It finally dawned on me why the handle "antinn" sounded familiar! When I re-read this thread, terry9's contribution suddenly helped turn the lights on! Thanks, terry9!
Antinn, first, my sincere thanks for your March 2021 second edition paper incorporating the subject we are discussing here. Very impressive, comprehensive and informative piece of work! Thank you!
I'm offering the following in the hopes I can get you to comment on my present labor of love. It's a little more detail about my present cleaning methodology. I'll try to keep it short and to the point.
I use an RoHS model 30A (6 liter) 180 watt US power, 200 watt heating power, 40 kHz US machine. I don't use heat. The tank fluid always stays around room temperature (e.g. 65 to 70 degrees Fahrenheit). I use CleanerVinyl adapters to rotate 3 LPs slowly (probably a little less than 3 RPM) in Mobile Fidelity Super Record Wash, advertised as an "alcohol-free" fluid incorporating "non-toxic, natural degreasers and dirt solvents in combination with quadruple-distilled, hyper-pure water base". They further state this fluid is a "high-surface-tension water composition". After US cleaning, my next step is rinsing the LPs, using a Knosti Disco Anti-Stat filled with distilled water. The Knosti is the German version of the Spin-Clean and uses brushes, instead of pads. Next, I lay the records on LP-sized high quality microfiber cloths for a pre-drying and, then, transfer them to the Knosti drying rack for complete air-drying. My final step involves treating them with LAST record preservative. Thus far, I've never seen grit, particles or accumulated dirt of any kind in the bottom of the US tank when I'm finished. I've also never seen anything like that in the filters I use (Melitta coffee filters) to drain the cleaning fluid back into their containers. I generally do 15 LPs at a time, which takes me around 3 hours from start to finish, including set-up, clean-up & tear down. I could probably reduce the time but I amuse myself in the interim periods.
As I indicated earlier, I'm getting what I consider great audio results. However, if the Degritter can achieve the same or better audio results, I would seriously consider it or, for that matter, any other reasonably priced cleaner or cleaning system. As another poster indicated, the HumminGuru caught my interest, as well, but this is still a work in progress and details are sketchy.
Thoughts? |
Antinn2, thanks for the info! Very much appreciated!
I did know that stuff about the Kirmuss machine and some of what you mentioned about the Degritter. When I use my system, I don't use any heat because the cavitation process actually causes or produces a little heat, anyway. That's one of the things that concerns me about the Degritter. When I clean my records I set-up in the cellar, which is always cooler than the house. Even after hours of cleaning, the US tank water never gets even lukewarm. My records have always been in great shape. They go in looking shiny new and come out looking the same way. The only thing I care about is sonic or audible improvement(s) and I'm getting that with the system I have now. I don't want to pay 3 grand for something I won't be able to hear, if you know what I mean.
I've been reading and researching this stuff for, at least, 3 or 4 years now. I've written to several world leading manufacturers of ultrasonic cleaning systems and machines for hospitals and clean rooms for microchip makers, asking all sorts of questions about cleaning frequencies, etc. I've actually had a couple of bona fide scientists write back and both said 40 kHz should be very safe and effective on PVC or vinyl products. Of course, as bona fide scientists, both very careful to stipulate their opinions were based on the Physics involved, potential short term and long term damage to PVC products and things of this nature; not specifically oriented to how this would or might affect audio performance. What I didn't know and found fascinating was that the size of the bubbles generated in the cavitation process isn't what does the cleaning. It's the force produced when they implode. So, 40 kHz actually produces a more aggressive cleaning effect than 120 kHz . Degritter states their machine is more gentle and, if I recall correctly, effective enough at cleaning mold release compounds from new and, presumably, older records, as well. If that is, indeed, so, from a scientific perspective, that would be an interesting bit of knowledge.
Several articles I've read stated the best approach to cleaning just about anything and everything a record might pick up along the years (e.g. smoke; fingerprints; skin oil; etc.) is to use a variety of sweeping frequencies during the cleaning process (e.g. 40 kHz - 80 kHz - 120 kHz and even a little higher). CleanerVinyl has started selling US cleaning tanks like that, now. Expensive but not 3 grand expensive.
A few other articles I've read indicated it really doesn't matter where the transducers are located in the machine because the bubbles are created all over the bath and permeate the entire liquid medium, anyway.
It would be nice to find a handful of bona fide scientists who are also bona fide audiophiles and would put all of this to the test. Sort of an A/B shout-out of the various RCM on the market. The before & after electron microscope photos on he Degritter website are all very well and good but I've seen similar before & after pics on other websites with similar results. I think Last had or maybe still does have something like that on their site or maybe it was in some review I read.
Another question I would hope could be resolved is what US waves do to records or PVC on a short-term and long-term basis. One person I had an email back & forth with questioned whether overuse of any frequency, particularly lower frequencies, could potentially alter the structural integrity of the PVC canals in the tiny grooves of a record and eventually negatively effect audio performance. That kind of makes sense, to me, considering that is where the thickness of the PVC material is the thinnest. I've never used my US machine more than once on any record. Never felt I had to. I've always been of the opinion that this is a one & done type of thing. However, it would be good to know if repeated US cleanings could potentially be detrimental in any way.
Anyway, as you can, no doubt, see, I can get a little crazy about this kind of stuff! My records are and always have been my babies!
Sorry for the long post but inquiring minds what to know. And, no, I wasn't that little kid in school who always had his hand up when the teacher asked: "Any questions?" I should have been a scientist! |
You guys are great! Thanks so much for this additional information! May the music gods bless you all!
Actually, I have read and still have a copy of the Aqueous Cleaning 2nd edition thing. I guess I need to read that again more closely.
So, guys... bottom line... will 3 grand get me better audio performance over what I'm dong now or will it be just a time saver? |
Neil, thanks again!
Firstly, I think you are correct about the MoFi Super Record Wash. It certainly doesn't behave like a high surface tension solution; quite the opposite. Rather, it looks and behaves like a solution containing a surfactant. I used Kodak Photoflo to manually clean my records years ago. However, Tergitol seems to be more popular nowadays. When I bought the Super Record Wash, I assumed it contained a surfactant and "high-surface-tension" had to be a mistake. The solution is odorless. What it contains by way of natural degreasers & dirt solvents is likely known only to MoFi and the manufacturer(s).
Secondly, yes, all the records I've run through the UCM were exceptionally clean. At this point, my predominant concern is removing mold release agents from new records and whatever might remain from earlier manual cleanings years ago. Hence, another reason why I wonder if the Degritter's 120 kHz might be more effective in this regard. An approach I'm contemplating is using LAST POWER CLEANER as a pre-cleaner, prior to the 40 kHz UCM.
Lastly, thanks for the tip on the power supply gadgets! I just re-read Chapter XIV. Despite being a straight A student all through high school and college, including Calculus, I wish I could confess to a solid grasp of that material. Guess this will require another read with calculator in hand.
Thanks Again! |
Neil, thought you might find this interesting. I certainly did!
According to a representative of MoFi, Super Record Wash is, indeed, a "high-surface-tension water composition". The response I got to my question about this was that "the high surface tension allows it to be more easily removed from the grooves along with the gunk you are trying to remove, as it wants to bead up after being spread into the grooves by the brush." The "brush"? Apparently, it seems this solution was or is intended for use with vacuum RCM's and manual cleaning. Despite the good results I've been getting with it, I guess I will now be doing some research on a more appropriate solution.
|
All I can say to the skeptics of the efficacy of cleaning records, including brand spanking new records and those that have been fastidiously cared for since purchase, is that cleaning them does, indeed, benefit audio performance. Of course, like most things in life, a little knowledge helps and the more you know, the better your results will be. As such, I consider "Precision Aqueous Cleaning of: Vinyl Records" by Neil Antin (March 2021 Second Edition) indispensable reading! Not an easy read but worth every every second of your time if you are serious about high fidelity. If you've never cleaned your treasures before, no matter how well-cared for they are, whether you choose to clean them manually, with a Spin-Clean, vacuum machine, ultrasonic machine or combination thereof, you WILL hear an improvement in audio performance. Of course, this presumes you have a reasonably good quality turntable, cartridge, phono stage, sound system, in general, reasonably good hearing acuity, decent vinyl spinning habits (e.g. use of carbon fiber brush; stylus cleaner; record handling & storage, etc.) etc. Chances are good this is not an issue if your on this website.
I've been buying records (new) since the late 50's. My immediate collection is, predominantly, from the 60's through the 70's and 80's but I do have a few recent re-pressings. All of them are in high-quality anti-static ploy sleeves. I cleaned some of the older ones, manually, in the 80's. More recently, I've started using an ultrasonic cleaner and Knosti Disco Anti-Stat. Even using my present cleaning regimen, my records looked shiny, brand new, clean beforehand and came out looking the same way. So, I didn't expect much afterwards. I was SO wrong. The difference was/is surface noise is virtually eradicated, bass is very noticeably more profound, more tight, more accurate, as is the entire frequency response up & down the scale. Even with my 70 year old ears, I can readily and easily hear the difference. |
Neil, what do you think of this idea: (a) replace the Mofi Super Record Wash in the ultrasonic tank with a solution of distilled water and 1% Alconox Liquinox or (b) add 0.05% Alconox Liquinox to the Super Record Wash or (c) do the same using Tergitol 15-S-9 instead of the Alconox Liquinox? |
Neil, I just want to say THANK YOU, again; not only for your guidance specifically related to my queries but, more importantly, to the education your are so graciously providing to all of us interested in this subject. I'd be lying if I said I understood all of it but I am grasping enough to feel confident in improving my cleaning methodology which, hopefully, will translate into further improvement(s) in audio fidelity.
I realized right after clicking "Post Your Response" for my last post how foolish it would have been to, effectively, experiment with the Super Record Wash not knowing what it really contains. I was assuming "non-toxic, natural degreasers and dirt solvents" would be benign enough but, you're right, or course. Better safe than sorry.
All the best! |
Sokogear, I hear 'ya! This may sound paradoxical at this point but it's a lot easier than it sounds; that is, once you get or decide upon what your cleaning approach is going to be.
I use a carbon fiber brush, as well. I also use an Onzow stylus cleaner that I love. Using one of those shows you what kind of gunk or dirt a stylus picks up, even on a "clean" record after one play. I like the Onzow a heck of a lot better than the liquid brush-on stylus cleaners I've used.
As far as keeping track of which records have been cleaned, etc. That's easy. I've started using poly outer sleeves for all of the ones I run through my UCM and stick LAST stickers on them. |
Sokogear, I use the Audioquest Anti-Static Record Brush before & after every record side (same with the Onzow) but not in a wet-cleaning regimen. My Knosti Disco Antistat that I use for a final rinse after US cleaning has goat hair brushes. US cleaning, for me, is a one & done type of thing and, then, the challenge is to just keep the records as clean as you can. I might consider running a record that has already been ultrasonically cleaned if I noticed a distinct reduction in audio quality and only after a lot of subsequent plays (e.g. a hundred or something along those lines). Not likely, at my age!
I'm still contemplating antinn's sage guidance and that of others and thinking my cleaning regimen might be improved by using either LAST POWER CLEANER or Alconox Liquinox as a manually applied pre-clean step, using LAST applicators. Then, I'd use the Knosti as a rinse after that, before using the UCM. I think I will, also, ditch the MoFi Super Record Wash and replace that with just distilled water and a small amount of Tergitol in the UCM tank. After that, I'd use the Knosti with fresh distilled water for a final rinse. I'm still going to use LAST RECORD PRESERVATIVE as my final step until or unless someone or something can convince me this isn't a good idea.
All of this still brings me back to my original question of whether or not this crazy labor-intensive labor of love results in any better audio quality than just using the Degritter or something similarly less labor-intensive and considerably less time consuming. If I could be reasonably assured that the Degritter or something similar would accomplish the same results I'm getting now or better, then, I think I would spring the 3 grand it takes to get the Degritter or something like it.
In the bad old days, I always used, initially, a WATTS Disc Preener, otherwise known as a WATTS Parostatik, I think. Remember those? You had to remember to occasionally run this little tube on the inside of it under water. Then, I graduated to the Discwasher with D3. Remember that one? It had a nice hollow solid wood handle (think it was walnut) and the little bottle of D3 solution fit right inside of it. Occasionally, I also used a liquid stylus cleaner, too, but probably not as often as I should have and certainly not as often as recommended. My records always sounded great. However, now, after the US cleaning thing that I do, they sound, noticeably, even better. I'm no scientist. So, I have no real idea why that is. Maybe US cleaning is removing some old D3 solution left behind or whatever the WATTS Disc Preener may have done? All I really care about is the sound improvement(s) and preserving that for as long as I can.
If I were ever to go back to using a liquid stylus cleaner again I probably would go with either the MFSL or LAST Stylus Cleaner. The reason I like the Onzow is because, if used properly and safely, I don't have to worry about eye/hand coordination near as much as using a liquid or the possibly of liquid wicking up the cantilever. Damage to the stylus or cartridge, for me, would represent an $800 PITA, not including shipping & handling and paying a pro to install/re-install a cartridge properly. I did that in the old days with my old Phillips TT and a paper protractor but, now, it seems there are much more accurate ways of going about doing this.
I know there are cartridges out there that cost many, many times more than $800 but, for me, $800 is a lot of dough. Although my hands are still steady, I get the heebie-jeebies anytime I go near the stylus. Handling the tone arm is about all I trust myself doing these days. I just don't want to risk a thousand dollar plus screw-up. I've got just the kind of buzzard luck where something like that would happen one day.
If I ever run out of LAST stickers, I can always buy more but, frankly, the outer record sleeves do the job just as well. One of the mistakes I made was sticking some of the LAST stickers on the record jacket, instead of the outer sleeves. Apparently, this detracts from the value of some collectible records at resale. Somebody else can worry about that after I've gone to the big music hall in the sky. What's that old song with the line that goes "I know they got a hell of a band (up there)"?
All the best! |
@oregon : high quality microfiber cloth. |
@antinn, I'm aware of the debate between those who eschew the use of IPA in any record cleaning concoction for fear of damaging vinyl/PVC and those who disagree, arguing that a small proportion is not only perfectly safe but, indeed, indispensable for effective cleaning (e.g. Paul Rigby & others). In the old days, I used IPA to clean tape recorder heads but I've never used it in any cleaning solution for records. Your 8-28-21 post seems to indicate IPA would be safe at 2.5%. Do you use IPA in the record cleaning solution(s) you use? Also, the proportions you recommend for the Tergitol are considerably less than any other recipes I've read about. Is this out of concern for potential foaming problems in UCM's? Thanks, again! |
@antinn, by way of a P.S., I'm guessing Walter Davies (REST HIS SOUL!), was comfortable using IPA. The LAST RCM Fluid is 20% IPA. Frankly, I found this very surprising! Seems like a very high concentration, judged by everything I've read, thus far.
Best Regards! |
But, but, but, but...blowing or gently exhaling on a record before play? Wouldn't it be better to use one of those small personal fans, instead? I would think a person exhaling, even gently so, on a record would have the propensity for depositing, sooner or later, fine atomized droplets of saliva, vapor, CO2, O2, Nitrogen and whatever else comes out of one's lungs... no? I understand and respect the zeal to achieve and maintain pristine grooves but blowing on a records seems counterproductive. |
@miillercarbon, too funny! Loved the video clip! If no one ever enters the vinyl inner sanctum, how do the records get there? Automation? Level 4 Lab protocols? Then again, the slot in the wall would violate those protocols. Perhaps retro-fitting an old jukebox for the wall transfer would be an acceptable trade-off. Gotta watch The Andromeda Strain again!
@antinn, that Orbit is a neat little device. No pun intended! The Tiger Cloths are interesting, as well. I've been using another brand in my cleaning process but only to absorb most of the fluid after cleaning, without wiping. After that, I just prop the records up for complete air-drying. That Clean Room sponge was/is intriguing, as well. |
@sokogear, I was suggesting using a mini-fan, instead of blowing on a record.
Like you, I also use a carbon fiber record brush (Audioquest Anti-Static). I could be wrong but I don't see how this would damage the grooves of a record treated with LAST or even those that aren't. Haven't heard any problems, anyway. As I indicated earlier, I also regularly use an Onzow, as well.
I respect your opinion on the need (or not) for a RCM. However, based upon personal experience, I have to respectfully disagree. I've got records I purchased new in the 60's & 70's and have fastidiously cared for ever since. I manually cleaned some of them back in the 80's. I can't honestly recall what the before & after audio performance difference(s) was back then because that was just too long ago. However, I can assure you there was a very readily noticeable audio improvement after I cleaned those same records recently, ultrasonically. "Dramatic" is a relative term, of course. So is "subtle". The best way I can describe or characterize the difference(s) is that it's something you don't have to be in critical listening mode to hear. It's straightforward and straightaway! Even my toughest critics heard/hear the difference(s) (e.g. wife; close friends who visit often and give me the straight poop when asked, not polite placation). I've never done a before & after with a new record. So, I can't honestly attest to comparative audio performance differences in this respect. I can only assume the potential difference(s), if there is any, would probably be more subtle than the difference(s) I achieved with the old records. Maybe new pressing methods and new vinyl/PVC composition might have something to do with this. |
@sokogear, it's all good! Some folks with 35 kHz to 80 kHz ultrasonic RCM are comfortable cleaning records more than once. For now, I'm in the one & done camp with my 40 kHz machine until or unless I find the sonic performance of a record I've cleaned has deteriorated. So far, that hasn't happened. If it ever does, I don't think I'd risk a repeat cleaning on those records in my collection that are irreplaceable. I'd likely experiment with a record I know I could get a good re-pressing of. However, 120 kHz machines, like the Degritter, are purported to be more gentle. As such, some audiophiles are very comfortable running records through machines like that multiple times. This is another reason why the Degritter intrigues me. However, like you, I gotta hear it to believe it. I'm not inclined to shell out 3 grand for the Degritter or a machine like it if I can't be reasonably assured I'll get better sonic results than I'm getting with the machine & system I'm using now. The system hardware I'm using now cost me less than 400 bucks 4 years ago. Even if I added the cost of all the extra doodads I use in my system (e.g. fluids; microfiber cloths; etc.), I'd still be under 450 bucks. I could order a Degritter from Music Direct, do an A/B, see/hear for myself and send it back if it failed to impress. They have a great 60 day return policy. Don't know if they have a restocking or return fee, though. I'd have to check that out. Still might be worth it. It's looking like this may be the only way for me to satisfy my curiosity, unless I can find a local audio shop with a Degritter who cleans customers' records as a demo. Next time you've got about 45 minutes to blow, have a look at this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN9X1Op8eVo |
@orthomead, thanks for the info and feedback! Truly appreciated! With regard to the issue of a revealing system, I certainly do not have a Mikey Fremer state of the art system. However, my MAC amp, Revel F206 and Mofi Ultradeck & Mastertracker are as revealing a system as I've ever owned.
I've just recently found a shop about 2 hours' drive from me that has a Degritter on demo they use to clean customers' records. I'm going to explore that. I'm going to bring a couple LP's I've already run through my US cleaning process, a coupe I haven't and see/hear what happens when I spin them on my TT. If the comparative sonic results are a significant enough improvement over what I'm achieving now with my lash-up RCM system, that will spur me into doing battle with my financial comptroller (i.e. She Who Must Be Obeyed). I'll report back in to let everyone know what comes of this. Push come to shove, I suppose I could use my present USRCM as a final rinse and use my Knosti as a pre-cleaner for the old records I inherited. |
Here's where I'm at in my findings & deliberations.
Please keep in mind, here, there is no way this can or should be considered anything other than my own feeble, half-baked attempt to see or, rather, hear what the Degritter might be able to do for my old records. This is nothing other than a rough evaluation, particularly regarding the first 2 LP's I used for my grand experiment, records that hadn't been played for years and never on the sound system I have now (e.g. Mofi Ultradeck+M & MAC integrated). For those, I had to rely on a heavy dose of nostalgia, if you know what I mean. Regardless, I'd still be interested in any & all constructive feedback. That being said, here goes!
I had the shop with the demo Degritter run 4 of my LP's through its heavy cycle. Degritter instructions were followed, including use of the recommended cleaning fluid. All 4 records were purchased new, relatively well cared for, according to the times, and never loaned or played by anyone else but me. In short, I did the best I knew how in those days (e.g. proper handling & storage + played only on a Phillips 212 TT with various carts between 1.5 and 2 grams VTF + use of WATTS Parostatik Disc Preener + later, Discwasher & D3 + Discwasher D2 stylus cleaner + etc.).
Records cleaned: "The Hurting" by Tears For Fears (1983 Mercury-Phonogram Ltd. London-manufactured in USA by Polygram Records). This LP had never been cleaned in any way. (Nothing goes on my new TT without going through US cleaning first). Next was: "Nothing But A Breeze" by Jesse Winchester (1977 Bearsville Records-manufactured in USA by Warner Bros. Records). I may have cleaned this one in the early 1980's. If so, as best I can recall, it would have been with city treated tap water, a tiny amount of Kodak Photo-Flo, tiny amount of dishwashing detergent and, maybe, a small amount of IPA. Next was: "Pieces Of The Sky" by Emmylou Harris (1975 Reprise Records/Division of Warner Bros-manufactured in USA). I might have manually cleaned this one in the 80's, too, with the same concoction previously mentioned. Can't remember. However, I had cleaned this one, recently, using my present US cleaning regimen and treated it with LAST record preservative. Lastly: "Desperado" by Eagles (1973 Asylum Records-manufactured by Atlantic Recording Corp. USA). I likely cleaned this one manually in the 80's. I was on a cleaning kick back then. I, also, recently ran this one through my US cleaning regimen and treated it with LAST.
Results: before playing the first 2 records on my present sound system I treated them with LAST. If there was a sonic improvement in the Tears For Fears LP, I couldn't tell. Then again, this one hadn't been played in 20 to 25 years on the old sound system. Surface noise was, comparatively, more prominent than all the other Degrittered records. My wife thought it sounded "kind of tinny". However, this isn't her favorite Tears For Fears album and it hasn't been played much. I'm far from an expert on this sort of thing, or anything else, but I don't think this is or was a particularly good recording. Maybe bad or mediocre pressing? Lousy PVC composition? Not the best sound engineering? Maybe another US cleaning would help? No clue!
The Jesse Winchester LP was/is WONDERFUL! Virtually no surface noise to speak of and great frequency response from bottom to top; noticeably better than I remembered on my old sound system about 20 years ago. However, my new sound system is WAY better! Also, I love Jesse Winchester and this is my favorite album of his. It also seems, to my ears, that this is a good recording and a good pressing. This record already had lots of plays on it. Was my perceived improvement(s) the result of my new sound system? That's got to be part of it. Did the Degritter play a part? No way to really know, of course.
The results with these last 2 records, I think, gave me a little bit better insight into what I might be able to expect from the Degritter because I had already recently run them through my US cleaning regimen and played them on my present sound system.
Emmylou Harris's voice was/is SUBLIME, POWERFUL, CRYSTAL CLEAR, ABSOLUTELY STELLAR, as always! In this case, I think the Degritter definitely improved or brought out a little more of the music hiding in the grooves and all through the frequencies from bottom to top. However, IMHO, the improvement(s) was very subtle.
Finally, on Desperado, one of my favorite albums of all time, an album I've played LOTS, again, I believe there was/were sonic improvement(s) and, again, I think that or those improvements were very subtle.
So, for me, this is a little like buying a new car and trying to decide whether I feel the extra money for the model just above the one I like is worth it because of the variable speed windshield wipers, extra cup-holders, lighted vanity mirrors & glove box or whatever. The Degritter would certainly be more convenient, considerably less labor intensive and less time consuming than what I'm doing now. Also, there's no question in my mind, now, that it was able to wrestle or squeeze out a little bit better sonic results from the 2 records I had recently run through my US cleaning process. Frankly, I really wasn't expecting "wow" results from the Degritter. I fully expected improvements, if there were any, to be subtle, at best, and that is exactly what I found. The eloquence of the Degritter cleaning process is really what attracts me more, at this point. It's price doesn't dissuade me. So, I guess I'll continue to struggle with whether the cleaning eloquence and ever so subtle sonic improvements are worth three grand.
Anyone else out there wrestle with the same dilemma? If so, I'd be interested in how you resolved or reconciled it.
Thanks, folks! You're the best! |
@daveyf, methinks you and I are on the same wavelength!
The young folks who designed the Degritter have every right to price their machine at what the market will bear and, hence, enjoy the rewards of their innovation and hard work. After all, the Degritter is a nifty, well designed RCM providing stiff competition for all the other RCM’s on the market. With all the attention it’s receiving and the accolades & awards it has already won, I don’t think we’re likely to see a price reduction anytime soon. The HumminGuru (interesting product name), introduced at less than a grand, might prompt some thinking in this direction. However, it’s expected to be a 40 kHz machine. I think 120 kHz might have had something to do with the improvements I heard on the records I’d already cleaned with my 40 kHz process. OTH, could those improvements have been the result of just another US cleaning at whatever kHz? I’d be interested in hearing what Neil would have to say about that. Maybe an additional cleaning with my system, using Neil’s recommended tweaks, might produce the same results? Sooner or later, I’m going to find out. No matter how many times I read Neil’s book or paper on this, I just don’t have the science smarts to understand all this stuff. My understanding, though, is that different cleaning frequencies are better at targeting different contaminants.
Apparently, there are US machines on the market that cycle or sweep between 40, 80 and 120 kHz at, roughly, half the cost of the Degritter. Of course, those I’ve read about are strictly US tanks, use a heck of a lot more fluid and are not as convenient as bespoke machines like the Degritter. It’s understandable that the more sophisticated the US machine, the more it costs to manufacture and the higher its retail cost. Regardless, volume, supply and demand might have some impact on this. CleanerVinyl has a multi-cycle US machine on their website. Once you add everything to it to achieve a complete start to finish record cleaning process like the Degritter, though, you’re in the same price ballpark. Theoretically, the advantage would be the multi-cycle cleaning. I’m going to have to investigate this more closely. Regardless, I keep coming back to the same cost benefit questions: How much? How much time? To achieve what?
Paul Rigby, The Audiophile Man, completed a great comprehensive review of the Degritter and found that repeated heavy cleaning cycles with it and his own cleaning fluid concoction produced progressively improved sonic results. If I remember correctly, the Degritter’s heavy cycle is somewhere around 6 minutes (not including drying time). I do 15 minute cleaning cycles with my 40 kHz machine. I wonder how this factors into the comparative sonic results. I’m sure Neil would know. Paul and others, attest to the superior results of the Degritter, versus other 40 kHz machines. Regardless, for me, it’s the same old Gordian’s knot: How much? How much time? To achieve what?.
I’m going to try adding a little extra elbow grease (e.g. pre-cleaning with LAST POWER CLEANER) and the tweaks Neil suggested to the method of my madness and see/hear what happens because, like you, I think I’m voting with my wallet on this one. Even if I didn’t already have a lash-up US cleaning system and was just beginning to look into a system like this, my sense is that the better mousetrap has yet to be invented.
All the Best! Keep spinning those records! |
@daveyf, thanks for the feedback/review! Much appreciated, as always!
I've seen a few video reviews of the Kirmuss machine in action, one by Kirmuss, himself. I've also read a few reviews of this machine. I trust that it probably gets good cleaning/sonic results but the entire recommended cleaning process is just too labor-intensive, for my tastes.
@antinn, once again, thanks so much for your scientific know-how applied to this realm! Even though I still don't entirely grasp or fully comprehend all the Physics involved, I do catch bits & pieces, here and there. I have taken a close look at that Elmasonic machine you mentioned. If I'm not mistaken, CleanerVinyl offers it on their site, along with a very large (too large, for me) multi-frequency machine (40, 80, 120 kHz) and a 132 kHz machine. Yesterday, I happened upon a 45 kHz/132 kHz Crest US machine that caught my interest. However, the sonic power is only 120 watts for a 1.4 gal. machine. I'd have to go 6.9 gal. to get 300 watts. WAY TOO BIG! The machines are advertised as having ceramically enhanced transducers to insure uniform cleaning throughout the tank by sweeping the ultrasonic frequency 3 kHz, creating overlapping US waves. They also carry a 2 year warranty and are purported to be quite reliable. I also took another look at CleanerVinyl's 1 micron filter systems. Seems like mucho dinero for what looks like a retro-fitted tropical fish aquarium pump & filter system but it is well designed and that is what you pay for.
As I indicated earlier, I suppose I could spring for a Degritter and use it as a final cleaner after a pre-clean through my 40 kHz machine. However, based upon my grand experiment of last week, the sonic improvement(s), IMHO, are just too subtle for me to condone spending 3 grand on something like that. At half the price, it would be a more serious consideration. Even so, 15 minutes to clean 3 records in the 40 kHz machine plus another 10 minutes, or so, on heavy cycle, for a single record through the Degritter doesn't add to the appeal. I'm thinking adding CleanerVinyl's 1 micron filter to my madness, my newly acquired 0.5 to 3 RPM motor to slow down revs to 1 RPM for 3 records and using Tergitol (with or without IPA) might be a cost-effective alternative, at least for now. (Thanks so much for the lead on the Terigitol. You saved me some bucks! Always appreciated!). In the future, if were to find a reliable, reasonably priced 120 or 132 kHz US machine with sufficient cleaning power that would accommodate my CleanerVinyl equipment, that would be interesting. If I could simply and easily transfer my skewer of records from the 40 kHz machine over to the higher frequency machine that would save some time.
One again, much thanks to all of you! |
@antinn, seems I can't thank you enough for this incredible wealth of knowledge, guidance and experience! You are truly amazing! I wish I could express my gratitude more tangibly (e.g. buy you a beer, fine single malt or beverage of your choice).
If I'm not mistaken, that lash-up pump & filter system is what Tima uses. I use a Pentek Big Blue whole-house water filter for my home. Makes lots of sense to incorporate a smaller version for this application.
I've noticed, along the way, that you have judiciously avoided subjective issues like sound quality achieved or capable of being achieved by different record cleaning methods and kept the discussion strictly focused on quantitative cleaning results. Not surprising for a person with a good mind for science! However, I can't help but wonder if you may have some preference(s) for one cleaning method(s) over another as it impacts on sound quality. The prevailing wisdom or opinion in audiophile circles is that US cleaning yields the best sonic results because it obtains the best cleaning results with the least wear & tear on record grooves. Seems to make sense, in theory, but audiophiles are fond of splitting hairs and chasing their tails in search of the holy grail of best audio quality. As such, I can't help but wonder if careful & proper manual cleaning can achieve the same sound quality improvement(s) as other methods with inconsequential wear & tear on those precious record grooves where the music lives.
All the best! |
