing your way to it, so that’s fine. In this case, I actually am in the same boat. I watched Mr Kirmuss clean an LP at the CAF some few years ago. I am sure it works wonders, but I knew in advance I would rarely if ever use it because of the time needed per LP. As a biologist with experience using detergents of both major types in a laboratory to solubilize cellular organelles, I was also a bit concerned about the white stuff that shows up after step 1.  Mr Kirmuss assures us that this is evidence of the grundge that needs to be removed, but I wondered whether the cleaning solution itself plays a role in its generation. (I also emphatically agree with Mijo that you’d want uncontaminated cleaning solution, fresh for each LP or at least every few LPs.) I use a VPI HW17, which does everything that the Clearaudio does but slower and more manually and probably more noisily, but also more inexpensively. I keep the HW17 in my basement workshop, and if I find an LP that I am about to play is obviously in need of a wash, I put it aside until I have a bunch of them that need cleaning. Then I take a small stack to my workshop for a cleaning session.

@neonknight , Air drying is an unfortunate mistake, towelling then air drying is even worse. You can safely assume everything, towels, the cleaning solution, etc are contaminated with all kinds of things like your fingerprints and fabric softener. You use fresh fluid to clean the record then vacuum everything off and don't touch the record with anything else. There are many machines that meet this requirement. I think from a performance and build quality perspective the Clearaudios and the Nessie vinylmaster are the best units out there. Fan and air drying are a definitive no-no. Air dry a record and leave a few large droplets on there to magnify the process. Orient the record under the light and examine the surface. What you will see are water spots, just like your car. If you think using distilled water will stop this, try it and see. Vacuum drying is the single best way to keep the record from becoming re-contaminated. 

Ultrasonic cleaning is a fad. It is in no way superior and complicates the process requiring a second device to vacuum dry the record. While you are drying one side the other is dripping all over the place.

I would not call cleaning records fun. The trick is to spend as little time as possible doing it. It should also be convenient and readily accessible. You pick out a record to play and notice it is dirty or staticy.  You want to waste 1/2 hour getting it to the platter? Wouldn't you rather toss it on a machine, push a button and have your record to play, crystal clean in 3 minutes? Pick a device that gets as close to that ideal as possible. No ultrasonic machine comes close to that ideal cleaning and drying the record correctly.  You may actually be better off using just a conductive sweep arm to remove any incidental dust and discharge any static.

I used an old Nitty Gritty 1.0 for many years.  A few years back I picked up a cheap ultrasonic cleaner off Amazon and have since used the Nitty Gritty for drying.  Works great but of course YMMV.

I had one and I liked it better than my Loricraft but it was a bit too much of a process. My Degritter is easier to use and gets better results. Plus I don’t have to deal with the white paste anymore.

A friend of mine had the Kirmuss "restoration" system for a year or so. I used it with him several times for records that were older and had that old book smell.

The system works. It made the older records sound a lot better. As a lab scientist and a physician, I think the seminars that Kirmuss gives are not convincing. Just no evidence for a whole lot of what he puts our there as truth. If you really followed his method, I don't think you would ever stop the cycles of scrubbing, ultrasonic bath, drying and scrubbing some more. You end up just getting tired of it, giving up and moving on to the next one. Great example of how perfect is the enemy of good.

My friend now had a DeGritter machine (like I do) and cleans a lot more records. That system works too and is ten times more convenient. Just pay attention to water changes and filter changes. The DeGritter's drying system blows air to push the water off the record.  The small amount of residual fluid that you cannot see and rapidly evaporates, leaving a residue, is probably not significantly different compared to cloth wipes or vacuum suction.  

Here are my thoughts. 

As some have mentioned, you don't have to go through the entire process if you don't think its necessary. It functions as any other ultrasonic tank. Although it becomes an expensive system to do so. 

The idea that records spacing and direction of the ultrasonic devices matters, appears to make sense, and the tests with foil corroborate this. I cannot see how this arrangement cannot be beneficial. 

The two 33 1/3 record is a limitation for sure. Wish it could do more. But the drop in the slot set up is convenient and that looks beneficial. 

Changing fluid after 25 records. This point should apply to any ultrasonic tank, as all records will be dirty to an extent. If you are using it for touch up, then I imagine the time interval can be extended. Unless you can filter to the micron level every tank is going to suffer from this issue. 

Finally, the noise level question is in regards to using it in my dining room which is just off my audio room. It would be nice to run it and still have music playing in the background while I wait. I have a 2 by 2 cube I have records in which would be a nice place to store it. I can use the dining room table for sleeves and processing while I clean, and then put everything away in a jiffy. If I can listen to casual music during the process that is a plus. 

Oh as far as drying goes. I have noticed in my current ultrasonic tank that records come out pretty dry as is, and given a bit of time they do air dry quickly. I also tried drying with a VPI 16.5 and then later a Record Doctor since its orientation is more favorable for doing ultrasonic cleaned records. I am not convinced this is a benefit over air drying. I think the opportunity to add noise exists here. 

You want to spend the rest of your life cleaning records? This is the silliest system on the market. 

Rules of the road. A machine must use fresh fluid with each cleaning. There is more than particulate matter in the environment. There is all sorts of stuff in the air and on the record that gets dissolved in the fluid. Filters will not remove it. If you then fan or air dry the record you evaporate the water and leave everything else on the record. like paint. The record must be vacuum dried. It is the only way to remove almost everything from the record. As far as ultrasonic cleaning vs agitation with a microfiber brush goes, I would bet there is no difference at all. IMHO the best machines on the market are the Clearaudios and the Nessie. The Clearaudio Double Matrix is the only machine that meets all these requirements and does both sides at the same time with a cleaning cycle of 3 minutes. It is expensive but worth every cent.

@tom2015 Well the reality is every company needs a story to separate itself from their competitors. We can say the product sells itself, but that really isn't the truth. 

It can be used without the extra treatment. 5min cleans 3 records and removes most of the dirt. Very few of my records needed more then 2 5 mins cleanings.

yes, drying off is manual…

The whole surfactant story seems half marketing half truth. I have not seen the white residue on many records so I considered the spray optional.

It must be nice to be that easily amused.

@tannoytim  funniest post of the day who cleans LP's  in the same room  or while listening?

Simple simon. . 

To be honest I don't think it works any better than my degritter. And there's no way you can listen to music in the same room as it, it's very noisy. I would not recommend it.

The concept of "restoration" makes sense, but that's about it.

I've had a LP cleaned by Mr. Kirmuss at a show. While the end result did what's expected, it's not for everyone. Much to "hands on" for me, if you want to do the complete cleaning according to Kirmuss.

You don't have to do the multi-step process and just clean an LP like the rest.

If you have a lot of used LP's of questionable quality, along with lots of time to burn, it seems just as good as others for the price point.

Love my Kirmuss, so having clean vinyl is a pia but this system is simply the best.

Otherwise enjoy the dirt. 

Yeah I agree with @tannoytim it worked ok but it's like 21 steps! A real PITA to use. After less than a month it sat unused so sold it. No regrets.

That is interesting that it worked well. Because that seems to lead credence to the ideas of using the surfactant to get the cleaning power deeper into the grooves. 

Did you notice the tell tale signs on records as you did the second or third cleaning step with reapplying the surfactant and running it though another cycle?

The process does seem time consuming. But is the unit quiet enough that it can be in the same room while you work on cleaning? With my current ultrasonic tank I have it in the garage cause its too loud to listen to. 

It worked pretty well, but was a massive pain to use. Took so much time, was fiddly and requires a fair bit of bench space. I sold it pretty quickly.

I don't think it's worth it. I'd either get one of the converted generic US cleaners (with fan dry) or a degritter.