Record Cleaning Machines

I’ll just say, I had a Kirmuss and liked the end result, but I started getting royally pissed at it for constantly overheating and continuously sitting around for 20 minutes while it cooled off! I have an Audio Desk system now and glad I paid the extra for quality cleaning. I did start off my cleaning adventure with an okki nokki but moved up to ultra cleaning....imo.

@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.".

Oldaudiophile, in case you did not know it, @antinn is a high class expert on cleaning technologies.

For relatively clean records I use 80KHz exclusively, although I have used 37KHz on some very dirty specimens with good results. Temperature is an issue, as antinn suggests. Body temperature is safe for vinyl, but colder is less good for cleaning.

@oldaudiophile
I too am deciding between the Kirmuss and/or Degritter.

Although one can save $ on a more home made Ultrasonic record cleaner solutions, the Kirmuss seem to perform with the best RCMs as reviewed by Fremer:https://www.stereophile.com/content/analog-corner-287-charles-kirmuss-vinyl-restoration-system
“….was left with a gleaming, shiny, like-new-looking record, even more brilliant than a similar record cleaned with the Audiodesksysteme G;läss Vinyl Cleaner.”
“All of these records sounded very good prior to "restoration," doubtlessly because I took good care of them and kept them clean using, in recent years, the Audiodesksysteme cleaner. Now their top ends sparkle as never before.”
“Best of all, when I played it—holy crap! The top end was fully restored, the backgrounds were superquiet, transients were sharpened, and the amount of inner detail—particularly the microdynamic shifts..”
So my conclusion is the Kirmuss is at least amongst the “best” at cleaning vinyl records.
ElusiveDisc often has a cheaper package deal while UpscaleAudio has a 3 LP version- both are on sale now.

The Degritter at $3k is cheaper and a newer design than AudioDesk.

KL Audio has exited the automatic RCM market likely due to high repair costs.

I thought about chasing which ultrasonic cleaning frequency is “better” or is “gentler” on the vinyl, but gave up as to not be important rabbit hole to chase- they both work great

If budget a concern, get the Kirmuss. If convenience a concern, get the Degritter.

Looking forward for your report on your new RCM. Thanks for supporting this forum community

You guys are great! Thanks so much for this additional information! May the music gods bless you all!

Actually, I have read and still have a copy of the Aqueous Cleaning 2nd edition thing. I guess I need to read that again more closely.

So, guys... bottom line... will 3 grand get me better audio performance over what I'm dong now or will it be just a time saver?

As an alternate thought, I believe that if you are gentle with the records, follow the directions and proceed carefully, all of the machines do a good job.  From the most simple (spin clean, etc.) to the most expensive.  What you pay for is how much time and effort you want to put in.  In general, if you spend less money, you spend more time.  And visa versa.

I haven't owned the Kirmuss but i did consider it seriously.  I watched the manufacturers videos and read Michael Fremer's review.  I believe it works well.  But, the effort involved is quite significant.  I own a Hannl Mera ELB.  Very high end vacuum machine.  It cleaned records very well.  But to me it was too fiddlely (sp?) and time consuming.  Set the hight of the brushes, apply the solution, wait while cleaning, manage the vacuum cycle to avoid static electricity, turn it over and repeat.  In the end it worked well.  The record was wet cleaned and static free.  But cleaning several records waisted an entire morning.

The Kirmuss was a great price but the process seemed even more labor intensive.  In the end I bought a Degritter and could not be happier.  Set it up, turn it on, insert the record, push the button and do other things.  When the chime sounds the record is clean, dry and static free.  I actually like cleaning records now.  Is it better than the other systems? I don't know.  Does it clean the records effectively and efficiently?  Most definitely.  Is it easier and more enjoyable, absolutely.

I have both a generic 40 kHz tank and 135(?) kHz sweeping US tank from Vibratto.  I use both, and noticed an improvement when I added the 135.  I spin the records in the 40 first after applying disc doctor cleaner, and then in the 135 that also serves as a rinse tank.  I use the basic first generation cleanervinyl rotisserie and filter the second tank.  Air dry with a small fan.  Definitely worth the price.

@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.

Antinn2, thanks for the info! Very much appreciated!

I did know that stuff about the Kirmuss machine and some of what you mentioned about the Degritter. When I use my system, I don't use any heat because the cavitation process actually causes or produces a little heat, anyway. That's one of the things that concerns me about the Degritter.  When I clean my records I set-up in the cellar, which is always cooler than the house.  Even after hours of cleaning, the US tank water never gets even lukewarm. My records have always been in great shape. They go in looking shiny new and come out looking the same way. The only thing I care about is sonic or audible improvement(s) and I'm getting that with the system I have now. I don't want to pay 3 grand for something I won't be able to hear, if you know what I mean.

I've been reading and researching this stuff for, at least, 3 or 4 years now. I've written to several world leading manufacturers of ultrasonic cleaning systems and machines for hospitals and clean rooms for microchip makers, asking all sorts of questions about cleaning frequencies, etc. I've actually had a couple of bona fide scientists write back and both said 40 kHz should be very safe and effective on PVC or vinyl products. Of course, as bona fide scientists, both very careful to stipulate their opinions were based on the Physics involved, potential short term and long term damage to PVC products and things of this nature; not specifically oriented to how this would or might affect audio performance. What I didn't know and found fascinating was that the size of the bubbles generated in the cavitation process isn't what does the cleaning. It's the force produced when they implode. So, 40 kHz actually produces a more aggressive cleaning effect than 120 kHz . Degritter states their machine is more gentle and, if I recall correctly, effective enough at cleaning mold release compounds from new and, presumably, older records, as well. If that is, indeed, so, from a scientific perspective, that would be an interesting bit of knowledge.

Several articles I've read stated the best approach to cleaning just about anything and everything a record might pick up along the years (e.g. smoke; fingerprints; skin oil; etc.) is to use a variety of sweeping frequencies during the cleaning process (e.g. 40 kHz - 80 kHz - 120 kHz and even a little higher). CleanerVinyl has started selling US cleaning tanks like that, now. Expensive but not 3 grand expensive.

A few other articles I've read indicated it really doesn't matter where the transducers are located in the machine because the bubbles are created all over the bath and permeate the entire liquid medium, anyway.

It would be nice to find a handful of bona fide scientists who are also bona fide audiophiles and would put all of this to the test. Sort of an A/B shout-out of the various RCM on the market. The before & after electron microscope photos on he Degritter website are all very well and good but I've seen similar before & after pics on other websites with similar results. I think Last had or maybe still does have something like that on their site or maybe it was in some review I read.

Another question I would hope could be resolved is what US waves do to records or PVC on a short-term and long-term basis. One person I had an email back & forth with questioned whether overuse of any frequency, particularly lower frequencies, could potentially alter the structural integrity of the PVC canals in the tiny grooves of a record and eventually negatively effect audio performance. That kind of makes sense, to me,  considering that is where the thickness of the PVC material is the thinnest. I've never used my US machine more than once on any record. Never felt I had to. I've always been of the opinion that this is a one & done type of thing. However, it would be good to know if repeated US cleanings could potentially be detrimental in any way.

Anyway, as you can, no doubt, see, I can get a little crazy about this kind of stuff! My records are and always have been my babies!

Sorry for the long post but inquiring minds what to know.  And, no, I wasn't that little kid in school who always had his hand up when the teacher asked:  "Any questions?" I should have been a scientist!      

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.

Following. Close to same boat with you.  Absent better info, I ordered a Kirmuss. But still willing to consider Degritter if this turns up a better comparison.