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.
@oldaudiophilebefore you get too far down the road, you may want to buy a good USB microscope so you can see clearly down into the groove. Once you have that in place you will be able to visually see the differences between clearers as well as hear any difference. I did this several years ago, and it totally changed the way I clean records.
So many cleaners do nothing more than clean the top surface of the LP and do little to nothing to really clean the groove, especially the bottom of the groove where all sorts of crap resides.
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.
@antinn, this paper is incredible! It has me rethinking a lot of things and looking at purchasing what would probably be a lifetime supply of industrial cleaners, lol.
Could I ask, if you were to recommend an easy/fast version of your cleaning method, what would that look like? Would a one-step process, for example, even be possible? Thanks in advance.
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.
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.
@antinn, seems I can't thank you enough for this incredible wealth of knowledge, guidance and experience! You are truly amazing! I wish I could express my gratitude more tangibly (e.g. buy you a beer, fine single malt or beverage of your choice).
If I'm not mistaken, that lash-up pump & filter system is what Tima uses. I use a Pentek Big Blue whole-house water filter for my home. Makes lots of sense to incorporate a smaller version for this application.
I've noticed, along the way, that you have judiciously avoided subjective issues like sound quality achieved or capable of being achieved by different record cleaning methods and kept the discussion strictly focused on quantitative cleaning results. Not surprising for a person with a good mind for science! However, I can't help but wonder if you may have some preference(s) for one cleaning method(s) over another as it impacts on sound quality. The prevailing wisdom or opinion in audiophile circles is that US cleaning yields the best sonic results because it obtains the best cleaning results with the least wear & tear on record grooves. Seems to make sense, in theory, but audiophiles are fond of splitting hairs and chasing their tails in search of the holy grail of best audio quality. As such, I can't help but wonder if careful & proper manual cleaning can achieve the same sound quality improvement(s) as other methods with inconsequential wear & tear on those precious record grooves where the music lives.
Great post, Neil. Thanks for all the filter info, not to mention your LP cleaning "article" that @whart published on his site. As I consider vacuuming off the water after cavitation a must, I came to the conclusion that the Degritter---nice as it is---is not the way to go.
A high-frequency (over 100kHz) ultrasonic tank can be had for under a grand, and your method of pre-cleaning does more to clean the LP than does any other method I've ever been aware of. Add ultrasonic captivation and then vacuuming, and you have an LP as clean as is humanly possible. Pretty easy to do, too.
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).
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.
@daveyf, thanks for the feedback/review! Much appreciated, as always! I've seen a few video reviews of the Kirmuss machine in action, one by Kirmuss, himself. I've also read a few reviews of this machine. I trust that it probably gets good cleaning/sonic results but the entire recommended cleaning process is just too labor-intensive, for my tastes.
@antinn, once again, thanks so much for your scientific know-how applied to this realm! Even though I still don't entirely grasp or fully comprehend all the Physics involved, I do catch bits & pieces, here and there. I have taken a close look at that Elmasonic machine you mentioned. If I'm not mistaken, CleanerVinyl offers it on their site, along with a very large (too large, for me) multi-frequency machine (40, 80, 120 kHz) and a 132 kHz machine. Yesterday, I happened upon a 45 kHz/132 kHz Crest US machine that caught my interest. However, the sonic power is only 120 watts for a 1.4 gal. machine. I'd have to go 6.9 gal. to get 300 watts. WAY TOO BIG! The machines are advertised as having ceramically enhanced transducers to insure uniform cleaning throughout the tank by sweeping the ultrasonic frequency 3 kHz, creating overlapping US waves. They also carry a 2 year warranty and are purported to be quite reliable. I also took another look at CleanerVinyl's 1 micron filter systems. Seems like mucho dinero for what looks like a retro-fitted tropical fish aquarium pump & filter system but it is well designed and that is what you pay for.
As I indicated earlier, I suppose I could spring for a Degritter and use it as a final cleaner after a pre-clean through my 40 kHz machine. However, based upon my grand experiment of last week, the sonic improvement(s), IMHO, are just too subtle for me to condone spending 3 grand on something like that. At half the price, it would be a more serious consideration. Even so, 15 minutes to clean 3 records in the 40 kHz machine plus another 10 minutes, or so, on heavy cycle, for a single record through the Degritter doesn't add to the appeal. I'm thinking adding CleanerVinyl's 1 micron filter to my madness, my newly acquired 0.5 to 3 RPM motor to slow down revs to 1 RPM for 3 records and using Tergitol (with or without IPA) might be a cost-effective alternative, at least for now. (Thanks so much for the lead on the Terigitol. You saved me some bucks! Always appreciated!). In the future, if were to find a reliable, reasonably priced 120 or 132 kHz US machine with sufficient cleaning power that would accommodate my CleanerVinyl equipment, that would be interesting. If I could simply and easily transfer my skewer of records from the 40 kHz machine over to the higher frequency machine that would save some time.
I just finished demoing a Kirmuss machine. The Kirmuss method of adding a surfactant and multiple sweeps of the US was not something that I was particularly interested in doing. My a'phile friend who let me use the Kirmuss does use the Kirmuss method, and I do think that there are some benefits to it ( although whether they are worth the risk to both stylus ( if you don't get all of the surfactant off) and record(s) ( if you have a problem with the slot load after multiple loads!) is questionable). I used the machine just with DW and nothing else,I also just did one sweep per record. The results were not that bad, and definitely better than I could get with my VPI 16.5 and various MoFi cleaners. OTOH, the concern that I had, and still have, for this machine is the possibility of its rather poor slot design damaging the vinyl. That alone discounted the Kirmuss for me. The ability to clean and increase the SQ on a generally clean and non-scratched LP was certainly there...just not enough for me to risk any precious vinyl damage.
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.
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.
@daveyf, methinks you and I are on the same wavelength!
The young folks who designed the Degritter have every right to price their machine at what the market will bear and, hence, enjoy the rewards of their innovation and hard work. After all, the Degritter is a nifty, well designed RCM providing stiff competition for all the other RCM’s on the market. With all the attention it’s receiving and the accolades & awards it has already won, I don’t think we’re likely to see a price reduction anytime soon. The HumminGuru (interesting product name), introduced at less than a grand, might prompt some thinking in this direction. However, it’s expected to be a 40 kHz machine. I think 120 kHz might have had something to do with the improvements I heard on the records I’d already cleaned with my 40 kHz process. OTH, could those improvements have been the result of just another US cleaning at whatever kHz? I’d be interested in hearing what Neil would have to say about that. Maybe an additional cleaning with my system, using Neil’s recommended tweaks, might produce the same results? Sooner or later, I’m going to find out. No matter how many times I read Neil’s book or paper on this, I just don’t have the science smarts to understand all this stuff. My understanding, though, is that different cleaning frequencies are better at targeting different contaminants.
Apparently, there are US machines on the market that cycle or sweep between 40, 80 and 120 kHz at, roughly, half the cost of the Degritter. Of course, those I’ve read about are strictly US tanks, use a heck of a lot more fluid and are not as convenient as bespoke machines like the Degritter. It’s understandable that the more sophisticated the US machine, the more it costs to manufacture and the higher its retail cost. Regardless, volume, supply and demand might have some impact on this. CleanerVinyl has a multi-cycle US machine on their website. Once you add everything to it to achieve a complete start to finish record cleaning process like the Degritter, though, you’re in the same price ballpark. Theoretically, the advantage would be the multi-cycle cleaning. I’m going to have to investigate this more closely. Regardless, I keep coming back to the same cost benefit questions: How much? How much time? To achieve what?
Paul Rigby, The Audiophile Man, completed a great comprehensive review of the Degritter and found that repeated heavy cleaning cycles with it and his own cleaning fluid concoction produced progressively improved sonic results. If I remember correctly, the Degritter’s heavy cycle is somewhere around 6 minutes (not including drying time). I do 15 minute cleaning cycles with my 40 kHz machine. I wonder how this factors into the comparative sonic results. I’m sure Neil would know. Paul and others, attest to the superior results of the Degritter, versus other 40 kHz machines. Regardless, for me, it’s the same old Gordian’s knot: How much? How much time? To achieve what?.
I’m going to try adding a little extra elbow grease (e.g. pre-cleaning with LAST POWER CLEANER) and the tweaks Neil suggested to the method of my madness and see/hear what happens because, like you, I think I’m voting with my wallet on this one. Even if I didn’t already have a lash-up US cleaning system and was just beginning to look into a system like this, my sense is that the better mousetrap has yet to be invented.
@oldaudiophile You bring up some really good points. I agree with you, spending $3K on a single slot US cleaner is a real struggle. When the Degritter was out for its pre-sale testing with beta testers, I was under the impression that it was going to be priced in the $1K area!! Clearly some USA marketing guru got involved and the price was increased substantially. The new Humminguru US cleaner from China is on my radar, and its price could be sub $1K..easily. OTOH, I also know that once the ’reps’ in the USA get their hands on the thing, it will rise to the sky...:0(
You ask how others have come to terms with the pricing...While I cannot talk for others, I have voted with my wallet and as such i have NOT bought the Degritter. I suspect if enough of us did exactly this, the pricing of a lot of these 'high end' products would be modified accordingly.
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.
@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.
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.
@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.
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:
Nice clip MC, as usual you are always spot on with the hilarious exaggerations from movies or TV shows.
@oldaudiiophile - I didn’t imply that the fan would hurt anything. I was just saying that if you don’t ever wet the record, you wouldn’t need a fan to dry it. You answered my question about frequency of cleaning, thanks. So I would buy a RCM, clean my records once and then forget about it unless I got a dirty used record (which wouldn’t happen)? No thanks.
Like I said, I tried it on a wet RCM a couple years ago on 40 year old records played hundreds if not a thousand times and could not hear any difference before or after, nor did the salesman trying to sell me one. I think it was like $700, maybe a VPI? Maybe an ultrasonic would be better, but if I don’t hear any surface noise, are you saying the SQ improves with better dynamics, bass, clarity, etc. after being cleaned? I find that hard to believe if the record has been well cared for and has been brushed for dust, but I accept that you heard it.
That’s why this forum is so great, we can respectfully disagree knowing in this hobby it is very rarely cut and dry. A little comedy never hurts either to counteract the network news hysteria of the day.
@sokogear, I was suggesting using a mini-fan, instead of blowing on a record.
Like you, I also use a carbon fiber record brush (Audioquest Anti-Static). I could be wrong but I don't see how this would damage the grooves of a record treated with LAST or even those that aren't. Haven't heard any problems, anyway. As I indicated earlier, I also regularly use an Onzow, as well.
I respect your opinion on the need (or not) for a RCM. However, based upon personal experience, I have to respectfully disagree. I've got records I purchased new in the 60's & 70's and have fastidiously cared for ever since. I manually cleaned some of them back in the 80's. I can't honestly recall what the before & after audio performance difference(s) was back then because that was just too long ago. However, I can assure you there was a very readily noticeable audio improvement after I cleaned those same records recently, ultrasonically. "Dramatic" is a relative term, of course. So is "subtle". The best way I can describe or characterize the difference(s) is that it's something you don't have to be in critical listening mode to hear. It's straightforward and straightaway! Even my toughest critics heard/hear the difference(s) (e.g. wife; close friends who visit often and give me the straight poop when asked, not polite placation). I've never done a before & after with a new record. So, I can't honestly attest to comparative audio performance differences in this respect. I can only assume the potential difference(s), if there is any, would probably be more subtle than the difference(s) I achieved with the old records. Maybe new pressing methods and new vinyl/PVC composition might have something to do with this.
@bigtwin - I'm sure the spit that hits the record when you blow on it doesn't help with the cleaning. Carbon fiber bristle record brushes (not the thick ones) sweep the dust off and have a blade (if you want to call it that) that removes the dust from the brush when you sweep it over that. I'll do a main sweep for a couple revolutions, clean off the brush and then do an angled sweep towards the middle of the record and then the blade sweep. If your records are not generating surface noise and you bought them new or are not trying to resuscitate an uncared for used record, then IMHO you don't need a RCM.
As far as using a fan @oldaudiophile, you shouldn't get the record wet unless as I mentioned, it is dirty.
I do use a leaf blower.....WHEN DRYING MY CAR! Dirt on a towel will scratch the paint.
The dust on a record doesn't come from the road. Unless you handle the record like a gorilla and/or use paper or junky sleeves, it should stay the way you got it if you keep the dust off of it. Unless you have a ton of dust in your air, a carbon fiber bristle brush does the trick. I do keep the records in MFSL rice paper sleeves, and jackets in clear poly sleeves, and MFSLs have a folder that the record goes into that then goes in a jacket.
For the ultimate in OCD, the original UHQRs (DSOTM, COTC, FP, SPLHCB, IR, TFTT and a classical one) have the sleeve, the folder, the jacket, and then a box with 2 foam inserts to hold the record into the box. It also includes a frequency response graph inserted into an envelope on the inside of the box and the number of the pressing on an authenticity certificate and the actual jacket. Probably would cost $200 these days (before all the scalpers bought them and jacked up the prices). They just started making extra large poly sleeves which fit these and other small box set releases, so I use them on these prized records. So 5 steps just to put the record back and then one more to put it back in the cabinet! They sound pretty good too. Especially Finger Paintings, Sgt Pepper, and Crime of the Century.
@miillercarbon, too funny! Loved the video clip! If no one ever enters the vinyl inner sanctum, how do the records get there? Automation? Level 4 Lab protocols? Then again, the slot in the wall would violate those protocols. Perhaps retro-fitting an old jukebox for the wall transfer would be an acceptable trade-off. Gotta watch The Andromeda Strain again!
@antinn, that Orbit is a neat little device. No pun intended! The Tiger Cloths are interesting, as well. I've been using another brand in my cleaning process but only to absorb most of the fluid after cleaning, without wiping. After that, I just prop the records up for complete air-drying. That Clean Room sponge was/is intriguing, as well.
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.
Right. Do not even so much as breathe near your precious vinyl. This will raise humidity levels unconscionably high, possibly even getting moisture on the vinyl, necessitating another year of slow gradual careful drying. For this reason records must be stored in a cabinet outside the listening room where no people ever enter. There should be a small slot in the wall close to the turntable through which only the selected record is removed WHILE SLOWLY INHALING so as not to risk contaminating with your breath.
But, but, but, but...blowing or gently exhaling on a record before play? Wouldn't it be better to use one of those small personal fans, instead? I would think a person exhaling, even gently so, on a record would have the propensity for depositing, sooner or later, fine atomized droplets of saliva, vapor, CO2, O2, Nitrogen and whatever else comes out of one's lungs... no? I understand and respect the zeal to achieve and maintain pristine grooves but blowing on a records seems counterproductive.
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’.
I have used the
P4875(II)-4T-NH (isonicinc.com) for a year now. Have cleaned about 750 LPs and have been generally satisfied with the results. While the system will accomodate 10 discs at a time, I have learned that doing 2 at a time lets me space them apart and gets better results. I think the machine gives good value for the price. One thing I have stopped doing is ever touching the surface of a cleaned disc with a brush (carbon or otherwise) or any other surface cleaning devise. I gently blow off the surface before playing. After spending all the time cleaning a disc, that last thing I want to do is push any surface particles down into the grooves with a brush. Makes sense?
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.
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.
@antinn, by way of a P.S., I'm guessing Walter Davies (REST HIS SOUL!), was comfortable using IPA. The LAST RCM Fluid is 20% IPA. Frankly, I found this very surprising! Seems like a very high concentration, judged by everything I've read, thus far.
@antinn, I'm aware of the debate between those who eschew the use of IPA in any record cleaning concoction for fear of damaging vinyl/PVC and those who disagree, arguing that a small proportion is not only perfectly safe but, indeed, indispensable for effective cleaning (e.g. Paul Rigby & others). In the old days, I used IPA to clean tape recorder heads but I've never used it in any cleaning solution for records. Your 8-28-21 post seems to indicate IPA would be safe at 2.5%. Do you use IPA in the record cleaning solution(s) you use? Also, the proportions you recommend for the Tergitol are considerably less than any other recipes I've read about. Is this out of concern for potential foaming problems in UCM's? Thanks, again!
-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.
having good results with sota vacuum.. been playing with custom liquid and I think it's ok. removes most of the dirt. grime. pops.
however some around 5 % of the vinyl still unable to remove stubborn stains like tars. and pops and don't look like it's worn out. will ultrasonic help and how different it is from vaccuum style? is it worth the investments?
+1 @mijostyn. Only thing I would add is that if there is an out of print record I want, I will occasionally buy it if it is NM or mint condition.
i have never had one of those come back dirty. Occasionally they have a minor scratch/pop for a revolution or two, but I’ve had new records sometimes sound worse. In the worst of those cases, the vendor will allow a return, especially if they’ve seen a pattern of problems. I know one person who has a multi $K RCM who never brushes his records before playing them. What a waste, pure insanity.
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.
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.
@mijostyn The problem with just buying new LP's is the selection. There are numerous great LP's that have not been reissued, or are no longer available. I do agree with you that the likelihood of damage and wear is far greater with the used LP. However, to just restrict oneself to only new vinyl is going to mean leaving a lot of great music behind, IMO. If one does some research and gains some experience in buying used LP's, one can generally get good condition vinyl that is used. There are always condition issues that can crop up, but again IME, these tend to be less common if one knows what to look for.
@antinn, am I wrong? It would seem to me that someone has got his cations and anions mixed up with polar and nonpolar.
@daveyf, I think it is both physical damage to the record and build up of "residue." People who don't not take great care of their records are more likely to leave them out and smoke various combustibles that leave an oily residue on everything present not to mention any cooking fumes that may be present. Nothing is going to correct physical damage and getting rid of that oily residue is a PITA. My own mentality will not let me buy used records for the above reasons. Contrary to popular mythology new records are not bad at all. They may have some dust and come out of the jacket with static but that is all that I notice. I do not have to routinely clean gunk off my stylus, occasionally just some lint that got by my sweep arm. I may go months without touching the stylus. I have never cleaned new records but I will use a spin clean with DW and a few drops of Triton X100 for records that people bring to listen on my system. I have always thought the best way to clean records is not to let them get dirty in the first place. The additives in the PVC/PVA compound are part of the matrix of the material. It is not on the surface. It is mixed throughout. I thought you might be able to remove some plasticizer from the surface to harden it (ESO) but antinn assures me this can't happen. My instinct tells me that pressings people thought were "dirty" are just bad pressings with remnants of dirt and labels from recycled vinyl.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
