From all that has been written - the Degritter white residue appears to be combination of cleaner residue and likely very fine particles. As I stated, we do not know what exactly is in the Degritter cleaning solution, but if any ingredient is a dissolved power or flake, when it dries, and absent a water rinse, some will dry, ergo some white residue. The Degritter tank filter is not very fine - much larger than 50 microns, so smaller particles that are not visible will build-up in the tank. Ergo, combine some cleaner residue and particulate residue and you can get a white residue. Kirmuss is different. The surfactant is labeled as "Anti-bacterial/anti-static surfactant spray solution". This has to be a cationic surfactant and it may contain a non-ionic surfactant. Cationic surfactants can react with various residues. As I stated previous, anionic surfactants used in many dish detergents contain anionic surfactants and these are not soluble with the cationic surfactants and form a paste. Also, how the Kirmuss surfactant is applied has an effect - only a small amount is applied - so if there is residue on the record, the reaction can be quite visible. I have not read where people have had the paste form on new records, but if you read the RCA patent for record formulation US3960790A 1498409551006799538-03960790 (storage.googleapis.com) you will note the following: (1) Excess plasticizer (which has a mold release function) More than 1 percent over-saturates the resin thereby producing oily splotches on the surface of the record, and the splotches result in noise on playback. and (2) Excess wax (which acts as mold release) If more than the stated amount of the montan wax ester is used, the excess amount is not absorbed into the surface of the record. Its presence results in non uniformity in the surface of the record, particularly as related to the friction between the stylus and the groove. So, it is plausible that an oily-wax residue 'may' be on a new record as a result of a poor record composition. If an an oily-wax residue is on the record surface, a simple DI water ultrasonic is not going to be very effective in removing that - but the record will be heated making the oily-wax residue soft, and for the Kirmuss - apply the cationic surfactant as a spray-brush and a residue can form - totally plausible. There is a complication. If you dive into the how RCA developed that composition (its documented in RCA Engineer magazines) they tweaked it until a Shibata stylus could play the record 100 times without wear. I suspect you do not want to be overly aggressive with cleaning the surface otherwise you may be able to slightly alter the surface properties which may make it sound better 'initially' but at the expense of premature wear. The RCA formula allows the record to wear by just bending over the side wall ridges - no noise is produced just some loss of high frequency detail - so we call that graceful degradation. But, other compounds were shown to wear by fracturing and pitting of the surface and that is anything but graceful; and you do not want that type of wear. Just some thoughts FWIW
Thank you for these detailed posts. I found the Tergitol 15-S-9 somewhat independently and thought it might be a good surfactant to try. You seem to be suggesting that a few drops in distilled water (and that's all) would make an effective solution in the Degritter. Is this correct? I'd like to get rid of the white powder on my stylus. So far, other than the above possibility, I haven't found anything that looks significantly better than the Degritter solution in this machine. the way the Tergitol is sold and at these concentrations, a bottle would last several lifetimes -- assuming it has a good shelf life. Looks like I can get it delivered for about $40/pt. Not cheap but none of these cleaners are!
Yes - 1st just try a few drops of Tergitol 15-S-9 in distilled water (and that's all) as I said above. This will be enough to lower the solution surface tension to less than the record surface tension so it will wet the record. The few drops is not enough surfactant (Tergitol 15-S-9) to be a detergent, but the ultrasonic is doing the heavy work - the cleaning so you should not need the detergency unless you cleaning some dirty records. The Tergitol 15-S-9 stored in a tightly sealed container at room temp should last 3-5 yrs. For eye droppers you can use disposable LDPE pipettes - they are very cheap; 3mL is <$5 for 100; 100pcs Plastic Disposable Transfer Pipettes - 3ml Plastic Calibrated Graduated Eye Dropper Suitable for Lip Gloss Transfer Essential Oils Science Laboratory Experiment: Amazon.com: Industrial & Scientific. $40 for Tergitol 15-S-9??? Talas sells a pint for $21.75 ; the quart is ~$40 Tergitol 15-S-3 and 15-S-9 Surfactant | TALAS (talasonline.com) Depending on what @r.Din does, lets see if the 2.5% IPA may be a benefit. I have given the IPA more thought and it may be a benefit. The benefit may come from the decrease in the fluid boiling temperature (2.5% IPA lowers the BP by 18F) that raises the fluid vapor pressure, but does not alter the water density by much. What this 'may' do is improve the ultrasonic efficiency. There is a delicate balance in the fluid properties that improves the cavitation energy. With a given power (the power from the Degritter is fixed), if only the fluid surface tension is reduced and the vapor pressure increased - you get more fluid cavitation energy - ergo - better cleaning. At least that is what the science say. But add too much surfactant and too much IPA, and now the fluid properties are changed enough that you get no benefit or worse, less cavitation energy.
Plus $17 for shipping! And they sell it the cheapest. Is there a reason I can't use the same dropper over and over again?
I ordered a pint of Tergitol 15-S-9. Hopefully it gets here not long after my replacement Degritter. I may have a couple bottles of Degritter solution to sell at a good price.
Where did you wind up getting it? When searching for Tergitol, Triton X-100 comes up quite a bit. Amazon carries the Triton. https://www.amazon.com/Surfactant-Nonionic-Laboratory-Cleaning-Detergent/dp/B07SGY8LRC/ I thought they were the same, but apparently not. There was a thread on audio asylum about the difference. "as a working scientist who has used several different such nonionic detergents, I sayeth that there is not a dime's worth of difference between them, even in biology, let alone for the lowly job of cleaning LPs. Use either." Vinyl Asylum goodness that's a large photo
$17 shipping - ouch! I hope that is 2-day. Yes - you can reuse the eye dropped. But, this is a 100% concentrated product - so the eye dropper may get essentially for want of a better word - sticky. Just rinse well.
As I indicated above - you can buy Tergitol 15-S-9 here - Tergitol 15-S-3 and 15-S-9 Surfactant | TALAS . As far as the working scientists statement - that is not true. The critical micelle concentration (CMC) for Tergitol 15-S-9 is 52 ppm, while for Triton X100 is 189 ppm; and there are differences in the dissolution rate - the Tergitol dissolves faster. These are big difference for cleaning; because they dictate the concentration needed to make a wetting agent, and what is then required for detergency (generally about 10 times the CMC), and how easy/fast does it dissolve in water, and Tergitol has a lower foam height. Otherwise, they are both about 9 levels of ethoxylation with similar HLB detergency and cloud points which may be all that scientist cares about. Otherwise, Tergitol 15-S-9 was developed as the improved environmentally compatible replacement for Triton X100. Fundamentally, you can use about 4 times less Tergitol as Triton and that makes a big difference when you are trying to minimize residue.
Wow! This thread has really exploded with a ton of interesting discussion and information. I'm trying to digest it all, as I am about to join the Degritter club, having just procured a used unit (which I should have in a week or so). Thus, I'm keenly interested in the outcome of your experiments, @r.Din! Your description sounds a lot like what I remember Harry Weisfeld writing about when he was testing ultrasonic cleaners. I hope I'm not putting words in his mouth, but I recall his conclusion was that a pure-water rinse and vacuum restored that top-end veil, which sounds a lot like some kind of residue being left by that US bath. As you mentioned that you also have a Nessie vacuum machine, I would love to hear what happens if you tried a rinse and vac-dry with your Nessie.
Yup, that's where I got it. There are a couple places that sell it (Grainger, Zoros) but they want a fortune for it. As much as the shipping was, in relative terms, it was a bargain. How does this stuff go bad? Will it be obvious? I'll use the heck out of it for a few months and then not so much. If it really has a shelf life, it will go bad before I use a fraction of it. How about refrigeration? Will that help?
I'm still collating my testing from yesterday, where I went through a number of permutations of cleaning approaches, but wanted to drop the overall now results rather than prolonging things. The Degritter did all the drying for it's cleans. Testing other methods of drying will have to wait. All testing done with a new record: the new Speakers Corner 'Buddy Guy and Junior Wells Play The Blues.' I ripped the same track through various cleaning permutations to allow post analysis. Medium cycle used on the Degritter to avoid overheating. I used Paul Rigby's Tergi spray method, rather than putting the TergiKlean in the tank. Steps: Uncleaned Distilled Water Distilled + Paul Rigby's Tergi-spray recipe (cleaned Degritter and started over) Distilled + 2.5% IPA Distilled + 2.5% IPA + Tergi-spray (cleaned Degritter and started over) Kirmuss first clean (to remove any Degritter residue) *mistake* (see below) Distilled + 2.5% IPA + 0.6ml Degritter fluid Kirmuss second clean. I found that 0.6ml of Degritter fluid (I added 0.1ml a time until sheeting started) was just enough to start the process of sheeting, but not enough to keep the record covered. As the record rises out of the water you can see it sheeting for a few seconds but it then quickly sloughs off. I think this is perhaps ideal as it should mean that the ultrasonics in the water get the benefit of the surfactant without the surfactant then sticking to the record and risking residue. However, after cleaning a couple more records, the sheeting becomes full again - I guess the Degritter fluid mixes into the water more effectively. Perhaps 0.5ml might be better. Or 0.4ml. Need to test. With TergiKleen I could see residue spots after drying. With 0.6ml of Degritter fluid the record was spot free. Listening results: Distilled water sounded better than uncleaned. Distilled + Paul Rigby's Tergi-spray recipe sounded better again, in some respects; more detail pulled out - but had the softening veil applied. 2.5% IPA was better than above. More clarity, without veiling. Distilled + 2.5% IPA + Tergi spray - same as above - more details pulled out but at the cost of a veil. After the Tergi-spray was used the second time foaming started, and I imagine it will only get worse with continued use, so I emptied the machine and cleaned it out. I then ran the record through the Kirmuss to strip it of all residues and started again. This was, I now realise, a mistake. 2.5% IPA (35ml) + 0.6ml Degritter fluid in 1365ml of distilled water sounds *fantastic*. This was the best result from the Degritter; just behind the Kirmuss. It has the most open soundstage, the best definition and detail and clarity in the bass; the best separation of instruments. But I now recognise that perhaps this Degritter result sounds so good because it's actually the Kirmuss result from the previous clean. And sounds slightly less good due to potential residue from the Degritter fluid. This is where I need to do more testing now, starting over with a new record unaffected by cleaning, but I'm out of water until tomorrow. Both times I used the Kirmuss the results were undeniable - more soundstage, more definition, more depth, more clarity, more musicality. Which is really frustrating, because the Kirmuss is so inconvenient to use in so many ways. I really don't want to have to use it moving forward, but I cannot ignore my ears. So, the challenge is now to find a method, if possible, of working with the Degritter so that I get the same results as with the Kirmuss. For me, TergiKleen is out - any way I use it I hear veiling to the sound, plus there is the foaming issue to deal with, but surfactant definitely improves the cleaning. It might be that manual drying helps. Or a distilled water rinse in the Degritter. Or a vacuum clean. Or a completely different recipe. There are so many permutations to try... Or it might simply be that the Kirmuss is my future cleaner. Anyway, for those interested, here's a link to all the files I ripped: Sync | Secure cloud storage that protects your privacy in the order they were created. I recommend listening on speakers to get the best insights. Headphones don't give the scale needed to hear the important differences. And you will want to go over and over the tracks to get the insights. Making notes can be helpful, using the uncleaned at the benchmark. Once you start to hear the differences it becomes easy to differentiate them and it's likely that a favourite will start to float to the top. For me it's easily the Kirmuss. YMMV.
These results are very surprising to me. A machine which is based on a Chinese generic ultrasonic tank that costs less than $500 and a method of cleaning that is invented by an eccentric, lab-wearing, middle-aged vinyl collector produces better results than a very expensive, designed in house and based on many years of research machine that uses a custom ultrasonic bath with a custom 300W ultrasonic amplifier that that has been designed specifically for cleaning vinyl records. I am still suspicious that something else is going on here. Personally, I did not hear any difference between the samples posted, not that this means anything. (I also listened to them on my main system with speakers) In any case, let me say again that I really appreciate @r.Din time and efforts to find the holy grail in the ultimate record cleaning.
You’re welcome. I wish I hadn’t started. The results have upset my apple cart! I need to find a way to upright it again... I’m as sceptical as the next, but always willing to challenge my expectations and be challenged over them. The end goal is the best possible sound and I’ll go wherever that takes me. The information posted is a good faith attempt to explore and share in order to better understand. The posted samples allow anybody to make a judgement. You heard no difference between uncleaned and cleaned samples?
I heard no major differences between the two cleaned samples, the one cleaned with Degritter and the one that was cleaned subsequently with Kirmuss. I am sure that more/fewer clicks and pops will show when opening them in a wave editor. But sitting on my couch, going back and forth, it wasn't easy for me to notice anything spectacular going from one to the other. When I thought that a certain passage sounded a bit more quiet, by the time I played the other file, my memory had fainted and I wasn't sure what to think anymore. So, I would say that my "test" was inconclusive but If I had to choose one of the two, I would choose the file with the name "Ringo - 1". Of course, there was a big difference between the uncleaned and the cleaned ones. No doubt.
Ah, that was the older samples. What about the new ones I just posted which contain the various permutations of uncleaned and cleaned? BTW, Ringo-1 was the Kirmuss...
Interesting that Ringo-1 was the Kirmuss, I wasn't expecting that! I haven't heard the new ones yet, I will have to get back to you on these.
simply in awe of how revealing your audio systems (or your ears) must be to uncloak a veil from changes in a record-cleaner surfactant (i know that sounds sarcastic, but it's not. My mid-fi system sounds great, but i have neither the gear, nor the ability, nor the patience to detect these kinds of nuances. Someday when we emerge from this covid nightmare, I would love to sit in front of another audiophile's high-end system and get a demonstration of these differences, and see if I can tell.)
Have you tried 2.5% IPA and 0.125% (1.25 mL/L) ILFOTOL? Remember the ILFOTOL is mostly water, it contains only 5% non-ionic surfactant, so 1.25% is only 62.5 ppm non-ionic surfactant.
I promise you could hear it (the improved clarity from eliminating detergent residue), the right set of circumstances just hasn't presented itself yet.
The other versions that Grainger and the labs are selling is spectrographic grade with a nice brown bottle and label and a certificate of analysis (CoA). Otherwise, they are the same, and the Talas source is what I specified in my paper. Talas is re-packaging, but so is most everyone else - but to get a CoA cost $$$. DOW does not sell Triton or Tergitol surfactants to the general public in small quantities. IF it goes bad, its only because it was exposed to air to long. It will absorb moisture from the air and microbes are in the air will find something to eat (the Tergitol is biodegradable), and this should be evident by a change in the clarity - it will likely get hazy. If you put in the refrigerator it will essentially harden - the pour point for the product is 48F. If you put it in the fridge and then take it out - once it warms up will be OK; I have some that has been in the fridge for over a month (its pretty much solid) - I will let you know.
Not yet, but I certainly will. However, I’ve yet to find any amount of Ilfotol that doesn’t start foaming badly after a few washes.
