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
Wow! Talk about complicated and time consuming. Not to mention keeping track of which records were cleaned when.

With all the micron talk, nobody is talking about sound quality.

Since my records are shiny and in visibly excellent condition and have no surface noise, I’m going to stick with the carbon fiber brush before every stylus drop. If it only gets rid of the audible dust particles and doesn’t pick up the microscopic dust that doesn’t interfere with the stylus tip scraping through the groove thousands of times its size, who cares?
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.
@daveyf ,

If your read these two articles - Record -Groove Wear, J G. Woodward, HiFi Stereo Review Magazine, October 1968  HiFi-Stereo-Review-1968-10.pdf (worldradiohistory.com) and RCA Engineer Magazine, 1976, Issue
02-03, Development of Compound for Quadradiscs, by G.A. Bogantz S.K. Khanna  1976-02-03.pdf (worldradiohistory.com) it should give you some idea of how records wear.  

If the vinyl is decent quality, excessive wear from a conical or elliptical stylus will trench the groove, but an advanced  fine contact profile stylus like a Shibata will bridge the trench and the 'worn' record (if clean) can play fine.  

Now if the record is deeply scratched - all bets are off; why buy it.  I have successfully recovered some records that were very noisy - the constant background hiss/static by manually cleaning with a multistep process that first degreased the surface with an aggressive detergent and then use a mild-acid to dissolve embedded hard-water type scale particles followed by a final clean with a very mild nonionic surfactant and DIW rinse. I can manually use chemistry that you would not use with an ultrasomic tank because of excessive foam or corrosion.  

So, from my experience buying old records - used (no significant surface scratches)  or NOS (which can be worse than used - the paper sleeve has deteriorate into the grooves), I am seeing dirt, residue, debris, whatever as the primary problem.   I have surrendered a few records as beyond help and just bad,  But bad could be a bad-pressings using  bad vinyl composition which I can sometimes detect with UV light.  
@antinn  Having collected LP's for decades, I can tell you that the typical used jazz and rock album is going to have significant issues..primarily from scratching and groove damage ( VG-VG++). You damage the groove with pits and scratches ( your definition of deep?) and the LP will be noisy, no matter what you do with cleaning. Unfortunately, the typical rare Beatles LP, or the typical Blue Note Lex Ave or 47 W 63rd pressing will be groove damaged.( the vast majority being VG- to VG+)..and showing scratches. Some deeper than others ( but they will all sound, regardless of the stylus shape you are using.) Your definition of deeply scratched is a relative term. IME all groove damage is audible, regardless of the stylus shape..and no amount of cleaning will alleviate this.