Thanks, but know that both my feet are planted firmly on the ground; along with most everyone else. And as the Forward says, and I thank @Bill Hart for his input, thanks to all "those who shared their experience and knowledge; each of you in many ways stimulated my thinking and either helped me better understand the nature of the problem or how to better describe a solution to the challenges presented.". In the meantime, someone has recently reported on some high magnification/analysis of record groove debris and from that I had an aha moment because as I wrote IV.6 "The cleaning process removed a lot of particulate, but there is still particulate that is deep in the grooves that are not being removed. This record plays as it looks – there is some ticks throughout. In this case this is not the best pressing.". I may now know what I am seeing with UV light and initial attempts at removing it have been mostly successful; but the results are too early to share just yet - so the journey continues and a 3rd Ed already looking likely. Take care & stay well, Neil
My newest request of Degritter - We need the equivalent of a trip odometer built into the controls. It is great to be able to go to "Info" and see the total number of cleaning performed. I would like to see a customizable Trip Odometer that I can set to remind me to change the tank / fluid on my preferred schedule (I tend to go with 20 cleanings) I need a Trip odometer A and a Trip odometer B since I use 2 tanks (one for wash, one for rinse). It would also be wonderful to have those odometers prompt you when it is time to change fluids. It is simply software coding but would be a wonderful feature. Using dual tanks it is a bit harder to track when I need to change fluids - especially when I sometimes perform multiple washes to a single rinse.
While we are wishing, I'd like a separate temperature readout so I don't have to keep switching to the info screen. I monitor the temps so I don't run the cooling cycle. I don't need to add unnecessary wear to my machine.
I just change the wash fluid once a week and the rinse usually twice but I'm not as anal as you guys.
Given how long you've had your Degritter, how many cycles does it have on it? Anyone else want to chime in? Wondering how long these will last.
Hey Folks...quick hello from the more recently less than frozen north. Came across this thread a few weeks back and been slowly working my way thru. Received a call today that my Degritter has arrived (alas it's in Vancouver and I'm in Winnipeg....but hoping this time next week I get to play) Wealth of knowledge here that I'm very appreciative of and looking forward to participating. Steven
What UV light are you using? I have a couple of handheld torches that I've tried, but all they do is light up surface debris - once I clean, the records look "black" under UV but can still be noisy. Am wondering whether my cheap UV is insufficient to see what you are seeing?
Mine had 800 cycles on it when it stopped draining the tank. Degritter replaced it without question. Now have about the same on the replacement. Fingers crossed.
This is the unit I use that you can purchase - Alonefire SV005 10W 365nm UV Torch Flashlight Ultra Violet Light Torch Portable USB Rechargeable Blacklight Torch Pet Urine Detector with UV Protective Glasses, 18650 Battery Included for Resin Curing: Amazon.co.uk: Pet Supplies. This is a 10-watt unit and in a dimly lit room can show quite a bit. Fibers/Lint will generally fluoresce blue, but after cleaning as I show in my paper Figure 10, there can be some very small - just pin-points/specs of white light. Oh by the way, dried hardwater salts such as calcium/magnesium carbonate fluoresce intensely white. Those tiny specs on some records 'may' be dried salts that are very small (<5 microns) that 'may' condense out of the air; so depending on the pressing plant ambient humidity and environmental conditions - this may just be a consequence of the pressing process. The plates are heated by hot water and then after the record is pressed, the plates are cooled by chilled water. When the record is removed, if the plate temperature is near or less than the ambient humidity dewpoint, that ambient humidity is going to condense (with the salts that are natural to the background) on the plate(s). In the next pressing cycle, that moisture on the plates may dry (remember that under pressure water boiling point increases) leaving behind so salts that could be pressed in to the record. Right now this is all speculation but I have been manually cleaning some offending records with white distilled vinegar diluted 50% with just a few drops of non-ionic surfactant so that when I spray it onto the record is spreads and wets; rinse with water and then final clean nonionic surfactant - for my manual process is just becomes another pre-clean step. So far I have only tried this on 12 records but all have benefited, anywhere from 50 to 75%. BUT, right now this is all somewhat speculation; and more testing as I go through the year will provide me with more conclusive evidence. DO NOT USE Vinegar with any electrical RCM on a routine basis; it will corrode the machine. When I 1st played with this, I placed 50 mL of white distilled (5%) vinegar in glass container with a plated steel lid and in less than 3-days, the lid internal had already begun to corrode. AND, ONLY use distilled white vinegar which as I say in my document is very pure and comes from ethanol.
Mine has 706 cycles heavy, and nothing wrong, after some experiments I use 0,7 cc of degritter fluid on 1200 cc. It’s fine for me. Max Italy
I'm at 800 Heavy Cycles. Lots of time left on the warranty clock but my heavy use is over. I don't acquire new records at a very high rate.
I'm looking forward to more on this. I had always attributed this sort of noise to previous owners cleaning with tap/hardwater, I had no idea that the issue may stem from condensation on stampers. My methods have involved all guessing, so I'm looking forward to instructions. I eventually get 'er done, but I'm not efficient at it, at all.
OK, I see this now. After doing an enzyme soak I still see some tiny white specs under UV light. I've got some candidate records to pass through my full cleaning process today and will keep an eye on these specs, but it sounds as though you are suggesting that a more (chemically) aggressive cleaning approach is needed to remove them. Would be great so find a single recipe which does the necessary work... seems like the enzymes (nitty gritty) I'm using are insufficient.
Do you have any references regarding this proposition? I would be surprised if an LP press plate was typically cooled lower than 100 F. The goal was only to cool the LP below it's plastic deformation temperature, locking in the audio information. So even 100 F would be overkill. Anything lower would be a waste of process time and energy. And my recollection of ambient temperature and humidity in pressing facilities (late 70's) was that both were moderate. High humidity would cause a host of quality issues. In your example, if there was enough humidity to condense on pressing plates then you could be dealing with water evaporating into the LP material on the subsequent cycle. At best this would cause surface pitting. It would also cause these salts to be incorporated into the vinyl material, not just sitting on the surface ready to be removed. If the white specs are salts, and if they come from the LP production process, a more likely scenario would be a later ambient rinse process with water that contains these salts. That would be abnormal in larger historical facilities, but could be possible in newer and / or smaller facilities. In enough different environments anything is possible.
Let me first emphasize the words that I used as "may" and "Right now this is all speculation...". Otherwise regarding your statement "I would be surprised if an LP press plate was typically cooled lower than 100 F.".; the following RCA Engineer Magazines indicate the following: 1957-10-11.pdf (worldradiohistory.com) "4. Cooling the formed plastic by removal of heat. (90-100°F)"; 1982-01-02.pdf (worldradiohistory.com) "A worldwide study by RCA Records and Princeton determined that the best equipment for molding audio records was a compression press made in Europe....."The mold steam shuts off and the water starts cooling the mold. At about 80°F, the lower platen drops and the disc is removed from the mold." Emphasizing that this is still all speculation because my research is far from over, the problem is that with my full wet process and apparently by what @r.Din sees with the Degritter at 120 kHz, whatever these white specs are (and they appear to cause noise - not pops; background hash like static but its not static - I checked, no static); these wet processes are not removing these white specs. That implies that they are not just sitting on the surface and are essentially in the surface; depth unknown; but maybe not very deep as I will address address later in this post. However, as I allude above, I have had 'some' to ' a lot' of success using white distilled vinegar (5% acidic) diluted about 50% with a few drops of 15-S-9 so that it will wet the record and stay on the record; and then just gently agitating with brush (not to scrub the record but to agitate the fluid) for a few minutes - details TBD. The variable success (remembering this is still all speculative - thank-you) indicates that the white specs (under UV light) are inorganic (and not hydrated; otherwise any wet process should remove); and the acid is dissolving which is what acids do. However, if you have any background in acid cleaning heat exchangers (I do) then its common knowledge that you have to first degrease the surface otherwise the acid is generally ineffective. I may get better success with a higher acidity (no dilution) and longer wet time - TBD. However, since my last post, as part my research I stumbled upon "Atmospheric Aerosols"; and this opens up whole can of worms. There is a lot of interest in Atmospheric Aerosols because of the potential health hazard, but the natural background aerosol sizes range from sub-micron to as large as 10 microns. The 10 micron drop so fast that they should be of little interest, but the 1-micron can stay airborne for longer periods (search the internet - lots of info, NASA has maps, etc); and for records the 0.1 to 1 micron range 'could' be of interest; noting that during the winter months the use of various forms of road abrasives may aggravate the problem. So, there are many sources that may in play and variable for every pressing plant; and for whatever reason almost every new ECM Germany Keith Jarrett record that I have purchased in the last few years (as well as some others), has this under UV light pin-point white contamination that was not removed using my full cleaning process but anywhere from some to most is removed by recleaning using only a pre-clean step using white distilled vinegar as I previously summarized followed by normal final clean and rinse. However, for those instances where the acid only somewhat helped - the record surface is 'likely' damaged. Note, if the acid dissolves the embedded material it "may" only dissolve that portion that is sticking above the surface because of the geometry; once flush with the surface, the acid is not as effective and this may be an acidity/exposure-time item; recalling again that this is all "speculation" at this time; other than the fact that I am getting some success.
Please see the my last post to @hammr7; and note that enzymes are very effective for body fluids (blood and from any body orifice) but not for inorganic material salts/carbonates. Unfortunately there is no single safe magic cleaning potion. More aggressive acidic/detergent pre-cleaners are available but I would be concerned with material compatibility and equipment compatibility - its not a path I am going to explore. Otherwise, for me with my manual process, incorporating acid clean is easy; its just another spray bottle and another pre-clean step; adds a few minutes. The question is do I just do for every record - TBD. Now, if they moved the presses into cleanrooms as they did for the video disk, then we probably could do away with any pre-clean, and any cleaning (if necessary) would be final clean and the Degritter with DIW only would be golden. Yeah, wishful thinking; however back to reality.
We do not need to live in a cleanroom; once that record is cleaned, and assuming the only thing that touches the groove is the stylus, I see no evidence that just reasonable maintenance of cleanliness practices will not keep the record clean. In use, the record in a static condition is exposed to the ambient environment for only a few minutes at best. Once its spinning and assuming you have static under-control I see no evidence that particles are dropping-in so to say. But, given the cost of records and some >$40, some reasonable measure of cleanliness during pressing should be expected; again wishful thinking. But I jettisoned digital as my prime music source (been burned - long story) and have committed/invested in vinyl so I plan on getting all it can give and I willing to give some sweat-equity as they say. For me my process is cheap; its not time consuming (maybe 10 minutes/record); but there is manual labor and technique. PS/The issue of diamond wear building up in the groove - I do not see how. The Stylus Effective Tip mass can range from about as low as 0.17 mg (Shure V15) to about 0.4 mg. Not many companies report this data any more, but Soundsmith does and they report 0.3 to about 0.35 mg. The tip mass includes the cantilever and other stuff. The density of diamond is 3.5 g/cm^3; but boron is 2.5 g/cm^3 so the diamond at best is only about 33% of the reported effective tip mass. If we assume the maximum tip mass at 0.4 mg and the diamond is 33.3%, then the diamond weighs ~0.13 mg. If it takes 1000-hrs to wear the diamond to the point that facets are formed - for sake of analysis lets assume 20% of the diamond mass has been worn away. Therefore, (0.13 mg diamond)(0.2) = 0.026 mg = 26 ug. If it took 1000 hrs to do this, then the diamond is wearing away at ~(26 ug/1000) = 0.026 ug/hr. If each record play/side is ~20 min (0.333 hrs), then for each record play (0.026 ug/hr)(0.333hrs/side) = 0.009 ug or ~ 9pico-grams. This has to exist as a very fine powder and the finest diamond powder you can buy is 100,000 grit which is 0.25 micron, so the diamond wear powder on the record is probably less which in the end becomes inconsequential. The basic numbers do not support that diamond dust has any appreciable effect on record wear. Take care, Neil
2,000 albums as of Friday, March 12 2021, and counting. 18 months of regular use so far. My Degritter has been flawless. Cost of supplies has been the least expensive of any ultrasonic machine I've ever owned or evaluated, cleaning time is moderate overall, drying is thorough, LPs are handled gently by the machine. No breakdowns, no momentary failures. As far as I can tell, by any reasonable measure, in my experience the Degritter is a very good machine.
Be careful with technology transfer. Spectravision video disks were an entirely different animal than a typical audio pressing. RCA states as much in the referenced article, describing how they started with European equipment (Toolex Alpha AB audio presses) and heavily modified them. I have a player and a bunch of disks. Their is no resemblance in the retail product to a regular audio LP. And the technology of CED playback is as different from LP playback as it is similar. When dealing with geometries 1/10 the size of a typical audio groove, and with such a high (15%) carbon black formulation loading, a differing process is not surprising. Whether they needed 80 F disk cooling to keep their quality yield high or simply to be cautious is unknown to me. Every disk was individually inspected before being put in its casing. The shell casing the disks were in not only preserved cleanliness, they also preserved the oil coating every Spectravision disk got after it went thru a series of baths to clean and dry the surfaces (after being pressed). The oil film was necessary for the disk to work. The additional steps and enhanced technology are reasons why Spectravision disks retailed for 4 or 5 times the cost of an LP.
My reference had nothing to do with video disks, only the one specific reference to European record pressing plants and the 80F temp. Beyond that one statement, the article is of no significance other than they pressed video disks in a Class 100 cleanroom.
We can argue nuance. Like whether a typical LP press had 80 F as a cooling endpoint in its SOPs (I'm saying no), or whether that temperature was ~ 100 F or even higher (I'm saying yes). Like whether that typical cooling endpoint would allow the atmospheric environment inside the pressing facility - adjacent to the press - to achieve or exceed 100% relative humidity at whatever cooling endpoint was used (necessary for condensation). I'm saying no. And finally, that sufficient condensation - on the stamper surfaces, and in the few seconds between pressings (remember the entire process took 40 seconds for Spectravision disks, less for LPs) - would contain large quantities of atmospheric micro-particles of calcium and magnesium (or similar) salts that would condense upon the surface of the stampers and partially embed on the LP surface as a result. There are numerous ways that contamination can end up on the surface, or slightly embedded in, an LP. There are numerous types of contamination. I don't think you have sufficient evidence to support your stated hypothesis.
First, my reference to the temperatures was only in response to your question; and further WRT to the condensation on the plate I made clear it was only speculation. However I did go on to say "However, since my last post, as part my research I stumbled upon "Atmospheric Aerosols"; and this opens up whole can of worms." and then went on to state "So, there are many sources that may be in play and variable for every pressing plant;...". The actual source of the debris is now really inconsequential; since as I stated there are many possible sources. Otherwise, if you have any knowledge of clean rooms the most basic as I stated in my document is Class 100,000; and it has an allowable airborne particulate level of 100,000 particles >0.5 microns/ft³ of air, and 700 particles >5 microns/ft³. But these particles can be fibers & lint; and in a factory setting the sky is the limit. What spurred my decision to try a weak acid was this thread - Record Cleaners - a confession | Page 2 | Audiokarma Home Audio Stereo Discussion Forums. While I question the validity of the source of the carbonates, carbonates fluoresce intensely white and noting that I do inspect records with a 10 watt UV light, it occurred to me that the intense white specs that I am seeing on 'some' records may be inorganic salts/minerals. The only observation/hypothesis being presented is that debris that fluoresces intensely and are not removed by multiple detergent washes and multiple rinses (with brush & flowing water) is being removed by a weak acid.
