to buy or not to buy (ultrasonic record cleaner)

$3000 for a US RCM to do one record at a time.
???????
I guess I am not the target market.
Yikes!

You know how it is with this hobby. Everything is expensive. It’s all relative tho. You have to consider your larger investment, cartridge stylus, record collection, etc. so yeah while not cheap neither is anything else in this hobby. Price of being a vinyl collector I guess. 

Regarding the Kirmuss, Analog Planet Fremer says, "I can't see the restoration on vinyl records, but I can definitely hear it"

Ultrasonic cleaners seem to clean vinyl the best. Cheapest is somewhat homemade solutions for a few hundred dollars. Kirmuss is about $1k but takes a few manual steps per LP, but gets reported results on par with the automatic UC.    Automatic timer, wash and dry: Degritter is $3k, Audio Desk $4.5k

When I hesitantly decided to get back into vinyl, I wasn’t sure about it or putting big money into it.  So I bought a TT for under $300 and got a SpinClean.  I go far beyond the SpinClean’s recommendations of a few spins, as the records I had were never cleaned more than using a Discwasher before each play, and some records I inherited might never have been cleaned.  After numerous spins in each direction, and then wiping the records with the supplied cloths, followed by air drying, I played the record.  If it still didn’t sound great, I would clean a second or third time.  That seemed to work fine on most records, but some were apparently too damaged to be saved.

After using up the supplied SpinClean cleaning liquid, I searched the internet for a home-made facsimile and decided on 2/3 distilled water, 1/3 91% isopropyl alcohol and a couple of drops of dishwashing liquid in a 8 ozs. container.  A couple of SpinClean capfuls in distilled water in the tank, and that seems to work fine.

I still can’t justify paying thousands of dollars for a cleaning machine to clean records I only play on occasion.  

You can manually clean pretty effectively without spending a lot of money. One of the issues isn't just whether the chemistry is effective, but how easy it is to remove from the record without leaving a residue that includes the chemistry plus contaminants.
Rinsing is good. But dishwashing detergent is pretty heavy. Dawn was popular with car detailers to strip off wax build up before they would get to work on a painted or clear coat surface. It has a lot of stuff in it that you don't need for cleaning records. Cheap yes. I think you can do better without spending much more.  

Here's the 2nd Edition of Neil Antin's Precision Aqueous Cleaning of Vinyl Records. It expands on the chemistry and processes, and includes a much expanded section on ultrasonic chemistry and processes. Not a light read, but an excellent reference. It is a free download. Neil did all the work; I just published it. 
https://thevinylpress.com/precision-aqueous-cleaning-of-vinyl-records-2nd-edition/

@whart 

Thanks. Will curl it out. 

For those that already have extensive experience with an ultrasonic, is there any prep you do prior to use?  Visual inspection for any blemishes or material that probably should be removed with a fingernail or something?

I bought some used ones the other day and ran them through my (admittedly low-end) ultrasonic and they are pretty clean and shiny now, but, I found the cleaner won't get rid of things like the chunk of chewing gum (small, almost not noticeable) that some prior owner left deposited on the vinyl. 

Of course they also don't seem to be able to clean up 100% (although considerably) the results of many many abusive plays over the years by owners who had probably played them on groove-grinder turntables with dust all over the stylus and/or coin taped on the cartridge head to keep the needle in the groove.  The LPs quiet up considerably after a clean in the ultrasonic but can never be made perfect again if they have been damaged, at least in my opinion. 

I preclean any used album and some new ones. Ultrasonic is good at the fine cleaning but the basic stuff I do manually via a Monks Omni. At the same time, I inspect the record-- Neil got me onto using a UV light which is instructive, but not all telling. What you can see is some particulate and differences that aren’t as visible in normal light in the vinyl itself- not that there is anything you can do about the latter.
Given how the Monks works, if a record has a warp, you will know it. In those cases, after a preclean, the record will go into an Orb made DF-2. Final cleaning via US (currently using the KL which is hanging in there). I rinse, using high grade water, a vac dry on the Monks. My set up is shown in my system photos on Audiogon, but I’ll include a shot here: https://thevinylpress.com/app/uploads/2017/12/DSCF0766.jpg

@whart2 thank you for the reply.  Very nice cleaning setup, I need to do some basement remodeling to accommodate something like this.  For now my US lives on a borrowed table whilst I do work on either side.  Gotta pay the bills of course.  I certainly will plan to do some better visual and preclean before my next batch of US.  Great tips, thank you.  The Monk machine is very interesting, I had not seen nor heard of one of those before.

’Twas the original "automatic" record cleaning machine borne out of Percy Wilson’s papers on vinyl record contamination. There was a test mule, photograph of same floating around on the web somewhere, and Monks was the one to commercialize it. I saw my first one circa early '70s at the high end salon in Pittsburgh, run by the debonaire Tasso Spanos (lovely guy with ears and a real sense of the high end back the day). Tasso was one of the few I knew who had one-- they were really aimed at libraries, radio stations, and in the UK, facilities that would offer record cleaning as a service.
Tasso’s old machine showed up on E-Bay or Audiogon several years ago as a rusted out hulk.
When Monks the Elder died, the company became dormant, though there were still folks out there servicing them. Monks the Younger rebooted the company a decade or more ago, and this is one of the newer models-- finish may be a little nicer than the early ones, but the unit is in many respect the same British engineering- quirky, but it gets the job done and I like it as an artifact. (The pump actuator is from a Mini with a windshield wiper icon-- I don’t use the fluid brush head dispenser because I use various fluids and a pure water rinse). The machine is still made as far as I know, although Monks recently introduced a line that doesn’t rely on the thread buffer that was part of the design of these-- I have not seen or played with these newer ones, which I gather are priced at a few grand as opposed to several few grands. It’s a keeper.

Yes the Monks RCM are back and now a threadless design that cost $1000. The original Monks machines are still being made but have been converted using the same threadless design as well, from what I've been told. Easy to use and very quiet.

My best friend has one. He is very pleased with it.

@lukaske has what? A Monks machine? An US machine? Which one?

"doesn't clean down to the 2-5 microns in the bottom of the groves"
An elliptical stylus is 0.2mm to 0.7mm. 2-5 microns is 0.002-0.005mm.
The stylus does not go anywhere near this. 
https://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/gallery/image/22429
And, the oily natural surface of an LP is needed to lubricate the groves.
It is necessary to keep some oil in the groves. The KM fluid is highly refined to leave the "right" amount of oil.
A major benefit of the KM RCM it that it cleans near 100% of the excess dirt. Whereas the ultrasonic method circulates all the dirt in the fluid. And then blow dries the residual on the record. Most don't change the fluid very often. And how it takes 5-10 minutes instead of 1 1/2 minutes of the KM.

I didn’t like the sonic signature of the Monks fluid. I use a Hannl fluid which is no longer made and will eventually have to find another fluid. I also use AIVS #15 for a deeper clean, agitating with a unidirectional pad applicator that came with Lloyd Walker’s Prelude kit (you can buy replacement pads, but unfortunately, not the applicator, separately). I do use the Monks brushes for the Hannl fluid and for the rinse stage. I think the rinse is critical.
After pre-cleaning, I use the KL ultrasonic and if I’m really concerned about the results, will dry via the Monks using a little more high grade water.
I think the combination of methods- essentially manual cleaning, combined with vacuum, and ultrasonic, with appropriate rinse steps, is synergistic. I’m agnostic as to product brands-- I’m looking for results. I’ve gone through a lot of records and have a pretty good regimen that I’m satisfied with, but am always open to learning.
I’m also not about ritual or voodoo-- if you can get a record clean, and remove the contaminants including those bound up with the cleaning fluid so you are not leaving a residue on the record, you should be good-- even without spending a lot of money on fancy equipment. The equipment is a convenience. I like the Monks and it is one machine I’ll keep. I like the KL too for that matter, but most ultrasonics eventually die or need parts that aren’t readily obtainable. DIY ultrasonic makes a lot of sense. For those folks that don’t want the trouble, the Degritter is apparently the current fav and I’ve heard almost uniformly positive comments about it. As mentioned, I’ll go industrial when the KL finally dies (not that I’m wishing for that, it has served me well).

Hi all, 
Robert here, 
I started a similar thread on AK, especially since I'm seeing the machines on Ebay starting to hit the sub $300 mark. 

Here is the one thing no one else has brought up. 

Your dedicated record cleaner/vacuum system is just that. An Ultrasonic cleaner might be an easier thing to rationalize purchasing because it can be used to clean other things, eyeglasses, jewelry, dentures, alfa romeo parts, etc. 

It isn't a one trick pony.

Well I won’t read thru all of these responses so if I’m repeating something I apologize. A couple weeks ago I broke down and purchased a Degritter and am never looking back. The ease of use, the maintenance (it tells you what it needs), quieter than a vacuum system, etc.. Oh yes it cleans marvelously to. And from feedback that I get from the outfit I purchased from, it’s very dependable which I can’t say about the Audiodesk and the KLA is not around anymore. Hell you can even make your own filters, experiment with other record cleaning potions ( Paul Rigby’s videos on surfactants are great on the subject of cleaning your lp’s)
I’ve owned a VPI 16.5 but got rid of it decades ago. Too noisy , large, and ugly. But I have a Spin Kleen and a Record doctor record Vacuum. I also have the German made Disco Anti-Stat cleans better than a Spin Kleen but more difficult to use. If somone came up with a set of goat hair brushes for the Spin Kleen that would really be nice. Something about goats hair brushes seem superior to synthetic bristles. Paul Rigby uses the term attrition to describe the cleaning effect, an effect similar to the explosive action of cavitation bubbles. You can give it a try for a lot less money than a Degritter. Or wait for the HuminBird cavitation cleaner. I’m curious to see how well that works and for $400.00.
But right now, I used to have to clear off my dining table, put out the machines and the various cleaners, concoctions and maybe I could get thru three lp’s in an hour plus wearing earplugs (the noise). If I have an lp that’s really filthy I might pre clean it. But the Degritter I can just pop in a record and comeback when done. It sits on a small table. I can be doing most anything else while cleaning lp’s and not annoy the significant other or myself for that matter. But hey, if you like messing around with the cleaning process and apparently quite a few people on YouTube do, then go right ahead. I’m getting too old. I cleaned fifty records in the first week and not even a full week on the heavy cleaning setting and it keeps count of how many records you washed. I was so surprised. Need I say more?

I have tried the ultrasonic bath in conjunction with anti-static treatment with high pressure filtered air, the result has been very promising. I am in process of building a prototype to make the process more automated as I have well over 600 records. I am using commercial anti-static rod equipped with high pressure air nozzles connected to both high voltage power supply and air tank with air filter and pressure regulator. If interested reach out to me in next few weeks for update.Have not seen anything like it maybe due to cost and complexity.Also in ultrasonic bath, I am using filtered pure water with no additive.

Try the Monks brushes- they aren't goats hair but I have those and prefer the Monks for some things, unidirectional applicator for other things. Some of it comes down to how it applies and what you are trying to accomplish with the applicator. I've tried quite a few and everyone seems to have a preference. 
You might want to read some of Neil Antin's work on filtering. There's a whole lot to that area that was unknown to me starting with the specs and what an "absolute" rating means in terms of granularity. (I'm not a materials science so I'm sure there's a better way to describe that). 

So just to report back. I pulled the trigger on the degritter today. It’s on order so should have it soon. After all the research I have done this machine seems to offer what I am looking for. The price was a little over budget for this  purchase however I feel in the long run it is worth the money. Thanks for all the input guys it definitely helped to guide my decision. Looking forward to doing some cleaning and spinning. Happy listening 

That would do certain things other brushes wouldn't. I could add one to the repertoire to try it. 

@whart 

you should try it. It was $16 plush $15 shipping lol. My wife pretty much has the same brush (boars hair) that she paid $10 for locally. She never used it and I begged her for it and it also did a good job However like I said I think the shorter handle on the Kirmuss brush was more controllable for moving the brush in a circular pattern with less hand fatigue simply because of how your able to hold it. 

@barnettk - please let us know your impressions of the sonics before and after using the Degritter, maybe comparing it to your previous cleaning process

You know I will ;)

I have been using a Nitty-Gritty machine since they hit the market in the early 80's and it was way better than using a Discwasher brush alone.  I noticed that the NG brush left longitudinal scratches on the records that the stylus apparently does not pick up, but I was never happy with the idea of physical contact between the vinyl and a brush of any kind.  I heard about US cleaners on this forum and that sounded like a better way to clean.  There seems to be a couple of basic designs of ways to hold the records while in the water.  Some have a separate vertical spindle that holds the rotator motor and it adjusts up and down and also swivels.  Others attach to the sides of the US tank.  I've seen some that hold 12 records at a time requiring a large US tank .  I picked the Vinylstack device that holds 3 records at a time and a 6L US tank.  I also built a vacuuming nozzle out of plexiglass that directs forced air along the face of the records.  I use a wet-vac machine attached to my home made nozzle.  The air flow is not high enough to suck the water off the records, but does speed up the evaporation process.  I found that records dry in about an hour just sitting in free air and my nozzle dries them in about 15 minutes.  It depends on how powerful of a wet-vac machine you want to buy.  I use 1.5 gallons of distilled water with about 10ml of 91% isopropyl alcohol just to retard bacteria and mold growth in the water and a few drops of Dawn for a surfactant.  I did a test for a point of diminishing returns on the time in the water and found that about 15 minutes seemed to work, so I clean for 20 minutes and dry for 15 so I can be cleaning records and drying them at the same time with 5 minutes to repackage clean records and get 3 more ready for the cleaner.  You will get a "scum line" on the records when you remove them from the water.  It's easy to remove the scum and when it gets pretty bad I change the water.  At less than $1 pre gallon it's no big deal.

As for the sound difference after cleaning, it does what I need it to do.  I have noticed two issues that I determined were due to dirty groves.  The first thing I noticed was an increase in sibilance distortion and the second was a midrange graininess or gritty sound to voices male or female.  The sibilance is of course a natural part of the human voice (the "s" sound) but what I noticed was a distortion or exaggerated sound that seemed to come from the speakers instead of the location (typically centered) of the singer.  The US cleaning seems to have taken care of most of these two issues.  It will not make a used scratchy sounding record sound new again.  I suspect this is due to physical damage to the record surface from elastic collisions between particles and the stylus that leaves microscopic gouges in the groove surface that the stylus picks up when playing the record.  I've got about $500 in the stuff not including the wet-vac.  Considering I spent $250 on my Nitty-Gritty machine in the early eighties, $500 is not that bad and way less that a Degritter.  I would do it again.

I have a KLAudio for a few years. Very happy with that. Bought a Keith Monks Discovery. I think I need both.

Lots of time of my hands today; so, decided to check in on this thread. Have to admit I’m still interested in the Degritter, even though I’m still happy with my CleanerVinyl system, Knosti, Last record preservative and Last Power Cleaner in my cleaning regimen. Very satisfied and impressed with the results. Regardless, the Degritter seems faster and more convenient, despite the fact that it’s one record at a time.

I’ve been doing a lot of reading & research on record cleaning, in general, but especially US cleaning. (BTW: Thank You So Muh, whart, for that excellent article by Neil Antin! I consider this required reading, now, for anyone interested in record cleaning!) As part of my reading & research on US cleaning, I wrote (emailed) to lots of experts on this, including several leading major manufacturers of ultrasonic cleaning machines used for medical applications and semi-conductor manufacturing. I asked what I hoped would be a simple question (i.e. what is the best cleaning frequency for PVC record cleaning?).

I’ve learned that It isn’t the size of the bubbles created by cavitation but the force generated by their implosion that does the actual cleaning. So, even if the bubbles aren’t small enough to get down to the very bottom of the record grooves, it doesn’t matter. My concern was (and still is) the immediate cleaning efficacy and possible long term effects on the structural integrity of the PVC and record grooves, if any, at different power & cleaning frequencies, especially if records are US cleaned more than once. I posed this question to Degritter several months ago and never got a response of any kind. Professional audiophile reviewers that I would have considered somewhat knowledgeable on this were somewhat noncommittal, if they responded at all. The manufacturers, on the other hand, people who are bona fide scientists, responded to my inquiries relatively quickly. All of them were very careful to stipulate they or their companies had never done any scientific research on US cleaning as applied to PVC records but most were confident the standard 40kHz cleaning frequency should be safe and effective.

The Degritter employs a 120kHz/300 watts frequency because they say they found this to be the most effective and safe. I asked them for any data or nonproprietary information they could share to prove or support this claim. Nothing! No response! All they really had to do or could have done was describe, in general terms, just how they went about testing this, what frequencies they tried, etc. Nothing! I’ve read all their promotional advertisements & claims, seen the before & after electron microscope shots and all of that but no response. Really? Doesn’t exactly engender the kind of confidence I would need to part with 3 grand for this machine. I’ve seen electron microscope shots of record albums cleaned with other US machines using different frequencies. Same results. So, if any of you folks have any information on this question, I would sure love to have a look. Call me Doubting Thomas but for 3 grand, I need to see, at least, a preponderance of evidence. I’d also be interested in various cleaning solutions. Some "experts" say no alcohol under any circumstances! However, some say just a little alcohol in the right proportion, of course, is necessary, especially to remove mold release agents. Seems different solutions for different types of soils are what works best here. I’ve also read some articles about using a variety of different US cleaning frequencies during the cleaning process works best, as well.

As that cute little elderly lady used to say in those Wendy’s commercials: "Where’s the beef?" Well, where’s the science? Where’s the proof? Too much of this audiophile game is more smoke & mirrors than it needs to be or should be.

BTW: brand new records should be cleaned before play because of mold release agents used in pressing. Just thought I’d shoot that out there.