KLaudio or Degritter Mark II

Keep in mind the Degritter might be half the cost of the KL but I believe the life expectancy of the KL is much greater than the Degritter (according to some power user shops using them). In the end the price per clean with KL is likely less than the Degritter assuming you will clean that many records. I went from orig KL to Degritter mk1 to KL 200T. I preferred the Degritter to original KL but the 200T to the Degritter. The 200T is easier to use and takes less time. Both offer great results.

 

 Thanks for listening to my thoughts on the Degritter. I want to ad that the wonderful results I reported were achieved in some cases with multiple runs on an Lp which is totally effortless to do, just push the button again. This was especially the case with older LPs. 

I've discussed this with other people that have these and our unanimous observation is that the ownership of this is far more impactful on ones vinyl appreciation experience than an upgrade in a phono stage.

@skywachr I have often described proper record cleaning as the biggest upgrade I have ever experienced. I have never had any reason to change my mind on that.

@skywachr Thanks for posting in on this one!  I have read other encouraging accounts of the useful life or life expectancy of the Degritter.  It's good to know or hear that it is a robust or quality manufactured machine.  I've also read that Degritter offers re-build services for what seems like a reasonable price, although I'm not clear on what exactly that all entails (e.g.  shipping to & from Estonia; etc.).  I'm still keeping my eye out on that machine and hoping for a sale and/or a price drop.

I have a Degritter Mark II. The majority of my vinyl collection is between 50 and 70 years old, mostly classical with a good deal of older '70s jazz recordings and 60s and '70s rock and roll. The results that I've achieved have been nothing less than astounding on records that had already been processed extensively previously in a standard cleaning process. Records that are in good condition are playing. absolutely silently. This is far beyond anything that I might ever have imagined being able to achieve.

My experience with a Degritter comes from having had access to an original Degritter machine owned by a friend. The results were so good that I decided to buy my own, a Mark II. What I wanted to report here is that my friends use of the machine was truly extensive and the counter shows approaching 10,000 washing cycles. Because various people were responsible for maintaining the machine, it appears that no one had ever read the instructions to do a cleaning of the interior of the machine every 200 washings or so. After getting my machine and having read about the instructions to do it, I went back to my friend's to examine it only to discover that the interior was still remarkably clean despite the fact that it had never been attended to. Tank changes and filter cleanings and changes were done regularly according to schedule but I can report that an original Degritter is capable of cleaning effectively 10,000 records with no problems whatsoever despite the fact that it didn't even have basic cleaning maintenance done.

I've discussed this with other people that have these and our unanimous observation is that the ownership of this is far more impactful on ones vinyl appreciation experience than an upgrade in a phono stage. We use the example of what would be more impactful to have a $5,000 phono stage or a Degritter and were unanimous in our view. Anyone who wants to chime in here and poo poo a $5,000 phono stage as being beneath them can go elsewhere as far as I'm concerned. It's only meant as an example. The point is that this is an exceptional product and anyone who has a vinyl collection that involves LPs that have any noise at all should seriously consider it before any other type of upgrade to their vinyl listening process. It's a total game changer.

 

price seems rather steep

Seems to be a recurring theme in our hobby :)

@antinn thanks for your responses.

Reading the P60H operation manual was helpful.  However, not having actually operated it is quite another.  I learn much better by doing.

What I was responding to is that attempting to pause the machine every 30 seconds to switch the pump on & off during this initial auto frequency change mode would be futile and maybe even damaging to the machine.  The other issue that I was (and still am) not clear on is whether or not this 20-minute cycle (i.e.  10 minutes of auto frequency change mode followed by 10 minutes of 80kHz only) can be programmed into the machine to run as a single cycle.  Pausing the machine after this initial 10-minute auto frequency change mode in order to switch on the pump/filter for the 10-minute 80kHz cycle seems more feasible.  However, it seems, to me, that it would be more practical to run these two operational cycles separately, rather than pausing the machine and activating the pump/filter at the 10-minute mark.  This would obviate the need to standby and be alert to this while I'm doing other things (e.g.  pre-cleaning additional records; etc.).

Thanks for the tip on the iSonic pump/filter!  I wish I had known about that before purchasing the CleanerVinyl pump/filter.  That would have saved me a good bit of coin.

Thanks, also, for the tip(s) on the record spinners!  I've lately been taking a closer look at the Kuzma RD kit that Tima uses.  However, I've only found two places in the USA that sell this and the price seems rather steep, in my opinion.

Thanks again and all the Best!

@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

@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

@antinn I’ve read the Elma Sonic P60H operation manual. Judging from its published dimensions, the CleanerVinyl components that I use with my 40kHz UCM will fit onto the P60H with one exception (i.e. the pump/filter). The P60H carrying handles are mounted too high, near the top of the tank. However, CleanerVinyl has a relatively inexpensive bracket (i.e. $59) designed to fit the P60H.

My quandary, at the moment, has to do with the following:

"Note: with the dual frequency you should secure the pump/filter when operating at 37kHz (depending on # or records) but then operate the pump/filter at 80kHz.

1. 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."

If I understand this correctly, using my CleanerVinyl pump/filter with the P60H would be virtually impossible, using this frequency change mode of operation. As such, I’m wondering if it might be more practical, from an operational standpoint, to avoid using this frequency change mode and stick to an initial fixed low frequency (i.e. 37kHz to 40kHz) 10-minute cleaning or pre-cleaning cycle at 0.5 RPM with (or without) the pump/filter in place and then switch to a fixed 80kHz final cleaning cycle at 0.5 RPM with the pump/filter in place, keeping tank fluid temp between ... say, 27C and 31C and certainly no higher than 37C. If so, by using a minimal amount of Tergitol 15-S-9 during the P60H US cleaning process (e.g. 0.004%) to eliminate the need for a rinse step and help with air drying the records, I don’t see a need to continue using the 40kHz UCM if I continue using my pre-cleaning step with the Knosti, distilled water and 0.5% Liquinox. I suppose I could use it for a final 5- or 6-minute rinse step at 0.5 RPM, using distilled water only with no heat setting. However, the argument against this would be the hassle involved in transferring the CleanerVinyl components (i.e. record lifter; motor; pump/filter) from one UCM to the other. Purchasing another set of CleanerVinyl components to accommodate two UCM makes no cost-effectiveness sense. I’d might as well just buy a Degritter, at this point, and use the 40kHz UCM as my final rinse step. As I’ve done previously, lifting the record(s) out of the UCM tank after a cleaning cycle and increasing the rotational speed to 5 RPM for 15 minutes or so, gets the records almost completely dry.

My alternative methodology, without the P60H, would be the following:

1. Use the Knosti for a pre-clean step in a room temp solution of distilled water + 0.5% Liquinox.
2. Use the 40kHz 6-liter UCM I have with a solution of distilled water + 0.004% Tergitol with the machine set to operate between 27C and 31C and certainly no higher than 37C for a 15 to 30 minute degas cycle.
3. Clean 2 records in the machine (which would be spaced 1.25" apart) at 0.5 RPM at the same heat setting(s) for 15-to-20-minute cleaning cycles.
4. Lift records out of the tank solution, increase motor rotation speed to 5 RPM and let them rotate just above the tank for 15 or 20 minutes or so until completely or almost completely dry. The heat rising from the US tank helps with the drying process.
5. If records aren’t completely dry, set in stand near a HEPA air cleaner until completely dry.

As you indicated in a previous post, the extensional or maybe even existential question, of course, is which modus operandi would likely yield the best or better result. Incidentally, my "better" barometer here is audio fidelity, which is, admittedly, subjective. Generally speaking, I’m assuming the cleaner the record, the better the audio fidelity will or can be. I’m also assuming, given these two different record cleaning methodologies, it’s quite possible the comparative audio fidelity results might be very slight and maybe even imperceptible to most audiophiles.

Once again, thanks so much for your guidance!

@antinn Can't argue with math!  Thanks, once more!  Now, time to take a good look at the P60H operation manual.

All the best!

@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

Congrats on your ultrasonic cleaning solution- I believe that ultrasonic is the best way to clean vinyl records.  I was torn between the labor intensive but effective Kirmiss vs the 3x the price Degritter II, decided with the lazy choice as I have many vinyl to clean.

@antinn

Thanks for sharing your expertise.

@antinn 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?

Thanks!

@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, 

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

 

Does Klaudio has service in place in the US if there is an issue ?

@antinn:  All I can say is WOW!  And thank you, thank you, thank you, again and again!  You never cease to amaze, both with your technical expertise and graciousness with your time.  I wish there were something I could do to repay the kindness.

@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

@antinn First and foremost, thanks very much again for your continued guidance!

A few questions:

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?    

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?

Your feedback, as I understand 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?  Should 20-minute cleaning cycles be reserved for very dirty records or does that matter?

Thanks so much!

If you search this forum, @wizzzard who is a chemist, did a very good job of analyzing LAST.

That man is in need of help!

That is remarkably charitable, Neil. And as for help being needed, I recognise a fellow autistic, and would help but it is not wanted in any shape or form: indeed, it is repulsed. All I can do (maybe any of us) is to ensure I enjoy several hours of clean vinyl for every minute spent on that thread.

@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,

@antinn Thanks ... I think ... for turning me on to that post by Wizzard.  I suffered through nearly all of it.  That man is in need of help!  The Arizona Mike tip, however, was considerably more helpful!  The video afforded a good real-life look and sense of the operational footprint the KLAudio requires, much more informative than photos of the machine on the web.

I tend to do record cleaning in spurts.  My modus operandi has involved setting up the Knosti on the kitchen counter and shuttling records to & from my US machine, set-up on a work bench in the basement.  After an afternoon's activity, generally 15 records worth, I break down, clean and put everything away until the next foray.  I don't save or re-use cleaning fluids or leave same in the respective vessels.

The KLAudio certainly seems like a fantastic bespoke US record cleaning machine.  However, given its size and operational footprint, seems like it's better suited to a more industrial approach (i.e.  more sustained, lengthier cleaning sessions).  It's easy to see how critical such a machine would be for an operation like Arizona Mike's record shop and record cleaning service.

I continue to struggle with more practical, cost-effective alternatives for my purposes and am considering the following, which would involve purchasing an Elma Sonic P60H, another Knosti, a vacuum machine or combination thereof.  As always, your comments & suggestions would be most welcome.

1. Solution of distilled water + 0.01% or 0.015% Tergitol 15-S-9 + 1% Alconox Liquinox in the Knosti as a pre-cleaning step.
2. Use of the Elma Sonic P60H with distilled water + 0.01% to 0.15% Tergitol 15-S-9.
3. After degassing, run 2 or 3 records (2 would achieve a 1.25" separation; 3 would be 11/16") set to run between 31C and 35C but no warmer than 35C at ? RPM for ? minute cycles.  (Questions here are:  how many records would be best, 2 or 3, at what RPM and duration of cleaning cycles?  I've read that keeping the cleaning temperature between 31C and 35C for no more than 6- to 9-minute cleaning cycles is optimum in a machine like the P60H and anything longer could cause damage.)
4. 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.  However, I'd have the same questions here regarding heat setting, spacing, RPM or, more importantly, the advisability of this at all.  If lengthier than 6-to-9-minute cleaning cycle in a P60H is not advisable, maybe exposing the records to additional US bombardment is not a good idea?  Maybe it would be best to purchase another Knosti for this?
5. This leaves the drying dilemma.  Records would be sopping wet after a final rinse in a Knosti, making air drying in a rack and use of microfiber cloths less appealing.  A vacuum machine would help but this approach would involve purchasing another Knosti and a good reasonably priced vacuum machine.  This puts a dent in the cost-effectiveness quotient; not to mention making the whole cleaning process seem like an episode of the Keystone Cops!  Previously, my approach was to raise the records out of the US tank fluid and run them on the spit or skewer at 5 RPM for 15 minutes.  Not only did this allow the tank fluid to cool but the heat rising above the tank served to dry the records almost completely.  After this, I sandwiched the records between LP-sized microfiber cloths to remove whatever drops of residual moisture might be left and stave off dust motes, transferred them to the Knosti drying rack and covered them with microfiber cloths until they were completely dry.

 

@randyk 

Thank you!

How cool is it that you could easily upgrade to the Mk II? Here’s to Estonian innovation!

jpan, I just want to compliment you on the beauty of your room and carefully chosen system.

On the current subject, I could never afford the KLAudio.  I had the Mark I and recently upgraded to Mark II with Degritter’s trade-in offer.  I very much like the upgrade —smoother operation, excellent results. Great company.

I had the KLAudio for several years. At the beginning of the year, I made a switch to the Degritter Mk II. 

For me, it’s no contest. The Degritter is better at cleaning. Period. I think this is because you can use a cleaning agent with it, whereas you can’t (or shouldn’t) with the KLA. And it’s easier to use. It’s a super piece of hardware and software. 

 

 

@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

@antinn First and foremost, thanks so much for your kind attention to my record cleaning madness!  Also, a correction of a typo I made:

Rotation speed for my final ultrasonic rinse cycle(s) is/was 0.5 RPM; not 5 RPM.

In answer to your questions/observations/constructive feedback:

(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.

(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?

(3)  Thanks!

(4)  That looks like the US machine I have except mine is a 6-liter capacity; not 6.5 liters.  I set the heat to 26 Celsius.  Toward the end of a 15-minute cleaning cycle the tank fluid sometimes reaches 30 Celsius.  If it gets higher than that, I allow for extra cooling time.

(5)  Thanks!  It appears this filter pump is doing its job because I'm starting to notice some discoloration (dirt) captured by the filter.  I did not expect dramatic results in this regard because of how clean my core collection is.

(6)  Thanks!  According to LAST's marketing/advertising, this solution or treatment is supposed to meld or bond on a molecular level with PVC, last for at least 200 plays or more, etc., etc., etc.  As such, I assumed this would not amount to a film or residue, per se.  However, now that I think of this a bit more, if this treatment has a life span of 200 plays or more, then I suppose it's reasonable to assume it is gradually etched off or eroded by the stylus and ultimately becomes a residue.  This ushers in a whole new set of questions!  Since I haven't played any records on my relatively new TT that haven't been ultrasonically cleaned, first, and treated with LAST, I would wonder if LAST actually does contribute to significantly less surface noise and at what cost of fidelity.

@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

 

I own a H Guru and have used the KL and the DeGritter ( version 1). The Guru, so long as one uses a surfactant (crucial), works well. The results from the KL, with a surfactant, were slightly better than the Guru and the DeGritter. The DeGritter offers a better build than the Guru, as does of course the KL. If build quality and ability to do multiple LP’s over time, ie for library work, then the order of preference is attached to the price asked. For the money, the Guru, for most folks, is an easy answer and the best option. IMO.

@antinn You are indispensable!

My last foray of record cleaning involved the use of LAST POWER RECORD CLEANER (used as directed) as a pre-cleaning step.

Then, I used a Knosti Disco Anti-Stat filled with Mobile Fidelity Super Record Wash as another pre-cleaning step, rotating the records in the bath at least half a dozen times in both directions.

The next step involved use of an RoHS Model 30A 180W ultrasonic power 200W cleaning power 40Khz 6L digital ultrasonic cleaner filled with distilled water and 15ml of Tergitol.15-S-9, set to 72 degrees Fahrenheit for 15-minute cleaning cycles.  I ran the machine for 30 minutes at the same temperature, prior to cleaning records, thinking this would accomplish degassing.  Then, I cleaned 3 records at a time in the ultrasonic using CleanerVinyl's record rotating motor set for .5 RPM, their old-style screw-on spacers that separates records by approximately 11/16", their record lifting & lowering device and their 6l one micron filtration device.

The last step (excluding treating dry records with LAST RECORD PRESERVATIVE) involved another go-around in the same ultrasonic machine, filled with only distilled water (same degassing protocol) and set to the same temperature and cleaning/rinsing cycles.

The results I obtained were at least as effective as a previous time when I used Mobile Fidelity's Super Record Wash for the ultrasonic cleaning fluid, no heat, and the same 15-minute cleaning cycles at 5 RPM rotation.  In a direct comparison with the original Degitter, using only my ears for fidelity comparison, I found the Degritter did no better.

The allure of machines like the Degritter, KLAudio and some others, from my perspective, is and has always been ease of operation, smaller footprint and, basically, eloquence.  Be that as it may, I and many other audiophiles, I'm sure, continue to struggle with the thousands of dollars such eloquence affords.

I'm wondering if the Elma Ultrasonic P60H, with its sweep frequency and 37 to 80 Khz settings might be a cost-effective alternative to consider.

Thoughts, Sensei?

As always, I cannot thank you enough for whatever time and attention you bring to this!

As always, Neil provides the definitive evaluation and comparison 😊 .

@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.
 

As it should be at over eight times the cost (Degritter vs HumminGuru).

Here's a useful thread on the HumminGuru:

HumminGuru Use Tips

There is a very long thread about experiences with the Degritter here. I believe it's a fraction of the price of the Klaudio.

Yes, the Humminguru is a reasonably priced alternative.  However, based upon what I've read, it is a 40Hz machine whereas the Degritter is 120Hz and better designed and built.

Neither.

HumminGuru Ultrasonic Cleaner

fbgbill

Yes the Klaudio is expensive but the convenience of just slipping the album in the machine and it comes out clean is hard to beat. 

That is indeed the charm of the Klaudio machine. It's a one-button process for record cleaning and it works exceptionally well.

I have the Klaudio and I always use a few drops of surfactant in my water tank. I like the separate tank on the Klaudio. The results are incredible. I have a lot of albums that were cleaned with an older spin unit that used a brush. They get cleaned again on the Klaudio. Yes the Klaudio is expensive but the convenience of just slipping the album in the machine and it comes out clean is hard to beat. 

Yes, I have it downloaded already.

@dogberry in the old days, when Christ was a Corporal, I incorporated Kodak Photo-Flo in my manual cleaning process of a bunch of my records. I don't think it did any harm. However, after reading Neil Antin's "Precision Aqueous Cleaning of Vinyl Records (all 3 editions), I switched to Tergitol.

Not easy reading, by any means. However, in my humble opinion, worth the time:

Precision Aqueous Cleaning of Vinyl Records-3rd Edition - The Vinyl Press

Not terribly helpful in answering your question, but I have no complaints about my combination of a Loricraft followed by a Degritter MkI. It is entirely possible that other things will be better still, but if records come out of my two machines silent, how can we tell?

Maybe what would be helpful is this datum: I have never relied on the Degritter alone. I don't want to contaminate the tank of water it re-uses, so I remove all gross nastiness with the Loricraft. I do use a home-made mixture of ethanol, PhotoFlo and distilled water in the Loricraft. Then pure DW in the Degritter. You could rephrase your enquiry for those that use a Degritter alone. If I didn't already own the Loricraft, I'd answer that on behalf of a MkI.

I have the original Degritter and am very happy with the results. I had a Kirmuss prior to the Degritter and while I did get great results the process was too lengthy. I have no experience with the KLaudio but my understanding is that a small amount of tap water is required. I don't think the KLaudio uses any surfactant.  I'm happy using distilled water and a few drops of Degritter's surfactant. The Audiophile Man recently did a video review of the Dregritter MKII that you can find on YouTube.