Record Cleaning Machines

@wavez,

 

One step, of course, its called a $3000 Degritter or maybe a $6000 Clearaudio Double Matrix Pro Sonic.  Convenience is expensive.  There is the ~$500 (w/shipping) Humminguru, but to get good results with it you need multiple steps.

As far as a manual cleaning process, there are the one-step record cleaning brushes that many people use, but that is not what the book is addressing.

A fast easy version is shown Figure 6.  You can skip the acid-wash if you want - but it can prevent you from getting the most out of the process.   But there are details described in Chapter V to make sure you get the results you can; otherwise you will attempt to do me death by a 1000 questions and I am just going to say - Read Chapter 3 on how to prepare the cleaning solutions and read Chapter 5 on how to use them.  The Devil is in the Details.  

Good Luck,

Careful, some of the power figures include the heater.  The Kirmuss is essentially the iSonic P4875(II)  P4875(II)-4T-NH (isonicinc.com) which is only 165 W ultrasonic power via three 60W transducers pointing upward.  The Degritter has four 75W transducers - two on either side pointing directly at the record.

The difference in ultrasonic frequency alters the size of the cavitation bubble formed and 120-khz produces a smaller bubble which is good for very fine particles while the 40 kHz produce a larger bubble and is better for more generic type soils and particles.

@oldaudiophile,

If you read this article  Precision Aqueous Cleaning of Vinyl Records-2nd Edition - The Vinyl Press - at the end you can download the 145-page book for free; Chapter XIV is exclusive to UCM.  There is a lot of information describing the variables associated with UCM.  

The position of the transducers does make a difference, firing directly at the record will get the best cleaning performance.  Fundamentally during what is called the ultrasonic rarefaction phase, the pressure drops below the fluid vapor pressure and essentially the fluid boils creating a bubble and over a period of rarefaction/compression cycles the bubble that is formed grows until the surrounding hydraulic pressure violently collapses it. The cavitation bubble duration is very short - about 4 milliseconds - check this video starting at about time 6:20 https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ul ... %3DHDRSC3;.  The collapsing toroid jet in an UCM is some what direction. 

The KL Audio at 200W and the Degritter at 300W with their limited bath volume are very powerful and can be very effective with just DI-Water.  The low power units such as the Kirmuss need some chemistry such as a surfactant to help with cleaning, but add too much chemistry (or spin the records too fast) and the 'cavitation intensity' decreases.  I know of people who use the Kirmuss with some chemistry as a preclean and then final clean/dry with the Degritter.  The Kirmuss with its spinner makes it very convenient to use with the Degritter.   The Kirmuss unit can also be easily modified to add a good pump/filter system.

Otherwise, people have been using UCM to clean records and similar type plastics for >50 yrs.  The biggest issue is over-extended operation and subsequent over-heating.  If you read the Degritter manual Degritter-manual-v2.2-ENG.pdf - it has a cool-down process which will kick in after two Heavy cleanings.  The nice option for the Degritter is spare tanks that can be used for rinsing (if using chemistry) or to improve process time when using the Heavy cycle.

@terry9, ...you are too kind.

@oldaudiophile, a few quotes from the book:

Chapter XII.6.a - "...The paper Adhesion and Removal of Fine Particles on Surfaces, Aerosol Science and Technology, M. B. Ranade, 1987 (38) shows for aluminum oxide particles, the force (acceleration) required to remove a 10-micron particle is 4.5 x 10^4 g’s, a 1-micron particle is 4.5 x 10^6 g’s and a 0.1-micron particle is 4.5 x 10^8 g’s. A simple brush or wipe is not going to get the smallest particles/debris that can ‘hide’ in the valleys between the groove side wall ridges.|"

But this is where UT has an advantage:  

XIV.1....For ultrasonics there is a minimum power (wattage) necessary to produce cavitation. The higher the frequency, the more power is required. The minimum power required at 40 kHz is reported between 0.3 and 0.5 W/cm² (per transducer radiating surface). As the UCM tank volume increases, less power, measured as W/gal or W/cm³ is required to maintain cavitation throughout the tank. A very small 0.5-gal/1.9-L 40-kHz tank may require 125 W/gal while a 12.75-L/3.4-gal 40-kHz tank may only require 80 W/gal; noting that as the ultrasonic kHz increases so does the power required. There is a limit to increasing power above which no additional benefit (cavitation intensity)  is obtained.

XIV.1.b The lower the ultrasonic frequency, the larger the bubble that is created. A 40 kHz UCM will produce bubbles about 75 microns diameter. These are not going to get into the record groove. A 120 kHz UCM will produce bubbles about 20 microns and these can get into the groove. But the larger bubble can produce more energy when it collapses/implodes (cavitation) so there is fluid agitation around the collapsing event that can provide cleaning. How violently the bubbles collapse is determined by the amount of power provided by the ultrasonic transducers. A low power 40 kHz unit may be safe for soft metal such as jewelry, while a 40 kHz high power unit may not. The smaller bubble by its size is limited to how violent it can collapse. A high powered 120 kHz unit has less potential for damage than a high powered 40 kHz.  

XIV.1.c Further complicating the effectiveness of ultrasonics is the fluid boundary layer. The fluid flow at the record (or any) surface develops a static layer that is separate from the bulk fluid that is moving. The boundary layer thickness is dependent on the ultrasonic frequency (high kHz = thinner boundary layer), acoustic energy, and fluid properties (viscosity & density). To get the most effective cleaning, the cleaning process has to penetrate the boundary layer to remove the soil and particles that are contained within it. ...At 40-kHz, the boundary layer can be as thick as 5 microns, while at 120-kHz, the boundary layer can be as thick as 2 microns.".

@willy-t,

Tima uses the Elmasonic P120H (with pump & 0.2 micron absolute filter) and he has added a Elmasonic S120H for rinsing and recently switched  to Tergitol 15-S-9 ( Tergitol 15-S-3 and 15-S-9 Surfactant | TALAS (talasonline.com)) with good results - read:  tima's DIY RCM | What's Best Audio and Video Forum. The Best High End Audio Forum on the planet! (whatsbestforum.com).

FYI - Tergikleen does not foam because its a blend of Tergitol 15-S-9 which is water soluble and can foam and Tergitol 15-S-3 which is not water soluble and can act as a defoamer, but unless rinsed (as you do) can leave a residue.  The  Tergitol 15-S-3 exists only as a emulsion.   The origins of Tergikleen are from the composition specified in The Care and Handling of Recorded Sound Materials, By Gilles St-Laurent Music Division National Library of Canada January 1996.  Whether they still use it is unknown and the US Library of Congress does not use it - they use Tergitol 15-S-7 (which is not available to the public).  But, 15-S-7 is not good for a UT tanks because of the low cloud point; and contrary to the urban-myth 15-S-3 + 15-S-9 does not equal 15-S-7.  

@oldaudiophile,

1. If you read the book Chapter XIV.5.3, and you apply your tank volume of 6L with 3 records, the fastest you should spin is 1 rpm. If you clean just one record at a time, then 3 rpm is the fastest you should spin. The problem with spinning too fast is that it agitates the fluid and if the fluid is agitated at >50% of tank volume/min, for lower frequency UCM such as 40 kHz, the cavitation intensity decreases and 3 records at 3 rpm in a 6L tank, the cavitation intensity could be 50% less. Note that if the spinner motor is 12/24VDC, you can buy a variable speed power supply such as these which should get the speed down to 1 rpm Amazon.com: SHNITPWR 60W Universal Power Supply DC 3V 4V 4.5V 5V 6V 7V 7.5V 8V 9V 10V 11V 12V Adjustable Variable Power Adapter 100V-240V AC to DC Converter 1A 2A 2.5A 3A 4A 5A with 14 Tips & Polarity Converter : Electronics or Amazon.com: SHNITPWR 3V ~ 24V 3A 72W Power Supply Adjustable DC 3V 5V 6V 9V 12V 15V 16V 18V 19V 20V 24V Variable Universal AC/DC Adapter 100V-240V AC to DC Converter with 14 Tips 5.5x2.5mm 4.0x1.7mm 3.5x1.35mm : Electronics

2. Mobile Fidelity Super Record Wash has no detailed MSDS so I cannot make any assessment - other than if its working and your happy with the results - if its not broke, don’t fix it. Otherwise, stating that the fluid is a "high-surface-tension water composition" has to be a typo. It should state "low-surface-tension water composition". A "high-surface-tension water composition" would not wet the record and overall be a poor water-based detergent.

3. Rinsing is important to reduce the risk of cleaner residue; and not knowing the constituents/concentration of the Mobile Fidelity Super Record Wash rinsing is prudent and using the Knosti Disco Anti-Stat filled with distilled water is a good process.

4. So long as the microfiber cloths are clean and lint-free, there should be limited risk. Knowing for sure they are lint-free is another story. Unless you are using a UV light as I address in Chapter II and IV, you may not know for sure. I made a dumb mistake by using a cotton towel to dry my gloved hands and when I inspected a ’clean’ record it was full of lint (under UV light). There was enough transfer from the cloth to my gloves (the cloths never touched the record) to contaminate the record - good-bye cotton cloths at any step.

5. The fact that you ’never’ see grit, particles or accumulated dirt of any kind..." in my world is a red-flag. If the cleaning process is truly efficient, you should on occasion see something. The fact that you see nothing - either your records are all exceptionally clean to begin with or your cleaning process has some weakness. As I address above, you may want to try cleaning just one record at a time and see if that changes the equation as they say.

Good luck,
Neil

@mglik,

The Keith Monks Discovery RCM is an awesome machine.  I have worked with some people over at the VPI forum with VPI vacuum RCMs and the Loricraft™ PRC-4 RCM with the following cleaning process (as quoting from the book Chapter XIII): 

XIII.4.a Pre-clean exceptionally dirty records with Alconox™ Liquinox™ at 0.5% (5 mL/L) - vacuum but do not fully dry. Depending on the record condition, two pre-clean steps may be required. Although the Alconox™ Liquinox™ will foam, most of the foam is collected in the brush as noted Figure 15.

XIII.4.b Rinse pre-cleaner with DIW - vacuum, but do not fully dry.

XIII.4.c Final clean with Dow™ Tergitol 15-S-9 at 0.05% (0.5 mL/L) - vacuum and do not fully dry. There will be some foam as noted Figure 17, but most of the foam will be in the brush.

XIII.4.d Rinse final cleaner with DIW - vacuum and fully dry. When drying be careful of drying too long that can cause static to form.

@oldaudiophile,

The popularity of Tergitol 15-S-9 is that its a superior nonionic surfactant to Triton X100 (which I discuss Chapter XI) or Kodak Photoflo (which I discuss Chapter VIII). 

If you read the first part of Chapter X, there is no real mold release compound. "X.1.5 Lubricant: 0.4% of an esterified montan wax. The wax also acts as a mold release. When the record is removed from the press without the lubricating effect of the montan wax ester in the compound, the grooves of the record are sometimes fractured, torn, and deformed by the removal. These faults in the groove produce noise on playback. Montan wax ester at the stated percentage is compatible with the resins and is homogenized into the surface of the record at the normal pressing temperature. If more than the stated amount of the montan wax ester is used, the excess amount is not absorbed into the surface of the record. Its presence results in non-uniformity in the surface of the record, particularly as related to the friction between the stylus and the groove. This non-uniformity produces noise when the record is played. Some of the many forum discussions on removing mold release may actually be associated with excess lubricant."

"An approach I'm contemplating is using LAST POWER CLEANER as a pre-cleaner, prior to the 40 kHz UCM."  LAST POWER CLEANER is $280/4-oz Last - Power Cleaner | Shop Music Direct.  I pre-clean (as specified in the book) with Alconox Liquinox ($21.99/Qt) Amazon.com: Alconox - 1232-1 1232 Liquinox Anionic Critical Cleaning Liquid Detergent, 1 quart Bottle : Health & Household; tech sheet here Liquinox_tech_bull.pdf (alconox.com) which is then diluted 100:1 for 1%.  So, 1-qt will make 100-qts of cleaner.".

Mobile Fidelity did not do well on their answer; its not their swim-lane.  

Take care,
Neil

@mijostyn,

FYI - Here is a cheap source of Tergitol 15-S-9: Tergitol 15-S-3 and 15-S-9 Surfactant | TALAS (talasonline.com) $21.75/pint.

Edit - In my PM, I meant to say Table I not Table II.  

@herman,

Ultrasonic cleaning can be very effective against oils and greases, and the lower frequency units such as the Isonic/Kirmuss at 35-40 kHz are preferred.  BUT, they need some chemistry to both lower the surface tension of the fluid to better wet the record & soil and to add some detergency to  emulsify/clean oils and greases. 

@oldaudiophile,

1st, please do not start blending cleaning agents unless you know the composition, there is always uncertainty to the results.  So I recommend you do not add anything to the MoFi cleaner.

If you read Chapter XIV starting XIV.8 to XIV.12 you will essentially see how to assemble a cleaning process with various equipment and various cleaning agents, beginning with pre-clean.

Alconox Liquinox is a fairly aggressive/foaming cleaning agent and is used for pre-clean. If you do or need a pre-clean step, then by Section XIV.9 if you use an aqueous cleaning process is where Alconox Liquinox would be used and you have many options - manual clean, vacuum-RCM or separate UCM for pre-clean.  The concentration of the cleaners is tailored for each method.  

For your process, your UCM is for final clean and you have two options with the Tergitol 15-S-9:

-Tergitol 15-S-9 at 0.01 to 0.015%
-Tergitol 15-S-9 at 0.01 to 0.015% + 2.5% IPA

Good Luck,
Neil

1.  Water is for all intense purposes classified as nonionic; ASTM D1193, Standard Specification for Reagent Water, Type 4 achieved by distilled water (condensation of steam) has a resistivity >200K ohms and a total dissolved solids <2.5 ppm.  

2.  In general, surfactants can be:
-nonionic (if you measure with TDS - there will no change),
-anionic ionize in aqueous solutions so that the hydrophilic head has a negative (-) charge.  Anionic surfactants are the backbone of all general detergents.
-cationic ionize in aqueous solutions so that the hydrophilic head has a positive (+) charge.  Cationic surfactants are not very good detergents but they can kill viruses so are very common in disinfectants and if a residue is left behind can acts as anti-static because they absorb water from the air making the record electrically dissipative to static, but this capacity decreases below 35% humidity.
-amphoteric can ionize in aqueous solutions so that the hydrophilic head, depending mostly on the solution pH, is either anionic (-) or cationic (+).

3.  Ionizing the fluid in a general wash - such as laundry soap - helps to remove particulate from clothing by charge repulsion.  However, particulate adhesion is governed by a number of factors.  The paper Adhesion and Removal of Fine Particles on Surfaces, Aerosol Science and Technology, M. B. Ranade, 1987 shows for aluminum oxide particles, the force (acceleration) required to remove a 10-micron particle is 4.5 x 10^4 g’s, a 1-micron particle is 4.5 x 10^6 g’s and a 0.1-micron particle is 4.5 x 10^8 g’s. A simple brush or wipe is not going to get the smallest particles/debris that can ‘hide’ in the valleys between the groove side wall ridges. As fluid flows past a hard surface, such as a record, a boundary layer is developed and depending on its thickness (upwards of 5 microns) it will essentially shield any particles within it. So, agitation is critical in reducing the boundary layer to expose the surface with its particles to the cleaning fluid and the fluid velocity (shear force) that can remove them.

4.  The lower the ultrasonic frequency, the larger the cavitation bubble that is created. A 35-40 kHz UCM will produce bubbles about 75 microns diameter. These are not going to get into the record groove. A 120 kHz UCM will produce bubbles about 20 microns and these can get into the groove. But the larger bubble 'can' produce more energy when it collapses/implodes (cavitation) so there is fluid agitation around the collapsing event that can provide cleaning. How violently the bubble collapse is determined by the amount of power provided by the ultrasonic transducers but only up to point above which more power has no benefit.

5.  Further complicating the effectiveness of ultrasonics is the fluid boundary layer. The fluid flow at the record (or any) surface develops a static layer that is separate from the bulk fluid that is moving. The boundary layer thickness is dependent on the ultrasonic frequency (high kHz = thinner boundary layer), acoustic energy, and fluid properties (viscosity & density). To get the most effective cleaning, the cleaning process has to penetrate the boundary layer to remove the soil and particles that are contained within it.  At 35-40-kHz, the boundary layer can be as thick as 5 microns, while at 120-kHz, the boundary layer can be as thick as 2 microns.

6.  There are other variables, but depending on the initial cleanliness level of record, an ultrasonic tank with just a small amount of a high performance nonionic surfactant (such as Tergitol 15-S-9) can effectively remove light soils (finger prints, etc) and particles.  However, for heavily soiled records (i.e. flea market), a pre-clean step using more aggressive cleaning agents (such as Alconox Liquinox which is a combination of nonionic & anionic surfactants) or a wide range enzyme (soak) cleaner is generally necessary. 

7.  As far as mold-release, the following is sourced from the RCA patent US3960790A - Disc record and method of compounding disc record composition - Google Patents for vinyl records which is probably the best knowledge we have for vinyl record composition:  Lubricant: 0.4% of an esterified montan wax. The wax also acts as a mold release. When the record is removed from the press without the lubricating effect of the montan wax ester in the compound, the grooves of the record are sometimes fractured, torn, and deformed by the removal. These faults in the groove produce noise on playback. Montan wax ester at the stated percentage is compatible with the resins and is "homogenized" into the surface of the record at the normal pressing temperature. If more than the stated amount of the montan wax ester is used, the excess amount is not absorbed into the surface of the record. Its presence results in non-uniformity in the surface of the record, particularly as related to the friction between the stylus and the groove. This non-uniformity produces noise when the record is played. Overall, a good record should not have any mold release to remove.  Otherwise, the discussions on removing mold release may actually be associated with excess lubricant which should not be common. 

8.  Big problem with old records is the buildup of residue from any number of sources be it detergent residue, hard water scale, tar from smoke, and who knows what.  In these cases, as previously addressed, a range of different chemistries with different methods for pre-cleaning is generally required, let just say they may need a lot of love. 

@daveyf ,

If your read these two articles - Record -Groove Wear, J G. Woodward, HiFi Stereo Review Magazine, October 1968  HiFi-Stereo-Review-1968-10.pdf (worldradiohistory.com) and RCA Engineer Magazine, 1976, Issue
02-03, Development of Compound for Quadradiscs, by G.A. Bogantz S.K. Khanna  1976-02-03.pdf (worldradiohistory.com) it should give you some idea of how records wear.  

If the vinyl is decent quality, excessive wear from a conical or elliptical stylus will trench the groove, but an advanced  fine contact profile stylus like a Shibata will bridge the trench and the 'worn' record (if clean) can play fine.  

Now if the record is deeply scratched - all bets are off; why buy it.  I have successfully recovered some records that were very noisy - the constant background hiss/static by manually cleaning with a multistep process that first degreased the surface with an aggressive detergent and then use a mild-acid to dissolve embedded hard-water type scale particles followed by a final clean with a very mild nonionic surfactant and DIW rinse. I can manually use chemistry that you would not use with an ultrasomic tank because of excessive foam or corrosion.  

So, from my experience buying old records - used (no significant surface scratches)  or NOS (which can be worse than used - the paper sleeve has deteriorate into the grooves), I am seeing dirt, residue, debris, whatever as the primary problem.   I have surrendered a few records as beyond help and just bad,  But bad could be a bad-pressings using  bad vinyl composition which I can sometimes detect with UV light.  

@mijostyn,

What I wrote is correct -  Understanding Surfactants: A Guide - International Products Corporation (ipcol.com)

@oldaudiophile,

This thread starting about page 18 to ~page 30 a pretty extensive review was performed by one person -  Degritter Users | Steve Hoffman Music Forum.  I started contributing about page 20 - handle pacvr.

Paul Rigby did a pretty extensive review of the Degritter -  Degritter Ultrasonic Record Cleaning Machine - The Audiophile Man, however his use of Tergikleen is not shared with the above.

I did a quick summary of the Degritter (based on my involvement with the Degritter Users thread) here https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/degritter-review-in-hifi.33448/post-740168

The best results are obtained by those who use a separate rinse-tank.  Otherwise, for dirty records, most people perform some type of pre-clean before final clean with the Degritter.

Take care,
Neil

@oregon,

1) I first remove bulk fluid (i.e., the big drops) with this polyvinyl-alcohol (PVA) sponge.

-PVA Clean Room Sponges, Wipes, and Mops (super-cool-products.com) item 335-6250 - UF-3 PVA CLEANROOM SPONGE - 335-6250 (4.92 x 3.35 x 1.38 in) 130 MICRONS - WHITE - $8.95 each.

-The same sponge is sold with a case - The Super PVA Sponge Products (super-cool-products.com) - item 335-0090 - The Super PVA White PVA Sponge Block in plastic storage case (no label but includes instructions): 5" x 3.25" x 1.38" - $9.95 each.

-There are tricks to using a PVA sponge - use only to dry records rinsed with DIW, use with gloved (nitrile) hands only, and after use, ring-it out (its pretty tough) and store-damp/wet. This will keep the sponge clean. If you allow it to dry - it will dry rock-hard. It can be rehydrated by soaking in DIW. But the case or a simple plastic bag keeps it flexible. I can use for about 6 records before needing to ring-it out.

2) After using the PVA sponge to remove the bulk liquid, I then use the Anti-Static Tiger Cloth | kinetronics for the final-dry - and its used just lightly. This cloth is anti-static so it will not develop static, and it does not fully dry the record. You want to leave just a thin film of DIW which prevents any risk of developing static and then it final air dries (dish rack) in just a few minutes. If you are cleaning 2 or more records, by the time you finish cleaning the 2nd record, the 1st is dry. A few tricks for using the Tiger Cloth;

-Shake-out are each use to dislodge any particles it may have collected. Being anti-static it does not hang-on to particles like some fabrics.

-When done, hang to dry, shake-out and store in clean plastic bag. Since it should only ever see DIW, it should not get dirty.

3. While you are cleaning, if your gloved hands get wet, dry them with lint-free microfiber cloths - lots available Amazon such as Amazon.com: MR.SIGA Microfiber Cleaning Cloth, Pack of 6, Size: 13.8" x 15.7" : Health & Household . Stay away from cotton. It may technically absorb more water/cloth weight, but they shed lint and it transfers to your gloves which transfers to the sponge/tiger cloth which transfers to record.

@oldaudiophile, 

I do not use IPA in my manual cleanings procedure.  Otherwise read Chapter VIII which details IPA, Chapter X which analyzes IPA with the vinyl record, and Chapter XIV which details various cleaners for UT some with 2.5% IPA.

My recommendations for cleaning concentrations are based on the specific chemical properties, and especially the critical micelle concentration (CMC), what does it take achieve best wetting, what does it take to achieve detergency, they are different - read Chapter VIII & Chapter IX.  

@bigtwin,

+1 Amen.  My thoughts completely.  Once cleaned, the only thing that belongs in the groove is the stylus.  If you are curious I expanded upon this thought here - https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/timas-diy-rcm.26013/post-740686.

@mijostyn,

Tergitol 15-S-9 as shown in Chapter IX, Table VII the CMC is 52 ppm.

WRT to the Degritter - per XIV.7.d Dow™ Tergitol™ 15-S-9 at a solution concentration of about 150 ppm (0.0150%) and 2.5% IPA did not initially produce foam, but after successive cleaning cycles began producing foam. Reducing the Dow™ Tergitol™ 15-S-9 to a concentration of about 80 ppm (0.008%) and 2.5% IPA significantly reduced foaming and still showed excellent wetting.

Also, per XIV.7 Degritter™ UCM: The following summarizes some results of various chemistries with the Degritter™ UCM that were addressed at the Steve Hoffman Forum™ Degritter Users | Steve Hoffman Music Forums. The Degritter™ because of how it pumps-down the tank for drying; pumps-down the reservoir for cleaning; and primes on start-up is sensitive to pump cavitation and producing foam so nonionic surfactants that can foam are used at very low concentrations mostly just for ‘wetting’.

All is in the book.

@oldaudiophile,

Let me add that I adjust the chemical concentration for each method which also takes into account how easy it will be to rinse.  So as an example I specify four different concentrations of Tergitol 15-S-9 used as a final cleaner for these four different methods.

1,  Manual - 0.1%.
2. Vacuum RCM - 0.05%
3.  UT Cleaning - 0.01-0.015%
4.  Degritter (or no rinse) - 0.008%

@oldaudiophile,

I use the Orbit HEPA Blower https://photosol.com/products/orbit-hepa-blower/, which has a suction-side HEPA filter and a silicone air-bulb, to blow lint off the stylus. Not enough air flow to remove dust/lint from the record.  However, some people use the Amazon.com : Giottos AA1900 Rocket Air Blaster Large - Black : Camera Cleaning Kits : Electronics to remove dust - its moves more air.  

Otherwise, as I wrote in the book "VI.11.c" I use the Kinetronics™ Tiger anti-static lint-free microfiber cloth Anti-Static Tiger Cloth | kinetronics as a swipe (just lightly touching the record surface) to essentially brush/dust the record to  remove surface lint and particulate without penetrating the groove. Also, the orange color of the cloth allows easy observation of any fibers that may be deposited from the cloth.  The  Kinetronics™ Tiger Cloth can pickup dust/lint but being anti-static it does not tightly hold the dust/lint - so a quick shake (arm reach away from the record) and the dust/particulate is dislodged from the cloth (as verified with UV light).  This keeps the cloth clean for next use.  

@oldaudiophile,

First, the Degritter is pretty complex device; and probably the most powerful for record cleaning produced with 300W from four 75W 120 kHz transducers pointed directly at the record.  Its fully digital controlled with a water management system that includes a surface skimmer and filter, and the option to easily swap tanks.   For the overall convenience, ease of use and performance it obtains for cleaning one record at a time, its the best available and with a very well written manual  Degritter-manual-v2.2-ENG.pdf.

But that does not mean that the Degritter gets the best achievable cleanliness.  People who aspire to that goal will at-least pre-clean their records - generally with a vacuum-RCM (since most already have one) and then final clean/dry with the Degritter - often with DIW only.  But the Degritter filter system is limited so as good as it is, you can do better - but not with the same convenience.  

Very simply - A 40 kHz UCM will produce cavitation bubbles about 75 microns diameter. These are not going to get into the record groove. A 120 kHz UCM will produce bubbles about 20 microns and these can get into the groove.  The cavitation intensity is dependent on the bubble size  and the transducer power.  A high powered 40kHz UCM will produce greater cavitation intensity (good for record surface contaminants) than a 120kHz UCM, but the 120 kHz UCM produces more cavitation bubbles.

Can a UCM with bottom firing transducers equal what the Degritter can do with optimized transducer position.  Yes, but you really need a very good UCM such as the  Elmasonic P-series which is a high powered dual-frequency unit with 37kHz & 80kHz and also has a high-power pulse mode.  Right now the Elmasonic P-series may be the best for cleaning multiple records with the right spinner and an industrial pump/filter system with 0.2 micron absolute filter.  

Fundamentally, in the tank there are layers of peak energy with peak cavitation intensity that for bottom firing UT transducers should be in horizontal layers Ultrasonic Energy Distribution - Zenith Ultrasonics (zenith-ultrasonics.com). Ideally, the peaks will be spaced at ~1/2 of the wavelength lamda Microsoft PowerPoint - 1200_L_22_VWS_3.pptx (uiowa.edu). For DIW with a speed of sound of 1498 m/s, and 80 kHz, the peaks will be spaced at (0.5)(1,498,000 mm/80,000 Hz) = ~19 mm.  

Many UT tanks have a sweep function that is intended to shift the operating frequency +/- some kHz to broaden the zone of peak UT energy (ergo-cavitation intensity); but it may reduce the absolute peak. They do this since the normal use of UT cleaning is with parts that are static in the tank. So the sweep function is intended to even-out the cavitation intensity in the tank. The value of sweep is debated in the industry.

BUT, cleaning records rotates the record and this means that the record is constantly passing through these peak-layers. As the record passes from lower to higher to lower zones of cavitation intensity, a scrubbing type action should occur; so standing waves should be good. And, the Elmasonic also has a Pulse-mode - that increases the UT energy by 20% which means the peak cavitation intensity should be higher.  And this could be very beneficial for the higher kHz such as 80kHz since it improves removal of small particulate that requires a lot of energy to remove.  

Is all this very technical - yes, and  this is just skimming the surface.  But this in many ways is what you are buying with the Degritte.  Otherwise, you can get good cleaning by doing a pre-clean step prior to UT tank cleaning but chemistry, bath management, rinsing and drying can undo your best efforts if you are not paying attention to the details.  If your are not into this, then the Degritter is a great way to go.

Will the  HumminGuru all-in-one ultrasonic vinyl record cleaner be a cheap Degritter - no.  But for many people who have only cleaned with a brush it will be a revelation.  

Good Luck,
 Neil

@oldaudiophile,

You can do a DIY industrial 0.2 micron filter and pump that is as good as it gets for about $350 for best pump, $280 for a smaller less robust pump. The pump draws suction from the tank drain and discharges to the filter back to the tank. Here is the parts list (the primary items are addressed in the book Chapter XIV).

Filter Canister: Pentek 150574 ~$40. Pentek 150574 10" 3G Standard Filter Housing Black/Blue MM IB w/ PR - – Fresh Water Systems

Wrench for Canister: Pentek SW-2 ~$6

Differential Pressure Gauge: Pentek 143549 ~$53 (Green (clean) 0-6 psid; Yellow (change) 6-9 psid; Red (dirty) 9-12 psid) Pentek 143549 Differential Pressure Gauge With 3 Color Needle – Fresh Water Systems

Pump: two options:  These pumps need to be secured to a base such as wood with simple rubber vibration isolators such as  MY MIRONEY 4-Pack 20 x 15mm Rubber Vibration Isolator Mount Shock Absorber with M6 x 18mm Studs: Amazon.com: Industrial & Scientific or a simple rubber pad.  These pumps develop the necessary for the 0.2 micron absolute filter.

Shurflo 8020-513-236 (115VAC) ~$154 Shurflo Pump 8020-513-236 115vAC Power Cord 60PSI Switch 1.6 GPM (toboaenergy.com)

Shurflo Model SLV10-AA48 (12VDC) ~$65 SLV10-AA48 Automatic Demand 12V Pump with On/Off Switch & 2 Pin Connec – Sprayer Depot + 12VDC power supply ~$22 Amazon.com: MEAN WELL GST60A12-P1J 12V 5 Amp 60W Regulated Switching Table Top Power : Everything Else. You have to wire the power supply to the pump motor.

Filter: FlowMax HP (Watts) FPP-0.2-975-DOE 0.2 micron absolute
— ~ $50 Flow-Max FPP-0.2-975-DOE Pleated Filter Cartridge (toboaenergy.com)

Hose Barb for filter canister: x2 nylon Hose Barb ¾" NPT x 3/8” Barb ~$15 LASCO 19-9503 Male Hose Thread Adapter Barb Fitting with 3/8-Inch Barb and 3/4-Inch Male Hose Thread, Nylon - - Amazon.com

Hose Barb for 115VAC Pump: x2 Hose Barb 3/8” NPT x 3/8” Barb — nylon or plastic not metal per Shurflo ~$8 Amazon.com: ANPTGHT Plastic Hose Barb Fitting, 3/8" Barb X 3/8" NPT Male Thread Adapter Connector Pipe Fittings for Fuel Gas Liquid Air (Pack of 5) : Industrial & Scientific

Tubing: 3/8″ ID Heavy Duty Reinforced Vinyl Tubing, BPA Free and Non Toxic — 10 ft ~ $20 Amazon.com: 3/8" ID x 50 Ft High Pressure Braided Clear PVC Vinyl Tubing Flexible Vinyl Tube, Heavy Duty Reinforced Vinyl Hose Tubing, BPA Free and Non Toxic : Patio, Lawn & Garden.

Add hose clamps (5) and one hose barb adapter for the tank drain valve. Use a binder clip (or whatever you want) to secure the hose to the tank top - the terminates in the tank top below the surface.

On/Off Switch for Pump: BindMaster 3-Prong Grounded On/Off Switch ~$7. Bindmaster 3 Prong Grounded Single Port Power Adapter for Outlet with Indicator Lighted On/Off Switch to be Energy Saving {1 Pack}… - - Amazon.com.

Good Luck,
Neil

@oldaudiophile,

Yes, the pump/filter system is the same one that Tima uses, and if you read this lengthy comment section  Precision Aqueous Cleaning of Vinyl Records - The Vinyl Press you will see where I worked with Tima to develop it.  I have work with a number of people developing similar pump/filter systems - its gets tough sourcing equivalents for people in Poland & New Zealand.

Regarding what method will achieve the best cleaning, as I wrote in the book - "XII.13 The final chapters of this document will discuss machine assisted cleaning methods: vacuum record cleaning machines (RCM) and ultrasonic cleaning machines (UCM). It’s important to consider that machines are generally developed for two primary reasons – reduce labor and improve process efficiency. Process efficiency can mean faster (higher throughput) and/or higher probability of achieving quality or achieving a quality that manual labor cannot produce. Manual cleaning in the appropriate environment with appropriate controls can achieve impressive levels of cleanliness, but the labor, skill, time and probability of success generally make it impractical for manufacturing environments. But for the home audio enthusiast; depending on your attention to details, adopting machine assisted cleaning may or may not yield a cleaner record. However, the ease of use and convenience provided by machines can be very enticing and cannot be denied."

However, make no mistake, if your process throughput is very high; i.e, you need/want to clean 5-6 records at a time - UT is it.  But, if you are not careful with all the details, you may process records fast, but that does not mean that they will be 'cleaner' than a process/system that cleans one at time.  

Devil is in the details,
Neil

@bdp24,

The process you use is very similar to that used by @whart for some years now -  System Notes-Austin, 2017 - The Vinyl Press.  He uses a Monks vacuum-RCM for pre-clean, KL Audio UT for final clean (DIW only) and then dry with the Monks.  I have worked with a number of people using this process with variations in chemistry and equipment, but once dialed are very satisfied - its a proven process that works.  People cleaning many records at a time with good UT tank filtration do get excellent results with just air dry.  

But some (many) people want the ultimate convenience provided by the Degritter,  But some are now using a separate tank for rinse which is easily swapped-in and does elevate the performance of the unit.  

Take care,
Neil