KLaudio or Degritter Mark II

As always, Neil provides the definitive evaluation and comparison 😊 .

@antinn You are indispensable!

My last foray of record cleaning involved the use of LAST POWER RECORD CLEANER (used as directed) as a pre-cleaning step.

Then, I used a Knosti Disco Anti-Stat filled with Mobile Fidelity Super Record Wash as another pre-cleaning step, rotating the records in the bath at least half a dozen times in both directions.

The next step involved use of an RoHS Model 30A 180W ultrasonic power 200W cleaning power 40Khz 6L digital ultrasonic cleaner filled with distilled water and 15ml of Tergitol.15-S-9, set to 72 degrees Fahrenheit for 15-minute cleaning cycles.  I ran the machine for 30 minutes at the same temperature, prior to cleaning records, thinking this would accomplish degassing.  Then, I cleaned 3 records at a time in the ultrasonic using CleanerVinyl's record rotating motor set for .5 RPM, their old-style screw-on spacers that separates records by approximately 11/16", their record lifting & lowering device and their 6l one micron filtration device.

The last step (excluding treating dry records with LAST RECORD PRESERVATIVE) involved another go-around in the same ultrasonic machine, filled with only distilled water (same degassing protocol) and set to the same temperature and cleaning/rinsing cycles.

The results I obtained were at least as effective as a previous time when I used Mobile Fidelity's Super Record Wash for the ultrasonic cleaning fluid, no heat, and the same 15-minute cleaning cycles at 5 RPM rotation.  In a direct comparison with the original Degitter, using only my ears for fidelity comparison, I found the Degritter did no better.

The allure of machines like the Degritter, KLAudio and some others, from my perspective, is and has always been ease of operation, smaller footprint and, basically, eloquence.  Be that as it may, I and many other audiophiles, I'm sure, continue to struggle with the thousands of dollars such eloquence affords.

I'm wondering if the Elma Ultrasonic P60H, with its sweep frequency and 37 to 80 Khz settings might be a cost-effective alternative to consider.

Thoughts, Sensei?

As always, I cannot thank you enough for whatever time and attention you bring to this!

I own a H Guru and have used the KL and the DeGritter ( version 1). The Guru, so long as one uses a surfactant (crucial), works well. The results from the KL, with a surfactant, were slightly better than the Guru and the DeGritter. The DeGritter offers a better build than the Guru, as does of course the KL. If build quality and ability to do multiple LP’s over time, ie for library work, then the order of preference is attached to the price asked. For the money, the Guru, for most folks, is an easy answer and the best option. IMO.

@oldaudiophile,

First some observations on your current cleaning regime: 

1. The 15-ml of Tergitol 15-S-9 in a 6L bath = [(15-ml)/(6000-ml)]x100% = 0.25% which is 5-10X greater than what I recommend in the book - XIV.9.4.  Did you mean 15-ml or 1.5ml?
2. The spacing of 11/16 is too close for a 40-kHz machine, 1" would be better.
3. The CleanerVinyl: Ultrasonic Vinyl Cleaning Systems pump is 1.5-lpm (it does not filter the tank in 4-min, more on that later).  If you are cleaning 3-records at time with the pump operating and you plug & chug into the equation XIV.5.3.e, you get 0.5-rpm, so you are good here.
4. The UT tank RoHS Model 30A 180W ultrasonic power - what is this?  Is this one of the low-cost Chinese units such as Ultrasonic Cleaner PS-30A - China Ultrasonic Cleaner (made-in-china.com)?  How much does the water heat-up after 15-min, after 30-min.  There is advertised power and then there is real-power that gets into the bath.
5. Using the equation XIV.15.3, a 1.5-lpm pump/filter will take about 14-min to filter 97.5% of the tank. 
6. As far as Last Record Treatment, my position is to leave the record with a residue-free surface.  But I acknowledge other people's opinions, and no further comment.  

Now on to the Elamsonic P60, and I have worked with a number of people setting up their process.  

1. The Elmasonic P-series UCM is dual frequency - 37kHz and 80kHz; with pulse power and the P60H PP_Elmasonic_P60H_EN.pdf (elma-ultrasonic.com) is a 6L tank. Elmasonic has an excellent operator manual - Elmasonic P Ultrasonic Cleaning Units - Operating Instructions (elma-ultrasonic.co.nz). The Elmasonic P-series are powerful units.  The Elamsonic rating appears real since the tank heats accordingly from user experience; and if running sequential cycles, you may need to stop periodically to allow the tank to cool or install a cooler/radiator (addressed book XIV.15.2) to allow high throughput.
2. With the dual frequency you get the best of both worlds, the 37kHz for precleaning and then 80kHz for final cleaning. For the few really dirty records - clean them manually then clean with UCM. Note: with the dual frequency you should secure the pump/filter when operating at 37kHz (depending on # of records) but then operate the pump/filter at 80kHz. At higher frequencies, cavitation is not affected by tank flow rate. It has to do with the cavitation bubble size that is proportional to the kHz.
3. The general process for the Elamasonic P-series is the first phase is run at 80% power for 10 minutes under the auto frequency change mode where the tank runs at 37kHz for 30 seconds then it switches to 80kHz for 30 seconds, back and forth. The second phase runs for 10 minutes at 80kHz at 100% power or 100% in pulse power.
4. Bottom firing transducers may provide a cleaning benefit. In a traditional UCM with bottom firing transducers, the acoustic waves that are propagating upward through the liquid will reflect downward from the fluid surface. When reflected downward the acoustic waves will combine with the upward acoustic wave and the subsequent wave can be constructive(amplifying) if in-phase or destructive (attenuated) if out of phase. Ultimately areas/layers of higher acoustic energy/cavitation (standing waves) will form and there will be areas/layers of lower acoustic energy/cavitation. The standing waves tend to layer at a distance 1/2 of the wavelength with the book Table XXI showing the wavelengths and resultant standing wave of common UCMs frequencies; highlighted blue. The spacing of the standing wave is relative to themselves. Their position in the tank relative to a fixed point is dependent on the reflected surface – is it hard or soft; water height and other factors such as the type of transducer and water temperature. But the record(s) is rotating and standing waves may be beneficial since the record is exposed to a scrubbing type action as the record alternately moves from areas of lower cavitation intensity to areas of higher cavitation intensity and the Elmasonic pulse function should further enhance the scrubbing action.

This setup tima's DIY RCM | What's Best Audio and Video Forum. The Best High End Audio Forum on the planet! (whatsbestforum.com) uses two UT tanks using the P120 with the high-end filtration system addressed in the book with a 2nd cheaper 12L UT for rinse.

Let me emphasize that the P-series are powerful units.  One individual was running at 0.15-rpm and allowed the tank to reach 50C, and one record was damaged (a molted surface occurred - but played OK).  Lesson learned - do not spin to slow and do not let the tank get to hot.

Now for the extensional question - will the Elamasomic P60 yield a cleaner record than what you are getting now - it may.  Depends on what you are cleaning.  But if you are pre-cleaning before UT, you should be able to just use a no-rinse bath of Tergitol 15-S-9 at 0.004%.  This is 0.24-ml per tank.  This is 6-drops from a Nalgene Dropper Bottle Nalgene 2 oz. Leakproof Travel Dropper Bottle | The Container Store.  The Nalgene Dropper Bottle delivers accurately 0.04-ml/drop - Factors to consider in accuracy and precision of Nalgene Dropper Bottles (thermofisher.com).  For this no-rinse formula, 2% IPA can make a difference, but if using the bath for extended periods (weeks), you will need to periodically re-add Tergitol and IPA.  

As I always say, the devil is in the details, and the best cleaning process is the one that is best for you.

Take care,

Neil

@antinn First and foremost, thanks so much for your kind attention to my record cleaning madness!  Also, a correction of a typo I made:

Rotation speed for my final ultrasonic rinse cycle(s) is/was 0.5 RPM; not 5 RPM.

In answer to your questions/observations/constructive feedback:

(1)  I did, indeed, use 15ml of Tergitol.  Using 0.9ml to achieve a 0.015% concentration seemed like so vanishingly little.  I did not encounter any issues or problems with foaming.  Also, I continue to struggle with the idea of possibly using a little alcohol in the cleaning process, either in the US cleaning cycle or the Knosti pre-cleaning step, because the records I've been cleaning (i.e.  my core collection) are already very, very clean.

(2)  If I reduce my throughput, so to speak, to 2 records instead of 3, the records would be spaced by approximately 1.25".  Would that make a huge or significant difference?  Would 1 record at a time be better still?  Also, what impact would this have on rotational speed?

(3)  Thanks!

(4)  That looks like the US machine I have except mine is a 6-liter capacity; not 6.5 liters.  I set the heat to 26 Celsius.  Toward the end of a 15-minute cleaning cycle the tank fluid sometimes reaches 30 Celsius.  If it gets higher than that, I allow for extra cooling time.

(5)  Thanks!  It appears this filter pump is doing its job because I'm starting to notice some discoloration (dirt) captured by the filter.  I did not expect dramatic results in this regard because of how clean my core collection is.

(6)  Thanks!  According to LAST's marketing/advertising, this solution or treatment is supposed to meld or bond on a molecular level with PVC, last for at least 200 plays or more, etc., etc., etc.  As such, I assumed this would not amount to a film or residue, per se.  However, now that I think of this a bit more, if this treatment has a life span of 200 plays or more, then I suppose it's reasonable to assume it is gradually etched off or eroded by the stylus and ultimately becomes a residue.  This ushers in a whole new set of questions!  Since I haven't played any records on my relatively new TT that haven't been ultrasonically cleaned, first, and treated with LAST, I would wonder if LAST actually does contribute to significantly less surface noise and at what cost of fidelity.