I use a Monks Omni and ultrasonic. The results are synergistic. I talked to the Degritter people when they first announced the machine a couple years ago, and suggested that coming in at a low price point might give them a real edge in the market. At the time, the person I spoke with was not optimistic about keeping the price down, but wanted to build a better machine. Perhaps they have done that.
In the meantime, an awful lot of people have hopped onto the DIY bandwagon, and not just for lower cost. The feature set can be better, and if you add a circulation pump and filter, you can really optimize what you are doing. I know @slaw has gone this route, @Terry9 has done so, as have a few others. Rush Paul wrote that seminal article bringing together a lot of the learning on the DIY Audio thread (a vast undertaking to read). Tima has contributed several articles on the subject as well, including some thoughts on filtration and water purity.
The high frequency used by the Degritter is, as far as I know, novel among the current crop of US machines used for record cleaning.
The Walker fluids are fine. I get the same results from AIVS #15 and reagent grade 1 bought in bulk and it takes far less time than the 4 steps involved in the Walker Prelude kit.
I hope these folks can bring it to market and succeed, in spite of the price.
Too bad the Odyssey is no longer made. I would have bought one. The Monks is pretty well made, relies on a German dialysis pump and has a sort of classic British engineering vibe to it (no, it doesn’t leak oil and the lights don’t go out). There’s the Loricraft too, and I think Fremer wrote up at least one other point nozzle at a lower price point.
In my estimation, you don’t need fancy equipment to get the job done. Most of it is about method/process and good practices. An all in one machine that works with the push of a button has yet to be made cheaply.
|
@tomic601 - no problem. If you do go ultrasonic, don’t get rid of your vacuum machine. I find that ultrasonic is not a complete answer with older records that have been exposed to who knows what.
@teo_audio- your comments about the resonant frequency of water fascinated me, so I did some quick and entirely inconclusive reading. There was a fellow named Keely who did some experiments back in the late 19th century experimenting with "etheric forces" and water. There was a mention of a sympathetic frequency a little above 40kHz where water shot through a tube and blew a hole through the roof of his lab!
I think a lot of the information we have about ultrasonic cleaning of records is anecdotal and extrapolated from other fields. I don’t know that anyone has funded any independent research on the subject that has resulted in published papers. I gather that some of the work done by the fellow that developed the AD is considered proprietary.
One person who visited here briefly to discuss ultrasonic cleaning said he measured the frequency of the KL at around 35 kHz, rather than the 40kHz claimed.
One constant seems to be the question of damage- which I have found no evidence of in my use of several different machines. The theory is that the higher frequencies generate smaller, less powerful bubbles which are less likely to cause any pitting. Part of the reason for the spinning of the record is to avoid this sort of damage, though I have not tried to damage a record deliberately using ultrasonic machines.
I think the days of major companies funding research in these areas is long gone-- there is little economic incentive to do so and most of the companies in the market in the record cleaning space are small operations, or are using US baths that are designed for industrial use, not necessarily for cleaning records, e.g. Elma, who make equipment for labs, dental and medical, industrial applications, etc. |
|
Kirmuss uses a pretty ubiquitous ultrasonic bath* with the addition of a proprietary spinner that uses multiple slots rather than a rotisserie like the Vinyl Stack. He also uses a fluid that he claims removes all sorts of nasties left over from prior bad cleanings. I haven’t used it- there’s a fair amount of anecdotal information on the Hoffman forum about having to repeatedly clean to remove a paste-like residue that Kirmuss claims is the result of built-up contamination. Judging from those comments, which you can read yourself, it’s a pretty time intensive process.
I don’t have an issue with his introducing a low cost entry into the ultrasonic sweepstakes, but some of his claims are, well, a bit extravagant.
If you can ante up for an Elma, another fine piece of German engineering (sorry about your MB, @tomic601 - my favorite was a ’69 300 6.3- sort of a short wheelbase 600 with oodles of power), you’ll spend more but get a better quality US bath. Add a water recirculation filtering system for less than 100 dollars and the Vinyl Stack and you are in business for more than the Kirmuss but still far less than the AD or KL.
*One claim he does make that I agree with is the position of the transducers on the bottom of the tank, rather than at the sides; given how wave propagation occurs, the LPs act as baffles if the transducers are at the sides of the machine. |
@wakethetown- the Elma P60H is the one that is more reasonable in price, but will require some attention to fill level and record placement due to its smaller size. Offhand, I know from their posts here that @dgarretson and @terry9 are users of this unit. They can chime in on using this unit. The larger, more expensive P120H will accommodate more records, larger capacity tank at a greater price. Here’s the piece Tima wrote when his cheapie US tank crapped out and he stepped up to the Elma, with some good observations on water recycling: https://thevinylpress.com/timas-diy-rcm-follow-up-2-compelling-changes-improved-results/(note those are Tim’s words, not mine). I’m still using my KL so I haven’t crossed the DIY Rubicon yet. PS: there's a relationship between tank size and the number of records you can effectively clean, something that has been discussed on other threads and can be revisited here. |
@slaw- can't remember, did you buy an Elma too?
|
@teo_audio: I learned a little about medical science and holistic medicine from a veterinarian in Vista, New York who showed us ancient medical texts that explained the symptoms of our cat’s disease, since overwritten by more modern science, and then proceeded to treat the animal sympathetically with non-invasive treatments and prolonged the animal’s life for 3 years when other conventional vets suggested brain surgery or euthanasia. So, I’m well equipped to learn, even if my scientific skills are somewhat lacking. I also learned something about conventional science and reality in the Lyme disease arena, where established science is only now coming to grips with that misery. I shall soldier on.... |
@dgarretson - i haven't gotten hands on with these yet, but Tim, who wrote several pieces, went to a 0.35 micron filter and bought a cheap TDS meter and claims it is very effective. I'd have to check what pump he's using. (the last installment is in the link I posted above). |
@prof - will this be your first US RCM? |
It should work. I've had several machines and the only shortcoming I've found is that some records need more work- for those you could do a manual pre-clean with a fluid like AIVS #15, rinse it, then stick it into the US. I do find that US adds something to otherwise high grade record cleaning using something on the order of the Monks, which I like very much.
I find the combined methods synergistic, but for new records or pristine audiophile owned copies, the US should be fine. You may also be able to experiment with how much of the manufacturer's fluid you want to use- that was an early adopter trick with the Audio Desk as well.
Let us know how you fare- i suspect you'll be pleased. I assume you bought yourself some fresh aftermarket inner sleeves? |
