You need to call Albert Porter at Porterhouse Audio. Before I bought my Degritter, he gave me the whole comparison. He is or was a dealer for all the top line ultrasonics. Without reservation, liked the sound of the Degritter the best.
Record Cleaning Machines
Has anyone out there done an A/B comparison of the cleaning results or efficacy using the Degritter ultra sonic record cleaning machine which operates at 120 kHz/300 watts and an ultrasonic cleaner that operates at 40 kHz/300 or 380 watts (e.g. Audio Desk; CleanerVinyl; the Kirmuss machine; etc.)? I have a system I put together using CleanerVinyl equipment, a standard 40 kHz ultrasonic tank and a Knosti Disco-Antistat for final rinse. I clean 3 records at a time and get great results. Surface noise on well cared for records (only kind I have) is virtually totally eliminated, sound comes from a totally black background and audio performance is noticeably improved in every way. Even though the Degritter only cleans 1 record at a time, it seems significantly easier to use, more compact and relatively quick, compared to the system I have now. I'm wondering if the Degritter's 120 kHz is all that much more effective, if at all, in rendering better audio performance than the standard 40 kHz frequency. I don't mind, at all, spending a little extra time cleaning my records if the audio results using the Degritter are not going to be any different. I'm not inclined to spend three grand for a little more ease & convenience and to save a few minutes. However, if I could be assured the Degritter would render better audio performance results, even relatively small improvements, that would be a whole other story.
- ...
- 111 posts total
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. |
@mijostyn, FYI - Here is a cheap source of Tergitol 15-S-9: Tergitol 15-S-3 and 15-S-9 Surfactant | TALAS (talasonline.com) $21.75/pint. Edit - In my PM, I meant to say Table I not Table II. |
@oldaudiophile, The popularity of Tergitol 15-S-9 is that its a superior nonionic surfactant to Triton X100 (which I discuss Chapter XI) or Kodak Photoflo (which I discuss Chapter VIII). If you read the first part of Chapter X, there is no real mold release compound. "X.1.5 Lubricant: 0.4% of an esterified montan wax. The wax also acts as a mold release. When the record is removed from the press without the lubricating effect of the montan wax ester in the compound, the grooves of the record are sometimes fractured, torn, and deformed by the removal. These faults in the groove produce noise on playback. Montan wax ester at the stated percentage is compatible with the resins and is homogenized into the surface of the record at the normal pressing temperature. If more than the stated amount of the montan wax ester is used, the excess amount is not absorbed into the surface of the record. Its presence results in non-uniformity in the surface of the record, particularly as related to the friction between the stylus and the groove. This non-uniformity produces noise when the record is played. Some of the many forum discussions on removing mold release may actually be associated with excess lubricant." "An approach I'm contemplating is using LAST POWER CLEANER as a pre-cleaner, prior to the 40 kHz UCM." LAST POWER CLEANER is $280/4-oz Last - Power Cleaner | Shop Music Direct. I pre-clean (as specified in the book) with Alconox Liquinox ($21.99/Qt) Amazon.com: Alconox - 1232-1 1232 Liquinox Anionic Critical Cleaning Liquid Detergent, 1 quart Bottle : Health & Household; tech sheet here Liquinox_tech_bull.pdf (alconox.com) which is then diluted 100:1 for 1%. So, 1-qt will make 100-qts of cleaner.". Mobile Fidelity did not do well on their answer; its not their swim-lane. Take care, Neil |
- 111 posts total