I think that would work yes, as long as you clean out the spin clean each time too which will be a bit tedious.
Maybe, but then the rinse bath will contain contaminants/fluid residue, so it won't really be a pure rinse. If you are using distilled water, which is cheap, you could just replace the bath water frequently, or perhaps give the record a wipe first with, say a MoFi or Disc Doctor brush, pre-wetted with distilled water, before sticking into the Spin Clean. The Spin Clean has lips, right? So, you are going to have to keep those free of contamination/residue. Going back to an earlier point, I was trying to think of what the alcohol brings to the table, and it must be to break up oils- however, if you use some of the other surfactants intended for ultrasonic and plastics, you should have that covered. Drying Then, the question remains about drying. I know some people air dry, but I don't like leaving a wet record in open air. (Maybe just my compulsive craziness). If you look at Tim Ackerman's article on Tima's DIY Record Cleaning machine, he has the skewers on a DIY suspended at an angle for drying-- not sure if that helps. I gather some people use a clean microfibre cloth to dry-- not sure if that adds static or risks scratching once the record is fairly dry.
I should point out that the LPs I've cleaned so far haven't had fingerprints so I can't comment on how well this machine works on them, one way or the other. Once I figure out which surfactant I want to use I'll use one of the 'dollar bin' LPs and put a bunch of finger prints on it to see how it handles them. Also worth pointing out is that, even though the Kirmuss can clean two LPs, one 7" and one 10" record per cleaning cycle, I only use clean record at a time as I don't want the records air drying while I dry them off manually. For drying, I placed the LP on a microfiber cloth and dry with surgical gauze (not unlike what comes with the Spin Clean). I have two microfiber clothes for this, so that the newly 'dry' side gets put face down on the 2nd cloth. This process seems to work fine, and I haven't noticed any static but that could be relative to humidity levels. Once dry, the LP goes in an MFSL sleeve. Interestingly, because of the somewhat tight foam strips on the Kirmuss, the top half of the records come out extremely dry, but the bottom half comes out as wet as expected.
Sounds like you are taking care on the drying. Keep an eye on those lips-- if any grit is deposited on them, that would obviously be an issue- thus, pre-cleaning would make sense. The AD machine had some issues with the tightness or looseness of its lips-- which were some kind of soft pliable material with the consistency of rubber. They were more like wipers, but the main issue there, as I recall, was water spotting if they weren't under the just the right amount of "pressure." (I think AD fixed that even before it introduced its "Pro" model, which one friend has and really likes). PS: that Audiogon thread I mentioned has a good rundown of commercially available surfactants that are vinyl friendly. FWIW, I have a jug of one brand here- I use it to clean my glassware associated with record cleaning. A little goes a long way; the ratio is like 1:100 or 1:200. One of the points mentioned in that thread was improvement gained by reducing the amount of chemicals in the bath. Take a look here. The info on surfactants continues as the thread gets deeper.
GREETINGS EVERYONE, I am Charles Kirmuss, audiophile since I was building tube amps in 1967 and the creator of the technology used in the KirmussAudio system. It is a pleasure to see allof Steve's forums, and glad that our Teamhas created some excitement. I have an office in Japan and visited Denon who makes great 180 gram vinyls. We listened to what they said. We will have lots of useful information added tour web site as well other correcting many myths as it relates to sonic cleaners. Except for our using 35 KHz ,better than 40and above, better than 30 or below, all sonics except ones in milled aluminum cost the same to manufacture. I decided after buying a German make in 2014 at the Munich High End Show to see what is under the hood and make a better mousetrap. No need to pocket $1,000, $1800, $4800 in my pocket. Everyone deserves an ultrasonic. Some points mentioned in discussions are answered on our web site, soon to be less engineering and less cumbersome to read. 3 Years of working with chemists, and using 19 cameras underwater to see what everyone has been trying to do. Driven by passion, hope some replies sent in this medium will be published. 1)Use of alcohol: Ultrasonics need some sort of a SURFACTANT to degrease a record. The plasma of 500 MPH hitting the record when an ultrasonic micro bubble rises and bursts and hits the surface of the record needs something to add to this mechanical action. 40 mL in 6 Liters will not damage the record. New records have a release agent on them, poly material, an ultrasonic alone will not remove this. Added: as to us of Tergitol or Ilford Ifotol: IT IS A NO NO. Photoflow in its formal INGREDIENT NAME: 2682-20-4 0-1 % BIOCIDE - ALKYLISOTHIAZOLINONE 9043-30-5 1-5 % FATTY ALCOHOL POLYGLYCOLETHER, is not recommended in our lab testing with microscope. Too much leaves a residue on the record when drying, more importantly, it does not attract the desired microburst cavitation explosions to the record and take advantage of the plasma effect. Initially: The use of Photo-Flo in darkrooms is to prevent spots from forming on the surface of the film or photo paper being washed. In the 70’s and 80’s, I developed my own film I used a couple of drops of Kodak Photo-Flo. As recommend 1.4 oz of (40 mL) isopropyl of 70% alcohol in 6l of water has surfactant-like properties, aids in cleaning. The Photo-flow alcohol ethoxylate compound while aids in dewetting the surface of the record but the ethoxylate compound affects the vinyl. So we use the 70% mix to degrease the record, not as a record drying agent. 2) In records of any collection, we have studies 42 different potions that we have bought in Japan, UK, Canada, USA. All leave residues. The vacuum cleaners do note remove this. In fact, the residues are found and loosened by our system and our surfactant are seen as a milky white cream that comes off of the record when we use our goat hair brush. Seen in Ferman's video, I commented this was fungus, in fact it was soap residue that was left by vacuum cleaners that then dried and became part of the surface. That is why many readers say the cleaning was a success, but when a signal generator and oscilloscope is used, and not the ears, timber, high frequency, bandwidth in the artist's music disappeared: come click and pops masked. This past week at Crescendo Audio in Denver I witnessed first hand soaps coming out on the second and third brushing in of our diol-2 onto the records surface. The record went from a Poor -, and perhaps being a poor pressing to an E-. This brick and mortar house sells several of the brands mentioned in these recent posts. You may call up Adam. Vacuums do not remove the cleaning solution soaps, coat the lower part of the groove and when dry, the stylus rides on this coating. 3). Drying: we studied this for 3 years. We handle drying by using first an optical quality totally lint and dust, contaminant free microfiber cloth that removes water on both sides of the record. We then place the record on a mat that does not touch the surface of the record. After using the microfiber cloth, we then use a parasitic felt which comes from our system that is them passed over the record. (Remember Dr. Watts antistatic UK made felt brush ion the 70's?). With a microscope, there is no water left. Once done, we then place the record onto a turntable, and while it spins, we apply the diol-2 as both an anti-bacterial, antistatic agent to the head of a goat hair brush and pass the brush over the record as a tone arm would. We do this to both sides. Indeed, using a spray of distilled water at this stage further rinses the record. Vacuuming does not clean a record, it accelerates the introduction of dust in grooves just cleaned via venturi effect, bringing dust to the surface and still leaving a residue. Noted after a cleaning of these, a second record play sees new pops, ...why??? ,the heat of the needle that has run over a supposedly cleaned record has in fact "melted", "fused" the dust onto the newly cleaned surface. Now being hit by the needle during Play Number 2 of the record. We have found under microscope camera where dust through the venturi effect of the vacuum actually ends up in the grooves of the record while a vacuum is used. Recommended: always use a felt brush to remove static, followed by a carbon fiber brush to remove airborne contaminants before ant play. With Air dying leaves a film on the record as does blow drying with a fan. Air drying on a "rack" sees airborne contaminants attracted to the record land on the record. Even if a filter is used, and air drying is used, dried residue needs to be mechanically removed using a microfiber opticians cloth ( no the car wash type at Costco, AutoZone), and a microfelt. Mechanical means per Denon has worked for 50+ years. 4) Maximum water temperature should be 95 deg F. Never more! You do not want to warp or change the record's groove structure. 5) Record Spacing: using the 19 cameras underwater, critical the spacing of records led to our design as to washing only 4 records. In our tank of 6 liters, we cannot space records closer, we would like to, but the law of physics limits us. Microbubbles in a bath generated by the ultrasonic rise from the bottom, and as they rise, they explode. If the records are on a skewer and spaced by 1/2" as we see in many systems, these bubbles prematurely explode and never rise to clean the 2/3 of the record or so closest to the wax mark. Many think they had good results as "one hears the difference"... but in study, most of the unwanted crackles and pops come from the first few tracks closest to where one handles the record. This a false sense of cleaning accomplished. Lots of science and engineering study. 6) Frequency and Noise. We use 35 KHz and this does not require the use of ear muffs and ear plugs. Added, the configuration of the unit and ceramic transducers makes for efficient cleaning. Lower the frequency, higher the noise level. Warning: 125 KHz damages the records, bubble size too small and the plasma of the resulting collapse targets the 500 MPH of plasma wave too violently onto the surface of the record. Low cost sonic generator elements used in $150 sonic cleaners that are sold by others at $1,800,$3,000, are industrial, low cost generators. I did not create the bath itself, I had design changes to frequency and a one button touchscreen contracted a leading manufacturer. We designed and studied the record assembly and resulting patents applied and issued. 6) Record support: our records float, and the foam used to assist as a guide on one side of the slot does not affect the record. Hope some of the above covers ultrasonic generics. We decided everyone deserves an ultrasonic record cleaner that is affordable, reliable, and that works. Just my engineering overview for you to share. GREAT MEDIUM TO SHARE INFO: I have enjoyed reading it over the years.
How do you know the records cleaned by RCMs were actually cleaned by RCMs and do you also know how they cleaned them? Any rinsing? Id love some actual sources for these studies of yours as well if thats possible. And as a helpful suggestion I dont recommend using the word "vinyls" on a forum like this, it doesnt sound very professional you could say.
Glad to see you commenting on this, Bill. I recently read your essay on cleaning and it has led me to explore buying an ultrasonic. I've been using an automatic Nitty Gritty RCM for years. I was thinking of combining it with this Kirmuss Ultrasonic to try and mimic the process you've described in your writings. Do you think this is a reasonable plan? I've also considered buying a used Loricraft or Monks machine instead. BTW thanks so much for your informative and detailed posts.
Hi Charles, very glad to see you here, and I enjoyed our conversations at AXPONA and on the phone. Question - when you suggest using a spray of distilled water after applying the diol-2 to rinse the record, do you then recommend wiping off the distilled water with a microfiber cloth? I'm not sure how this would effectively rinse the record. Likewise, I'm wary of using a spray bottle on my albums due to a mis-spray on my part hitting the record label (not so much an issue on cheaper records, but on anything worth $50 plus, ouch), would using a microfiber cloth sprayed w/distilled water, and then using that to wipe the record, have the same rinsing effect?
Rollo-- I do think ultrasonic brings something effective to cleaning process but found that with both the Audio Desk and the KL, they were insufficient, without additional conventional cleaning, to address the problems found in many used, old records. Without having used the Kirmuss, but taking the publicly available information, including that supplied by the manufacturer, it would seem to satisfy the ultrasonic part of the equation at reasonable cost, in fact, little more than a cheapie DIY rig. Assuming that a surfactant is added to the ultrasonic bath to enhance cavitation, the question is then whether a rinse is needed to remove whatever residue remains on the record. I know that one area that the DIY'ers have experimented with is the appropriate chemistry, and apart from its composition, most have found that "less is more." There are a number of approaches that don't involve a rinse; in fact, neither the AD or the KL involve a rinse, though the KL doesn't use any additives (so you are back to the issue of whether water alone is enough). Since I'm not entirely clear on what surfactant Kirmuss uses, or whether using something other than provided by the manufacturer voids the warranty, I can't really comment on how easy it is to remove by hand with a water spray. My experience, in brief, was that the AD and KL alone didn't fully clean old records; that a pre-clean was necessarily using something like the AIVS No. 15, followed by vacuum and pure water rinse and vacuum, then into the ultrasonic. That multi-step, multi-method cleaning approach was more effective on some of old copies I had--not Goodwill finds by any means--the process began while I was buying UK Vertigo Swirls. Kirmuss suggests that a conventional RCM fluid/soap will not be removed by vacuum; that may be true and part of the reason I do a rinse step. (I'm also using a point nozzle vacuum machine, which I find more effective than the wand machines, but at added cost). I got good results, just for kicks, comparing a record cleaned on one side by an ancient VPI using good practices (separate wands, applicators, pure water rinse) and the other on the Monks (using the same fluid and rinse but different applicators). For all practical purposes, both sides sounded alike in terms of fidelity and surface noise (or the lack thereof). Granted, one side of the record may have been in a different condition or recorded or mastered differently than the other side, but this record, a cheap bin find, presumably suffered whatever contamination it was exposed to in the wild on both sides. Did that mean that the VPI (a 16 upgraded to a 16.5) was the equal of the kilobuck Monks? No- there are instances where even after a heavy pre-cleaning and ultrasonic clean i could hear a wispy tracing distortion in some instances. (For example, on an otherwise very clean sounding After the Gold Rush, there was some distortion toward the end of one side/last track). Re-cleaning, and rather than forced air drying after the ultrasonic step, I vacuumed the record on the Monks. The tracing distortion was gone. Could it have been the re-cleaning process? Sure, but to me, it was a combination of all these steps, including how the contaminated fluid/liquid is removed from the record. To me, dry doesn't equal clean and the additional value of sucking the residue off with the point nozzle vacuum gave better results than forced air drying. When I first started using this multi-step process, I didn't own the Monks-- i just had the old VPI and brought it back into use after not getting "difficult" records clean by the ultrasonic machine alone. Many records do not exhibit such challenges and for those, it is sufficient to do a pre-clean, vacuum, and into the ultrasonic for a wash and forced air dry. I don't think there is any one way to clean a record, though there are good practices. In practical terms, I've found that challenged old records require more work than a simple pass through an ultrasonic machine. Note that I haven't experimented with lengthier wash times, different surfactants and slower rotational speeds typical of the DIY ultrasonic approach. Some people have pretty much abandoned their Loricraft or whatever after adopting an ultrasonic method, whether commercial or DIY. To answer your question of what to buy, the short answer to me is both. I like the results I get with the combined machines. But, I couldn't live with ultrasonic alone- I needed something more. And though I'd say having the Monks is a complete solution, albeit at a price, I'd really miss the enhanced cleaning that the ultrasonic step offers. I'm glad Kirmuss has brought a lower priced entry into the field. You'd have to spend some additional money, even in the DIY realm, to get more. Hope that helps, given that I have no field experience with the Kirmuss.
We had our own engineering staff buy 4 of the leading machines and 42 chemical products used for cleaning records with or without use in ultrasonic baths by our 3 overseas offices. We visited audio dealers and collected records that they cleaned with known machines, then cleaned them with ours. Observations were noted and compiled. In all cases, the vacuums did not totally remove the cleaning agents used. Opening up machines with filters saw severe fungus deposits inside. On records, Residues were finally removed using our method. You can see this is Fremer's video where I incorrectly stated where the milky substance seen was fungal remnants, which in fact was soap released by our process. Our experience with ultrasonic cleaners comes from the homeland security manufacturing side of the house where we use sonic cleaners and ccd camera microscopes, aiding in our analysis and research.
The diol surfactant in itself mixes perfectly with water. This stated,remember where with most ultrasonic cleaning systems with or without filters, they do not rinse the record with clean water during the washing process. records sit in a bath where contaminants in liquid form abound. That is why we see vacuum systems leave soap residue. Our system in the cleaning process releases these. Hense our recommendation where one should rinse any record with distilled water before drying after any washing process. I beleive where there are now many posts supporting this.
Alcohol and water mix perfectly and using a small amount as prescribed is an excellent degreaser. We consulted with chemists and Denon. As expressed before at some point in time, the other manufacturer is not us, another home brew solution, records too close to each other, using kim wipes for quick surface but not inside groove cleaning and where all grooves are not cleaned by the machine itself, added too high a temperature that mechanically affects the grooves in a detrimental fashion.... another DIY designed passed as a professional product, same manufacturer and sales team even claims using an ultrasonic bath to aerate wine!!!! As a note where in our research the Canadian National Film Board's curator in the 60's commented and came out with a document on the maintenance, storage and preservation of recorded audio and video. Lots of misinformation abounds on chemicals, mixes, and so on in our research. Their document available on the web also covers both shellacked and laminated records as well as tape. Record manufacturing from the 50's onwards has not changed. The relevancy of their 1960's document is as relevant today as it was then as to record conservancy. We have used their work as a reliable review of the structure of media. Emerging vacuums were commented on as positive moves forward, and where we in cleaning over previously cleaned records using vacuums have noted the deficiencies.
Oh I completely agree that a rinse is a good idea, I'm just wondering instead of spraying the record - which could get water on the label - with three short blasts of distilled water (which is a very small amount of water), would instead spraying the microfiber cloth and then using it to wipe the record accomplish the same results?
Hi, I'm the "Perfect Vinyl Forever" guy @Leonthepro mentioned. Figuring out the correct spacing between records that are being cleaned with ultrasonic cavitation is easy. You want the distance between records to be greater than the wavelength of any given frequency in water. This allows full wavelengths to form between the records, ensuring even cavitation cleaning energy along the face of the records. 80 kHz crest-to-crest wavelength in water is 0.73" 40 kHz crest-to-crest wavelength in water is 1.46" 35 kHz crest-to-crest wavelength in water is 1.66" Mr. Kirmuss uses 35 kHz. 35kHz and 40 kHz are typical frequency range for consumer parts and jewelry cleaners. If you liken it to sandpaper for sanding the finish on a car, it would be similar to 400 grit wet. It is good for aggressive cleaning of hard surfaces. If Mr. Kirmuss mentions 35 kHz as a positive differentiator for his product, he should have at least 1.66" between the records in the tank. Perhaps a bit more, as 35 kHz is a nominal number and the true frequency can easily drift. As far as I could determine, the KA-RC-1 is a rinsing only unit. They do not recommend using detergents, surfactants, degreasers or any other additive that greatly enhances ultrasonic cavitation cleaning properties. Only in the vinyl cleaning domain do manufacturers recommend water only for cleaning by cavitation. Darn near every other application uses detergents, surfactants and degreasers. This has less to do with the ideal process and more to do with the limitations of creating a all-in-one record cleaning machine. Perfect Vinyl Forever uses 80 kHz nominal transducers tuned to a resonate frequency of 87 kHz. This creates a wavelength of 0.67" in water. Our records are spaced at 1.00". If you were to do a DIY solution, choose or build your system components carefully. Having fully formed waves makes a big difference in the results.
The "not a good mix" relates to the low flash point of alcohol, heat and electricity, not whether alcohol and water literally 'mix' together. I was actually complimentary of your product at the price point. I do have a suggestion: do not try to whiz us with anecdotes about science and engineering studies in dense paragraphs. Most of the folks here, whether they have used ultrasonic or not, want plain explanations. Good luck with your product. bill hart
More excellent, info that is greatly appreciated! After having read your subsequent post I'm going to purchase an ultrasonic to use in conjunction with my Nitty Gritty RCM. Although I know the NG is not going to get the same results as a Monks or Lorricraft, I plan to try and use it in the same way you have described. Pre-clean with AIVS No. 15. Vacuum with Nitty Gritty and then a pure water rinse from the NG's reservoir tank. This followed by another vacuum and then the ultrasonic. I know it's trying to find a middle ground on the cheap, but with 20+ more years of kids' tuition, mortgage, etc. I'm hoping this will be adequate for now. Also, I bought that Speakers Corner reissue of Herbie Hancock upon your recommendation and could not be happier. Wow, that's a great-sounding pressing.
Thanks, yeah, Crossings is avant garde but not too out there- it's like every conceivable jazz meme, turned on its head. The difference between the time capsule Warner Green label and the Speakers Corner isn't subtle--and it took some doing to find that original pressing in unmolested shape at greater expense. I don't have much working experience with the Nitty Gritty- they've been around for years, certainly seen them in people's homes- if I remember there is no "platter" as such and the vacuum lips are below the record, so gravity works in your favor. On the other hand, you have to do any heavy "agitation type" washing "off the machine"-correct? And does it rely on fluid reservoirs? You do a rinse step how? By doing the fluid step off the machine and relying on your rinse in the reservoir?
What do you think of the use of wetting agents like Tetenal Mirasol 2000 for rinsing steps Bill? Tetenal Mirasol 2000 antistatic wetting agent 250ml
This is not true. From the website: “Secondly, only distiulled water with a maximum of 45 mL ( 1.5 oz) of ISA 71% solution constitutes the bath and where applied to the record in its second cycle is an anti-bacterial surfactant, pre and post wash neutral liquid agent is used. Ultrasonics need a surfactant to aid in the cavitation of the water solution to better clean and remove contaminants.” There is a cleaning cycle where some chemicals are used.
Mr. Kirmuss, first of all, thank you for bringing some sanity to the prices of ultrasonic record Cleaners. I have thousands of albums and have been waiting for a good, reasonably priced, not DIY, cleaner. My questions are: 1) Why is there no drying capability, surely that would not be too hard to add in for a few hundred dollars, say a complete system for $995. 2) Your video's do not show how liquids are put into your system, and as importantly, how they are brought out, in other words, how do we empty your system and how often we need to do it. 3) While 45rpms are fun, they do not constitute much of my serious collection (I would go back and find my 50-60 year old 45s if I had your system, but I would rather be able to clean more LPs, more easily, and more cheaply than cleaning 45s, and having a built in dryer seems to me to be essential. I look forward to your answers and again thank you for your (current, and hopefully future) product strategy
I keep distilled water in the tank for the rinse. I do any wash manually with the record held in place on the machine. I scrub it, then vacuum, then pump the water onto the felt lips to rinse the record via the tank's reservoir. Then vacuum away the rinse. The problem is that the felt lips get contaminated with washer fluid during the vacuuming. But it's the trade off I have at the moment.
