To be honest I’m surprised that it only costs $10 per.[/QUOTE] AI #6 enzyme cleaner is $0.90 an ounce vs. Kirmuss $5.00 an ounce of cleaner. L'Art du son is $0.35 an ounce or less. Just saying. And I don't mind paying the $10, (actually about $15 -18 now) but all the Kirmuss stuff seems to be increasing in price as well. The KA-RC-1 US cleaner is now $875 at Morrow so an $80 price increase over a month or so ago. This price increase also could reflect the new KA-RC-1 machines now have 4 instead of 3 transducers per the Fremer video.. I realize supply and demand, plus other factors as the trade wars continue with China since the Kirmuss is pretty much 100% made and shipped from China. It's still a pretty good deal compared to others and I really like the way the record transport works. As I've stated, most of my records have had multiple cleanings with multiple methods from gluing to OKKI NOKKI and other methods in between, but I always have sediment in the bottom of the cleaner after a session of cleaning with the Kirmuss KA-RC-1. US cleaning is a better way of cleaning that's a fact. I'm not complaining, just making observations. I would personally recommend the KA-1 if one has the resources to get one.
AI #6 enzyme cleaner is $0.90 an ounce vs. Kirmuss $5.00 an ounce of cleaner. L'Art du son is $0.35 an ounce or less. Just saying. And I don't mind paying the $10, (actually about $15 -18 now) but all the Kirmuss stuff seems to be increasing in price as well. The KA-RC-1 US cleaner is now $875 at Morrow so an $80 price increase over a month or so ago. This price increase also could reflect the new KA-RC-1 machines now have 4 instead of 3 transducers per the Fremer video.. I realize supply and demand, plus other factors as the trade wars continue with China since the Kirmuss is pretty much 100% made and shipped from China. It's still a pretty good deal compared to others and I really like the way the record transport works. As I've stated, most of my records have had multiple cleanings with multiple methods from gluing to OKKI NOKKI and other methods in between, but I always have sediment in the bottom of the cleaner after a session of cleaning with the Kirmuss KA-RC-1. US cleaning is a better way of cleaning that's a fact. I'm not complaining, just making observations. I would personally recommend the KA-1 if one has the resources to get one.[/QUOTE] I already own one and I love it. What I meant to say was that in the world of audio rip offs I’m surprised he wasn’t asking more. Audio Desk wants big $$$ for their tiny bottles of soapy stuff.
AI #6 enzyme cleaner is $0.90 an ounce vs. Kirmuss $5.00 an ounce of cleaner. L'Art du son is $0.35 an ounce or less. Just saying. And I don't mind paying the $10, (actually about $15 -18 now) but all the Kirmuss stuff seems to be increasing in price as well. The KA-RC-1 US cleaner is now $875 at Morrow so an $80 price increase over a month or so ago. This price increase also could reflect the new KA-RC-1 machines now have 4 instead of 3 transducers per the Fremer video.. I realize supply and demand, plus other factors as the trade wars continue with China since the Kirmuss is pretty much 100% made and shipped from China. It's still a pretty good deal compared to others and I really like the way the record transport works. As I've stated, most of my records have had multiple cleanings with multiple methods from gluing to OKKI NOKKI and other methods in between, but I always have sediment in the bottom of the cleaner after a session of cleaning with the Kirmuss KA-RC-1. US cleaning is a better way of cleaning that's a fact. I'm not complaining, just making observations. I would personally recommend the KA-1 if one has the resources to get one.[/QUOTE] Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the video doesn't he say THREE transducers? The chyron reads "FOUR" though. So not sure which is correct.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the video doesn't he say THREE transducers? The chyron reads "FOUR" though. So not sure which is correct.[/QUOTE] You are correct.
I already own one and I love it. What I meant to say was that in the world of audio rip offs I’m surprised he wasn’t asking more. Audio Desk wants big $$$ for their tiny bottles of soapy stuff.[/QUOTE] Yes, I know what you mean and agree. If I had to choose between the Audio Desk and and the OKKI I have, I would have to stay with the OKKI. I couldn't justify the purchase of something that might exceed my entire collections worth, to include the gear I play it on.
So I think I'm about ready to order 1 of these however a couple of things are bothering me 1 is his use of the Klaudio images on his website, especially after he states these more expensive units don't clean effectively yet here he is using their images to promote his product and I'm sure he didn't ask permission. With all the equipment at his disposal why was he not able to take his own pictures? @Charles Kirmuss ? It's really only the positive hands on accounts in this thread that's steering me toward purchase.
I’ve had the Klaudio machine for 3 plus years. I had to send it back for and is currently in transit on its way back to me. While their US machine has some shortcomings, it’s wrong to say that it doesn’t properly clean records. I’ve cleaned hundreds of LPs with the Klaudio and I can say that it effectively cleans records. The Klaudio isn’t great removing fingerprints or grime in the deadwax areas. I believe Bill Hart’s method is a great way to clean records, using the Klaudio as part of the process and not as a stand-alone. I don’t have the funds to buy an Audio Deske. I may try the Kirmuss and use it as a first step, followed by a rinse and dry with the Klaudio. I’m not going to get that fussy regarding how I dry my records. The only thing that concerns me about the Kirmuss is the surfactant. I can see myself running out of a bottle quickly. Am I going to see that toothpaste like substance, each time I apply it to a record?
Yes. I’ve cleaned about 50 records so far and every one has reacted to the surfactant in varying amounts.
The crazy thing about this is that all the records I’m cleaning have already been in the Audio Desk. What I do is apply the surfactant to the record and run it for 15 minutes, rinse and dry. Every record I’ve cleaned in the Kirmuss sounds better than it did before.
When I use the surfactant I rarely get a thick, paste-like soap. The usual, bubbly stuff is just part of the solution IMO and I think people are making more of this than is necessary.
I suspect that the Audio Desk surfactant, however mild, remained on the records. I've seen the behavior of the bath water differ in the KL from records first washed in the AD-- the water would cling in more spread out fashion if first cleaned in the AD. Then the question becomes, are you leaving a surfactant on the record after you clean it with the Kirmuss? I'm skeptical of the need to leave an anti fungal agent on records, having owned, stored and maintained a large collection for decades without any evidence of mold. (The only time there was any evidence of that was a box caught in a flood and those records were thrown away- I didn't try to address the multiple issues caused by such damage). The other question is whether there is any sonic signature from the fluid that remains, or it has the potential to interact with any material, like HDPE, in inner sleeves, which is doubtful, but who knows? That's one of the several reasons I rinse. I've never seen any sort of paste like residue on records during a cleaning process- I have seen gunk come up from what I assume is cigarette or other fumes, which created an amber, tar like substance. I returned one such record-- a pretty valuable one- because after several cleanings using different fluids and machines, including ultrasonic, I couldn't fully remove it and it was gunking up my stylus. I don't know if the Kirmuss solution is interacting with whatever is left on the records to create what might be a soapy residue. Usually, when I'm done cleaning, all I see is water that is no longer sheeting, visible in drops on the surface (no longer penetrating the grooves as well because little to no surfactant is left on the surface). The water (Reagent Grade I) is brushed in as part of a continuous flow, and then vacuumed with the Monks.
When I first got mine, the Kirmus, I cleaned up to about 5 to 6 times to get the "soapy" effect to go away. It didn't. While Charles at first said it would go away when all the previous soap and contaminants were gone, he now says, if I understand correctly, that the "soapy" look is always there, but in a different degree over an initial toothpaste look for a more contaminated record. My experience is that when the surfactant hits water, it soaps up more. If you use the camel/goat hair brush, depending on the video you watch, with the tracks or in the same direction, on the record you get less soap than if you cross the tracks in the circular motion. I'm generally now going with a initial 5 minute clean, then the surfactant and an 8-10 minute clean cycle. Wipe it and play it. I don't put the surfactant on as a polish as when I have my stylus seems to clog up.
Maybe I misunderstood your post at #360, where you said: Are you saying that the records had been previously cleaned in an AD that did not use any surfactant?
For those of you who have participated in my blitz/group buy of the Kirmuss RCMs, I have already received enough orders to make my first order, which I did this morning. Thank you for your prompt payments, and enjoy this 1-time promotion that I offered to you. Warren
this thread has completely turned me off of RCMs. my friend has a $4K Klaudio unit in his store and it does everything in one pass, but i'm not parting with that much $ for an RCM. extra steps- drying, rinsing, etc. no thanks.
Looking forward to talking to Charles in person in a few weeks. Rocky Mountain Audio Fest - High-end Consumer Audio Show
I have owned 3 RCMs now, and I have not used one yet that is fast and simple, well made, cheap to use, and cheap to buy. BUT, they all cleaned my records, and as a result, succesfuly made my music-listening audio-life MUCH better. They do their job, which I NEED one for. My Nitty Gritty 1.0, owned and used succesfully for more than 25 years now, has cleaned many thousands of records. Wow, what a wonderful imvestment it was, and continues to be. AudioDesk Pro came into my life about 1-1/2 years ago. A friend won it in a LA/OC Audio Society raffle. But not owning records yet, he let me use it for a year. What a piece of junk, in my opinion for any price, not even imagining paying over $3000 for one. Biggest problem is that you CANNOT leave it unattended, because sometimes the record slips out of perfect position, and stops turning. Kirmuss is still in the box, I have not used it yet. So I have no opinion to post. I do know it is ultrasonic, which we know from jewelry and teeth cleaning is VERY effective, it is shockingly well priced, and uses only one propriety cleaning fluid which is less expensive (per record) than any of the other brands out there.
Hi Warren, I second the praise for Nitty Gritty machines. They are built like a tank and incredibly effective, especially for the price. The Kirmuss was the first machine that pushed me over the edge to replacing my NG. I also had tried an Audio Desk and was not overly impressed with the results in comparison to my NG. Kirmuss has exceeded my expectations so far. My only concern now is that the machine will hold up over time. Like yours, my Nitty Gritty RCM is over a quarter century old now and still running like a Swiss watch.
I third'd my praise with Nitty Gritty, along side @Warren Jarrett and @rollo5 , since owning a used 1.5Fi it for a couple years. It could really go for some fixes due to a leak from the pump system (instead, I just manually use my LAST cleaning fluid and Nitty Gritty brush) and a tune-up overall. I'm glad the company is back up and running again since being bought by Kevin Berg.
The two things I am NOT worried about is the Kirmus's manufacturing quality and design for long life. The Kirmuss is a production ultrasonic cleaning tank with just a few added parts to make record cleaning easy. Because it is mostly a fully mass produced device, this benefits its cost of manufacturing and its long-term reliability.
My VPI is fast, simple, well made, “cheap to buy” (whatever that is), and cheap to use. I use L’art du Son, which, according to a post upthread, is less expensive than the Kirmuss fluid. It’s also completely non-toxic.
I am a total VPI fan, so even though I never owned their RCM, i dont doubt that its a well thought out design, and reliable. But they have never been cheap to buy.
