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
coltrane1's avatar
coltrane1
679 posts
 
I remember all of those who complained about the time involved using a VPI 16.5. If it takes that much work is it worth the time?
rsf507
2,222 posts
 
@coltrane1 agree which is why I sold my Kirmuss, took too much time to clean just 1 LP. Life is short and I'd rather listen have since bought a Keith Monks machine. Simple and easy to use. Yes an US might clean deeper but not a huge difference in SQ.
oldaudiophile OP
279 posts
 
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?
antinn
369 posts
 
@oldaudiophile,

1st, please do not start blending cleaning agents unless you know the composition, there is always uncertainty to the results.  So I recommend you do not add anything to the MoFi cleaner.

If you read Chapter XIV starting XIV.8 to XIV.12 you will essentially see how to assemble a cleaning process with various equipment and various cleaning agents, beginning with pre-clean.

Alconox Liquinox is a fairly aggressive/foaming cleaning agent and is used for pre-clean. If you do or need a pre-clean step, then by Section XIV.9 if you use an aqueous cleaning process is where Alconox Liquinox would be used and you have many options - manual clean, vacuum-RCM or separate UCM for pre-clean.  The concentration of the cleaners is tailored for each method.  

For your process, your UCM is for final clean and you have two options with the Tergitol 15-S-9:

-Tergitol 15-S-9 at 0.01 to 0.015%
-Tergitol 15-S-9 at 0.01 to 0.015% + 2.5% IPA

Good Luck,
Neil

pgaulke60
290 posts
 
I haven’t owned or operated a Kirmuss personally so I want to be a bit moderated in my comments.  But seems that a RCM overheating is just not right.  Seems like a design flaw to me.  

I had an Okie Nokki but it was just too loud and the record flipping seemed like double duty to me.  Too many steps in the process and I got tired of wearing hearing protection when cleaning records.

So, ultra sonic.  All point headed to ultra sonic.  I now have the most recent upgraded Audio Desk Systeme (ADS) and simply love it.  Easy to use, clean and the results are wonderful.  Every time I change the fluids and filter I am always amazed at how dirty my records were.  

It’s my understanding that the ADS has a propriety system with a variable US frequency during its cycling.  This means the LP doesn’t get blasted with a high frequency for extended periods of time. I believe I have this right.
More to discover