I'm trying to find the source, without luck, but I'm certain the Degritter guys explained somewhere that foam was a "bad thing".
It's in the User Manual: "Do not add foaming cleaning fluids to the water. Excessive amount of foam can affect the machine's sensors." I've never followed up any more than that. I use around 1.5ml of the Degritter fluid and never get any foam. I do have some L'Art du Son (which I what I used with my Loricraft) that I keeping thinking I might try at some point but wasn't sure if that might foam up or not. I'm not sure how much weight to put on the wording that says "Excessive amount" - that to me could mean that some foam is fine, but how much is deemed to be excessive??
I’m using the Degritter solution. It foams a little occasionally. Doesn’t seem to hurt or affect anything.
I've noticed that excessive foam can result in wet labels. 1.5 ml of Degritter solution seems to work best for me.
Currently using ilfotol as surfactant and i tried using their diluting ratio, and it was foaming a lot, so instead , i fill up caddy and add 20-25 drops of ilfotol, foams just enough. So i use this until tergikleen will arrive. Hope that stuff will me a difference.
Ah, good find! I've had foam covering the entire record surface, which I'd guess is definitely excessive; that was with Ilfotol. With Tergikleen I get some foam on the first revolution and then it tends to clear away. I'm happy with that. Once it doesn't clear away I change the caddy. With the Degritter fluid it's much better. If it wasn't for Paul Rigby (whose ears I tend to trust) suggesting that there were gains in sound quality from cleaning with TergiKleen I'd probably just stick with the Degritter fluid and put foamageddon behind me.
I get some foam from Degritter liquid, that's why I was asking... Def not excessive, but since they moved to their higher level it does make for some foaming action.
Definitely foaming with degritter liquid, and i notice drying is faster as well, at least faster that ilfotol. Both foam, but ilfotol foams a lot if you se their suggested ratio.
So my replacement Degritter arrived! I went for the newer satin black version and I really like the looks. I also went for the black version because I like the easy-reading contrast of the white lettering against black. Plus, the display really "pops" against the black background so I find it overall just looks cooler and more legible. I did a few records last night, some heavy, others medium. Looks like they have their process dialed in nicely. Whereas my previous degritter could leave the occasional water drops on the record after drying, all the records came out pristine and dry. As per previous experience with the Degritter, results were between "almost miraculous" to "noticeable and welcome but not huge." I buy most of my vinyl from discogs and usually "near mint" is the rating I stick with because ratings seem to get even more out of touch with reality once you drop down to VG + and below it's even more of a crap-shoot. But I broke down and bought a bunch of cheaper LPs in the VG to VG+ category and naturally a bunch were damned noisy. One disco record sounded like it had been pulled from the garbage bin, just listening through a hash of crackling noise. I gave it a heavy wash on the degritter and the friggin' thing sounded almost NEW afterward. Almost no noise! The other LPs weren't as miraculous, but there were still distinct reductions in noise to one degree or another. I'm really impressed at how modern,well thought out and advanced the Degritter seems than virtually all the alternatives. I was put off by the roll-up-your-sleeves work most people put up with when cleaning their records, and even most of the automated attempts, from the vaccum designs to the original UScleaners, seemed just barely out of the shop in terms of aesthetics, ergonomics etc. The Degritter just seems to leapfrog this process in to the 21st century. Almost any question I have, any feature I can think up a record cleaner might have, seems to be there. And the continual modifications just seem to fine tune the device. (I love that it counts the records washed, prompts for filter cleaning after a certain number, etc)
Yeah, it's really nice. I like it quite a bit better. And frankly I normally loath black components. But the black Degritter looks very "neat" and simplified, with just the bright LCD screen highlighted. Looks more neato. The Degritter just did another "miracle" cleaning for me. Another super noisy record, washed it, dropped the needle back down and at first thought I'd left my pre-amp on mute because there was silence. Then the music started! Turned out the crackling/hashy noise had been mostly erased by the Degritter! (Whereas another album, a Rush re-issue, didn't fare so well. I'd only played it a few times but noticed quite a layer of backround noise. I was hoping a Degritter wash would get rid of it, but most of it stayed).
Anybody find a source for the from replacements? Obviously we can get from DG, and have seen the vids suggesting the aquarium foam, but curious if anyone has sourced the 60ppi stuff used in Estonia
I got my Tergikleen delivered today, I changed water added 10 drops of Tergikleen to caddy. First clean, and I see what you mean by sheeting on record with this, I don't think Degritter fluid and ilfotol ever did that, they foam, but definitely no sheeting effect with them. I also noticed drying effect is much faster with tergikleen, ilfotol took ages, and sometimes drops would be left on record after 3.45 drying time. Tergikleen with a minute to go is already dry or almost dry.
Thats a good question, I've been looking for a good 40 ppi filter, I didn't know Degritter used 60 ppi instead, it doesn't look that fine to me, I already changed 1 filter after 120 washes. Cleaned that filer probably 4-5 times but i don't see the point keeping it longer. I'm sure i can get replacement on amazon. What do people recommend ?? 60 PPI filter ?? thank you.
Just remember that loaded filters clean better than unloaded filters. The junk in the filters, actually improves filtering. It can create more pressure drop, though.
The dirt trapped in the filter is the loading. The more dirty the filter, the more loaded, the better at cleaning particulate matter.
Somehow this sounds counter intuitive so I wrote the folks at Degritter and here is the reply: Thank you for the email. In a way the sentence does make sense, because the more a filter contains dirt, the less flow through it is possible. This however does not mean that the filtered particles are smaller, because the filter is as good as its weakest link, namely the nominal pore size (PPI, or Pores Per Inch). In the case of Degritter, having a very dirty filter is detrimental to the cleaning effect, because not as much water can be filtered as before (flow rate is diminished), which leaves the water more dirty and also can cause the filtering pump to malfunction and cause water foaming (impeller creates cavitation).
Soon to be Degritter owner here. I was hoping for another Music Direct financing deal, and sure enough they came through. On backorder at the moment, but hopefully by Christmas week I'll be up and cleaning!! And hopefully I can clean without my dog attacking the machine like he does with my Music Hall RCM...
I think the one supplied should be sufficient. Anything thicker would probably result in increased water pressure. The smaller the pores, the more resistant to water flow? In this case, I am going to trust the engineers at Degritter. I am not saying that there is not a better solution since I don’t know if there are realistic cost benefit or supply solutions.
I have just been rinsing my "stock" filter out when I get the change filter message. Does anyone know how long before the filter must actually be replaced?