Have been doing these sorts of listening tests for decades now. You start to get a feel for what to listen for and develop a good routine for extracting those differences quickly. Good gear certainly helps, but it’s the skills you develop with your ears that are most important.
FWIW, I picked up this stylus cleaner recently and finally used it for the first time yesterday. The results were audible. Flux HiFi - Sonic Electronic Stylus Cleaner | Shop Music Direct
Reality Check - a single process ultrasonic unit is unlikely to get you to the 'holy grail'; with the right chemistry you can get close. But like it or not, the best results are being obtained with multi step processes such as the following and this echo's the same results that the precision cleaning industry determined 25+ years ago when aqueous processes replaced the one+done safe, non-flammable, but ozone depleting solvents. Gold Standards: -Bill Hart of the Features Archives - The Vinyl Press uses a Monk vacuum RCM for pre-clean, a final clean (DIW only) with a KL Audio ultrasonic and then final dry on the Monk. A number of people are using variations of this process with VPI vacuum RCM and DIY ultrasonic. -@dminches; (1) The Ultrasonic vinyl cleaner owners thread | Page 24 | Steve Hoffman Music Forums, uses 2 Elmasonic ultrasonic tanks. The one for cleaning I believe is dual frequency 35/80 kHz and has 2.5% IPA and 0.125% ILFOTOL with a 0.2 micron absolute filter system and then the other tank uses only DIW for rinse; air dry, but his can clean more than 3-records at a time. There are other equipment combinations - but to get the 'best' results with aqueous cleaning - you will always end up with a multi-step process. The only single process method is use of solvents - but the best methods require very expensive solvents and equipment way into 5 figures unless you want to deal with toxicity and/or fire and explosion hazards. Some will exalt the use of pure IPA as just a wipe/brush (@Phil Thien). Pure IPA as a wipe will remove organics - but there is not enough fluid applied to get the small particulate between the side wall ridges out; and IPA is a non-ionic low density solvent further limiting is ability for particle removal. When you are brushing/moving the IPA, you develop shear forces that have to penetrate the boundary layer to reach the particle. AND, small particles have this insidious problem; the force required to remove the particle is proportional to the attractive force the particle has to the surface divided by its area. The attractive force is mostly fixed, but the smaller particle with a smaller area causes the force required to remove it to increase. And, do not kid yourself, all processes that we will use for cleaning will leave some kind of residue - you just want whatever residue their is to be audibly undetectable. One item - after cleaning with the Degritter is the record truly dry??? Have you cleaned/dried a record with the Degritter and then allowed it to rest for say 30-60 minutes. The veil could just be a layer of moisture in the groove. Rapidly evaporating solvents do mostly avoid this, but in high humidity, the rapid evaporation will cool the record surface promoting whatever is in the air to condense on the record. When it comes to precision cleaning, as they say, there is no free lunch here; the devil is in the details. Its all about how 'demanding', 'studious' - pick whatever word that suits you to determine how far you are willing to go; cost notwithstanding. FWIW my cost burden is pretty low which is why I use the manual multi-step process I do. Just 'some' thoughts
That's a good question. And, for my testing, the answer is no. The process was clean, listen/record, repeat. Two minutes of drying in the Degritter - would there really be any moisture of consequence after being blasted for that period? And certainly there were no drops on the record. Then approximately three to five minutes between cleaning and listening. FWIW humidity here is currently 35% according to my wall thermometer. So it seems!
1st - if the Degritter is not foaming, there are very few surfactants that are very low foam. Otherwise, a defoaming agent is added, and all defoaming agents (for aqueous) will be insoluble - either a hydrocarbon type oil (such as Tergitol 15-S-3) or a silicone-based chemistry. But, defoaming agents if they leave a film/residue are not going to be easily removed with water - the residue will not be soluble in water. I may have a better surfactant for you in the UK - Dehypon – Conservation Resources (UK) Ltd (conservation-resources.co.uk). Dehypon LS54 is a favorite of UK conservationists for cleaning textiles; and they often use at very high concentrations for textiles. But, it is a low-foaming non-ionic surfactant (often used in dishwashers) with excellent wetting capability - very little is required for wetting; we are talking as little as 0.0025% - i.e. 1 drop in your tank; although there is some debate and may require as much as 5X more. There is one performance drawback, the cloud point is only 30C, so you 'may' see a bit of cloudiness at full temperature of 35C, but there is so little - it should not be much. Also, Dehypon LS54 is an environmental toxin to fish, but you would be using it at very, very low concentration - just enough for wetting; far less than the conservationists are using. Now, it is not out of the realm of possibility that Dehypon LS54 is what Degritter is using; but Dehypon LS54 is fully soluble in water.
Technically, I'm exalting denatured alcohol mostly these days, which has proven superior in my own testing, to IPA. I'm only posting here because someone has mentioned clarity with a possible regard to detergent residue, something I've been talking about for some time. That, and the concern that the detergent residue scraped (by the stylus) from the groove wall eventually becomes a catalyst for future ticks and pops. Now back to your regularly scheduled tangent.
I've been wondering about Denatured alcohol versus Isopropyl alcohol. I can get what I think is pure denatured at the hardware store but the isopropyl from the grocery store always seems suspect for what's in it.
The denatured I get at the hardware store is ethyl alcohol with methyl alcohol as the denaturant. That, a lazy Susan, and a velvet pad or two are how I clean records others think are already clean.
I am surprised that you find denatured ethanol superior to IPA. IPA, ethanol, and methanol are all polar solvents; with similar surface tension, but of the three, IPA has the superior solubility parameters and the precision cleaning industry that does uses alcohol almost exclusively uses reagent grade IPA. 91% IPA pharmaceutical grade (IPA + distilled water) which is sold at the drug store has almost the same solubility parameters as the best denatured ethanol (95% ethanol/5% methanol).
Yeah my recollection when the IPA shortage hit and I first tried denatured was, "huh, I think this stuff may actually work better than IPA." Fast forward to me recently trying both 91% IPA and denatured on flip sides of albums, some dirty others already silent. The denatured outperformed.
I let the Tergitol 15-S-9 I had in fridge come to room temp - it returned to a liquid w/no cloudiness; back in the fridge. Now, I poured off about half of the pint into a separate transparent HDPE container and filled near full to minimize air. The remainder in the pint from Talas I keep under the sink at room temp.
That is kind of weird. I checked and the boiling point of 91% IPA is 178F (its actually less at 91% than 100%); while 95% Ethanol is 173F; so no explanation there. Otherwise, I have to trust your experience.
What would be really sharp is a degritter+ with two tanks built in and a cycle that cleaned and then pure water rinsed. Then you could use the ideal solution for both applications.
As discussed earlier, the pure water would soon get contaminated with the cleaning water so there is a point of diminishing returns with that method.
Obviously the step not being taken is you divorced from knowing which file is which, or which process used to do the cleaning. I have no doubt about both your acuity and desire to get the best of best, but feel you may be underplaying the advantages of Degritter and equally underplaying the severe douchiness that the Kirmuss charlatan has often exhibited. Either way, I wish you nothing but luck, of course, I just worry this mildly obsessive quest may be better supplanted by, you know, sitting back and enjoying more than one record. Then again, I guess you've got a fun project to play around with, so there's that
Indeed. I recognise this. But I feel the differences between the machines are clear enough that there's no need to straw man the results this way. Indeed, to do so would deny the potential to learn and improve results. I've also posted files for others to listen to and decide for themselves. Using something like Lacinato ABX would allow blind testing of all the files at a computer, if so desired. I'm not interested in Ad Hominem attacks on Mr. Kirmuss, just the facts of the machines. The Degritter is a superb machine to use. I love it. I'd hate to have to drop it from my cleaning regime. I find the Kirmuss a pain to use. I couldn't be clearer on these things. BUT. I'm *hearing* clear benefits to the Kirmuss that I cannot deny. And, at the end of the day, this is about sound quality. The goal now is to try and find a way to bring my Degritter results up to the level of the Kirmuss, so I can ditch the Kirmuss... I shouldn't have gone down this rabbit hole, but I did. Now I have to find my way out again. I'm retired. There's plenty of time in the day for both activities!
I have been following your pursuit and it has been very interesting! I may be wrong, but didn't you originally only use distilled water with no additives in your Degritter regimen before? Since you have a Nessie, perhaps use it first with whatever cleaning solution then put the record in the Degritter with just distilled water. Or have you already done this?
My current regimen settled into: Wash on Nessie - water, IPA, ilfotol - this was primarily to strip large detritus from the record to avoid polluting the Degritter Wash in Degritter - water, tergikleen - blow dry in Degrtitter - this was the deep clean Prior to TergiKleen I was using Ilfotol, but could never solve the foaming issue it causes so moved on. But it was switching to TergiKleen that, over time, I became aware that my records were sounding duller than I expected, which then coincided with picking up the Kirmuss, purely out of curiosity, only to have it remove the dulling "veil" that was on the records, sending me down the rabbit hole that I'm now stuck in.
Just done a new round of recordings, this time using IPA/Ilfotol mix in the Degritter at the levels recommended by @pacvr, simply to see whether any audible residue is left behind. Also tried hand drying, vacuum drying and blow drying, again to see if any differences are audible, but also to closely mimic the Kirmuss approach to reduce variables. If Ilfotol is superior to Degritter's fluid I will try to find a solution to the foaming.
This is exactly what the Degritter site says about their cleaning solution: Cleaning Fluid Every Degritter machine comes with a batch of cleaning fluid concentrate. It’s not necessarily mandatory to use it, but it does have certain benefits. The concentrate is made out of anionic surfactants which help remove the dirt. It’s safe to use and won’t harm the vinyl. We recommend using of 2 ml of concentrate per one water tank of 1.2 liters. This creates a solution where surface tension is lowered enough to allow ultrasonic energy to break the water more easily while anionic molecules are delicately extracting the dirt from adjacent surfaces. In short here’s what the cleaning fluid can do: -Improves the cleaning effect further -Shortens the drying time -Creates an antistatic layer (can also be rinsed off if needed) -Fully safe for vinyl The statements are conflicting. -To create an antistatic layer means it leaves a residue; and its a residue (such as a cationic surfactant) that wants to absorb water which is what causes the record to be antistatic. -The statement that it is an anionic surfactant is puzzling because they generally produce a lot of foam, and while they can be wetting agents, they need much high concentration than a non-ionic surfactant. And, anionic surfactants are generally not compatible with cationic surfactants. The site info may be wrong and maybe its a combo of cationic surfactants (that can dry to a white powder/flake) and nonionic surfactants. If you have a simple total dissolved solids (TDS) meter that you can buy Amazon.co.uk: tds meter (I inserted a UK passcode for an ref) and they are not expensive, you can measure the TDS of the distilled water = which should be very low <5 ppm. If the Degritter cleaning solution is ionic from dissolved anionic/cationic surfactants (or others) you will see an increase in the TDS. Non-ionic surfactants and IPA do not cause a major change the TDS reading. Many DIY ultrasonic use TDS meters to monitor the bath life. TIMA uses a TDS, and the IPA/ILFOTOL blend has no TDS impact. Water exposed to air will over time absorb the CO2 that is in the air, and will then form carbonic acid which is ionic and TDS increases. Particles that are not dissolved will not cause a change in TDS. Note that inexpensive TDS meters are not that accurate - if you buy one with only one scale and that scale reads 0-2000 ppm, and it is 2% accurate, the 2% is for Full Scale, so, the accuracy is (2000)(0.02) = +/- 40 ppm. Its not that important, you would be using it more to monitor the change.
As a professional film critic, I'm envious of both your retirement and the financial position you got from helping execute an amazing idea. Good luck with it all, my friend.
I wonder if this could be remedied by changing the water more frequently in the rinse tank and having a higher level filter there as well.
