KLaudio or Degritter Mark II

@oldaudiophile,

Below is a compare and contrast I did for someone regarding the Degritter vs the KLAudio.  This post is a quick overview of some of rules with ultrasonic cleaning: Audiogon Discussion Forum to refesh if needed.  Note that owning neither of these devices, I am presenting info only as an unbiased consultant. Hopefully the information presented can be of some help to you.  Otherwise, each has its pluses and minuses, cost notwithstanding.  

Take care, Neil

1. Price:

a. The Degritter MKII is about $3,300. The only real add on's are a 2nd tank at $120 Search (musicdirect.com)

b. The KLAudio starts at $6500 and with add-ons such multiple record cleaning kit and silencer and you can add another $4.8K Vinyl Records, SACDs, DVD Audio, Audiophile Equipment|Acoustic Sounds

2. Appearance & Construction & Support.

a. The Degritter outside skin is plastic. There are no internal photos available, so the quality of the internal construction is unknown. But Degritter has been very supportive of its customers and has supported with procedures those that are willing to performed DIY warranty work; so, their unit is repairable.

b. The KLAudio is slabs of aluminum. Internal photos that are available show a pretty robust repairable construction -Klaudio LP200 Ultrasonic Record Cleaner - Driver Board Replacement - Audionirvana.org. KLAudio support is not as apparent as Degritter, but that could be a function of having less problems. Arizona-Mike (now very well-known from the MoFi debacle) did a nice review of the new KLAudio 200T The Best Way To CLEAN and STORE Your Records + KLaudio 200s & 200t Ultrasonic Cleaner Review - Bing video

3. Durability:

a. The Degritter is not an industrial unit and whether it will last consistently past cleaning 3000 records is unknown.  One person has reported 10,000, while many report failures about 3000.  But Degritter did recently announce that they would be offering a rebuild for $610 - Degritter Users | Page 117 | Steve Hoffman Music Forums so that shows depth of support.  Also, Degritter frequently updates the software that operates the unit.  

b. KLAudio has not offered any similar standard rebuild, but the experience of Arizona Mike and Bill Hart @whart of the The Vinyl Press - should give confidence. Whether KLAudio who stopped and then is now back to selling (exclusive to Acoustic Sounds who I believe bought a minimum # of units) could give one pause, but the company in general appears robust still developing new products.  KLAudio is not known for updating operating software.

c. The Degritter pump and valves are a weakness. Part of the problem is that the pump is internal and is small. The new KLAudio 200T with the external pump & filter offers a much more robust and easier to repair design. But do you have the requisite space - The Ultrasonic vinyl cleaner owners thread | Page 34 | Steve Hoffman Music Forums. The Degritter does have a 'flush' routine that is used to keep the valves clean.  But the Degritter design does need to prime the pump where the external KLAudio is kept immersed all the time - see below.  

4. Cleaning Agents:

a. The Degritter allows use of other cleaning agents, but the pump/filter system is sensitive to foaming, so only very low (or no) foaming cleaning agents can be used. Its best to just use the Degritter Cleaning Fluid except better to use only 1 ml to 1.5 ml per tank. The Degritter Cleaning Fluid is nothing more than a wetting/rinse aid.  Degritter has updated their software to add a rinse cycle where you would swap tanks with one filled only with DIW.

b. KLAudio is specific manual_kd-cln-lp200t_d100eng.pdf (klaudio.com) about stating not to use any cleaning agent, and states:  Distilled water is not recommended, because the electrical conductivity may be too low for the cleaner to begin the wash cycle.  This is likely due to the water level sensors. I would be very hesitant to use tap water.  Bottled water such as Dasani water-analysis-report-2019.pdf (dasani.com) shows TDS at 36 ppm which is not bad.  You may get by with using 50:50 of Dasani:DIW for a TDS about 20 ppm (measured with a good TDS meter -COM-100 – hmdigital.com).

5. What about cleaning a record:

a. The Degritter is 120kHz, 300W (four 75W transducers) and 1.4L tank. This is powerful unit, but keep in mind that as the kHz increases, they require more power for cavitation. The cavitation bubble is about 20 microns, so it can get into the groove, but the small diameter limits cavitation intensity which can impact ability to clean heavy surface detritus. But the wetting solution can offset this. But some people find that unless a rinse cycle is applied with a 2nd tank, that cleaner residue can affect the playback fidelity - softening of the high frequencies. Overall, the higher kHz does limit how well this can clean dirty used records - and most people use something else for preclean.

b. The KLAudio is 40kHz, 200W (four 50W transducers) and 0.77L tank (someone recently measured). This is a very powerful unit for this kHz (make no mistake the most powerful of these UT all-in-one record cleaning units) and the cavitation bubble at about 75 microns while not getting into the groove should be very effective for surface detritus, but the very high cavitation intensity/jetting (from the very high power) should reach deep into the groove. The lack of using any wetting solution can limit how well this can clean dirty used records - and most people use vacuum RCM or manual process for preclean.

c. Both units use a fan air-dry, and depending on your local environment, dust/lint can be deposited during the drying process.  Placing a HEPA filter in the general area should help.  

6. Bath Management:

a. The Degritter has a small filter of limited performance at best is 75 microns. They recommend replacing the bath once/week or about every 25-30 records - Degritter-manual-v2.2-ENG.pdf. If you want better cleaning - replace the bath more frequently. The filter needs to be periodically cleaned and replacements are inexpensive - but these do not begin to approach the KLAudio. 

b. The KLAudio new design has its filter external to the unit and is much larger than the Degritter.  KLAudio states "When using the filter, the distilled water should be replaced about every 500 discs, every few weeks, or if the water appears particularly dirty". If you want your records clean, replace the water more frequently - do not wait until the water is visibly dirty, otherwise you are cleaning record with dirty fluid. KLAudio does not specify the filter micron rating, but from the pictures and cost, it appears to be probably a standard 5” cartridge that is readily available at 5-micron Pentek P Series Spec Sheet (pentair.com).  Note that due to the low-head (discharge pressure) submersible centrifugal pump that KLAudio uses, a finer filter would present too much pressure drop.

7. Work Throughput:

a. The Degritter will go into a cool-down cycle (35C) after about two Heavy clean cycles. At medium and below most people report good throughput without the unit going into a cool-down. The cool-down is just simply 300W into 1.4L water; it can heat the water as much as 5.5F/min.

b. The KLAudio reservoir holds much more water (~2.5L) than the unit actually needs which does a couple of items: It keeps the pump primed, and it helps to keep the water cool. Assuming no thermal losses, 200W can heat 770-ml about 6-degF/min. If you were to a run a 5-min cycle (first run of the day) when the unit drained down - the temperature of the drain hose should feel warm compared to the reservoir. After a number of cycles, the reservoir should warm up, and eventually with ambient at low-mid-70's, reach some equilibrium temperature.  But with an external tank, that should be enough to prevent any over-temp issue - the KLAudio manual says it alarms at 40C.  

8. Other:

a. The Degritter has a very good operating manual Update your record cleaner software | Degritter - the KLAudio is more an installation manual.

b. The Degritter warranty is 2-yrs. The KLAudio appears to be just 1-yr.
 

@oldaudiophile,

First some observations on your current cleaning regime: 

1. The 15-ml of Tergitol 15-S-9 in a 6L bath = [(15-ml)/(6000-ml)]x100% = 0.25% which is 5-10X greater than what I recommend in the book - XIV.9.4.  Did you mean 15-ml or 1.5ml?
2. The spacing of 11/16 is too close for a 40-kHz machine, 1" would be better.
3. The CleanerVinyl: Ultrasonic Vinyl Cleaning Systems pump is 1.5-lpm (it does not filter the tank in 4-min, more on that later).  If you are cleaning 3-records at time with the pump operating and you plug & chug into the equation XIV.5.3.e, you get 0.5-rpm, so you are good here.
4. The UT tank RoHS Model 30A 180W ultrasonic power - what is this?  Is this one of the low-cost Chinese units such as Ultrasonic Cleaner PS-30A - China Ultrasonic Cleaner (made-in-china.com)?  How much does the water heat-up after 15-min, after 30-min.  There is advertised power and then there is real-power that gets into the bath.
5. Using the equation XIV.15.3, a 1.5-lpm pump/filter will take about 14-min to filter 97.5% of the tank. 
6. As far as Last Record Treatment, my position is to leave the record with a residue-free surface.  But I acknowledge other people's opinions, and no further comment.  

Now on to the Elamsonic P60, and I have worked with a number of people setting up their process.  

1. The Elmasonic P-series UCM is dual frequency - 37kHz and 80kHz; with pulse power and the P60H PP_Elmasonic_P60H_EN.pdf (elma-ultrasonic.com) is a 6L tank. Elmasonic has an excellent operator manual - Elmasonic P Ultrasonic Cleaning Units - Operating Instructions (elma-ultrasonic.co.nz). The Elmasonic P-series are powerful units.  The Elamsonic rating appears real since the tank heats accordingly from user experience; and if running sequential cycles, you may need to stop periodically to allow the tank to cool or install a cooler/radiator (addressed book XIV.15.2) to allow high throughput.
2. With the dual frequency you get the best of both worlds, the 37kHz for precleaning and then 80kHz for final cleaning. For the few really dirty records - clean them manually then clean with UCM. Note: with the dual frequency you should secure the pump/filter when operating at 37kHz (depending on # of records) but then operate the pump/filter at 80kHz. At higher frequencies, cavitation is not affected by tank flow rate. It has to do with the cavitation bubble size that is proportional to the kHz.
3. The general process for the Elamasonic P-series is the first phase is run at 80% power for 10 minutes under the auto frequency change mode where the tank runs at 37kHz for 30 seconds then it switches to 80kHz for 30 seconds, back and forth. The second phase runs for 10 minutes at 80kHz at 100% power or 100% in pulse power.
4. Bottom firing transducers may provide a cleaning benefit. In a traditional UCM with bottom firing transducers, the acoustic waves that are propagating upward through the liquid will reflect downward from the fluid surface. When reflected downward the acoustic waves will combine with the upward acoustic wave and the subsequent wave can be constructive(amplifying) if in-phase or destructive (attenuated) if out of phase. Ultimately areas/layers of higher acoustic energy/cavitation (standing waves) will form and there will be areas/layers of lower acoustic energy/cavitation. The standing waves tend to layer at a distance 1/2 of the wavelength with the book Table XXI showing the wavelengths and resultant standing wave of common UCMs frequencies; highlighted blue. The spacing of the standing wave is relative to themselves. Their position in the tank relative to a fixed point is dependent on the reflected surface – is it hard or soft; water height and other factors such as the type of transducer and water temperature. But the record(s) is rotating and standing waves may be beneficial since the record is exposed to a scrubbing type action as the record alternately moves from areas of lower cavitation intensity to areas of higher cavitation intensity and the Elmasonic pulse function should further enhance the scrubbing action.

This setup tima's DIY RCM | What's Best Audio and Video Forum. The Best High End Audio Forum on the planet! (whatsbestforum.com) uses two UT tanks using the P120 with the high-end filtration system addressed in the book with a 2nd cheaper 12L UT for rinse.

Let me emphasize that the P-series are powerful units.  One individual was running at 0.15-rpm and allowed the tank to reach 50C, and one record was damaged (a molted surface occurred - but played OK).  Lesson learned - do not spin to slow and do not let the tank get to hot.

Now for the extensional question - will the Elamasomic P60 yield a cleaner record than what you are getting now - it may.  Depends on what you are cleaning.  But if you are pre-cleaning before UT, you should be able to just use a no-rinse bath of Tergitol 15-S-9 at 0.004%.  This is 0.24-ml per tank.  This is 6-drops from a Nalgene Dropper Bottle Nalgene 2 oz. Leakproof Travel Dropper Bottle | The Container Store.  The Nalgene Dropper Bottle delivers accurately 0.04-ml/drop - Factors to consider in accuracy and precision of Nalgene Dropper Bottles (thermofisher.com).  For this no-rinse formula, 2% IPA can make a difference, but if using the bath for extended periods (weeks), you will need to periodically re-add Tergitol and IPA.  

As I always say, the devil is in the details, and the best cleaning process is the one that is best for you.

Take care,

Neil

 

@oldaudiophile, 

(1)  I did, indeed, use 15ml of Tergitol.  Using 0.9ml to achieve a 0.015% concentration seemed like so vanishingly little.  I did not encounter any issues or problems with foaming.  Also, I continue to struggle with the idea of possibly using a little alcohol in the cleaning process, either in the US cleaning cycle or the Knosti pre-cleaning step, because the records I've been cleaning (i.e.  my core collection) are already very, very clean.

Tergitol 15-S-9 is a very powerful nonionic surfactant.  The critical micelle concentration (CMC) as listed in the book is 52-ppm =~0.0052%.  The CMC is the concentration that gives the lowest surface tension.  Greater than the CMC, micelles are formed, and they are what provide detergency.   There is little benefit of more than 5XCMC - you do not get better cleaning, only a higher residue bath that can be more difficult to rinse.  Otherwise, do not worry about the alcohol.

(2)  If I reduce my throughput, so to speak, to 2 records instead of 3, the records would be spaced by approximately 1.25".  Would that make a huge or significant difference?  Would 1 record at a time be better still?  Also, what impact would this have on rotational speed?

Your process is fine, just try to increase the spacing between the records, and keep the records away from the tank walls.  Reducing to cleaning just 2-records spaced 1.25" apart may have some subtle benefit - it opens the space between the records reduces the 'load' on the tank but leave the rotation speed at 0.5-rpm.  A rotation speed of 0.5-rpm is proving pretty much optimal for bottom firing UT record cleaning based on user's reports.

Based on your observation that the water can heat 4C (7.2F) in 15-min = ~0.5F/min, something is happening.  The P1 12L Elamsonic heats at about 50% higher, and the P60 6L Elamsonic heats at about 2X.  

According to LAST's marketing/advertising, this solution or treatment is supposed to meld or bond on a molecular level with PVC...

That has been disputed and proven wrong many times.  It just a fluorinated solvent with a very low vapor pressure (high boiling point) fluorinated oil dissolved in it.  When the solvent evaporates, the fluorinated oil (its used in vacuum pumps and satellites) remains behind.  The fluorinated oil is very stable and will not meld or bond to the record.  If you search this forum, @wizzzard who is a chemist, did a very good job of analyzing LAST. 

Take care,

Neil

@oldaudiophile,

Solution of distilled water + 0.01% or 0.015% Tergitol 15-S-9 + 1% Alconox Liquinox in the Knosti as a pre-cleaning step.

Please do not get creative with the Tergitol and Liquinox - there is no need.  Just use the Liquinox which is a combination of anionic and nonionic surfactants for pre-clean.  However, only use 0.5% Liquinox - less carryover to the US machine.  The 1% is good for manual clean with tap-water rinse.  Otherwise, only use the Knosti for really gross records.  

Use of the Elma Sonic P60H with distilled water + 0.01% to 0.15% Tergitol 15-S-After degassing, run 2 or 3 records (2 would achieve a 1.25" separation; 3 would be 11/16") 

Adjust the Tergitol concentration to 0.0135 to 0.0150%.  When you clean records with the Elmasonic recalling what I said previous here is a procedure:

Heat the water to about 28C and then secure the heaters.  Then spin at 0.5 rpm (2-min for 1-revolution), and wash with two phases. The first phase is run at 80% power for 6, 8 or 10 minutes (3, 4 or 5 complete revolutions) using the P60's auto frequency change mode where the tank runs at 37kHz for 30 seconds then it switches to 80kHz for 30 seconds, back and forth. The second phase runs for 6, 8 or 10 minutes at 80kHz at 100% power.  The ultrasonics will heat the water and after 12, 16 or 20-min total, the bath may be 35C, but stay less than about 38C (100F).  With spin speed at 0.5 rpm, adjusting time in 2-min increments gets whole numbers (no fractions) of evolutions.

I'm not sure how to approach an immediate final rinse with distilled water.  I'm thinking of transferring the records immediately over to my present 40kHz US machine for this. 

Use the 40kHz US machine for rinsing similar to what @tima does here:  tima's DIY RCM | What's Best Audio and Video Forum. The Best High End Audio Forum on the planet! (whatsbestforum.com).  The rinse cycle at 0.5-rpm would be 6 or 8-min with no heat other than what the US provide.  Then allow the records to air dry in a clean area - placing a HEPA filter (does not need to be a large unit) in the 'clean area' will limit the amount of incidental lint that drops on the records while drying.  To speed up drying, you can try adding 0.003% Tergitol to the rinse tank.  This reduces the surface tension of the water enough to wet the record, and when you remove the records, the amount of water that is on the record should be less, ergo they dry faster.

Take care,

@oldaudiophile,

As I think I may have mentioned earlier, most of my core collection of LP records are already relatively clean.  Should I avoid using the Knosti & Liquinox pre-clean step for those, altogether, or does that matter at all?  I don't mind doing this pre-clean step at all, unless it might be detrimental or superfluous.  I do have some very old records I inherited from my folks when they passed (e.g.  33's and 78s of Sinatra, Como, Mario Lanza, etc.).  Maybe the Knosti pre-clean step should be relegated to those?    

If your records are reasonably clean, meaning they are visibly clean - yes you can skip the pre-clean with Liquinox.  But doing the pre-clean step is not going to harm.

Now a big caveat, everything I have been discussing is for vinyl records, not lacquer/shellac which are very different, and I have very limited knowledge.  What little I known is here is the Library of Congress procedure: Cleaning Lacquer Discs — NEDCC. Cleaning lacquer/shellac records is not something I have dived into. But I am confident that Tergitol 15-S-9 can be safely substituted for Tergitol 15-S-7. In 2007, sd_bp_07.pdf (indiana.edu) recommended: Lacquer (nitrocellulose laminate) discs are cleaned using a solution that is 0.25 parts Tergitol 15-S-3, 0.25 parts Tergitol 15-S-9, 98.5 parts deionized water, and 1-part clear ammonia.

The blend Tergitol 15-S-3 (which is insoluble in water) & Tergitol 15-S-9 (which is soluble in water) are the constituents of the commercial product Tergikleen. I am not a fan of Tergikleen (which my book discusses in Chapter IX) because of the insoluble Tergitol 15-S-3 ingredient.

But let me call your attention to these 'details' from the paper/book sd_bp_07.pdf (indiana.edu):

-The advantage of the ammonia is that it minimizes the amount of mechanical scrubbing required to remove palmitic acid as well as minimizes the amount of exposure of the laminate to water, as water can cause the laminate to swell and delaminate.

-Discs with a compromised lacquer layer (i.e. cracks or signs of delamination) should not be cleaned with an aqueous solution as this will accelerate delamination.

-Lacquer discs receive a final rinse with a solution that is 99.75 parts deionized water and 0.25 parts Disc Doctor solution. The Disc Doctor solution is used to lower the surface tension, allowing water to push down into the grooves for more thorough rinsing. I would avoid this practice. Not knowing what is in Disc Doctor solution this is not smart. You could just add 0.003% Tergitol 15-S-9 (this is less than 1-drop/Liter-DIW) and get the same reduced surface tension results with little risk of residue.

Beyond what I have addressed above, which would apply to manual cleaning with a label protector that is pretty much the extent of my knowledge. However, for manual cleaning with a label protector I would recommend using Tergitol 15-S-9 at only 0.1% instead of 0.5% which is way more than necessary. Additionally, I would recommend the Record Doctor brush with initial tap water and then DIW spray like the book says. For use with a vacuum-RCM, I would avoid the 1% ammonia and just use Tergitol 15-S-9 at 0.05% (as specified in the book) to avoid any corrosion of the vacuum-RCM and ease of rinse. Records that showed need for the 1% ammonia (+Tergitol 15-S-9) would best be cleaned manually with the label protector. I would recommend for the Groovemaster, the modifications I address on page 33 of the book for ease of use.

Otherwise, I would need to research in much greater detail to provide any additional guidance. Lacquer/shellac records used a variety of fillers and how each may respond to any kind of cleaning process that exposes the edge to extended periods of immersion (such as UT) would need to be considered and inspection procedures developed to allow segregating those at risk of delamination. There hopefully would be info available that differentiates the filler used by each pressing plant/label. If UT was to even be a consideration, it would need to be 80-kHz or above, at low power (the variable power of the Elmasomic P-series would be best) and probably near room temperature (a pump/radiator could control the temperature).   But I am no longer retired, and I do not have the time to do a deep dive into cleaning lacquer/shellac records to where I would be confident in my recommendations.

By "and then secure the heaters", do you mean heat the tank water to 26C and then shut off the heat for US cleaning, as the US activity heats the tank water anyway?

Yes.

...it, seems to indicate that a 20-minute total US cleaning cycle in the Elma Sonic P60H would be safe.  Do I understand that correctly? 

20-min is safe at a spin speed of 0.5-rpm and at a max temperature not to exceed 100F.  For reference based on a user experience, 20-min at a spin speed of 0.15 rpm reaching a temperature of 122F is not safe.

Should 20-minute cleaning cycles be reserved for very dirty records or does that matter?

That depends on how clean the record is to start and how many records you are cleaning - is it 1, 2, or 3.  The dirtier the record and/or the more records you clean at-once, the higher the bath load, the longer the duration.  I the records are dirty, cleaning 3 at a time is not recommended.  But at this point, I stop making any definitive recommendation, and let you do your own experimentation to develop your own process.  

Good Luck

Neil

@oldaudiophile, 

Someone recently asked me to assist them with cleaning lacquer/shellac records, so you pretty much got the same answer.  Otherwise, all for a good cause.

Take care & good luck,

Neil

@cleeds,

It takes little space...

Do you have the latest LP200T version with the external pump/filter?  manual_kd-cln-lp200t_d100eng.pdf (klaudio.com)

@oldaudiophile, 

".in a two-tank protocol employing my present 40kHz US machine and the Elma Sonic P60H, would using a 6L 180W, 132kHz cleaning power, 200W heating power, instead of the P60H achieve better results?"

Recall that as the kHz increases, the power required for cavitation increases. The Degritter 120kHz while using a small tank (that requires more power) is 300W and 1.4-L = (300W/1.4L) = 214 W/L.

Your 132-kHz, 6L 180W is the same power as a 40kHz unit = (180W/6L) = 30 W/L.  The Elmasonic P60 PP_Elmasonic_P60H_EN.pdf (elma-ultrasonic.com) 37/80-kHz shows an effective power of 180-W, but with a peak ultrasonic performance of 720W and based on user experience the power is real - it gets into the tank.

What do you think?

@oldaudiophile,

I am not sure of your problem.  Do not operate the pump/filter during the 1st 10-mins when then tank is switching between 37 & 80 kHz and then run the pump/filter for the next 10 min which is at fixed 80 khz.  At continuous 80-kHz, there is no problem with running the pump/filter.  

Otherwise, WRT your alternate process, the 15-20 minutes in the 40kHz tank for is probably overkill, the general consensus is that much beyond 12-min is of limited benefit.  Also, with the tank at 37C (98.6F) the humidity above the tank will be high, so drying will be compromised.  But after all is said and done, this is your process.  At this point I have provided you all the info I can provide.  If you want to use your alternate procedure absent the P60, then try it and see what happens. 

Good Luck,

Neil

@oldaudiophile,

Re-reading your post, I am not sure why you feel your CleanerVinyl pump/filter with the P60H would be virtually impossible.  The pump/filter is (electrically) OFF during the first 10-min while the tank is in auto frequency change mode.  Then during the next step, 10-min at 80-kHz-pulse mode the pump/filter is (electrically) ON.  With a 6L tank and a 1.5 lpm pump, the tank half-life is 2.8-min, and after 10-min, the tank will be filtered 91%. At the end of the 10-min, you would want to run the pump/filter for another 4-min so that the tank was ~97% filtered for the next set of records.

As far as purchasing another set of CleanerVinyl components to accommodate two UCMCleaner which would cost some $800, there are some options. 

Isonic offers a 1-micron filter FTR01-P | iSonic® 1 Micron In-Water Filter for P4875II+MVR, P4875-NH+M – iSonic Inc. for $60 that would probably work with the 40-kHz as a rinse tank.  There are not a lot of details for this filter, but the rinse tank is not as important for filtration, and for the rinse tank you would run the pump with the ultrasonics.  

There are many inexpensive spinners such as this one for $70 - Amazon.com: WEWU ROUNDS 12" LP 7" EP Vinyl Records Bracket for 6L Ultrasonic Cleaner Simple Version(No Ultrasonic Cleaner) : Electronics.  The 1-6 rpm range is fine.  When rinsing it is really ultrasonic assisted rinsing, and spinning a bit fast is OK.  The only disadvantage is that you would need to remove the records from the CleanerVinyl spinner and then place them on the rinse-tank spinner, and your dry method where you raise the records is not available.  However, there is a more expensive version $170 that can do that - Amazon.com: WEWU LP Vinyl Record Brackets for Ultrasonic Cleaning 1-5 Records Per Batch Raising Descending Auto-Drying(No Ultrasonic Cleaner) : Electronics

So, there are some lower cost options if you wanted to go with a 2-tank system.  

Otherwise, the P60 with its dual frequency and variable power is a 2-step process, with each 6-10 minutes, for a total of 12-20 min.  If using a single step, such as your 40-kHz, you don't try to equal the same total process time, only the time for one-step which is why I said not much benefit above 12-min recalling you want to use even numbered time at 0.5 rpm for even record exposure.

Good Luck,

Neil