Right now I’m doing a scrub with Audio Intelligent #6 and a mofi brush and then vacuuming with a Project VCS. I’m interested in ultrasonic as I understand it does a better job getting in the grooves, but I’m not interested in paying $3k+ to get there. The Kirmuss machine intrigued me at its sub $1k price point and multiple slots, but I’m not interested in doing his restoration system. I basically want an Audio Desk for the Kirmuss price
Swap out your Audio Intelligent liquid for a tergitol type detergent and add a rinse step and you will be better off then using a U/S alone
Let’s be clear. That an opinion. I do t agree with it and have found the US the best cleaning regiment I have used. Didn’t say it was the best overall. Just the best I’ve used.
Not that I think it's worth it but...you can put together a DIY version of an ultrasonic set up for a fraction of that $3K cost. I did it. It'll work as well as any other ultrasonic machine. You do lose the aesthetics that you get with the pricier machines but if you can live with that, it's an option.
I suggest anyone who wants to dive deep into the solutions you should be using to clean your records read this https://thevinylpress.com/app/uploads/2020/05/PAC-Vinyl-Records_2020-05-19.pdf
Think of the AD brush/rollers like one of those car wash things (brushless) that your car passes through- it will get it clean and nice. Sounds good. Except when the record needs a deeper cleaning-I'm not buying new Chad or Music Matters, etc. vinyl most of the time but old copies - sometimes those need more work than what the AD can provide-- like you'd do with detailing a car in a more serious way. Taking more time, multiple steps. There's no "one way" on this stuff apart from "do no harm." The AD did a good job except it couldn't get rid of some contamination on older copies that I was successfully able to remove by combining conventional record cleaning (using AIVS #15 and vacuum + high grade water rinse) with ultrasonic. And even then, in some cases, the record may have suffered "groove chew" and, as they say in car world, "that ain't gonna buff out." I'm being light about this because it's all a shared adventure in learning to me. People like different fluids. Cool. If I had to choose one machine, it would be the Monks (point nozzle vacuum, expensive). But, I like what ultrasonic does -- it enhances the cleaning process and you can hear a difference. I also agree that the DIY US world has gotten way broader than a small handful of geeks-- there's been a lot written, with all kinds of approaches, including fluids. My KL does not use any sort of surfactant and I bought it after the AD, but before I learned that lowering the surface tension of the bath water enhances cavitation through the use of chemistry. The trick with all record cleaning in my estimation is getting the fluid and contaminants off the record and that's where the rinse step comes in. The easiest starting point on DIY US is probably Rush Pauls' article, which was published just when a bunch of people were looking for a cheaper solution than the AD or KL. The Degritter has its following too-- I understand that it is a very good cleaner with some nice features but it also isn't cheap. You can go as deep as you want. Most of the people I know who adopted US record cleaning in the non-DIY world early on were very much taken with the convenience (me too)- no more sweating over a hot record cleaning machine blasting out your ear drums. I like using both conventional and US cleaning in combination. It's not a big deal to do.
Ouch. Any tips or ideas on how / why this happened or how to avoid it other than not using the included spin mechanism?
Thanks, Most of the records I will be running are older / thinner records with little to no warpage. But I will be extra cautious with the 180 gram + ones. I need to certainly experiment, but my initial motivation was cleaning up the large collection of used records I have collected. Never really considered it for new "Audiophile" pressings. But who knows?
Here is a comparison I did almost a year ago, the Lp had been U/S cleaned and vacuumed twice. I recorded the piece here. Then I used a tergitol/deionized water mix and scrubbed for about 45 seconds while it spun on my platterless VPI. I vacuumed it off then did a Deionized water/cynastat rinse. Then I recorded the same piece. Here are the files. Steely Dan Manual Scrubbing Test
So what exactly does an ultrasonic do if it doesn’t do a “deeper” clean? I understand severely dirty records may need a pre clean on, say a vacuum machine like I own. But wouldn’t the ultrasonic get in “deeper” than the surface level clean I gave the record prior? The main thing that bothers me with my current setup is that records come out not necessarily looking that clean. Sure, all the dust and grime you can feel is off, but sometimes grime you can see is still there (like the moldy looking substances and exceptionally dirty fingerprints). I assumed ultrasonics were the next step to get rid of those nuisances, but maybe I’m incorrect?
Perhaps "more thorough" is a better word choice than "deeper" in that the imploding bubbles theoretically get into the grooves in a way that brushes do not. Yet somehow, an older copy that may have suffered contamination of all sorts (potentially deep in the grooves) will not always "come clean" for playback purposes by ultrasonic cleaning alone. I'm not talking about Goodwill records, but stuff that is old, perhaps had been cleaned badly many years before by who knows what. The more conventional cleaning -sometimes repeated cleanings- has in some cases taken a record that I would have rejected as damaged based solely on an ultrasonic clean to a very high grade player. Sometimes, no amount of cleaning will make a difference- the record is damaged. I avoid moldy records altogether. As to fingerprints, I think the AD should get them, the KL won't necessarily, but any used record gets cleaned on the Monks before it goes into the KL. If on play, it exhibits any sort of distortion, I then do what I referred to as a deep clean, which simply means manual application and agitation using AIVS #15, rinse with pure water, and a pass in the US. Sometimes, I'll then take the wet record and rather than air drying it on the KL, vac dry it on the Monks, adding a little reagent grade 1 water during the rinse step. Ultrasonic is not a panacea. It's one tool. And there are probably best practices to follow with that, much like with conventional cleaning. I'm trying to avoid a dogmatic approach here because everybody has their favorite machines, fluids, applicators and sequence of steps. To me, the combo of conventional cleaning and US is synergistic and better than either method standing alone. If it is a brand new well pressed record that doesn't exhibit fingerprints or assorted nasties, using ultrasonic alone may be fine. I usually suggest to people not to get rid of their basic vacuum RCM until they've spent time using the ultrasonic and seeing what it can and cannot do.
Update: My local dealer wound up selling me their demo unit at a really nice discount. Cleaned the first record using the basic Kirmuss process and all I can say is Wow! What an amazing improvement. I plan do do more extensive cleaning / comparisons tomorrow, but my first impression is that this was well worth the investment.
Hello. Newbie to the forum here. Lot's of great stuff. I have recently returned to vinyl and have accumulated about 800 used records from friends, neighbors and Second Story books in Rockville MD. I am developing a strategy to most effectively clean records. I like both the Kirmuss and the DeGritter. Kirmuss doesn't dry and uses only a trace of alcohol in the bath, but recommendes a hand-applied surfactant after the cleaning and then a second (and maybe subsequent) cleaning(s). DeGritter dries and uses a surfactant (or cleaner) in the solution. My big concern with DeGritter is possibly cleaning residue left in the grooves. Kirmuss has outline additional manual steps to ensure grooves do not have residue from the hand-applied surfactant. So here's my thought -- and wondering what the community thinks... I want to purchase both machines and do the following 3-step process... 1. Run record thru the Kirmuss for five minutes as a first clean. 2. Hand-apply the Kirmuss surfactant per instructions. 3. Run the record thru the DeGritter without the surfact - as a rinse and dry cycle.Anyone try this or have a recommended variation. Thanks in advance. Will post this on the DeGritter forum as well. Paul
So, my only thoughts, the Kirmuss process is extensive, but effective. However I do the "polishing". I have not used the DeGritter so have no data on this process. What you describe seems redundant and expensive.
Are you using the 3rd step with the DeGritter to find out of it removes any more residue after the Kirmuss or just as a convenience to have a rinse and dry cycle?
Rinse and dry. From all the posts I've read on different machines, different research and different tests, it seems the most important thing in that the cleaned record is left without any soap residue in the grooves. I would like to accomplish that without the multiple last hand steps outlined by Mr. Kirmuss, including towel drying. Also, Kirmuss says air and blow dry are not good, but it seems to me either vacuum or blow dry would be effective in removing any moisture or other loose particles in the grooves. Thanks.
Ran several tests with the Kirmuss yesterday and wanted to share my thoughts. Overall I can say there is a definite improvement. To generalize, there were less ticks/pops and lower surface noise. This alone makes the listening experience more enjoyable. From a sound perspective, I found there was more detail around the individual instruments and vocals more forward. Sorry for the cliche, but it was like lifting a veil that was in-front of the music. Of coarse the process did not remove physical damage or fix a bad pressing, but there were several records I just didn't play due to high surface noise and a generally "boring" presentation. After cleaning in the Kirmuss these recordings are now enjoyable and worth putting back in rotation. A couple of side thoughts: Distilled Water - You really do need to keep a lot of distilled water around. I cleaned about 6 records yesterday and then drained the machine. Starting again today, I expect to get 6 to 10 records cleaned. Each one takes a variable amount of time depending on how many "scrubbings" are required. Distilled water is cheap and easy to obtain, but you still want to have plenty on-hand. Heat - The machine and water does heat up over time. I found that it typically stayed around 85 F, but it could climb up if not allowed to cool down occasionally. The unit does retain the heat and even with the lid off between coolings the water temperature really holds. Surfactant - I am using the Kirmuss surfactant and did purchase an additional bottle. The cost for this however does seem extraordinarily high at $85. The amount of records you can clean with a single bottle will vary depending on how many scrubbing cycles are required. I really wish the replacement cost was more in the $25 to $30 range. I will probably start looking for alternatives at some point. Either a home-brew or some other commercially available product. Use Caution - I loaded the records while the machine was running as shown in Kirmuss's video. One thing I noticed is that it is easy to get the record in at an angle that will not rest on the intended part of the wheel. I could see how this might cause damage to the record if I was not paying attention when loading. Overall a great experience and the process produced results that were well worth the effort.
