Ultrasonic record cleaners

@drbond,

The 'solvent' in Kodak Photo-Flo as I addressed is propylene glycol - and it is not harmful to a record; and it is non-toxic in many cosmetic products.  

One of the best reasons to purchase a degitter is that it has a filter that cleans the water every cleaning cycle. Most other cleaners once you clean the first record the dirty water is returned to the water tank

@antinn 

Thanks for the word of caution about Photo Flo.  Do you know if the solvent in Photo Flo could adversely affect the LP at all?  

drbond, You have a point about the fact that I do my cleaning in a conventional VPI RCM. And I guess I take the point of antinn that using 25% IP alcohol in a heated US cleaning tank might be dangerous, although that surprises me. However, the fact remains that such a low concentration of isopropyl alcohol as you propose is unlikely to help much, in my opinion. By the way, because of the low concentration of Photoflo as you propose to use it, I have to think that I was being overcautious in mentioning the undesireable additive, which antinn names as propylene glycol. However, antinn seems to agree that other surfactants might work better, e.g., Tergitol. Sorry for any confusion, otherwise.

@drbond,

As written in the book -

VIII.7: KODAK™ PHOTO-FLO 200: This is a wetting agent that is water mixed with a combination of 25-30% propylene glycol (i.e., anti-freeze) that acts as a solvent and as an antibacterial and antifungal agent and 5-10% nonionic surfactant. The nonionic surfactant by the CAS number 9036-19-5 is most likely Dow™ Triton™ X-114. This type of surfactant (octyl-phenol ethoxylates) is an environmental aquatic toxin and is being phased-out (see CHAPTER IX. DISCUSSION OF THE FINAL CLEANERS: for details). If the surfactant is Dow™ Triton™ X-114, the surface tension will be about 31 dynes/cm, the CMC will be 120 ppm, but the low 25°C/77°F cloud-point limits this product mostly to applications equivalent to room temperature.

If you add a cap-full that may be 10-ml, at best only 1-ml of surfactant is added, but (1-ml/6000-ml)(100) = 0.0167% = 167 ppm. So, there should be enough for it to act as a wetting solution. The propylene glycol diluted does nothing other than increases the non-volatile residue which if not rinsed, can leave a viscous type of residue.

My recommended nonionic surfactant is Tergitol 15-S-9 which is a very high-performance surfactant - Tergitol 15-S-3 and 15-S-9 Surfactant | TALAS (talasonline.com). At 1-ml in 6L tank, the 167-ppm will provide excellent wetting and also provide detergency that Triton X100 will not unless you add 3X more - Tergitol 15-S-9 is much more efficient, mixes easier and rinses much easier.

Edit:  FYI - Tergitol 15-S-9 is not the same as Tergikleen - different products and the book addresses in detail the difference in Chapter IX. 

@drbond & @lewm,

Please be careful with high concentrations of IPA in water and use with a heated ultrasonic tank.

25% IPA/water has a flashpoint of about 80F; and no ultrasonic tank you can afford is explosion-proof. With an ultrasonic unit three mechanisms are now in play - the heat that speeds up evaporation; the record turning is drawing fluid out that is evaporating, and the ultrasonics are agitating the fluid surface and a mist/vapor is often produced. All of this has the potential to setup the necessary conditions to develop flammable AND explosive vapors. At 100% IPA, the lower and upper explosive limits are 2.3 to 13.2%. But, even diluted with water, at 25% water-IPA, the lower and upper explosive limits are 2.3 to 7.1%. In a common domestic setting, it is very unlikely that the high ventilation turn-over rates that are required in medical and industrial settings that prevent the accumulation of flammable/explosive vapors will be used. So, the risk in a domestic setting is higher.

@lewm 

What is that much alcohol (25%) supposed to do in the ultrasonic bath? 

Can it be cheaper than Magi Eraser?

Fer Gawd's sake, don't tell Fremer about jeweller's putty!

Drbond, my only comments on your latest routine are (1) I would replace Photoflo with Triton X100 or Tween20, because Photoflo has some additives you don’t want, and (2) one ounce of isopropanol in 6L is not going to do anything, especially at 35 degrees which will hasten its evaporation. I use a standard mix that includes 25% isopropanol/water, for one example.

The use of a Jewellers Putty has been reported to me via a friend as being a very good method for cleaning Styli.

My friend is impressed to the point this is their only method used, other methods are no longer considered.

I was informed that Jewellers Putty is the same as other Styli Cleaning Putty available via HiFi Outlets, but the J' Putty will be cheaper to acquire.

If concerned about the cleaning method for a Styli, the Putty is worth a investigation. 

Thanks for everyone sharing their knowledge and experience in this thread. As a consequence, I have modified my ultrasonic cleaning process in several ways:

1. I extended the de-gassing cycle to the time it takes to warm up the water bath to 35 C, and I now de-gas before each use, after the device has been sitting unused for a day;

2. I added a capful of surfactant in the 6L tub (I’m using Photo Flo 200);

3. I extended the cleaning time in the warm ultrasonic bath, to approximately the time it took to de-gas and warm up the water bath;

4. I slowed the rotation of the motor to about 3 cycles per minute (this is using a low voltage adjustable DC adapter set at its lowest 3V), which is as slow as my adapter will turn the motor;

5. I added a "rinse" process: I just use a sprayer filled with distilled water to spray both sides of the LP after the ultrasonic bath.

I still use 1 oz of 91% isopropyl alcohol in the 6L of distilled water. . . and this is for the VEVOR 40kHz ultrasonic machine.

I’ll find out how much of a difference this makes from the way I used to clean, which was just throwing the LP in the warm ultrasonic bath for a few minutes at a high rotational speed, and call it a day. 

I will keep an open mind, and consider that it is possible that I'm just being obsessive over an issue that won't make much of a difference at all. . .but perhaps it may. . .my system is sensitive and detailed enough where I should be able to detect an audible difference, if there is one. . . although for most users on this forum, just a simple wash in the ultrasonic bath would probably be sufficient.

Thanks!

@chowkwan @pindac I believe you are correct to say that very clean records will prolong stylus life. One my cartridges that have cantilevers (an odd statement to some of you, I suppose) I do use an "ultrasonic" stylus cleaner - it isn't ultrasonic at all, much lower frequency, and some Last 4. But the Deccas can only withstand a stylus brush, and this is important: any liquid placed on their styli will track up inside the cartridge and dissolve the glue holding the coils in place. You do not want that to happen!

@tennisdoc56 +1 on the HumminGuru recommendation.  I too was interested in an ultrasonic cleaner but didn't want to spend $3,000 on a Degritter or KL Audio.  All ultrasonic cleaners basically do the same thing, spin a record in a bath of water, have a set of transducers to shake the dirt loose and then dry the record, Many have mentioned that the HumminGuru's transducers are not as strong as KL Audio or Degritter.  HumminGuru's transducers run at 40k Hz and DeGritter operate at 120k Hz. I can't comment on which is better and by how much.  There are many YouTube videos on this topic.

None are miracle workers and won't repair a record with medium to heavy scratches and if a record has lots of dirt or grit, you should first clean the record via a suitable brush before using any ultrasonic cleaner..

I decided to purchase a HumminGuru for $450 and am happy I did so.  The HumminGuru is simple to use and I find it cleans records better than a vacuum based cleaner.

For any ultrasonic cleaner, you'll want to use a surfactant such as GrooveWasher G-Sonic concentrate to break the surface tension of the distilled water used in the cleaners bath tank.  For the HumminGuru bath tank, 1 drop is all that's needed, so a $30 1 oz bottle should last a lifetime.  

Remember to use an anti-static device as static noise can be as bad as a dirty record.  I still use my 45 year old ZeroStat device with terrific results.  Make sure to test it's effectiveness with the supplied mini light bulb which is basically a Christmas tree light.

Hope it works out for you.

I lean toward the idea, a Clean LP with certain sized contaminants removed from the Groove will be an improved environment to allow a Styli to have an extended usage life.

A cartridge styli is one of many parts that are impacted on by contamination.

The Crud that collects at the Armature Base at the Damper and Coils interface is quite something, it is a hard to believe the collection of particulates when seen.

A not too old Cartridge with not too many hours of usage can easily be in a state of cleanliness that will be a condition that will most likely impede the Cart's performance. 

I am even aware of Metal Dust Particles entering the body to come into contact with the Coils and ultimately burning/shorting out a channel.

The cleanliness of the LP Groove is only one area of cleanliness to show a concern for if the very best replay is the ambition, if the longevity of the Styli is the only concern, then the Groove being clean, seems to be a good measure to assist with achieving this, it certainly produces a valuable 'peace of mind'. 

Cleaned my record collection using a VPI and the Walker Four Step Process. 90% thru discovered that no one does the Fourth Step except maybe Mr. Walker. Sigh.

Re cleaned VTL 006 The Doctor with an Audio Desk machine. Played Isn’t She Lovely.

Way more natural. Less hi fi. Cymbals are relaxed where before they were etchy.

Prolly you want to know the rig. Lyra Atlas Sierra Lima. Basis arm and turntable. Super Lumi phono stage. Nagra pre. Manley 440 w/KT 77 driving Eminent Technology Super Eight mid/tweet. Manley 500 w/KT 90 driving woofers. Hsu VTF-2 Subs. NBS wire.

So called damaged records are mostly dirty. Clean ’em up and they’ll sound great again.

Important to use Stylast 4 and 5. 4 to clean yr styus after which use 5 so’s the stylus will slip thru the groove. It’ll sound better and preserve yr stylus.

Amongst the suggestions Neil makes for an LP cleaning process/procedure, my favorite new step is to pre-rinse the LP in the sink. I bought an item on ebay to facilitate that rinse: a product comprised of a pair of LP label-size clear plastic discs, with a handle to hold the LP under running tap water (at this stage of cleaning---and this stage only---tap water will suffice).

I use this step only for used LP’s (or unusually dirty new ones), to remove the dust and other debris often found on those discs. That prevents the dust and other debris from contaminating both the water in my ultrasonic tank, and the platter and brushes on my VPI HW-17.

I also have found Neil’s recommendation of Tergitol 15-S-9 (the surfactant made by Talas) and Liquinox (the cleaning solution made by Alconox) to be an excellent one.

For the final step, I don't care for or approve of "air" drying. Though I'm no longer in the California desert (dust is EVERYWHERE there!), I still prefer to vacuum off the final rinse distilled water. Two revolutions on the HW-17 gets LP's bone dry, usually without creating a static charge. For that problem I have and highly recommend the Furutech Destat III. More effective than the Zerostat, and far easier to use.

@charliee Evidently I was less clear than I hoped.

I was describing a test procedure. My cleaning procedure is:

1. wet and remove surface crud with running purified water

2. for very dirty records only, 10 minutes at 37 KHZ with detergent; otherwise skip this step

3. 10 minutes at 80KHz with detergent and 40 degrees C

4. rinse heartily with running purified water

5. rinse in distilled water bath

6. spritz with distilled water

7. air dry

@orthomead,

What you are doing by first cleaning with the VPI vacuum-RCM and then cleaning with UT is what @whart does with his Monk & KLAudio, and if you were to read the book, and step-back what it preaches is pre-clean/rinse/final-clean/rinse/dry which is the foundation of precision cleaning with aqueous cleaners.  And as the book says, this was all worked out 30-yrs ago forced by the elimination of CFC-solvents.

There are many ways to put together a cleaning process using the concept of pre-clean/rinse/final-clean/rinse/dry.  If you sink clean with a pure manual process, you can use chemistry and concentrations that you would not use with machine-based processes.  

You can use only a vacuum-RCM and get excellent results by using the right chemistry (aggressive pre-cleaner and then mild final-cleaner), the right brush and the right technique.

You can use an Elmasonic P-series dual frequency UT that you would use 37-kHz for pre-clean and 80-kHz for final cleaning.  Although really gross records would still benefit from a manual-type pre-clean - i.e., sometimes you need two pre-clean steps which is what the manual process in the book Chapter V does.

At the end of the day, my technical position is that there is no best cleaning process.  With the right chemistry, the right technique, the right hardware and the right process they can all achieve a clean record; but the devil is in details.  Ultimately it comes down to how much convenience do you want and how much are you willing to compromise because of time, space, money, etc.

So, I always, state, the best record cleaning process is the one best for you and the book is written accordingly - how to get the best from each process.

Take care,

Neil

@Terry9. If I understand your description (and it isn't easy), you US cleaned the records 3 times, each time in new fluid. If thats what it takes to get to a "clean" record, count me out. Although, reduced stylus wear is a great benefit! I don't own a Koetsu, but my ZYX is worth protecting. I was considering the Monks to replace my old Harry Weisfeld machine as the US option is just too expensive, or just getting rid of all the analog stuff and going digital. So much work and expense involved just to play music.

@antinn Your Contribution is much appreciated, it certainly reaffirms why I chose to use the Manual Cleaning Method, with a Planning for the Method in use, that can be honed to one that can achieve Six LP Albums cleaned in approx' 30 minutes.

Why Manual, as stated previously in various Threads and within this Thread, I own prior to the Manual Cleaning commencing a US Tank and Rotation System to manage 6 LP Albums. The Manual Cleaning proved so satisfactory and satisfying, the only way I could describe the finished item was as a Purified Album.

I was not motivated to change from this and use the US Tank, being left wondering if all the requirements that you have made known are best to be in place, were in place.

The evidence from the replays of Albums following the manual cleaning I have carried out, have left me totally reassured all the requirements you make known, are addressed, and the methods suggested are present when cleaning, with the result leading me to feel quite confident the overall advisories offered from your Vinyl Cleansing-ology Document have been very accurately applied. 

@antinn and @whart thanks again for your contributions on getting the best out of our vinyl.  I can say unequivocally that adding ultrasonic cleaning to a mechanical regimen such as a vpi has merit.  Best is to use both, as they work differently and and are additive.  I learned a HUGE pearl today, thanks to Neil: that ultrasonic baths that have been sitting unused for 24 need an additional degassing cycle in order to be most effective. I hope everyone else caught that as well.  Me thinks a small, but crucial cog in the cleaning wheel.  Thanks again, Neil!

@antinn  Wow! Just plain, WOW.

Haven't seen your book since the draft stage, and I'm just blown away. Highly professional look, feel, and of course, encyclopaedic content. Congrats to you and to Bill. @whart 

Wow!

@rvillanova Sure, I used Triton X-100 and 91% IPA to prepare the concentrate.

40 ml Triton X-100

48 ml 91% IPA

Then add 22ml of this solution to Kirmuss cleaner. Once 5min clean cycle done I take it out and rise with distilled water and vacuum dry, twice. When distilled water is applied to US cleaned record the first time, you can see the surfactant wetting the grooves. After the second rinse with distilled water, the drops will just bead up.

Hope this helps.

I use the Vevor ultrasonic cleaner. With a 3V PS for the spin. This gives me a little over 1 minute rotation. And my solution is TRITON X-100 , HEPASTAT 256, ALCOHOL (IPA) and Purified water. With a Purified water rinse. Great results with "normal" dirty vinyl. Extra dirty require a pre manual clean. Then vacuum the rinse water.

New vinyl now always cleaned first before playing.

I just bought a LP length ultrasonic cleaner and bought a rotator assembly which fits on the side and suspends the LP above the label. It works great. I use a little dawn dish soap and 'photoflo" surface tension reducer so that the water flows off with no waterspots.  Works really well. I cleaned about 250 LPs in a weekend, two at a time.  About 25 minutes rotating in 90F solution.  Really reduced surface noise. Total cost for the rig, about 450.

@livin_262002 I have the Kirmuss as well and I'm wondering if you could share with me your recipe for your cleaning solution using Triton X-100 and 91% Iso.

Bill @whart  and Terry @terry9 thank you for the compliments.  I would like to add a few items for those reading:

1.  What @terry9 says about the equipment power rating can be very true.  The German made Elmasonic UT machines are quite powerful, and this is easily noted by how quickly the bath fluid heats up.  Essentially, the ultrasonic power (watts) is converted to heat, and the fluid heats-up.  The inexpensive UT machines at 6L are generally rated at 160-180W (three 60W transducers), but there are a number of details such as how the transducers are attached to the tank and the tank wall thickness that will affect how much power actually gets into the tank.

2.  All of the spinners provided with the inexpensive units spin way too fast; and lower kHz units (<80kHz) are very sensitive to flow in the tank.  If the flow rate in the tank >50% volume/min, the cavitation intensity decreases very quickly.  The book PACVR 3rd Ed Precision Aqueous Cleaning of Vinyl Records-3rd Edition - The Vinyl Press Section XIV.5 has an equation that you can use calculate the number of records and speed (rpm).  The spinners are all VDC and by varying the VDC you can slow the motor down and Amazon has various cheap variable VDC power supplies you can buy and the book XIV.5.5 has a link.

3.  Bottom firing transducers can benefit record cleaning.  Without going into detail (see the book XIV.1.7), standing waves develop in the tank and these standing waves create layers of high/low cavitation energy.  Industry tries to minimize these with sweep frequencies because parts are generally static in the tank.  But the record(s) is rotating and standing waves may be beneficial since the record is exposed to a scrubbing type action as the record alternately moves from areas of lower cavitation intensity to areas of higher cavitation intensity.

4.  When cleaning more than one record at a time, it is good practice to space the records no closer than the tank wavelength which for a 40kHz is about 1" (see the book IXV.3.7 for further details if interested).  

5.  Fresh fluid or fluid that has sat for about 12-24 hrs needs to be degassed to remove dissolved gases.  Failure to do so will pretty much make the first few records cleaned not actually exposed to much if any cavitation.  If you see bubbles, that is not evidence of cavitation.  Cavitation produces no bubbles; and time to degas is proportional to the kHz (and volume).  Lower kHz requires more time (~15-min) while a 80-120Khz can degas in ~5min.  For UT units that have no degas function, just operate the tank.  The book XIV.2.1 goes into further detail.

Overall, UT is great cleaning process, but there are many details necessary to get the best results.  The book Chapter XIV goes into other details, but the above are the ones that many people miss on the performance side.  Otherwise, depending on the cleaning agent (generally a simple nonionic surfactant) you can go for a no-rinse just wetting concentration or a concentration with detergency that should be rinsed and the book XIV.10 has some suggestions.  And, unless you have a large source of DIW (and its relatively easy & not too expensive to make your own - see VII.4) bath management is something you need to consider if you want to get the best possible results and book Chapter XIV has lots of info, as well as a tutorial on how to setup a DIY filtration system with three different price options (with parts list) at the end.

Good luck, but "The devil is in the details".  

Neil

I have a Kirmus ultrasonic, and it's changed records I've gotten from various sources, from unplayable to sounding as if I just opened it brand new. But, and this could be a deal braker, it does take about 8 mis per record to get those results. I do not buy into the Kirmus "official" way to clean but a more modified way that sounds just as good.

Hi, Terry. Thanks for the kind words, Neil really deserves the credit for his experience and effort. @antinn 

great to see you here too! 

@whart Nice to see you posting on this !

You and Neil have done a real service to the community. That's where I learned to finish with a distilled spritz, and to do an anti-static wipe with Tigercloth.

Thanks! And all the best!

I'm a cheapskate so after over 30 years of using only a Discwasher brush I moved up to a Spin Clean record washer costing only $65.00 .

But I have been curious about UV cleaners so I began sending records to a cleaning service that would double clean a record once in the AD unit and then in a now discontinued unit from Korea .  I've done this for years sending in 10 to 15 records at a time , sometimes the results were amazing and sometimes no difference at all .

Will I buy one , maybe I'll try the CleanerVinyl Easy3 or if I win the lottery I'll buy the Degritter . 

Good Luck on making a decision .

@lewm  That's my experience too.

Should have added that not all US machines are created equal. The Elmasonic is a lab grade machine which can be expected to meet spec. Lab stuff has to meet spec or there's hell to pay - consumer stuff, not so much.

So maybe your US RCM is superior to the one I used for my little comparison. My VPI certainly removes a lot of gunk based on looking at the effluent from its waste tank.

@lewm  I have done that test. I cleaned most of my collection with a VPI 16.5. Then I bought  a German Elmasonic 80KHz US cleaner and built an RCM around it. Then I cleaned my entire collection on the US setup.

Using the few uncleaned, but carefully handled since new, records to calibrate the test, I noted how much gunk was present after US cleaning 50 records. Visual observation only, of residue and colour of fluid. No accurate measurement, no photos, sorry.

Then I cleaned 50 more records, in new fluid, which had previously been cleaned on the VPI. About the same amount of amount of residue as before, colour less changed. A second US cleaning in clean fluid produced essentially no more gunk, although in problem cases multiple US cleaning improved sonics..

Cleaning with US improved sonics over VPI. The improvement was about equivalent to upgrading a major component. An added benefit is stylus wear.

I  had a photomicrograph taken of a Koetsu after nearly 1000 hours of play, and it showed, according to the dealer, "minimal wear", which is what I thought. He went on to note that I should not even consider rebuilding it, "unless I had a whole lot more money than he thought I did." So it looks like my cartridges are wearing very slowly, and the US cleaning is not only paying for itself, but paying dividends.

I am careful to do heroic rinsing, 2 rinses in pure running water, followed by a distilled water bath and then distilled water spritz. I also use a lab grade detergent from Fisher which is especially formulated for plastics. 80KHz. New sleeves. With other regimes, such as diluted alcohol (Danger !), I have no idea, so YMMV.

I own a  Degritter and have used an Audio Desk and a KLaudio.  I have not tried the Acoustic Sound revamp of the KLaudio but will say it's a bit pricey.  I cannot say that one machine cleans better than the others, but I will say that the Audio Desk break down and require more attending to, expensive parts replacement, and KLaudio, well they went out of business.  My dealer sells or sold all of them and when I visit them, especially the large, used record department they have, I would see broken down Audio Desk and KLaudio machines not working, and in need of repair.  And the Degritter?  The same one since they first received them.  It has cleaned thousands of records without a hitch.  It's the most reliable, cheapest to run (almost nothing), and as effective as it gets.  It tells you when to clean which is simple, replace the water, and you don't even need to use their filters.  You can cut your own from cheap filter material you can purchase at the local hardware, or building supply store.

   Most of the tank type based machines, built around a generic jewelry cleaning cavitation machine that has the ultrasonic emitters on the bottom of the tank as opposed to the four, two on each side of the tank, facing the record.  The frequency of these ultrasonic emitters has also been optimized to clean vinyl records.  As far as the inexpensive machines go, I've never heard of any good results with them outside of websites that cater to inexpensive products.  

   Lastly, I own an opera set that has been in my family for 65 years and I thought it was pretty damaged but what a performance of Boris Godunov (Mussorgsky), the clarity of the voices, the cathedral bells, the best I have ever heard.  I thought I would never see another copy until a friend found it on Discogs and I bid on it and got it.  It was very clean but it was mono, mine stereo and while pretty much the same in a lot of respects, the stereo version is just better.  After cleaning the stereo copy several times on the heavy setting, I started to like the old banged recording over the cleaner mono version.  I'll say this again; I thought who would spend three plus grand on a record cleaning machine?  Now, who would not want own one of these machines?  And I have owned a VPI and a Record Doctor and grew up cleaning my lp's on a Keith monks machine at a local dealer that was free to customers. Degritter takes cleaning lp's to another level, it's the easiest to use, and frankly, if you don't purchase something like this, buy a Spin-Clean.  I own one and frankly I never really found the vacuum machines much, if at all better.

I find proper record cleaning is just about the biggest upgrade I’ve ever experienced. What good is a decent table and a lovely cartridge if the record is dirty? I am constantly surprised at how quiet—often silent—a record can be despite age and heavy use. I’ve a few from the sixties that I know were played often on a crappy Philips record player with a ceramic cartridge, and on everything I’ve owned since, and they are still silent!

Most of my cleaning has been with a point-source vacuum, the Loricraft PRC-4 Deluxe, and having added a Degritter, I think I’m getting things as clean as I can with little effort. Everything goes through the PRC-4 with a homemade mixture of detergent (currently L’Art du Son), IPA and DW, then into the Degritter for a ’Heavy’ clean with their own solution, and it gets placed in a new inner sleeve. Using the Loricraft first saves the tank of Degritter fluid from getting gross contamination (it is re-used for 30 disks). Furutech Destat III and a blower brush before playing, but nothing touches the record, other than air and ions. After about half a dozen plays, it goes back through the Degritter, but I don’t repeat the Loricraft unless I hear any surface noise, in which case it gets a long visit with AI Enzymatic solution before going in the Degritter again. Styluses are cleaned with a dry carbon fibre brush.

If I could have only one of those machines it would be the Degritter. If the only option were a 60kHz U/S machine, I’d prefer the Loricraft. The extra energy and the smaller size of cavitation bubbles makes the difference that justifies the Degritter’s price until someone else makes a 120kHz/300W for less money!

I bought the Humming guru ($400) direct from the South Korean company, for my Nephew. No scientific data, but it cleaned and dried pretty well.

I would keep the VPI you have for dirty records, and run them through the Humming Guru after the VPI.

I use an AudioDesk and it’s OK overall.

Actually most are made in the EU. 

Like I said I will give you the cheap Amazon stuff. I have one of the cheap ones from Amazon and a Kirmuss and the cheap one I use to do an initial cleaning when buying a batch of used records. I can give 6 of them a bath after cleaning the surface with surfactant and a shaving brush. Then I give them another more through cleaning in the Kirmuss. 

Rather deal with Amazon then if I have an issue I have recourse as apposed to dealing with a vendor in the PRC. 

I was referring to the ultrasonic tank type. I know the others are made here. They do look appealing but the price???

@jnovak not true but you can think that. The cheap stuff on Amazon yes I will give you that those are made in the PRC. 
 

Degritter, nope, Kirmuss nope. Audio Desk nope. 

AliExpress. China of course but cheap. If you buy an ultrasonic cleaner here in the USA, it was made in China anyway and you'll pay a crazy markup for nothing. Joe 

Whichever machine you choose, you should use some kind of surfactant. I use Tergikleen.

The Audiophile Man basically wrote a book on it. Okay, not a book but a very detailed step-by-step guide. (theaudiophileman.com)

The Degritter is an absolutely superb machine - both functionally and in its overall design. I've found it to make a phenomenal improvement to the sound of my records - not just in terms of removing surface noise. My records have always been very carefully handled and the majority of them have been owned by me from new.

I have an Audiodeske system cleaner. Pricey yes, but I bought a demo. I thought it might make a difference and clean up my record collection nicely. However, I never thought it would produce the results that it does. Amazing improvement in sound, even with new records. Hugh reduction in groove noise, better clarity, bass and sound stage. I don’t have experience with any other cleaners, but this one is amazing.

The Vevor comes with a 24V walwart supply. I’ve seen a few others in the forums also use a lower voltage supply to slow the motor down. The unit just cleans better at a slower speed. I’ve been using the variable supply for about 2-1/2 years now without an issue. Motor does not get hot and is very well built. It’s a DC motor and has no problem with a lower variable voltage control.  I’m a retired electronics tech and after examining the motor was pretty sure there wouldn’t be an issue. And if there was I’d just stick a new motor in.  😂  

harpo75,

 I am curious as to what the motor is asking for to begin with. 12v maybe? I can't say for sure, but some motors want what they want and will be damaged if the voltage, high or low, is not what they are made for. I guess that time will tell in the end.

Mbs3 - This is the exact setup I have. Really excellent results with it!

I know the best results would come from a machine that can do a frequency of 60kHz to 70kHz but the price for those goes up dramatically. For people on a budget but really want something that does a very good job these ultrasonic units are excellent!

I did change one thing. I felt the motor turns too quickly to really give the record a good soak so I purchased a variable power supply (about 3V to 24V) and usually run a little over 3V to the motor I keep it running slow. This provides more time while under water to clean it. Then, when I remember (not important), 2/3 of the way through I turn it up to about 6V. I rarely run it faster then at 6V.

This is the description if you want to search for it. Only $19 right now on Ama… Works great and doesn’t overheat.

SHNITPWR 36W Universal AC to DC Adapter 3V ~ 24V Adjustable Power Supply AC/DC Converter Transformer 3V 5V 6V 9V 12V 15V 18V 19V 20V 24V 1A 1.2A 1500mA with 14 Tips & Polarity Converter.

Here is a video I did on the whole subject!  There is no comparison to any type of cleaning that works better and truly brings old albums back to life!  Also I clean ALL my new albums this way and you would be shocked how filthy brand new albums are!  Manufacturing plants are dirty places but come on!  Check out this video and I'll make you a believer!