I guess it’s technically a filter but it’s really more just a simple trap with a small grate. Sits in the drain hole like one in a kitchen sink. Just knock out whatever gunk is there give it a rinse and slot it back in. The illustration in the directions should show it separated from the assembly it clicks into, which presumably leads into the drain to the fluid reservoir. After cleaning about three dozen records it’s only trapped a few stray cat hairs. I suspect the filter on the tank is catching more of the fine debris.
I may see if I can find some long pliers in the garage which can reach it. Thanks for the update, though.
After removing the piece with the tool provided the only piece that remains at the bottom is literally the top part of the drain - I tried to remove it but thought twice and that’s when I emailed support. The “filter” that comes out with the tool is really more like a drain trap. The piece below is not meant to be removed and forcing it would risk breaking it.
OK - it sounds like maybe long Q-Tip swabs might be a better option, but I'll see what I can find with which to gently pursue that trapped crud.
pop it out with the tool, rinse it, put it back in. wet wipes?! if you're ultrasonic cleaning these, put them in a clean new sleeve. there should be no old cigarette tar or paper rubbing off after a trip through the humminguru. why do all of that, just put them in the humminguru with fresh plain distilled water, and let it dry in there. no need to vacuum it. yall are over thinking this
It should've come with a multi tool thing that looks like a stick, and it'll pop right out. Then rinse it in the sink and put it back
Mine came with that tool which you insert into the drain trap, twist 45 degrees, pull it out with a click. The tool is also designed to measure the amount of fluid when its filled the bath but I just rely on the markings on the reservoir/filling tank.
Just arrived: Hi David, You have done it correctly. Only the filter piece can be removed. Please see the video here for more details: https://youtu.be/EiimrV7Vv6A Thank you! Please don’t use pliers to remove the part. Thank you. Best regards, HumminGuru Support
You must not be familiar with old jazz and blues records. I can tell you categorically that, after as many as 4 cycles, with Tergikleen, wipes will remove the crap that was only begun to be loosened by the HG. Rinse, then back in HG again until the wipes no longer turn brown with gentle circular passes.
I think it's established that for used records you need to do a solution with brush and vacuum step before ever putting it into the HG isn't it? If so, you've got everything you need already. And if you rinse manually as I suggested you can have your next LP cleaning in the HG while you spend 1-2 minutes rinsing. I suppose to boils down to how many records you are cleaning in a session. And how adverse you are to actually putting any effort into the process yourself. But when it comes to "over thinking this" perhaps the whole idea of needing a HG or some more expensive ultrasonic is over thinking it. You can do anything an Ultrasonic can do without one. If you're just putting records in there and walking away then that is fast and very hands off. But if you are going to pre-clean and then put it through the HG and then run it through the HG again to rinse it, why even have the HG? Just clean it manually (you already started doing that with the pre-clean step) adding a rinse, 2nd clean and rinse. You are done in less time and it's just as clean. A pre-clean (1 minute?), HG cycle (7 minutes?), HG rinse (7 minutes) looks like at least 15 minutes with some effort on your part. Clean it manually in 8 minutes and set in on a dish rack to dry for 5 minutes. I'm just sayin'.
Neil for step 6, is the goal to add back all 150ml DIW poured off in step 1? If so I suppose I need a container that is slightly larger than 1 gallon.
No, just add back only what will fit i.e., top-off. You will have some DIW that you poured off in Step 1 that will not fit back.
Because unless you're going to use an even more extensive manual process such as the Disc Doctor brushes and fluid (which involves a separate scrubbing with the fluid, and then a separate distilled water rinse, and then drying, the idea is to use a pre-clean with really dirty records. Otherwise ultrasonic cleaning seems to get a clean which results in a more deeply quiet surface. Moreover it offers a greatly automated process, allowing the user to essentially pop in a record, push a couple of buttons, and be able to walk away and come back in 12 minutes and have a thoroughly clean and dried record. If you're not using either a more extensive manual regimen or a good ultrasonic cleaner, then a higher end vacuum machine and better fluids are what you need if you're expecting the best in results.
Right. That basin filter is only designed to get the potential big stuff. The filter in the removable water tank is designed for the small, particulate matter.
Rather than writing it all out, just watch this. Any suggestions you might have would be greatly appreciated.
I can't speak to the exact chemicals he is using, but essentially the manual, multi-step process is what is involved when using the Disc Doctor system, which was invented by chemist, Dr. Duane Goldman. That was certainly state of the art, but it was time consuming, as it didn't make sense to use it for cleaning just a record or two. Plus, you need a relatively dedicated space. I used a mat off an old turntable. What something like the Degritter or HumminGuru, or even a good vacuum cleaning machine represent is a compact, quick solution (no pun intended) for cleaning records. The best results I have achieved thus far, at least equal to an ultrasonic machine taking convenience into account, was using the Keith Monks Prodigy along with their DisCovery fluid (the fluid made a difference). The Prodigy, though, had reliability problems for me. It didn't have the build quality of their high end machines. If I had the money, I'd probably buy one of them or a Loricraft (similar design). In the end, you'll need to experiment. There are different levels of clean. There's what you think is clean, but then you further clean your windows and only then do you realize that the windows weren't as clean as you thought. Better vacuum cleaning machines will clean better than cheap ones. The process this guy does, I bet would work great. But it'd be more personally time consuming. How much personal time do you want to spend for each record? Do you want some level of automation? And you might want to experiment with different fluids. If you have the space and you want to experiment with an entirely manual process, check out the Disc Doctor fluid and brushes (and not, by the way, the quick clean one - Goldman put one out to compete with the quick clean fluids such as the one branded by Mobile Fidelity, but he said it doesn't work as well as his concentrate.).
1. "He" = Me 2. I can clean 8-10 records in 2 hours. 3. The chemical mixtures are proven effective solutions. 4. My cleaning space is one 3 x 4 table. 5. I've already experimented to the point that I don't need to any more. 6. Time factor is about the same as using an ultrasonic process. 7. It does require more labor. 8. It cleans excellently.
Good. If you're happy, you're happy. At some point, you never know, you'll have someone with whom you might do a shootout and discover something better. Maybe not. In the end, if you're happy and the process meets your lifestyle, then go with it. I do not have that space on a regular basis easily. And I sometimes clean one or two at a time. I like the convenience. But I can certainly hear the result of the differences between the gross various processes I've tried.
By the way, I'm glad you're asking these questions. It's good for any newbie here with regard to cleaning records. Regarding Nos. 2 and 7, again, I can just do a couple of records, whereas with a setup like the one you have, as I mentioned, it's more worth it to do many records at a time, as you do. And it may take an equivalent time per record, but the amount of time I spend in that same two hours on it is probably ten minutes out of that two hours. The rest is just letting the machine do its thing. Comparitively, with a Monks-type machine, it takes a couple of so minutes per side to let it do its thing in addition to the time spreading and distributing fluid. During that time, again, I can walk away from it. And, finally, if I am to use a vacuum record machine like a Nitty Gritty, Pro-Ject, Okki Nokki, or VPI, the total time per side, including laying down the fluid and scrubbing, is about a minute-and-a-half per side, but it's MUCH louder and I pretty much have to stand there while it's doing it. But the nice thing, as with the Monks-type machine, I can just clean one record easily. So different lifestyles also dictates what's best for each individual.
You are missing the point of the book - Precision Aqueous Cleaning of Vinyl Records-3rd Edition - The Vinyl Press. The book takes the same knowledge and process that were used when developing precision aqueous cleaning processes to clean critical/vital systems such as high-pressure oxygen for Navy ships, submarines and diver life support and applied it to something as trivial as cleaning a record. It's a deep dive into an esoteric area of precision cleaning. If you read and understand Chapter XI of book, then you can better understand what (the cleanliness level) you are trying to achieve. But Chapter XI is very technical. However, Chapter XII is not as technical and addresses why the manual process can achieve the necessary cleanliness level. But the concept of a required cleanliness level while fully understood and implemented by the precision cleaning industry has been something completely foreign to the process of cleaning records. Why spend the time on trial and error using products of unknown ingredients when you can tailor the chemistry, the equipment and process to achieving a cleanliness level suitable for the best achievable record playback. Alconox has been in the business of blending precision aqueous cleaning products for some 70-years; it's now a 3rd generation company; it's all they do. And Dow has been manufacturing surfactants for even longer. However, absent the detailed knowledge and understanding, trial and error has yielded great achievements as reflected in this quote, but not without its deficiencies: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Edisonian approach to invention is characterized by trial-and-error discovery rather than a systematic theoretical approach. An often-quoted example of the Edisonian approach is the successful but protracted process Thomas Edison is reported to have used to develop a practical incandescent light bulb. Inventor Nikola Tesla is quoted as saying "[Edison's] method was inefficient in the extreme, for an immense ground had to be covered to get anything at all unless blind chance intervened and, at first, I was almost a sorry witness of his doings, knowing that just a little theory and calculation would have saved him 90 percent of the labour" (Wills I. (2019) The Edisonian Method: Trial and Error. In: Thomas Edison: Success and Innovation through Failure. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science). Peace Edit - these recent posts are going off into a direction that does not really serve the primary purpose of this thread which is the HG. With that said, lets return to the normal scheduled programming - just a suggestion that I will follow. Otherwise, my position remains that almost any process can achieve excellent (cleaning) results with the right attention to detail. Beyond that, the best process is the one that is best for you be it manual, vacuum-RCM, UT or any combination thereof.
I'm not missing the point of the book (I haven't read the book, so it's not something I have missed. It's like the song, "How can you miss me if I don't go away".). I'm saying that both lifestyle and listening will determine what's best. While we don't need to proverbally re-invent the wheel, there are many who have undertaken the task of coming up with the best chemicals as well as the best methods to clean. And I have heard results that aren't all the same, and there are some methods that may be too cumbersome for some, and there have been inventions to ease the process.
