1. Home
  2. analog
  3. 168889-145141

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.
oldaudiophile
sokogear
1,162 posts
 
If you handle records properly and remove the dust with a carbon fiber brush properly before each play, the need for a RCM seems to be greatly reduced. I guess if you buy a lot of used records that are very dirty, it could come in handy. How does grime get in there without fingerprints? Records are only exposed while playing,Then immediately put into MFSL rice paper sleeves.

I tried a RCM a while back (forget what type-around $700) on my oldest records (although they were in very good shape) and could not tell the difference after they were cleaned, playing them immediately before and after.

I remember a long time ago an engineer who ran a high end audio shop told me not to put any liquid on a record - just use a carbon fiber brush and it has worked for me for 40+ years.
daveyf's avatar
daveyf
3,112 posts
 
I cleaned a number of Blue Note originals ( some of them scratched and therefore VG to VG+ copies) on the Kirmuss. I used only distilled water, nothing else. The results were interesting, a slightly cleaner looking LP, but SQ was exactly the same as prior US clean. ( I had cleaned all of these on my prior VPI 16.5). 
Here's the thing, IF you are collecting older pressings, the probability that they are scratched and noisy is very high, no record cleaner can address this.Period. The Kirmuss method will not stop the record from sounding noisy if it is scratched or otherwise marred. Nothing will, IME.
antinn
481 posts
 
@herman,

Ultrasonic cleaning can be very effective against oils and greases, and the lower frequency units such as the Isonic/Kirmuss at 35-40 kHz are preferred.  BUT, they need some chemistry to both lower the surface tension of the fluid to better wet the record & soil and to add some detergency to  emulsify/clean oils and greases. 
herman
2,309 posts
 
Ultrasonic cleaning can be very effective against oils and greases, ...... . BUT, they need some chemistry to both lower the surface tension of the fluid to better wet the record

makes sense, but many claim they are using ultra pure water to great effect which does not make sense if the record has oil (fingerprints) on it. In my experience with an ultrasonic machine and distilled water these fingerprints were not removed.

How does grime get in there without fingerprints? Records are only exposed while playing, Then immediately put into MFSL rice paper sleeves.

What we've been told over the years is that in the process of stamping a record certain chemicals are used to allow the stamper to easily separate from the vinyl. These chemicals should be cleaned from a new record for optimal playback. I have no way to verify that. I do clean all my new records and they sound great so I will continue to do so.

mikethehunterguy
54 posts
 
Here is my 2 cents.
I have used the Nitty Gritty, Okki Nokki, iSonic, and steam cleaning. I have used home brew fluids, and most of the commercially available fluids.
They all had their benefits, but NOTHING has cleaned my records easier or more thoroughly than my new Degritter! Nothing.
I have an original version of Duke I stole from my girlfriend in 1982. It was very well loved (like that girl was) over the years. In other words, it was trash(ed)! I cleaned it many times using all the methods listed above, then I got my Degritter. WOW! After one cycle I could hear the difference! Then I said, "Why not try more?" Two more cycles--more improvement.
Then I hit it with some TM8 manually and left it on. Back into the Degritter. CRAP! It is almost like a new record. Not perfect, but incredibly close.
Now I use 4oz of TM8 in the Degritter tank and get fantastic results all the time! No rinsing!
I just put a record in, and go into my listening room to enjoy tunes. 10 minutes later, the record is ready to play. If it is a used record, it may take 2 or 3 cycles to get really good, but I guarantee the Degritter gets your records the best they can be, period. 
Isn't that what we really want, anyway?
More to discover