Just for future thought, the pump/filter can be located below the tank or off to the side some distance (few feet). To make a long story short mounting any significant height above the tank is not practical.
Wow, off the thread for 12 hours and two more pages! The Degritter manual recommends 1 to 2 ml of cleaning fluid. I fill my tank to the rim and figured 1 1/2 ml was a good compromise. I can certainly reduce it. However, I think I'll wait for the Tergitol 15-S-9 before continuing. My current tank solution had less than 35 Heavy cycles on it. I put some in a clear glass and I can't see any particles in suspension. However, the liquid does seem to have a slight tan/orange tint to it when compared with my filtered tap water. It's the same color that the filter changes to. I evaporated several drops of the fluid and it did not seem to leave a residue at that sample size. Thanks to r.Din's post about the need to add LS54 after a few cycles, I'll watch for the same with the Tergitol.
Simply put, the cleaning fluid gets dirty as you clean more records. I don't think many of us realize how much "grunge" resides in the grooves or our records. Doesn't matter whether they are new or old RECORDS HAVE A LOT OF GRUNGE IN THE GROOVES. We can look at a record and it seems clean BUT it really isn't. As you clean your records with your Degritter the fluid eventually accumulates more dirt than the filter can process. Additionally, if you leave the fluid in the tank for a few days some fungus (I think this the correct word) will accumulate and you will need to clean the unit (internal tank) with a weak vinegar mixture. IMHO you should also clean the plastic tank each time you empty it. Vinegar and distilled water are inexpensive so IMO it is best to keep things clean. You can even place the plastic tank in the dishwasher (see the manual). I have found best results by "precleaning" a record with Audio Intelligent One Step No 6. (If you wipe the LP with a clean white afterward you will often notice some dirt.) Then I clean the LP using the Degritter and 1.5 ML of Degritter fluid. I have a good number of LPs purchased during the late 50s and 60s. For these records I will also use the Audio Intelligent Two Step No 15, followed by the One Step No 6 then Degritter. Also visit the Degritter site's support page and ensure that you have the latest update.
I use the #15 followed by a pure water rinse. I use the Hannl fluid (which is a concentrate no longer made but available by the jug premixed in the EU). I still rinse when I use that before it goes into the KL. I dump water after 30 records max, sometimes sooner. Any used record has been precleaned as described above. When I'm lazy, I'll stick a brand new sealed record straight into the KL without a pre-clean unless it exhibits fingerprints or other nasties. What I find in the tank when I do new records, not precleaned, is a very fine gray dust on clean room lab wipes (these are poly, have no lint and are not impregnated with any chemicals). I do try to keep the tank clean, but have never taken my unit apart. I'm not sure how old it is; I bought an AD in 2013, and I probably got the KL a couple years later, when they made some modifications to the control panel, added cooling, etc. I think this deep discussion of surfactants, process and the like is of enormous value, even if your end goal is simply to drop a record in the slot and wait for it to pop up. The research tends to be siloed because of competition; back in the day, when the industry was a large one, patents were sought, papers were presented, the industry at large benefitted from a better understanding of manufacturing (and to some degree cleaning, although those articles were few and far between). To paraphrase a famous judge, "it's nice to be on the cutting edge as long as you are not the salami."
heh, here's something I thought of that may be of absolutely no use. As someone mildy skeptical still (in a scientific, not an ad hominem way), I think it'd be useful to replicate this "residue effect" by forcing it. So, why not try this? Dunk one of your "unveiled" records halfway in the vat of the regular and/or the fancy new liquid and then let drip dry, no air drying from the degritter at all. Hypothetically, then, you should be able to hear the sound go in-and-out at the halfway point. You should be able to see in the waveform spectrogram that you captured a difference that changes every rotation.
If you think about what you propose, the record is spinning at 33.333 rpm = ~1 rev every 1.8 sec. 1st you have to establish a clean record w/o residue, and then if you coat only 1/2 the record (and of course it depends on not only the cleaner but its concentration), you are trying to distinguish/identify the change every 0.9 seconds. Not sure I would want to try that unless the residue was gross. And, if it could be measured by spectrogram, I would wonder why the spectrogram cannot measure differences in cables, etc. However, the amount of reside can be approximately calculated based on the cleaner concentration, and an estimate of what is allowed to dry on the record, and from that you can approximate the residue film thickness. Wow, that is a lot of work. My recommended cleaner concentrations are trying to get the unrinsed residue film thickness <0.3 micron. Otherwise, @r.Din appears very close to his goal of identifying a cleaner and a concentration that at least for him makes the analysis mute; but of course that will be subjective in the absence of objective evidence. Otherwise, for some, the objective of this 'study' may only be a clean stylus free of gunk. And, for others, the 'study' is nothing more than idle banter.
Btw, "mute" instead of "moot" is an excellent if inadvertent audiophile slip I don't even need half the record messed with...just out some liquid over part of a song, starting with a record (as I stated) already through all the processes you wish. Basically doing the opposite, trying to account for idea that a Degritter makes x clean record sound worse / veiled white taking into consideration only the liquid. Just spiralling here...
That might actually be easier than all the constant cleaning! The only issue I see here is that without the ultrasonic cleaning process engaged, ie driving the residue into the grooves, you might not get the same results. So the test might be a false equivalence case. You'd need to use a test signal otherwise there'd be no way to compare the two halves. You ears would perhaps more easily pick up the differences. Having looked at spectrographs during this process and, more usefully, frequency response curves of recordings, you can certainly see changes between cleaning fluids - on the veiled records, for instance, you often see a drop in the high frequencies response curve, compared to the non-veiled, as you might expect. The spectrographs are more useful for assessing noise floor and noise reduction in general.
@pacvr, you mentioned Ilfotol acts as a biocide (is that the correct word?). This will inhibit any fungus growth? Does the alcohol have the same effect? And LS 54 will have no biocide affect?
The IPA at 2.5% is unlikely to have any anti-fungal/biocide effect; but it might have some; there is no literature I could find addressing this very low level. The LS54 should have no anti-fungal/biocide effect. The Ilfotol has an ingredient that is an anti-fungal/biocide. The biocide in Ilfotol is very efficient (its called CMIT/MIT for short) - requires very little (as little as 1-5 ppm), and is safe at low concentrations (its used in cosmetics up to 15 ppm) . The problem is I do not know how much is in the Ilfotol exactly, so once diluted - not entirely sure of how effective it will be; but given the efficacy of the biocide, 1-drop/tank may be enough for biocide. I know that TIMA uses 2.4%IPA and 0.125% Ilfotol and he has not indicated any fungus growth; and he uses a pumped/filtered DIY ultrasonic tank - so he does extend bath life.
If you're just testing/listening for residue, it might make sense to start with a demonstrably clean record and then coat one half to see if the veil appears on that half.
Yes, if the test is simply for residue this would be a possible shortcut, however, in this application I think it's important to replicate the cleaning process, so we can determine whether any audible residue is left afterwards. Otherwise it's a false equivalence issue, where one method may end up with different residue levels.
Simply put - cleaner residue alters the shape of the information pressed into the record. If the residue is liquid and it fills in the valleys between the side wall ridges, the stylus will hit/clean-off the peaks, but any liquid trapped the valleys will prevent the stylus from accurately reading all available data; essentially, the high frequency sound is attenuated, ergo loss of high frequency amplitude, ergo the record sounds veiled. Keep in mind that liquids are incompressible, and while liquid caught in the valleys or the groove bottom can be squeezed because it is not fully contained; the forces associated with the stylus as it moves/accelerates side to side and up/down are unbelievable (I recall calcs showing >1000-G's). Any liquid of enough thickness is going to damp the stylus response so that it does not accurately trace the record. However, depending on the residue film thickness, the playback system and your own hearing, you may or may not notice it. I recently had an experience with over-damping , I tried the 3mm Technics rubber mat, it sucked the life (the high frequency detail) out of the record. Just some thoughts.
Has anybody opened their Degritter? Thinking I'd like to get inside and do a deeper clean, plus try to adjust one of my rollers which is a little offset. Guidance appreciated.
All this recording and blind-testing has opened up some interesting avenues for me. I'm currently using a HexMat, which I feel improves the sound quality on my deck, but once I'm done with the cleaning stuff I plan to do some recordings of the various mats I have and see if I can blind test any differences...
Not to disrupt or distract from the present chemistry discussions, but I am curious about the current view of an older bath chemistry that I still use. When I first began playing around with Ultrasonic baths, distilled water with 2.5% to 5% IPA was a common starting point. Triton X-100 was a popular surfactant, and Hepastat 256 was a popular biocide. Given the mold/mildew conditions for many LPs I was cleaning, I found this combination quite compatible with my needs. I was running (and still run) a secondary rinse tank (distilled / IPA only) and a Nitty Gritty suction drying stage as necessary. I was wondering if my chemistry was replaced because of problems with some locations getting the component chemicals, because of the single tank goal, in an effort to remove IPA from the formulation (since Triton X-100 is quite soluble in IPA but can be problematic dispersing in straight DI and distilled water) or for some other reason. I have stuck with it because it has worked for me, and because I have a lifetime supply of the surfactant and biocide.
...and here's me, just cleaning my records with my DeGritter and all happy. Then I read this thread and feel I have failed at life LOL
Your formula is the one you will find on Audiokarma/Vinyl Engine. Triton X100 is a 50-yr old ethoxylated non-ionic surfactant that is an environmental toxin (kills fish) and is no longer sold EU, and is being phased out. The Tergitol 15-S-9 is the replacement, it has similar surface tension, cloud point, HLB, except is environmentally compatible and with a CMC of 52 ppm vs the Triton X100 189 ppm, and less foam and faster dissolution (easily dissolves in water), it is an overall superior product - its just not sold on Amazon and you can only buy US from Talas. You need less to get equal performance and therefore easier to rinse. HEPASTAT™ 256 is a concentrated antibacterial (disinfectant), antistatic, general purpose alkaline cleaner and is intended to be diluted with tap water 1/2 to 1-ounce per gallon (diluted 1-part cleaner to 125 to 250 parts water). This product is very effective as a disinfectant able to kill just about any bacteria or virus (including COVID-19) with appropriate contact time. The product is in short supply because of COVID. This product is used by some of the DIY cleaners, generally as an anti-static and sometimes recommended to extend ultrasonic tank bath life by inhibiting bacteria. The active ingredients is quaternary ammonium salt compounds. But, it’s also a broad-based cleaner with many ingredients beyond the blend of cationic quaternary ammonium compound (QAC) surfactants including ethoxylated nonionic surfactant, ethanol, sodium metasilicate (for pH), sodium EDTA, and fragrance. In its concentrated state it is classified as being flammable, an acute toxicity oral and dermal hazard, and can cause burns to exposed skin. The use of HEPASTAT™ 256 as a long-term anti-stat can only work if you leave a layer/film of the cationic quaternary ammonium compound (QAC) surfactants. They work as anti-statics by absorbing moisture from the air to form an ionic layer on the record surface that dissipated any static that may form. However, if you aggressively rinse, then you are more than likely going to not leave any residue. Based on the various formulas provided the solution NVR concentration can range from as low as 1,760 ppm to as high as 5760 ppm, so post rinse is very important. Additionally, some of the NVR will dry to a powder/hard residue. The sodium metasilicate (Na2SiO3) in the HEPASTAT if it dried on the record could form a very hard and tenacious residue. My opinion is that unless you are trying to kill active fungus, and we are talking the green/black gooey stuff, the use of QACs/QUATs is probably overkill. Powdery type mold is much easier to remove and kill. For anti-stat, any time the record is fully wetted, regardless of solution, any static charge is dissipated and removed. A 20% IPA-Water solution will wet Teflon (whose critical surface tension is 19 dyne/cm) sufficient to dissipate static charge and Teflon is one of most negative on the Triboelectric series. But, remember, if its working and you are happy with the results; if its not broken, no reason to fix. PS/Removing static from a record if you caused it 'used' to be a problem. But we can thank @Phil Thien for flushing-out this handy, cheap device that no-kidding works: Amazon.com : RONXS Lighter, Upgraded Candle Lighter Camping Lighter Grill Lighter USB Lighter Plasma Arc with LED Battery Display Safety Switch, Longer Flexible Neck for Candle Cooking BBQs Fireworks (Black) : Sports & Outdoors. Plasma arcs create a corona; and coronas produce ions that neutralize static on a record. Just energize for a few seconds while circling around the record about 1" above; keep away from the cartridge.
Entirely? Of course not. I was just just thinking that testing for "veil" on a record considered clean already Ina half/half state would be another level to consider. I mean, if you wanted, hold the record halfway in the bath, above the rollers, and have it bombard only the bottom section. I think it's be interesting if you could actually a/b that from the preclean signal on a consistent basis.
I am now using a DIY mat - if curious details are here - vpiforum.com • View topic - Anti-Static Record Mat with Damping . Humidity is in the low 30's and still working fine.
Better yet - just rinse the surface with water to make sure there is little or no residue. Otherwise, absent a rinse, audible residue should be proportionate to the cleaner composition and concentration; which in some ways you are now proving. Of course, if the cleaner composition/concentration is a mystery....
