Just to confirm, when you say Tergitol-based you are talking about the combo of 15-S-3 and 15-S-9 (like Tergikleen) noting that if I recall correctly you may have first started use with a fairly high concentration. As I have said, the 15-S-3 is not water soluble, so its possible that the filter which is a plastic material may collect/filter some by just attraction/wetting - in this case the 15-S-3 which exists as an emulsion plates out on the filter. Others have used Tergikleen with the Degritter, but the concentration was pretty low. Also, when mixing up soluble and non-soluble components (in water), the order of addition can sometimes have an impact to the size, distribution and stability of the non-soluble emulsion. In a previous post I addressed that there can be a difference in how 15-S-9 which is water soluble dissolves in water if the IPA is added first. Now the 15-S-3 adds another variable. And, now you know why I am not a fan of DIY cleaners, the closest I will get is the IPA + soluble nonionic detergent and even that produced a surprise. Keep in mind that when we say that surfactants are water soluble, based on how they work, they actually exist as a "micro-emulsion" and there is an entire science on nothing but micro-emulsions. Micro-emulsions are extensively used by the medical industry for drug delivery.
I clean my filter ever 30 washes when I change my solution. It's never been black. Mine gets tan with some particulates -- mostly a few fine hairs. I think the Degritter filter is just a particulate filter of the grossest sized particles. My LPs are a mix of "new" and used that have been previously only cleaned with a Disc Washer pad and fluid.
Mine was dark grey, almost black, the first time when I was using just the Degritter RCF and isopropyl added to water (1.5 mL Degritter fluid to 1400 mL distilled water, adding 70mL isopropyl and distilled water to fill tank rest of way), which may agree with the previous post that the first cleaning may be darker because of residual debris left from manufacturing/storage. Later filter changes that were also quite dark were found after trying the Canadian mix (one part 50:50 mix of Tergitol 15-S-3/15-S-9 to 100 parts water) which made a huge difference in cleaning and saved several charity shop finds from the rubbish heap, but left a sheen on the vinyl that apparently needs a final rinse with pure water. The last few cleanings were done with the TergiKleen (S-3/S-9 mix @ one part to 756 parts distilled water) which does not clean as well, apparently also requires a final rinse, but does leave the filter less grey/black than those previous mixtures.
Any thoughts as to what the black is? I think we are all using the same cleaner or same family of cleaners although concentrations may vary. I guess sometimes my filter is tinted grey when I first pull it but wrung out it is tan/brown. I'm at about 550 Heavy cycles with this 2nd machine and so far everything is working well. I got a replacement tank sent to me for my first, which had cracked. The valve on the new tank leaked and on inspection I found that the spring was pushed partly through the hole. I managed to fix it but it was tedious. Still a few bugs to be worked out, I guess.
I think someone else mentioned it above but I've noticed this myself: The finest dirt you run into is almost like a pigment, it stains anything it touches. I suspect that is what is in that filter.
I have three possibilities for the deep black residues, at least on older records. One is pulverized vinyl, especially on well used records you purchased second hand. While most of us (hopefully all of us) use nice setups with well aligned cartridges at the lightest reasonable weights, it is unlikely that all the prior owners did the same. I would expect that some had needles that were so bad they effectively sanded parts of the grooves. Hopefully this happened high in the grooves so there isn't much degradation in musical information, but that residue can still work its way down. The second possibility is mold and mildew. Even if they are never sufficient to attack the record itself, there is probably enough organic material to allow them to make at least a small presence. The other possibility (on the same sorts of records) is smoke residue, typically from tobacco smokers (but who knows?). Given time to mix with oils and whatever else migrates to the bottom. It is unlikely that it is simply carbon black pigment from the record itself. Once the pigment is mixed in with the polymers it doesn't exude from the composite.
Keep in mind that the Degritter filter is just simple reticulated foam at best 60-80 ppi which is >200 microns; Reticulated Polyurethane | Merryweather Foam Inc. & Reticulated Polyurethane Foam | UFP Technologies for info. In water systems these filters function differently from air where static helps the air filter attract particles. If you are using the Degritter to clean charity shop finds as a single step; its not really intended for that; and I would not be surprised if the pump fails prematurely. When that filter fouls the way yours does, it likely going to cause the pump to cavitate more frequently. Otherwise, when cleaning grossly contaminated records you need lots of chemistry - but if using aqueous it has to be rinsed otherwise as you have noticed - it leaves residue which is going to cause future problems. Those surfactants are biodegradable so you leave enough behind and its a dinner-call for bacteria let alone the future formation of sludge and once on the record sleeve its not going away. Most people pre-clean charity-finds first using whatever lower-cost method you wish; then final clean with the $$$$ Degritter using a low residue cleaner or just DIW. Just out of curiosity why did you start-off using IPA with the Degritter cleaning formula? The Degritter formula may already have alcohol in it. FWIW - I am not here to tell you what to do with your equipment, but the Degritter is a fairly complex $$$$ device and I think (and maybe I'm wrong) your setting yourself up to damaging it if your not careful. Degritter appears quite flexible in allowing people to substitute chemistry, but I know Clearaudio will void warranties if the user substitutes alternate chemistries. And I can hear people saying how will they know - simple - residue (its that chemical fingerprint).
In this age of internet forums, the company should be monitoring this site and this thread specifically; its an immediate source of feedback and free knowledge for them to use as they see fit. And this should be especially true of Degritter which is lead by a youthful group and reflected in the quality of their site which in comparison to many other 'audio' companies is quite exceptional.
I wonder whether user "r.Din" received a reply from the DEGRITTER company concerning his findings? Would it be a waste of time to clean a record using the DEGRITTER with just distilled water, right after one has cleaned it in-depth for say 30-60 minutes with the help of a conventional record cleaning machine (e.g. Clearaudio Double Matrix Professional Sonic, Clearaudio Smart Matrix Silent, NESSIE Vinylmaster etc.)? Would one still get a clear improvement or just a negligible one?
I realize that what we've been discussing here is quite detailed and exhaustive but if a 30 to 60 minute cleaning is being done, pre Degritter, I think the whole point of having a Degritter is lost. I view the Degritter as a "one stop shopping" solution. I'm in it for the extremely convenient and very good cleaning performance and not a 100% perfection, time is no object kind of thing.
This has been previously addressed in this thread. Some people who want to achieve best possible cleanliness (and have the systems and ears to appreciate it) often use a vacuum-RCM for pre-clean (they are not spending 30-60 min) and rinse; and then final clean with an ultrasonic tank. Some people take it even further - Perfect Vinyl Forever . But if all you are cleaning are new and some used record graded VG+ or better, as @AArchie addresses, the overall performance, time & convenience of the Degritter is hard to beat. BUT, if you are trying to resurrect an exceptionally dirty record - pre-clean it first - a lot of people use the SpinClean for that purpose.
does anyone use l'art du son in their degritter? was cleaning out the closet and found a whole unopened bottle of it from last year and wanted to put it to good use.
Every once in a while I run across a very dirty record in my collection. I should do some kind of preclean but I don't. The problem is, with the Degritter, it washes that record in the dirty (unfiltered) water. I have no doubt that this record would have dirty residue left on it and should be run through a second cycle, at least.
I have obtained a second Degritter water tank and started doing a final quick clean "as a rinse" of records previously cleaned with Tergitol (S-3/S-9) and distilled water. I am rinsing with pure degassed distilled water with no isopropyl added (as advised by "pacvr"). I find that the water beads up on the surface of the record making me wonder if this rinse water is actually getting into the grooves and removing any residual Tergitol. In addition, the drying time that was sufficient with the cleaning mixes containing surfactant, is not long enough to dry the records with just distilled water as where it beads up it takes longer to dry. Did I misconstrue the advice, or will distilled water alone, despite the longer drying time required after, be sufficient to wash off residual Tergitol including down in the grooves so that it doesn't migrate to the stylus?
Even if pulverised vinyl, from fine bits shaved off by the stylus?, knowing that LPs can last 100 years makes me think that it is nothing to worry about, just need to wash it out of our filters every 50 cleanings.
What are you finding as a necessary drying time for DW only? I find 2 minutes at half speed works with a typical cleaning agent involved (I use 2:15).
I did 2.5 minutes, 1/2 speed also and wasn’t enough so I increased to 3.0 minutes and dried again directly so record had 5.5 minutes and was dry. I will try rinse with distilled only again tomorrow with 3 minute dry, half speed, and will write again with results.
Remember what you see is 'after' you have rinsed/cleaned with nothing more than DIW. The record in the ultrasonic bath is being wetted by the cavitation implosions. If the record is free of surfactants (and the prior sheen) and all that is on the surface is water - it will bead, and it will take longer to dry. This is counter-intuitive. Why - the wetting solution leaves a film on the record that allows the fluid to drain off quickly, so only a thin low surface tension film (that dries as residue) is on the records - ergo - the record dries faster. But, if the record is 'clean' and has no surfactant residue (is the sheen removed???), then the water with a higher surface tension beads-up on the surface and therefore there is more water on the surface - ergo - the record takes longer to dry. If you want to speed-up the drying process during the 'rinse' add just 0.001% (10 ppm) of 15-S-9 and this may get just enough wetting to minimize the amount of water beading on the surface w/o adding much in the way of residue.
I bet after a few rinse cycles the tank water will get contaminated enough to accomplish the same thing.
