KLaudio or Degritter Mark II

@antinn in a two-tank protocol employing my present 40kHz US machine and the Elma Sonic P60H, would using a 6L 180W, 132kHz cleaning power, 200W heating power, instead of the P60H achieve better results?

Thanks!

@oldaudiophile

Congrats on your ultrasonic cleaning solution- I believe that ultrasonic is the best way to clean vinyl records.  I was torn between the labor intensive but effective Kirmiss vs the 3x the price Degritter II, decided with the lazy choice as I have many vinyl to clean.

@antinn

Thanks for sharing your expertise.

@oldaudiophile, 

".in a two-tank protocol employing my present 40kHz US machine and the Elma Sonic P60H, would using a 6L 180W, 132kHz cleaning power, 200W heating power, instead of the P60H achieve better results?"

Recall that as the kHz increases, the power required for cavitation increases. The Degritter 120kHz while using a small tank (that requires more power) is 300W and 1.4-L = (300W/1.4L) = 214 W/L.

Your 132-kHz, 6L 180W is the same power as a 40kHz unit = (180W/6L) = 30 W/L.  The Elmasonic P60 PP_Elmasonic_P60H_EN.pdf (elma-ultrasonic.com) 37/80-kHz shows an effective power of 180-W, but with a peak ultrasonic performance of 720W and based on user experience the power is real - it gets into the tank.

What do you think?

@antinn Can't argue with math!  Thanks, once more!  Now, time to take a good look at the P60H operation manual.

All the best!

@antinn I’ve read the Elma Sonic P60H operation manual. Judging from its published dimensions, the CleanerVinyl components that I use with my 40kHz UCM will fit onto the P60H with one exception (i.e. the pump/filter). The P60H carrying handles are mounted too high, near the top of the tank. However, CleanerVinyl has a relatively inexpensive bracket (i.e. $59) designed to fit the P60H.

My quandary, at the moment, has to do with the following:

"Note: with the dual frequency you should secure the pump/filter when operating at 37kHz (depending on # or records) but then operate the pump/filter at 80kHz.

1. The general process for the Elamasonic P-series is the first phase is run at 80% power for 10 minutes under the auto frequency change mode where the tank runs at 37kHz for 30 seconds then it switches to 80kHz for 30 seconds, back and forth. The second phase runs for 10 minutes at 80kHz at 100% power or 100% in pulse power."

If I understand this correctly, using my CleanerVinyl pump/filter with the P60H would be virtually impossible, using this frequency change mode of operation. As such, I’m wondering if it might be more practical, from an operational standpoint, to avoid using this frequency change mode and stick to an initial fixed low frequency (i.e. 37kHz to 40kHz) 10-minute cleaning or pre-cleaning cycle at 0.5 RPM with (or without) the pump/filter in place and then switch to a fixed 80kHz final cleaning cycle at 0.5 RPM with the pump/filter in place, keeping tank fluid temp between ... say, 27C and 31C and certainly no higher than 37C. If so, by using a minimal amount of Tergitol 15-S-9 during the P60H US cleaning process (e.g. 0.004%) to eliminate the need for a rinse step and help with air drying the records, I don’t see a need to continue using the 40kHz UCM if I continue using my pre-cleaning step with the Knosti, distilled water and 0.5% Liquinox. I suppose I could use it for a final 5- or 6-minute rinse step at 0.5 RPM, using distilled water only with no heat setting. However, the argument against this would be the hassle involved in transferring the CleanerVinyl components (i.e. record lifter; motor; pump/filter) from one UCM to the other. Purchasing another set of CleanerVinyl components to accommodate two UCM makes no cost-effectiveness sense. I’d might as well just buy a Degritter, at this point, and use the 40kHz UCM as my final rinse step. As I’ve done previously, lifting the record(s) out of the UCM tank after a cleaning cycle and increasing the rotational speed to 5 RPM for 15 minutes or so, gets the records almost completely dry.

My alternative methodology, without the P60H, would be the following:

1. Use the Knosti for a pre-clean step in a room temp solution of distilled water + 0.5% Liquinox.
2. Use the 40kHz 6-liter UCM I have with a solution of distilled water + 0.004% Tergitol with the machine set to operate between 27C and 31C and certainly no higher than 37C for a 15 to 30 minute degas cycle.
3. Clean 2 records in the machine (which would be spaced 1.25" apart) at 0.5 RPM at the same heat setting(s) for 15-to-20-minute cleaning cycles.
4. Lift records out of the tank solution, increase motor rotation speed to 5 RPM and let them rotate just above the tank for 15 or 20 minutes or so until completely or almost completely dry. The heat rising from the US tank helps with the drying process.
5. If records aren’t completely dry, set in stand near a HEPA air cleaner until completely dry.

As you indicated in a previous post, the extensional or maybe even existential question, of course, is which modus operandi would likely yield the best or better result. Incidentally, my "better" barometer here is audio fidelity, which is, admittedly, subjective. Generally speaking, I’m assuming the cleaner the record, the better the audio fidelity will or can be. I’m also assuming, given these two different record cleaning methodologies, it’s quite possible the comparative audio fidelity results might be very slight and maybe even imperceptible to most audiophiles.

Once again, thanks so much for your guidance!