Degritter Users

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

  1. r.Din

    r.Din Seeker of Truth

    Location:
    UK
    @Bill Hart, that’s a fantastic description of your journey. Thank you for sharing. Will take a look at your links too.

    Like you, the Audio Desk was part of my cleaning process until I became disillusioned by it. At that point I picked up the Degritter, which cleaned in a way the Audio Desk simply couldn’t. I sold the Audio Desk and never looked back. However, after recently changing surfactants, I became aware that I was dissatisfied with the sound I was getting versus what I was expecting to hear. Rather than connecting the dots at that point, I picked up the Kirmuss, out of curiosity; both of the machine and the man. The results were obvious to me - big improvement in sound. The magic was back. Which then lead, thanks to great input here on the forum, to a closer look at why, and onto the conclusions and proof that residue is the main problem. A problem which now seems solvable.

    The “groove chew” issue is one that continues to perplex me. Would love to improve that aspect on some of my more valued records.
     
    RC2257 likes this.
  2. r.Din

    r.Din Seeker of Truth

    Location:
    UK
    I think I still have some Audio Desk cleaning fluid that I could try...
     
  3. AArchie

    AArchie Forum Resident

    Location:
    Colorado
    What do you think the IPA does? I was trying to keep things simple to evaluate the Tergitol 15-S-9 but I don't need to clean "poorly" if I can avoid it. Right now I just want to get rid of the white residue.

    Just to clarify, I take that percentage and multiply it by tank volume and that's my IPA amount? So, if the tank is 1400ml then using 91% IPA means adding about 38ml IPA to a tank?
     
  4. LivLif

    LivLif Forum Resident

    Location:
    US
    I’d be interested to see what your results are. What didn’t you like about the AD?
     
  5. r.Din

    r.Din Seeker of Truth

    Location:
    UK
    I started to doubt that it was a true ultrasonic and wondered whether it was the rollers alone doing the cleaning... And certainly the Degritter proved able to make some records silent that the AD never could. I did, however use an older model so it's possible things have improved since then...
     
  6. pacvr

    pacvr Forum Resident

    Location:
    Maryland
    If I could offer a few suggestions:

    1. If you have a Degritter, use this unit which is well designed that is filtered for the final clean/rinse/polish/dry with either DIW or DIW w/2.5% IPA. Save the best for last.

    2. Consider a lower cost unit for the pre-clean with a surfactant at a concentration that will both wet and have detergency. The pre-clean step is where the major gunk is removed, and essentially its the unit that does the heavy lifting so to say; and its the unit where the water gets dirty the fastest - bath management/cost can become a factor. If process throughput and convenience is a priority - you want something that you can just insert the record in with no other action; i.e., no assembly/no flipping the record such as a vacuum-RCM; and because this is the first step - you really do not want the record completely dry so that any residue that may be left is easily removed by the next and last step.

    3. If you want to go cheap - just use a Spin Clean - not much water is used and the fill/drain is easily managed; pre-mix a gallon DIW container with cleaning solution ready is good way to manage the small tank volume. If you want more automation (less manual labor) use a ultrasonic for your pre-clean. You would want a lower frequency - 35-40 kHz unit. The Humminguru with it record slot is a candidate; its not a pumped/filtered unit so foam should be a minimal issue; but you have no need for the drying function; and not sure how cumbersome the refill step for every record is going to be; and there is no measure yet of how well its going to perform. The Kirmuss unit is a candidate because it has the record slot making it easy to move the record from unit to unit. The Kirmuss larger tank will have longer bath life and the tank has a convient drain; but for Humminguru having a pre-mixed gallon of cleaning solution is a good option.

    Just some thoughts
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2021
  7. pacvr

    pacvr Forum Resident

    Location:
    Maryland
    The 2.5% IPA lowers the fluid surface tension by about 15% and lowers the fluid boiling point by about 10% w/o changing the fluid density by much and this can be beneficial for the cavitation process as well as helping removing some soil films. If you are trying to remove a very thin-film of oil, the small amount of IPA is not going to dissolve it, but it can cause the film to swell and once it swells, the surfactant has a better chance doing its thing by surrounding it and removing it from the surface.

    WRT to amount of IPA; for a 1400 mL tank:

    Using 99.9% IPA: (2.5%/0.999) = 2.5% = (0.025)(1400 mL) = 35 mL
    Using 91% IPA: (2.5%/0.91) = 2.75% = (0.0275)(1400 mL) = 38 mL
    Using 70% IPA: (2.5%/0.70) = 3.5%= (0.035)(1400 mL) = 49 mL
     
  8. LivLif

    LivLif Forum Resident

    Location:
    US
    Thanks! Yeah they changed the US system as well. What they did exactly I’m not sure.
     
  9. Vinyl Archaeologist

    Vinyl Archaeologist Forum Resident

    This is really helpful. Thanks for bring this all down to some common sense steps.

    I was thinking about using the Hummingguru machine (if it gets funded) as the final rinse.

    My thoughts were that the degritter with some surfactant might be a better cleaner than the 40hz machine?

    The the Hummingguru would be a rinse with a bit of bonus agitation. I play a lot of older records and my primary goal is getting quiet surfaces from them. Curious if you think not having a 120hz with surfactant would be giving anything up.
     
  10. Drew769

    Drew769 Buyer of s*** I never knew I lacked

    Location:
    NJ
    My only experience with the Audio Desk is using a friends to clean a couple of particularly difficult LPs of mine that has not cleaned up perfectly after multiple wet brush cleanings on my Nitty Gritty with Disc Doctor brushes. The records actually got slightly worse after the AD cleaning, and were restored when I got them back home and did a final rinse on the NG. Go figure.

    I’ve decided to wade into the Degritter pool, though. HiFi Heaven gave me a generous trade on my Kirmuss and the Degritter is on its way.

    I think the Kirmuss works as advertised, and it is a terrific value. In the end, though, what good is a great tool if it goes unused? The whole process... the time of cycles, the sprawl of real estate it takes up, the addition rinse step that I found to be essential - its a 20+ minute process for each record. Life is just too short.

    For those considering a Humminguru as a final rinse step machine, why not an inexpensive traditional vacuum machine instead? There is the Record Doctor one (basically a Nitty Gritty) that you turn by hand and it vacuums. I see this as having two advantages over a second, cheaper US. First is that this machine allows the flexibility of a true scrubbing, which could be incorporated before or after the Degritter. A truly dirty record benefits from a good brushing. The second benefit is sucking vs blowing (the mighty maid principle). I think that sucking the rinse liquid up as a last step probably yields a quieter, cleaner surface than blowing it dry (TWSS).
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2021
    pacvr likes this.
  11. Anton888

    Anton888 Forum Resident

    I have asked the DEGRITTER manufacturers concerning this "residue".

    They answered:

    "The Degritter cleaning fluid is part cleaning fluid, part rinse aid. It does not require rinsing after washing and should not leave any residue on the record. Foaming can be caused by a variety of reasons - residues of previous cleaning fluids in the machine, type of dirt on the record being the most significant.

    We recommend cleaning Degritter with a vinegar solution every 200-500 records cleaned. Take 10% vinegar and distilled water and run 3-4 Heavy washes without a record in the machine. The vinegar should be of the simplest kitchen type - no fancy colors, tastes or smells. This gets rid of organic and mineral residues in the machine that add to foaming or poor drying results."
     
  12. pacvr

    pacvr Forum Resident

    Location:
    Maryland
    If you use a surfactant, and you want to remove as much as possible, the rinse needs to be agitated. If you are trying to clean older records that may have years of organics from storage, organics that condenser from the environment (your home is not a clean room by any stretch), you need a combination of wetting and either solvency or detergency. A good wetting solution is good for particles, but can have very little detergency. Surfactants are wetting agents first, then if enough surfactant is added, the surface tension drops no further and what are called micelles form and these are what provide detergency. A 40-kHz unit is going to produce a large cavitation bubble (larger than the groove) that yields more cavitation intensity which is good for removing large soils and particles. But, you need to remove the big stuff to get down to the small particles and very thin soil films underneath. Ergo - you use more agitation at first - a 40-kHz unit and use more cleaner at first to break up/through the big stuff. Then for ultrasonics, your final cleaning/rinse step is only to remove small particulate that does not benefit from a lot of chemistry. The 120-kHz unit will produce bubbles that can get into the groove so often only water is required or just a touch of wetting solution.
     
    Vinyl Archaeologist likes this.
  13. Vinyl Archaeologist

    Vinyl Archaeologist Forum Resident

    I'm wondering what level of IPA inhibits organic growth. If the tank sits for a few days it tends to get a funky smell. I have 99.9 lab grade IPA form trinity chemical so i feel pretty good using it as a wash or even as part of a rinse at this level of solution. If it kept the water clean (funky little organisms can't be good for the sound) that would be a bonus.
     
  14. pacvr

    pacvr Forum Resident

    Location:
    Maryland
    Part cleaning fluid/part rinse aid. That can mean almost anything. Rinse-aids are generally low foaming ethoxylated/propoxylated non-ionic surfactants that can also be good detergents; but they can also include other ingredients such as citric acid - see the MSDS for Finish Jetdry Microsoft Word - Canada - FINISH® - JET-DRY® Rinse Agent _Liquid_ - All Scents - English.doc (rbnainfo.com). But, absent a rinse, a residue will be left behind. The record surface does not drain completely - so whatever cleaning agent is in the remaining water that is on the record/groove, will when the water evaporates be left behind - the industry expression is non-volatile residue.

    Foaming from residual cleaner left from a previous cleaning is possible but actually pretty remote unless it was visible; and unless the Degritter cleaning solution is alkaline, organic soils such as a finger print should not cause the solution to foam. If it was alkaline (pH >9) then in contact with animal fats (i.e. finger print), saponification occurs and foam is developed. This is how lye-soap was developed century's ago.
     
  15. pacvr

    pacvr Forum Resident

    Location:
    Maryland
    No answer for the minimum % IPA required to inhibits organic growth; I have searched but I am pretty sure it would be more than 2.5%; but you never know until you try and see what happens. If you want a biocide; then try just 1 drop of ILFOTOL which along with the non-ionic surfactant contains a very powerful biocide that is effective at very low levels - just a few ppm is all that is required.
     
  16. pacvr

    pacvr Forum Resident

    Location:
    Maryland
    Its a catch-22. When you use a standard vacuum-RCM that uses a blower to draw a lot of air across the record, it also draws all the particles that are in the air with it. Unless you use a UV light, you really do not have a good appreciation for how many particles are in the air (or on your surfaces) in a residential environment. The most basic Class 100,000 clean room is rated - 100,000 particles >0.5 microns per ft³ of air, and 700 particles >5 microns per ft³. Our home environments are way worse. With a UV light, I have watched particles (lint) just dropping (slowly floating) onto the record. So, for vacuum-RCM unless the lips are close to the record and can filter the air, particles will get onto the record. The exception is likely the Monks unit because it does not use a lot of air - it uses a vacuum pump that is point sucking the fluid from the groove. When blowing air (i.e. fans) its easy to install particulate filters (like your home HVAC).

    Just some thoughts.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2021
    Fractured, Drew769 and r.Din like this.
  17. hammr7

    hammr7 Forum Resident

    I owe one of the sister record cleaning threads a long description regarding the interactions of US process conditions and bath chemistry. I have been loathe to undertake such a wide-ranging subject until I had multiple free days to prepare it, Perhaps I will get snowed in over the next month or so. Because of these recent comments I think a quick overview is appropriate. Please understand this is a simplistic description of a much more complicated, nuanced subject.

    The goal of an US cleaner is to remove contaminants from a surface. It accomplishes this with cavitation bubbles, and the micro-shock-waves resulting from their collapse. This initiating process is completely mechanical, somewhat similar to a light sandblasting of a metal surface. The goal is to remove all contaminants in order to expose the original LP groove surfaces in such a way that all contaminants are removed and the original surfaces survive the process completely intact. This is the sole process that removes inert solids, which are typically the materials that are removed by filtration of the bath water. I think we can all agree that most or all Ultrasonic cleaners perform this kind of cleaning to some extent. There are some differences based upon the ultrasonic frequency, size of bath and spacing of LPs, process time and temperature, etc.

    The other critical part of an US cleaner's success involves chemistry. In addition to removing inert solids we also need to remove dissolvable solids and liquids that are on the record surface. All baths start with a relatively pure water (distilled, or the more reactive - and potentially corrosive - de-ionized) water. Water itself is ionic, and it very much wants to interact with other ionic compounds. With ultrasonic agitation most inorganic salts will dissolve in water. These dissolved inorganic salts can be some of the TDS load found in US bath water.

    The other major chemical contaminant family is organics, including problematic oils and fats. This likely includes most or all of the materials that cause films and sludge on cleaned records and on styli when records are played.

    To digress for a moment, the use of a surfactant in US cleaning has been discussed primarily as a means of reducing fluid surface tension. This implies a better clean because water can more easily flow into record grooves. And this is certainly a major benefit of a surfactant, like a "rinse aid" in a dishwasher which allows water to sheet off of dishes and glassware, speeding up the drying and eliminating water spots.

    But there is another critical aspect in using a surfactant. Oils and fats are typically minimally soluble or completely insoluble in water. Even if they are dislodged from an LP surface by ultrasonic cleaning, they are just as likely to plate out on the LP surface somewhere else as to be removed. A good surfactant will dissolve oils and fats sufficiently to allow their removal into the bath fluid. A simple experiment can easily confirm this. Take a ruined album (or one that you truly hate) and coat it in some warm (liquid) bacon grease. If you then try to clean the LP with just a spray of cold water you will find that you can't. But if you add a surfactant (regular dish soap) you can clean the fat from the LP surface. It turns out any cleaning process using water on oils and fats will be more efficient at higher temperatures. When cleaning LPs we want to keep bath temperatures low.

    An irony of using distilled or DI water is that the softer the water, the less surfactant you tend to use. Too low a surfactant loading can create problems regarding the complete removal of insoluble oils and fats. Surfactants can help solubilize oils and fats, but there is a limit to the amount of organic material that can be effectively handled relative to the amount of surfactant. This limit can manifest in a less-than-ideal cleaning of a specific LP because of that LP's organic load. The limit can also manifest when the bath chemistry is otherwise disrupted while an LP is being cleaned, and a portion of oils and fats from prior LPs precipitate out. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the "gunk" situations are associated with the latter scenario.

    To answer the quoted remarks, given that water can easily dissolve the soluble inorganic load, and that surfactants alone can struggle with the organic contaminants, one solution is to add an organic solvent, like IPA, to the bath solution. Low molecular weight alcohols are completely (or near completely) soluble in water. Most oils and fats are very soluble in these alcohols, at least relative to the need. And mainstream vinyl compounds, used to make LPs, are not adversely affected by simple alcohols. If the oils and fats are dissolved in the overall bath solution (because of the addition of IPA), then the surfactant isn't overwhelmed.

    There are a ton of nuances that can impact how well a record gets clean. My understanding of the Kirmuss process is the requirement of a vigorous manual scrub with a special solution. This may be an attempt to remove most organics before the LP hits the bath, simplifying what the US Bath has to accomplish.
     
  18. AArchie

    AArchie Forum Resident

    Location:
    Colorado
    This sums up my take too. I will take less than 100% perfect cleaning in trade for walk away performance.
     
    RC2257 likes this.
  19. AArchie

    AArchie Forum Resident

    Location:
    Colorado
    They ought to put that in the manual! As for their no residue assertion, mine is coming from something and I don't think it's the distilled water.
     
    RC2257 likes this.
  20. pacvr

    pacvr Forum Resident

    Location:
    Maryland
    Thanks for the info. If you are curious I am the author of this document - Vinyl Record Manual Cleaning Process (thevinylpress.com) (currently working on second edition). Also, while there is the obvious focus on removing organics - that is the easy part. Its removing the particulate that causes the pops/tick that is the real challenge - and this is probably the best current resource - Particle Adhesion and Removal | Wiley Online Books. The interaction of ultrasonic and the fluid are pretty complex as you say, but kHz, surface tension, vapor pressure and temperature are inter-related. The lower the kHz, the larger the cavitation bubble. As the fluid surface tension drops less power is required to develop cavitation, and more cavitation bubbles are developed, but with less cavitation intensity, but overall cleaning efficiency increases. As temperature increases cavitation intensity increases but only to about 40C; after which it can drop, but temperature improves cleaning efficiency. And, as vapor pressure (boiling point) drops, such as when using/adding a solvent, the cavitation intensity can drop if the fluid density decreases. The density of the fluid affects the cavitation intensity. A denser fluid (such as water) allows a higher pressure to develop in the cavitation bubble; the bubble is pushing against a denser fluid, which upon implosion releases more energy.

    Heck if it was easy - everyone would be doing it well.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2021
    RC2257, r.Din and Vinyl Archaeologist like this.
  21. Vinyl Archaeologist

    Vinyl Archaeologist Forum Resident

    Are you pre cleaning dirty records. I haven't noticed any residue on my stylus but old used records run through the VPI with an enzymatic step before hitting the degritter. Reading some of these posts its seems residue could be left over surfactant or also slurry that has been redistributed by the US energy.

    Somewhat unrelated anecdote: The one time i have noticed very bad stylus build up was when i would grade records to sell and give them a IPA wipe without vacuuming. The IPA would dissolve gunk and re-spread it as a fine film across the record. Vacuuming those after a deep clean resulted in no stylus gunk.
     
  22. hammr7

    hammr7 Forum Resident

    I agree that removing as many pops and clicks as possible is extremely important. The ability to move from a noisy LP to a quieter or totally quiet LP was the original reason for record cleaners. But if pops and clicks were the overwhelming goal of record cleaning then technologies like those offered by SweetVinyl would prove to be both an easier and cost-effective alternative. The various Sugarcube product capabilities in eliminating pops and clicks without adversely impacting sonic information have been impressive.

    The new frontier in record cleaning is to recapture all the nuance and subtlety that was originally pressed into the LP. I respectfully disagree that removing organics is "the easy part", as I think they are at the heart of the problems currently described in this thread. Sludges and films plating out on LPs and styli is not primarily particulate. A chronic veiled overall sound after cleaning an LP is not particulate at all.

    I very much doubt these issues are caused by inorganic contamination. They certainly aren't caused by inorganic contamination alone. I do believe these problems are the result of organic compounds that are not removed by the stock cleaning processes and chemistries, or perhaps by chemistries that are not stable enough and robust enough to clean consistently given the variety of LPs which require cleaning.

    SweetVinyl software can clean up acute anomalies in the music it is presented with. The goal is to now clean up that source material and return it to original (with or without pops and clicks).
     
  23. pacvr

    pacvr Forum Resident

    Location:
    Maryland
    As you say, the current problem being experienced with the one-step ultrasonic cleaning machines is not inorganic contamination; it is the consequence of the surfactant being used to clean the record and the residue they leave behind and that is now the focus of the current efforts with the Degritter. I believe it has been made very apparent, such as the threads from @Bill Hart and my own that the 'best' cleaning method is a multi-step process; I called it a "Reality check". But, the one-step ultrasonic cleaning machines do not incorporate a DIW rinse step. So, the current efforts as was previously stated is to try to fine-tune the chemistry to get the best possible cleaning without a rinse step. As was stated, and should be apparent, the one-step ultrasonic cleaning machines are very convenient and easy to use; so the focus is with that type of machine and specific to this post - Degritter Users. Obviously this post has taken a few tangents along the way, but the feedback is obvious that if the process is too cumbersome, then many people have no interest - there is always compromise. But if you wish to open a new thread on how to achieve the "best" record cleaning process, then as they say by all means go for it.
     
    RC2257 and AArchie like this.
  24. AArchie

    AArchie Forum Resident

    Location:
    Colorado
    This is all since the Degritter. I keep meaning to test it again but earlier I found a dried drop of the Degritter cleaning solution on the top of my Degritter and it was white.
     
  25. hammr7

    hammr7 Forum Resident

    My input was to improve single bath capabilities using the Degritter. I see all US baths as variations on the same theme, tools with slightly different sizes and capabilities to be used for a specific purpose. As such, I believe best practices that work on any one US cleaner can be applied, with minor compromise or modification, to other US cleaners.

    I simply sought to encourage the possibility of utilizing IPA (or an equivalent) to make the cleaning chemistry more robust. I understand that the Degritter does not recommend the addition of an alcohol, although it has been mentioned in this thread. I will admit I do not know why Degritter does not recommend this modification, but I would be surprised if they outright prohibited it.

    One reason to include an organic solvent is that the addition increases the amount of water-insoluble organic material that the bath can handle in solution. The other reason is that it disburses the organics throughout the bath, which doesn't necessarily happen with the use of surfactants (especially in small amounts) alone. With surfactants alone the resulting micelles (or other aggregates) that capture organics tend to concentrate at interfaces. These include the air-water interface and water-solid interfaces. Which means that the organics tend to concentrate near or at the LP surfaces, even while in a colloidal suspension. But in a bath solution that actually dissolves the oils and fats, those organic materials become disbursed throughout the solution.
     

Share This Page

molar-endocrine