Degritter Users

Discussion in 'Audio Hardware' started by WntrMute2, Jun 30, 2019.

  1. pacvr

    pacvr Forum Resident

    Location:
    Maryland
    If you are curious, this is the patent for Discwasher 3,951,841 1498409355778615785-03951841 (storage.googleapis.com). The primary biocide ingredient listed was sodium azide which has proven to be very toxic - CDC | Facts About Sodium Azide - so much for what could have been the original formula. BUT, sodium azide found a new home - its the explosive ingredient in car airbags:laugh: Please do not even think of using the original Discwasher solution.
     
  2. pacvr

    pacvr Forum Resident

    Location:
    Maryland
    FYI - The Tergitol 15-S-9 can foam, so you want to use as little as possible; and since it is essentially 100% concentrated use not more than 0.01% (100 ppm) which for the 1400 mL degritter tank works out to be (0.0001)(1400 ml) = 0.14 mL = 2-3 drops. Yes, its a crazy small amount, but that is all it should take to decrease the surface tension from 72 dynes/cm to 30 dynes/cm (the lowest it can achieve no matter how much) which will wet the record. You may want to start with just 1-drop of Tergitol 15-S-9 (you can always add more). If by chance you get excessive foam with the Tergitol at 1 drop, I would say ditch it, and just go DIW with 2.5% IPA. The 2.5% IPA by itself will decrease the surface tension to about 60 dynes/cm.
     
    bloodlemons likes this.
  3. pacvr

    pacvr Forum Resident

    Location:
    Maryland
    The easiest way to check whether the "rinse cycle" contains surfactant is to do a simple shake test. After the "rinse cycle" collect a sample of about 100 mL from the rinse water tank to a clean glass jar so that it fills to about 1/2, cover and shake vigorously for 15-30 seconds. If all it contains is DIW, there will be no bubbles/foam on the surface after just a few seconds. If there is Degritter surfactant in the rinse water, it should produce a relatively stable surface of bubbles or foam This test can be very sensitive - sensitive enough to detect as little as 5 ppm of a foaming surfactant such as Triton X100.

    Note that if the 1st rinse shows no evidence of surfactant by shake test, that may just be a function of the specific surfactant - not enough to cause bubbles/foam. Using the same rinse water for a TBD # of records may eventually show surfactant residue as it builds up in the rinse water. However, the shake test is unlikely to work with something like Tergikleen because it contains a defoaming agent (the Tergitol 15-S-3 that is not water soluble).

    Hope this is some help
     
    Fractured, patient_ot and bloodlemons like this.
  4. AArchie

    AArchie Forum Resident

    Location:
    Colorado
    You can set the Dry Cycle to zero and then run a dry only cycle.

    Wow, if one drop foams too much I'll really be stumped. What are some defoaming agents? Or would that be just chasing my tail?
     
  5. terzinator

    terzinator boots lost in transit

    Haha, I might have some left from 1979 but that's the last thing I'd do. :)
     
    pacvr likes this.
  6. MattHooper

    MattHooper Forum Resident

    Location:
    Canada
    Thank you for posting that!

    I had been having some sonic issues with my vinyl playback. This week I got a usb microscope which revealed a hideous thick coating of gunk all around the needle/cantilever. Not sure why my gel needle cleaner wasn't getting that off.

    After seeing your recommendation I looked in to the Flux unit and fortunately a local dealer had one for sale. I just tried it and holy cow does it ever work!
    Almost all the gunk removed in 15 seconds. I never even knew I had a needle in that haystack! Sounded obviously better too!
     
    bloodlemons likes this.
  7. Bill Hart

    Bill Hart Forum Resident

    Location:
    Austin
    I periodically monitor this thread, but haven't really contributed much since it was largely focused on the Degritter and I didn't want to steer outside the lane. I know one person who has owned all the high end RCMs, including the German clone of the Monks, the Odyssey (now long gone) and swears by the DeGritter (I think he uses two in tandem, I'd have to ask).
    But now that you've got Neil involved (@pacvr) and @r.Din has decided to take a deep dive into the cleaning waters, I feel a little more comfortable wading in with some questions.
    @r.Din - the "veiling" you described upthread was a result of using Tertigtol or the DeGritter fluid? And did you do a pure water rinse step?
    As a general observation about the Kirmuss "method" it seems that both Fremer and Paul Rigby got extremely good results despite their (justifiable in my estimation) skepticism of some of Kimuss' claims. Kirmuss does include a rinse step, though, if I remember (though it is a spritz and wipe, not a full immersion in the tank, correct?)
    One thing that puzzles me and I did raise it earlier, was whether the DeGritter option of a second tank (and the ability to swap out tanks) was intended to allow a rinse cycle and whether folks were experiencing residue issues in using a second tank/rinse step with the Degritter.
    I claim no particular credentials in the field other than having spent time, effort and a degree of inquisitiveness in trying to find a method that cleans records to my satisfaction using commercially available products. I have kibitzed with Neil about building the industrial line type ultrasonic system which he described upthread might be brought in at a cost (not retail price) of 15k dollars. We'll face that issue when my KL craps out. On a more realistic level, the truths I have found in my own explorations have come down to some fairly simple propositions:
    1.multi-method cleaning is more effective than single method;
    2.a rinse step is critical to remove residue of the fluid/contaminant slurry;
    3. the best way I have found to achieve point 2 is via point nozzle vacuum since it gives you the best chance of removing the residue by lifting it off the record as part of a rinse step.
    I have not been experimenting with ultrasonic surfactants at this point simply because they are taboo with the KL (though at this point, given that the machine is out of warranty and largely out of the market, maybe that shouldn't inhibit me).
    Thanks for letting me weigh in; if anybody has any responses to my questions highlighted above, I'd be interested in hearing them. Kudos to all of you for your willingness to experiment and share results. That is the value of these fora.
    regards,
    Bill Hart
     
    Fractured, Drew769, pacvr and 2 others like this.
  8. Vinyl Archaeologist

    Vinyl Archaeologist Forum Resident

    With 25ml of Reagent grade IPA in the tank I was getting good sheeting with a small amount of degritter fluid - Only the cone of the attached pipette up to the first mark (.25ml I believe). I wonder if that amount of residue would ever be audible by me.
     
  9. bloodlemons

    bloodlemons Forum Resident

    Location:
    Grit City, USA
    I didn't use a microscope, but I definitely noted the return of the high-end sparkle after just one cleaning! I had been using the Onzow for routine cleaning prior, fwiw.
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2021
  10. pacvr

    pacvr Forum Resident

    Location:
    Maryland
    You may surprised by how powerful these 'high performance' surfactants can be; however 1-drop in 1400 mL is not much. Otherwise, defoaming agents will only fix one problem (foam) only to create another. Tergikleen is a combination of Tergitol 15-S-9 and 15-S-3. The 15--S-3 (that Talas sells) is a non-ionic surfactant, and is also a defoaming agent. But like all defoaming agents is not soluble with water, they form an emulsion (essentially oil in water) and in tank of water it forms at the surface and breaks up the bubbles so the foam cannot form. BUT, essentially being an oil emulsion (not soluble with water), if it gets on the record (and it will), it is not easy to remove/rinse. Ergo, @r.Din noted a degradation in sound with Tergikleen - but YMMV, it all depends how sensitive you hearing is. I have little doubt that someone like @Phil Thien who is sensitive to cleaner residue would more than likely note something similar.
     
    Frank Chang likes this.
  11. pacvr

    pacvr Forum Resident

    Location:
    Maryland
    @Bill Hart,

    There is no question of your wisdom & experience, and in a prior post I talked about a "Reality check, and noted that your process was one of the "Gold Standards". But as another gold standard I referenced the @dminches setup that is a setup from TIMA using two tanks - one clean/one rinse with very fine filtration 0.2 micron absolute. This filtration ensures that the record when being cleaned pretty much always is exposed to clean fluid and the 2nd rinse tank opens up the option for a little more chemistry in the cleaning tank.

    But for the single tank Degritter the challenge is to tune the chemistry to get the best possible result with the least amount of cleaner/residue without any rinse; hopefully low enough not to be audible. But we have another challenge with the Degritter pump system that I am pretty sure is the cause of excessive foaming. Many steps and other pieces of equipment can be added to offset the limitations - its called requirements growth. But, we end up defeating the major benefit of the Degritter's convivence and ease of use. So, we have moved to 2.5% IPA which will not add residue or foam to help and is still safe and will not compromise the cavitation performance. We now know from the efforts of @r.Din (bless his heart) that a highly soluble wetting agent such as ILFOTOL can improve the process, but the foam with the Degritter is problematic. Now, the task is to get the right surfactant and its concentration just right to achieve adequate wetting without producing unacceptable amounts of foam; and perform the process w/o rinsing to maintain the Degritter overall convivence and easy of use; the fact that we somewhat limited to what surfactants can be purchased notwithstanding.

    Take care,
    Neil
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2021
    RC2257, r.Din, AArchie and 2 others like this.
  12. AArchie

    AArchie Forum Resident

    Location:
    Colorado
    Give me a few days and I'll report on Tergitol and DW only. I'll start with one drop! My cantilever and the front of my cart are covered with white dust. I should have my Degritter tomorrow and the Tergitol a couple/few days after.
     
  13. r.Din

    r.Din Seeker of Truth

    Location:
    UK
    I'll put that on the list of tests. The only problem with this approach is that it halves the usable time of the Degritter before it overheats.
     
  14. r.Din

    r.Din Seeker of Truth

    Location:
    UK
    No, not yet. I'm what to complete my testing first.
     
  15. r.Din

    r.Din Seeker of Truth

    Location:
    UK
    Hi Bill,

    Both Tergitol and Degritter's fluid leave audible residue in my tests. I have done external rinses (water spritz with hand drying, and vacuum cleaner using distilled water) which didn't (fully) remove the residue, but have not used the Degritter to do a rinse yet. Two reasons for this: a) surfactant is likely to be in the system and therefore has the potential to contaminate with residue b) using the Degritter twice will half it's usuable time before cooling kicks in resulting in much shorter cleaning sessions, and I *always* hit this limit during my cleaning so am keen not to worsen this aspect. However, I recognise that this would be a useful test to perform and I will do so.

    Correct. As you apply the surfactant you decide whether this is the "last spin", after which you move to the spritz clean stage. I'm not entirely certain what the spritz does, if anything, and I'm getting records out of the Kirmuss which are bone dry apart from a few drops from lifting it out of the water and so I'm just dabbing those spots now and avoiding the spritz/clean for fear of contaminants from the cloths getting on to the record. Kirmuss also wants you to apply more of his fluid as a anti-static, anti-fungal protection - but that to me is just asking for residue trouble. Currently I'm no longer doing that, but I will have to test. Certainly static IS a big issue with the Kirmuss and I am having to use my Furutech DeStat with each record. The Degritter is a big winner here - no static at all.

    As for Kirmuss himself, I'm trying to avoid attacks on the man (that's a separate conversation) and focus purely on the results of his machine.

    Out of curiosity, what is your current method?

    Without a surfactant during this stage, how certain are you that residue in the grooves is being reached?

    This is a Monk/Loricraft type system??

    It's becoming clear that the Degritter benefits from a surfactant, as long as you consider the residue left. Kirmuss doesn't use one, so perhaps certain ultrasonic frequencies require them and others don't, or perhaps even the Kirmuss will be improved with surfactant use. More tests!

    Agreed 100%.
     
  16. r.Din

    r.Din Seeker of Truth

    Location:
    UK
    OK, just done tests of the best Degritter result: Ilfotol (with Blow Dry) versus Kirmuss

    3 different samples used - 10 blind tests on each.

    Over the 30 blind tests - 75% differences identified. Again, I felt the differences were quite audible, if subtle at times. On the first sample I scored 90% - there were very clear differences in that one in the clarity of the higher frequencies and the transients around them - one was clear and fast (Kirmuss), the other slightly duller and slower. This was similar across the frequency range of the samples - one was cleaner/clearer/faster and dug deeper into the frequency extremes, the other softer/blurred/less extended in comparison. The other two tests scored 74% and 60% where the differences weren't as easy to latch on to, however it was the same clarity vs dullness that I dialled in on. It's interesting that in one test the Ilfotol won out (74%) in that respect. That sample was more midrange sounds, which perhaps negated the Kirmuss advantage at the frequency extremes.

    On two of the tests I selected the Kirmuss and on the third test I selected the Ilfotol.

    Because the result wasn't 3-0, it still doesn't satisfactorily answer, for me, which is subjectively better, although I'm more certain than ever that I am indeed hearing differences between the two and need to find an answer. I think I'll have to grab some duplicate albums so I can do separate cleans/listening trials to remove any possible cross contamination issues. I can also then play the different albums on the hifi for the bigger picture as it's often easier to hear important differences, eg soundstage depth and air there than on headphones.

    I have another surfactant incoming for the Degritter to try and beat Ilfotol. Plus the 2nd water rinse in the Degritter to try as well. I also need to consider whether the Kirmuss is liable to residue too, as perhaps there are further gains to be made with that machine.

    Still down the rabbit hole. Losing the will to live! :D
     
    bloodlemons likes this.
  17. dminches

    dminches Forum Resident

    Location:
    Cherry Hill, NJ
    Are you recleaning the same 30 records in both cleaners or are you just cleaning 30 random records?
     
  18. r.Din

    r.Din Seeker of Truth

    Location:
    UK
    One selected record, cleaned using each method and ripped afterwards to the computer where samples are then selected from that track for blind testing.

    Small samples make it very much easier to compare and document differences as it doesn't rely on memory at all. You can listen to the samples on a loop and switch between them synced live to immediately assess differences. The Lacinato ABX software makes this very easy. It's really not easy to use full tracks as your memory will play tricks on you.
     
  19. r.Din

    r.Din Seeker of Truth

    Location:
    UK
    Perhaps jumping the gun here, but doing a distilled water wash after the Ilfotol wash and dry lifted a veil... Just recorded some new material for blind testing tomorrow.

    So, what I'm hearing here, compared to uncleaned is that the Ilfotol wash lowers the noise floor and opens the soundstage, bringing out the detail, especially in the midrange but while doing the same to the high frequencies (more detail) it dulls the sparkle. Same as all the fluids so far to some degree. The distilled wash maintains the open soundstage and *recovers* the high frequencies. This is quite a boost and very simple to achieve, albeit at the cost of swapping caddies and more heat from the ultrasonic transducers...
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2021
    bloodlemons likes this.
  20. pacvr

    pacvr Forum Resident

    Location:
    Maryland
    You are pretty much confirming why a final DIW rinse can be important for that final (somewhat elusive) piece of data - the absolute sound. However, of equal importance is that the clean step before the final rinse use only very water soluble surfactants to ensure that only a DIW rinse is required to remove any residue. Ideally, in an aqueous cleaning process, the final fluid that touches the item being cleaned should only be DIW. Picture the record groove - the lower/mid frequencies are the large groove itself, but the high frequency detail are the groove side wall ridges. The valleys formed by the side wall ridges are not very deep - nothing like the groove. Some residue in the large groove is inconsequential. But, if residue forms in the side wall ridge valleys then the stylus may not accurately trace the high frequency detail. But, the final rinse needs some agitation - be it ultrasonic or a brush/vacuum or brush/running water.

    So, in the pursuit of the best you can get, you may want to try this - use the Kirmuss tank with the IPA/ILFOTOL solution as the pre-clean. The 40-kHz Kirmuss is better for large debris, and you have pretty much proven the IPA/ILFOTOL as the best cleaner you have. The Kirmuss which is not pumped, should develop very little foam, and if it produces very little foam, try increasing the ILTOTOL concentration from 1.25% to 2.0 (2 ml/L) or even 2.5% (2.5 ml/L). This will produce surfactant micelles that provide detergency. Then final/rinse/polish/dry with the Degritter using only DIW or DIW w/2.5% IPA. After some TBD # of records, you will begin to see some foam in the Degritter and this will be carry-over from the Kirmuss. When that happens, you refresh the Degritter DIW.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2021
    Fractured likes this.
  21. pacvr

    pacvr Forum Resident

    Location:
    Maryland
    Consider adding 2.5% IPA, but no more than 2.5%. The small amount of IPA can make a difference. For adding IPA, here are the conversions:

    Using 99.9% IPA: (2.5%/0.999) = 2.5%
    Using 91% IPA: (2.5%/0.91) = 2.75%
    Using 70% IPA: (2.5%/0.70) = 3.5%
     
    bloodlemons likes this.
  22. neubian

    neubian Forum Resident

    Location:
    Chattanooga, TN
    If this test result can be duplicated tomorrow, I may have to look into get that Humminguru on Kickstarter as a final wash machine. :D Pretty cheap at under $350. Switching the caddy on the Degritter will still contaminate the wash caddy eventually since there would still be cleaning fluid in the pipe line, I assume.
     
    Vinyl Archaeologist likes this.
  23. r.Din

    r.Din Seeker of Truth

    Location:
    UK
    It does - I had a little Ilfotol foam appearing, but only a little. But it looks like a good solution for a single machine.
     
  24. Bill Hart

    Bill Hart Forum Resident

    Location:
    Austin
    I haven't applied the scientific method with the rigor you have, but instead started to get more serious about record cleaning after buying an Audio Desk and finding that some records still didn't come clean--that is, used records that I had purchased that had distortions one would normally associate with groove damage. I found that using conventional vacuum cleaning using a product like AIVS#15 with vigorous agitation, vacuum, rinse step with pure water, and combining that with ultrasonic could eventually clean up even wispy tracing distortion that I used to attribute to "groove chew" or permanent damage to the groove. (Sometimes, the record was damaged and no amount of repeated cleaning using multiple methods would resuscitate these. Most of these were high value records, not Goodwill bargain bin finds).
    The realization that ultrasonic alone was not a complete answer led me to using a combination of machines and methods. At the time, I had a VPI 16.5 that was positively ancient-- I had owned it since the mid-'80s and the unit had been converted from a model 16 to a 16.5 so it was one of the earliest units made by VPI and was still operating fine when I gave it to a friend in 2017.
    I took a trip to the Library of Congress intake facility for their collection- a facility in the hills of Virginia that was a repurposed Cold War bunker for our money supply that had been converted to an archival restoration/preservation facility. Though the original intention was to focus on record cleaning, the visit proved so fascinating that I wrote about the facility at some length and relegated the article on cleaning to a separate piece:
    [​IMG]DSCF0257-1024x682 by William Hart, on Flickr

    https://thevinylpress.com/a-visit-to-the-library-of-congress-audiovisual-preservation-facility-3/

    That led to more in-depth experimentation; I bought a Monks Omni to replace the VPI and the KL to replace the Audio Desk:
    [​IMG]
    I also started to explore DIY ultrasonic and shortly after buying the KL (which uses no surfactant, something I thought was a positive feature), had a lengthy series of discussions with the maker of industrial ultrasonic equipment. He convincingly demonstrated that adding a surfactant enhanced cavitation effect, and improved the results of ultrasonic cleaning. That in turn led me to publish a series of articles on the subject which can be found here: Cleaning - Care Archives - The Vinyl Press
    I have yet to build a DIY ultrasonic or experiment with various surfactants in the US process but instead relied largely on the efforts of other authors, including Neil and Tim Aucremann a/k/a Tima, for their knowledge and experience.
    One big take-away from all of this, which is consistent with your findings, is that the elimination of cleaning fluid residue (containing whatever contaminants are bound to the fluid) from the record surface/grooves was essential; that is, "record cleaning" was not really "cleaning" if you were leaving a residue on the record. So, the ease with which the cleaning agent(s) could be removed was an important factor in this process. Cleaning fluid residue is itself a form of contamination, as you appreciate.
    I saw the behavior of water on records originally cleaned in the Audio Desk ("AD") differed than those that had not undergone an AD cleaning when put into the KL-- the water clung to the records previously cleaned on the AD which suggested that there was still some surfactant remaining on the record. (I had reduced the amount of AD fluid from a full bottle to just a capful). Though I did not notice any sonic artifacts from the AD cleaned records, it did suggest to me that I could do a better job by adding a rinse step after the ultrasonic process. And for that I use the Monks with reagent grade I water (which is overkill for several reasons). I will in some cases do multiple rinse/vacuum steps. I have some questions about your findings above and some additional responses to them which I will post separately, because this post has already gotten far too long.
    Bill
     
    Fractured, pacvr and r.Din like this.
  25. LivLif

    LivLif Forum Resident

    Location:
    US
    Wow!!! So much great info in this thread. I don’t use a Degritter but I have the latest version on of the Audio Desk and I like their cleaning liquid. Have not heard any sonic degradation with it. I love the audio desk and went with it as the latest version solves all of the QC issues previous versions had. I wanted something that not only did ultrasonic but also manual cleaning. @r.Din have you thought about trying it instead of the audio desk liquid?
     

Share This Page

molar-endocrine