I was thinking of the Humminguru but I'm glad you posted this. I'm going to check it out. Thanks!
Very interesting, thanks for posting. I just acquired a used Audio Desk and so far I am very impressed with the sonic results.
Cleaning 10 at a time seems like a great feature, but I like the roller-brush feature of the Audio Desk - it has to help.
Unless you have a whole house filter I'd suggest using distilled water though. It's cheap and leaves zero residue.
I purchased a unit from isonic 3 years ago. It will clean 10 LPs at a time but i usually limit it to 4 max for better surface ratio. I have cycled at lealeast a 1000 discs without a single problem. I use a small amount a Kodak Clean Flow and water sheets off without spots. Would highly recommend the isonic units. Great value.
I appreciate the kind remarks re: my comments about my personal experience with the isonic machine. I understand there’s a lot of discussion out there about using filtered or treated tap water vs. distilled water. To be clear, the manufacturer assured me that decent tap water is all that is needed for superior results. Our house water is filtered with a $3k water softening system, (we don’t have any filters on any of our taps), so I consider our indoor water ’treated’. Is distilled water better? In a perfect world, it would be hard to argue or suggest otherwise. How much better is the question to consider. Given I empty the tank completely between batches, dumping every drop between cleaning cycles, I believe I’m using quality water which may or may not be bettered by distilled water. I see nor hear evidence of any residue after cleaning records. If our water was contaminated I believe we’d see evidence of residue on our plumbing fixtures, toilets, shower tile, etc. and we don’t. We routinely change the filter on our softening system and have had our water tested. Is it as pure and soft as Rocky Mountain spring water? Probably not, in all honesty. By filling the tank to the ’max’ line each time, records are cleaned within 1/8" of the labels (which remain perfectly dry due to the design of the spacers which are gasketed) which, to me, means if there were residue I’d see it on the lead-out groove portion of the records and up to the label. I do not. As I wrote above, the records come out shiny with no visible evidence of any residue. I set up in the kitchen with easy access to the kitchen sink tap for water and of course the sink itself in which to dump water after each batch. If I thought distilled water would make a noticeable difference, I can certainly afford it and I’d use it. However, the ability to use filtered or treated tap water was a big selling feature for me, especially when I’m dumping 1.5 - 3 gallons of water every time after cleaning 5 five records. A cleaning cycle plus a rinse cycle uses close to 3 gallons which all go down the drain between batches. More importantly, the manufacturer, with all their experience designing and building US products for many years, made clear to me that clean tap water is fine. I’m not advocating anyone buy an isonic. I’m simply sharing my personal (though, granted, relatively limited) experience. If you look up isonic on you-tube you’ll find a couple very interesting videos of a ’guy’ (he could be referred to as an ’OG’ !) who cleans records for a living and his ’workhorse’ unit is an isconic. In one video he has a pony tail, in another he’s pretty much shaven above the neck. He claims to have cleaned over 20,000 records commercially using his isonic and has customers all over the USA. He’s not trying to sell any US units, his livelihood is ultrasonically cleaning records. In hopes of not being redundant, I especially like the idea (unlike when I used the wet/vac VPI 16.5) of nothing other than caviating water ever touching the record grooves. No brushes, no rollers, no towels - nothing). No pushing dirt or particles around the record as it is being cleaned. The spin cycle dries the records 100% while they remain secured to the spindle. Once the tank is emptied, the records remain inside the empty tank while spin drying. Once done, push the motor assembly rearward, unscrew the threaded cap, remove the records and put them directly into anti-static jacket liners. I’ve read about the use of distilled water, surfactants, alcohol, etc. and won’t dispute they may have their advantages. I am certainly no expert. Interestingly, I was talking to a commercial window cleaning crew leader the other day as his team was cleaning our neighbor’s windows and I asked him what he uses to clean windows. I’m trying to master that seemingly easy (it’s not !) skill. I expected to hear about some fancy, special, expensive, (only) commercially available cleaning solution he adds to the water. His answer? Dawn dish detergent. A ’glop’ as he described it, into the bucket and that was it. I think as audiophiles we sometimes overthink things and in our search for ’perfection’ we can go a little overboard.
Not to dissuade anyone, but the where are the transducers, and how many are there? It looks like it’s only got 80 W power to a 48 kHz transducer(s). The cheap VEVOR has 3 x 40 kHz transducers at 180 W (3 x 60W) at the base. The Degritter has 2 x 120 kHz transducers on the sides at 300 W (2 x 150 W). Which is ideal, or best? @antinn seems to be one of the experts on these.
There is no best. Most any decent UT machine with the appropriate attention to the details can be made to yield excellent results. Are side firing transducers better than bottom firing, that depends on the tank volume. Just keep in mind the basic rules:
-Power required to produce cavitation is proportional to kHz, so 120kHz needs more power than 48kHz.
-The cavitation bubble size is inversely proportional to kHz so a 120kHz produces smaller cavitation bubbles (and more of them) than 48kHz. But the larger the bubble, the greater the cavitation energy.
There are many other variables that come into play, so it's often hard to compare one UT machine to another. But the lower (<~60kHz) UT units are sensitive to tank flow and if flow in the tank >50% volume per min, cavitation intensity drops quickly. So, spinning a lot of records in a tank can negatively affect the UT cavitation intensity. The book addresses this in detail. However, spin fast enough (I have not analyzed this), and the need for cavitation can decrease.
Also, small tank volumes need more power/watts than larger tanks because of the tank interior surface area vs volume ratio. But the KLAudio with four 50W side firing (2/side), 2.5-L volume and 40kHz is a powerful machine. And the Degritter with four 75W side firing (2/side), 1.4-L volume and 120kHz is a powerful machine.
Otherwise, there is power rating, and then what actually gets into the tank. Conservation of energy applies, most of the UT energy ultimately should go to heating the tank fluid. The KLAudio uses an external pump/reservoir/filter that keeps temps under control. The Degritter has a cool-down mode to prevent overheating the fluid (>95F) and I have designed cooling systems for people using the Elmasonic P-series because in serial use cleaning lots of records, they heat the water - they are powerful machines.
Devil is in the details.
Can this machine just clean constantly instead of rinse and dry? I have something else that I can use for a rinse and dry.
As a side note we used a window washer who does residential does the whole job himself and has been doing it for 20+years. He did some windows I had just cleaned a week prior and it was noticeably cleaner. His secret ingredient? Water. And a really good squeegee so he does no wiping on the glass.