Record Cleaning Machines


Has anyone out there done an A/B comparison of the cleaning results or efficacy using the Degritter ultra sonic record cleaning machine which operates at 120 kHz/300 watts and an ultrasonic cleaner that operates at 40 kHz/300 or 380 watts (e.g. Audio Desk; CleanerVinyl; the Kirmuss machine; etc.)?  I have a system I put together using CleanerVinyl equipment, a standard 40 kHz ultrasonic tank and a Knosti Disco-Antistat for final rinse.  I clean 3 records at a time and get great results.  Surface noise on well cared for records (only kind I have) is virtually totally eliminated, sound comes from a totally black background and audio performance is noticeably improved in every way.  Even though the Degritter only cleans 1 record at a time, it seems significantly easier to use, more compact and relatively quick, compared to the system I have now.  I'm wondering if the Degritter's 120 kHz is all that much more effective, if at all, in rendering better audio performance than the standard 40 kHz frequency.  I don't mind, at all, spending a little extra time cleaning my records if the audio results using the Degritter are not going to be any different.  I'm not inclined to spend three grand for a little more ease & convenience and to save a few minutes.  However, if I could be assured the Degritter would render better audio performance results, even relatively small improvements, that would be a whole other story.
oldaudiophile
@sokogear, it's all good!

Some folks with 35 kHz to 80 kHz ultrasonic RCM are comfortable cleaning records more than once. For now, I'm in the one & done camp with my 40 kHz machine until or unless I find the sonic performance of a record I've cleaned has deteriorated. So far, that hasn't happened. If it ever does, I don't think I'd risk a repeat cleaning on those records in my collection that are irreplaceable. I'd likely experiment with a record I know I could get a good re-pressing of. However, 120 kHz machines, like the Degritter, are purported to be more gentle. As such, some audiophiles are very comfortable running records through machines like that multiple times. This is another reason why the Degritter intrigues me. However, like you, I gotta hear it to believe it. I'm not inclined to shell out 3 grand for the Degritter or a machine like it if I can't be reasonably assured I'll get better sonic results than I'm getting with the machine & system I'm using now. The system hardware I'm using now cost me less than 400 bucks 4 years ago. Even if I added the cost of all the extra doodads I use in my system (e.g. fluids; microfiber cloths; etc.), I'd still be under 450 bucks. I could order a Degritter from Music Direct, do an A/B, see/hear for myself and send it back if it failed to impress. They have a great 60 day return policy. Don't know if they have a restocking or return fee, though. I'd have to check that out. Still might be worth it. It's looking like this may be the only way for me to satisfy my curiosity, unless I can find a local audio shop with a Degritter who cleans customers' records as a demo.

Next time you've got about 45 minutes to blow, have a look at this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN9X1Op8eVo
@oldaudiophile years ago when I was looking at a 40khz unit (which I bought) I scoured the internet regarding the safety of ultrasonic cleaning.  I read a report of an audiophile who took a record he didn't care for and cleaned it ultrasonically over 100 times with a similar unit. He never saw any debris in the tank and reported no loss of sonic quality. So, I think we are ok with multiple cleanings if necessary.  I have cleaned my records with several different modalities and have never noted a degradation in sonic quality, only improvements.  I did recently purchase a Degritter and use it as a final step and believe I see an improvement in sonic texture and imaging, not so much pops and ticks.  These lps have meticulously cared for and cleaned prior to the degritter and if you have a revealing system, I think you will be pleased. If you have a local dealer a test drive might help, but the improvement will unlikely be earth shattering with an lp that is already cleaned.  I have a very revealing system and have seen improvements with records that have already been cleaned with a VPI, 40 khz US, and a clearaudio double matrix.  There is a utube video from Suncoast Audio demonstrating the improvement with a Degritter on an lp that was previously cleaned with the double matrix.  Hope this helps.
Hi, I just received Kirmuss and do agree with some comments above that water becomes hot too soon and one of my records (out of about 40 cleaned so far) wasn't sitting in the slot properly and there was risk of damage but I noticed and resolved this quickly. It appears from videos that it's better to insert records while machine is working. Process is a bit time consuming but perhaps based on condition of specific record you can make changes to it (here I'd like to hear feedback from other owners). One cycle with surfactant maybe enough for many but some might require 4-5 times. Also I'm skeptical about steps after wiping out record and typically finish cleaning process with applying Furutech destat. I can afford more expensive cleaner but generally think about it as of waste of money as with proper experience can get desired results from Kirmuss.
@orthomead, thanks for the info and feedback! Truly appreciated! With regard to the issue of a revealing system, I certainly do not have a Mikey Fremer state of the art system. However, my MAC amp, Revel F206 and Mofi Ultradeck & Mastertracker are as revealing a system as I've ever owned.

I've just recently found a shop about 2 hours' drive from me that has a Degritter on demo they use to clean customers' records. I'm going to explore that. I'm going to bring a couple LP's I've already run through my US cleaning process, a coupe I haven't and see/hear what happens when I spin them on my TT. If the comparative sonic results are a significant enough improvement over what I'm achieving now with my lash-up RCM system, that will spur me into doing battle with my financial comptroller (i.e. She Who Must Be Obeyed). I'll report back in to let everyone know what comes of this. Push come to shove, I suppose I could use my present USRCM as a final rinse and use my Knosti as a pre-cleaner for the old records I inherited.
Here's where I'm at in my findings & deliberations.

Please keep in mind, here, there is no way this can or should be considered anything other than my own feeble, half-baked attempt to see or, rather, hear what the Degritter might be able to do for my old records. This is nothing other than a rough evaluation, particularly regarding the first 2 LP's I used for my grand experiment, records that hadn't been played for years and never on the sound system I have now (e.g. Mofi Ultradeck+M & MAC integrated). For those, I had to rely on a heavy dose of nostalgia, if you know what I mean. Regardless, I'd still be interested in any & all constructive feedback. That being said, here goes!

I had the shop with the demo Degritter run 4 of my LP's through its heavy cycle. Degritter instructions were followed, including use of the recommended cleaning fluid. All 4 records were purchased new, relatively well cared for, according to the times, and never loaned or played by anyone else but me. In short, I did the best I knew how in those days (e.g. proper handling & storage + played only on a Phillips 212 TT with various carts between 1.5 and 2 grams VTF + use of WATTS Parostatik Disc Preener + later, Discwasher & D3 + Discwasher D2 stylus cleaner + etc.). 

Records cleaned: "The Hurting" by Tears For Fears (1983 Mercury-Phonogram Ltd. London-manufactured in USA by Polygram Records). This LP had never been cleaned in any way. (Nothing goes on my new TT without going through US cleaning first). Next was: "Nothing But A Breeze" by Jesse Winchester (1977 Bearsville Records-manufactured in USA by Warner Bros. Records). I may have cleaned this one in the early 1980's. If so, as best I can recall, it would have been with city treated tap water, a tiny amount of Kodak Photo-Flo, tiny amount of dishwashing detergent and, maybe, a small amount of IPA. Next was: "Pieces Of The Sky" by Emmylou Harris (1975 Reprise Records/Division of Warner Bros-manufactured  in USA). I might have manually cleaned this one in the 80's, too, with the same concoction previously mentioned. Can't remember. However, I had cleaned this one, recently, using my present US cleaning regimen and treated it with LAST record preservative. Lastly: "Desperado" by Eagles (1973 Asylum Records-manufactured by Atlantic Recording Corp. USA). I likely cleaned this one manually in the 80's. I was on a cleaning kick back then. I, also, recently ran this one through my US cleaning regimen and treated it with LAST.

Results: before playing the first 2 records on my present sound system I treated them with LAST. If there was a sonic improvement in the Tears For Fears LP, I couldn't tell. Then again, this one hadn't been played in 20 to 25 years on the old sound system. Surface noise was, comparatively,  more prominent than all the other Degrittered records. My wife thought it sounded "kind of tinny". However, this isn't her favorite Tears For Fears album and it hasn't been played much. I'm far from an expert on this sort of thing, or anything else, but I don't think this is or was a particularly good recording. Maybe bad or mediocre pressing? Lousy PVC composition? Not the best sound engineering? Maybe another US cleaning would help? No clue!

The Jesse Winchester LP was/is WONDERFUL! Virtually no surface noise to speak of and great frequency response from bottom to top; noticeably better than I remembered on my old sound system about 20 years ago. However, my new sound system is WAY better! Also, I love Jesse Winchester and this is my favorite album of his. It also seems, to my ears, that this is a good recording and a good pressing. This record already had lots of plays on it. Was my perceived improvement(s) the result of my new sound system? That's got to be part of it. Did the Degritter play a part? No way to really know, of course.

The results with these last 2 records, I think, gave me a little bit better insight into what I might be able to expect from the Degritter because I had already recently run them through my US cleaning regimen and played them on my present sound system.

Emmylou Harris's voice was/is SUBLIME, POWERFUL, CRYSTAL CLEAR, ABSOLUTELY STELLAR, as always! In this case, I think the Degritter definitely improved or brought out a little more of the music hiding in the grooves and all through the frequencies from bottom to top. However, IMHO, the improvement(s) was very subtle.

Finally, on Desperado, one of my favorite albums of all time, an album I've played LOTS, again, I believe there was/were sonic improvement(s) and, again, I think that or those improvements were very subtle.

So, for me, this is a little like buying a new car and trying to decide whether I feel the extra money for the model just above the one I like is worth it because of the variable speed windshield wipers, extra cup-holders, lighted vanity mirrors & glove box or whatever. The Degritter would certainly be more convenient, considerably less labor intensive and less time consuming than what I'm doing now. Also, there's no question in my mind, now, that it was able to wrestle or squeeze out a little bit better sonic results from the 2 records I had recently run through my US cleaning process. Frankly, I really wasn't expecting "wow" results from the Degritter. I fully expected improvements, if there were any, to be subtle, at best, and that is exactly what I found. The eloquence of the Degritter cleaning process is really what attracts me more, at this point. It's price doesn't dissuade me. So, I guess I'll continue to struggle with whether the cleaning eloquence and ever so subtle sonic improvements are worth three grand.

Anyone else out there wrestle with the same dilemma? If so, I'd be interested in how you resolved or reconciled it.

Thanks, folks! You're the best!