Good stuff Michael. One thing I noticed with my Kirmuss. After “restoring” I get a “louder” record in general this also means surface noise too. When cleaning out the “release stuff” what you get left is the disk and virgin. What that means is by removing the “release stuff” it exposes the “true” surface of the disk. Micro pits where release agent was are now empty allowing the groove to traverse thru them. So, My point. When you get the supposed 1.5db bump in signal. You get a bump in surface noise. All ticks and pops gone…yes. But the true surface of the disk is revealed. Pretty easy to see what disks are pressed with high quality. Remember, lacquer is cut, then it is plated. Plating will never be perfect…so there are imperfections from plating that make their way into the produced pressings. DMM may reduce some of this problem. The plating process seems to be incredibly important to a “quiet”disk. All my MOVLP DMM cuts are silent. Non DMM cuts are unfortunately more subject to plating or stamping equipment anomalies.
By removing the pressing oil (Shure) release agent (Kirmuss) we will discover if the plasticizer was affected by ether, ethylene oxide or other based cleaners which in turn see the grooves affected if the record was under those conditions if played more than once per day per side as the record was not able to return to the rest position after play. Indeed we will discover issues. At the many shows where we restore records of provenance unknown brought in to us for restoration, where we do a before and after audition, rare is the case where we hear this. .
Had a good chat with Revelry on records that have been subjected to aggressive cleaning solutions and where some record resellers use WD-40, shoe polish, lighter fuel mixes to dress up a record for sale, nice and shiny. When we remove the cosmetic dressing and the release agent, we will hear background crackles after restoration revealing any damage caused by aggressive cleaning agents used prior. Hidden by the film coating left and the release agent. Before using any cleaning solution: For those using chemicals; Never use it on a record if there is no ingredients list. Check the PVC Chemical Compatibility Chart to see if listed ingredients are PVC safe. Also never play a record more than once a side per day so the record's grooves may return to their "rest" / "pressed" position. The plasticizer helps in the process. Using ethers, some enzymatic cleaners affect this.
Omg, that’s waay too big. Where do you put this ugly thing when you’re not using it? If it were just the main unit, like the DeGritter, it would be fine.
"Cavitation is in fact clearly aided by the presence of a surfactant. The role of a surfactant is to reduce surface tension. When surface tension is reduced, cavitation levels increase. Cavitation involves the creation of bubbles which requires breaking of surface tension. So lower tension means more bubbles, and more cavitation. Distilled and deionized water have higher surface tensions making cavitation more difficult, making the use of a surfactant in fact more valuable." That quote is from Neil Antin, a man who used to be in charge of precision cleaning for the US navy
Based on the performance of the KLAUDIO machine without using any surfactants or any kind of detergent and just plain water, I do not see or hear how using a surfactant could provide any sonic improvement. If the record is then fan dried, it will leave a residue on the record. That's a negative.
@tracking angle - Not necessarily if you don’t hear a difference. What percentage of people do you think would hear a difference using the same machine, one using a surfactant, the other just water? I would predict almost no one. So should we care? Audiophiles pride themselves on their ability to detect the smallest differences in sound. But most are just blowing hot air. Remember the videos you did comparing cartridges? In terms of audible differences, it seemed there was no consensus that the very expensive cartridges were favored over the inexpensive. In terms of cleaning a record, we have to ask ourselves when is enough, enough? I’ve got a Degritter and that’s enough for me…
@@trackingangle929 I have a ton of quotes saved on this subject, do not know from what forum/thread that one was sourced so I reached out to Neil Antin to confirm that was his finding
Response from neil regarding the quote PB, What is stated is correct and reflects what is written in Precision Aqueous Cleaning of Vinyl Records-3rd Edition - The Vinyl Press: Para XIV.2.4 Surface Tension & Vapor Pressure: As the fluid surface tension drops less power is required to develop cavitation, and more cavitation bubbles are developed, but with less cavitation intensity, but cleaning efficiency increases. As vapor pressure (boiling point) drops, such as when using a solvent, the cavitation intensity can drop if the fluid density decreases. The density of the fluid affects the cavitation intensity. A denser fluid (such as water) is essentially stiffer and allows a higher pressure to develop in the cavitation bubble which upon implosion releases more energy. So, there is a trade-off with the chemistry of the fluid. But chemistry can bring a host of other problems if not careful, such as fire and explosion hazards if using flammable solvents (i.e., alcohol), and residue if using high concentrations of surfactants.
I'm going to put my life savings into investing with Mobile Fidelity. It's that transparency and honesty about their products which really makes me trust the industry (no need to even review the product, we can take them on their word that it will be the best thing in the world since the Star Wars prequels)
I use Tergikleen (shame about the name) which is stunning and even improves the sonic quality a little and for just $40. How many people will pay $6,500 just to clean their records...very very few i suspect.
The KLaudio does circulate water during the cleaning process. You noticed during the entire cleaning process the machine is intaking water via the pump and expelling water via the 1/2 inch hose. Since the foil is plenty punctured somethings not adding up with kirmuss theory of circulating water interrupting the cavitation process.
@@trackingangle929 The effectiveness of an ultrasonic cleaning system is greatly reduced when the cleaning fluid is in motion, or circulating. This is the primary reason why filtration systems which are installed on an ultrasonic cleaning tank are typically operated intermittently, or with significantly reduced flow rates. Therefore, fluid circulation in ultrasonic cleaners is something that is generally avoided. When ultrasonic cleaning fluid is in motion, cavitation is difficult to achieve since cavities are created when sound waves separate fluid molecules momentarily, followed by an immediate collapse of the cavity which products a microscopic jet of liquid which strikes the surface of the parts to remove contamination. When fluids are in motion, the ultrasonic energy is never working on the exact same location in the fluid at any time, which prevents ultrasonic cavitation from occurring. In addition, the turbulence can buffer the jet of liquid which reduces its striking force on the surfaces of parts being cleaned. This from Zenith Ultrasonics. It could account for the lack of full coverage to the dead wax area.
One thing I wish you would have touched on is when the record spins in the KL audio machine you can see drops of water around the record. I don’t get that from my Kirmuss machine. In my opinion, there’s a reason why it’s a manual process to allow the water to adhere to the record as opposed to the kl audio being the same charge and not allowing the water in the grooves. I wish you would have came back about the audio difference after applying the Kirmuss method and the results from that test.
You're awefully brave to put that tin foil in your machine. Hope it doesn't violate your warranty. I bought a Degritter Mk 2 and it works like a dream. The only thing I noticed was it doesn't get the dead wax area very well. So I'll do a preclean first and that takes care of it. I've cleaned some the filthiest records loaded up with record cleaning solution out of the 70's. And they come out spotless. Another thing I've found was the more times you run an old record through the machine, the better it's going to sound. I've done a lot of study into additives and you are right. Distilled water alone is the best way to go.
I own a Kirmuss and a Degritter. Neither removes surface noise anything like this does. I have the curren Klaudio machine. I like the Degritter but never knew how much noise could be removed and how much was part of theLP, either from the time of pressing or became one with it over time. I actually still don't know but I can absolutely say that more of the surface noise can be removed that I thought and hoped.
The aluminum foil test is universal for testing all ultrasonics, this is a known fact. I suggest folks consult the American Ultrasonic Manufacturers Association for details which will provide a good point of reference. Lots of trolls out there not understanding Ultrasonics.
Hi Michael, Great Video. Thank you. As it's been a good year now Michael since you shot this video, how is it going with the KLaudio KD-CLN-LP200T ? Do you still use it ? Have you had any issues with it over the past 12 months ?, if you do still use it, have you changed any of your cleaning regime with it ? i.e. you now add additives to the water ? etc. Also have you had chance to use and test the Degritter Mk2 and compare directly against the Klaudio KD-CLN-LP200T (particularly as one operates at 40kHz and recommended by the manufacturer to only to use distilled / tap water and the other operates at 120kHz and recommended by the Manufacturer to use their own cleaning additive to add to the distilled water for the washing process with a final distilled water rinse afterwards) ? Reason I ask these questions is I am currently on the fence whether to buy an Ultrasonic Cleaning Machine to do a final / polish clean on my records (as I currently wash and clean my records over the past 10+ years using my trusted original Keith Monks Classic RCM (the one the BBC use to use in their Archive Dept) where I undertake a pre-wash cycle, main wash cycle & a final rinse cycle using the recommended Keith Monks new cleaning brushes and Discovery Record Cleaning Fluid specifically specified for this RCM) and yet I still hear some pops and clicks even after my Keith Monks RCM cleaning regime (I am a critical listener i.e. I listen to most of my music via my TOTL Headphone System - a Hifiman EF1000 Amp with Susvara headphones which is connected to my CH Precision P1 with X1 Phono Stage and Kuzma XL DC TT with Kuzma 4Point 11" arm and a MSL Eminent Ex cartridge). The URCMs I am currently considering is the Degritter MK2 (or wait for the MK3 / Professional Unit to come out hopefully some time this year), the KLaudio KD-CLN-LP200T (with possibility of purchasing the 5 LP auto record changer and Silencer cabinet some time in the future) or go down the DIY route with a commercial Ultrasonic Cleaning Bath i.e. the Elma Elmasonic P120H fitted with the Kuzma RD Ultrasonic Kit (LP spinner that can hold multiple records up to 10 LPs) and also fitted with a water pump & filter circulating system ! Your thoughts on the above questions etc. would be much appreciated.
Hi Michael, How's it going with your KLaudio LP200T ? Michael, Assume you have been using your LP200T for some time now, have you needed to clean inside the machine in particular the internal tank and if so, how have you managed to clean it with it being a sealed unit (unlike the older LP200 model which had a large cap you could unscrew to get inside the tank and with a stick and cloth able to reach all of the edges and corners !) ? And if you haven't cleaned, and or visually inspected the internal tank, how do you know the internal tank is clean and that no particulate debris is finding it's way to the surface of the record being cleaned ? Reply
Excellent video. Patiently waiting for the next episode. I've had Nitty Gritty, Record Doctor, Okki Nokki, AudioDeske and now have Kirmuss. Hand drying records after a 2 minute cycle on the Kirmuss takes less than 15 seconds with microfiber towel. I can clean more Records Per Hour (RPH) with Kirmuss than any other method used in the past 25 years. Has anyone looked at what happens when unfiltered air is blown into record grooves for 5 minutes? If the Klaudio had a HEPA air filter on the blower, then blowing air into the grooves would be acceptable. BUT, blowing unfiltered room air into record grooves definitely adds dust to a wet record. Look at the blades of ANY fan after it has been used for 100+ hours. The leading edge of the fan blades are coated with a fine white dust. I saw that fine dust on the AudioDeske fan blades and vacuumed it off frequently. That is one of the reasons that I sold my AudioDeske and bought Kirmuss. It doesn't make sense to blow unfiltered (or minimally filtered) air onto recently cleaned records.
Correct observation, thanks! A RESTORED RECORD comes (should come) out virtually dry, that is why we do not need to use any extensive drying methods. The Tribelectric table of charges states this. You are correct where air drying (using a fan) will add dust to the surface. ( A vacuum system will also dry a film onto the record as the water with surfactant plus whatever is sitting on the record is sucked off, but also leaving a film. This at times accounts for the "shine". ..and if repeated several times on the record, will charge the record. (Venturi effect). As Mr. Fremer has stated, using any surfactant will see a film added to the record. To water and pumps, it has been our experience in using our Keyence VHX-7000 2D 3D microscope where many if not most of the filters we have tested and shown images of their efficacy to Mr. Fremer sees most not doing much. Holes of 120 to 320 micron pores in the filter media. Dirt, dust, fungus are 3 to 5 microns in diameter.
Thanks for sharing your experience, Bob! I'm planning a DIY ultrasonic cleaner here in Brazil and would like to ask you: why not leave the record to air dry in a dish drying rack?
@@yuriwalter385 The wet record if you used a cleaning solution will dry and leave a film on it. The needle will then gouge whatever was air dried in the record. Dust around the area could also potentially land on the record and get stuck to it. In a dish drying rack water will also perhaps migrate onto the record's label.
without going into the mathematical approach, I offer a hand waving argument regarding surfactant. imagine 5 drops into 5L of water. now imagine the amount of water that attaches to the LP,.... the residual surfactant on the LP must be very small. so without actual evidence of a problem.
washing a record better then with normal quality dishwasher soap and a quality lens brush (for camera lenses) I’ve never done, Took home a record that one of the local Hifi stores couldn’t make silent, normal good quality dishwasher soap did! Took it back and played it in store, They would not believe it until i they se the video doing it.
Nice facts that I have also past on as it is logical. No additives in the water. Even alcohol I wouldn't do that. Just don't see the point. What comes to this machine and price just makes me smile why would anyone buy this. Sure it might work but you would get the same result with $200 ultrasonic cleaner and added motor for it. No containers, pumps, hoses, etc. And when the ultrasonic cleaner is industrial you can be sure it will do it job perfect the first and every time and then just drain the water and wipe it clean. Looking at that machine I'm thinking how much dirt is left inside and how to clean it. It looks good but as value I value the $200 option as better option even if the $6500 option would be the same price.
It appears Your remarks and opinions are directed at the degritter. I can tell you are not a fan of it based on several things the degritter stands on such as placement of the transducers, the power and how the water is actively filtered. You say you like the degritter but your comments at the start state otherwise
I don't buy this crud about "mold release agents" being on all records from the factory. Sorry I just don't. Now I have ocasionally seen some cheap records come with some kind of oily looking film on them. My high end records, such as Rhino HiFi, Analogue Productions, Mofi, etc. are perfectly clean. They sound PERFECT and look perfectly clean. So... unless it's invisible, then it's not on there. If it's invisible then what harm is it causing? Well I don't know... harming the stylus maybe? Maybe the experts can explain. Should we really clean a brand new audiophile LP? and why? If there's an invisible film that doesn't affect sound why try to remove? I'm not say that pressing plants don't use the stuff but maybe they remove it...
I understand your skepticism but this has nothing to do with “cheap” or “expensive” records. Mold release agents are part of the vinyl pellet formulation. Its purpose is to prevent records from sticking to the stamper. Heat separates it from the binder and though you don’t see it, it is there. You normally don’t hear it but if you remove it, you will hear the difference. That said, most of us haven’t the time or patience to go through the removal process. But if you did it once you’d no doubt hear it but most likely not want to repeat the process because YOU HAVE A LIFE!
I don't doubt the effectiveness of the KLAudio but the price is a killer. Imported into Canada that's a $10k machine. Charles Kirmuss device is much more affordable at his quoted Cad$1300. I can hand dry a 2 min cycle for my (mostly) clean discs and restore the bad ones no problem. Looking forward to the rest of the cleaner reviews. Thanks Michael.
I have owned the whole unit machine for 5 years. That’s the one with the tank and cleaner in a single housing. It has never had a hiccup. Works every time and I have not found records to need re-cleaning more than every few years. The only drawback to it is that it’s very heavy with the water in the tank. Otherwise it is built like a the proverbial brick hit house.
Hello Michael, greetings from Australia, very interesting video. The KLaudio is a very good unit, more reliable than the AudioDesk, which is a cranky, typically German machine. The grey grunge you mentioned from your first KLaudio machine was most likely residue from previous cleaning fluids used on the records. I have been building my own variant of an ultrasonic cleaner, I have used the same Codyson base unit that Kirmuss uses. I found it to be ok, but 35khz is too big a cavitation number, does not get deep into the groove. The 35 to 60khz units work, but the frequency that works best is 80 to 120khz. This is not just my opinion, it is also recommended by others who have been into ultrasonics for as long as I have. (The reason most manufacturers use the 35 to 40khz transducers is because they are about 20% of the price of the 125khz transducers and easier to get because of the volume of the amount manufactured in that frequency. Every jewelry, dental, automotive and general use ultrasonic runs 35 to 40 khz.) As for having the transducers on the bottom of the tank instead of the sides, you are correct, works much better. The KLaudio runs too fast for my liking, it does not give the cavitation time to work on the record. Personally, I do feel, having tested the Degritter in comparo with the KL and A/Desk units, the Degritter did a better job. Enjoy the music.
Hi Peter, I am also from Australia and am considering buying a Degritter. Is it ok to run it without using surfactant? And if so, does that mean it is also a true Cavitation machine? Thanks in advance
Thanks for the detailed video. It answered a lot of questions I've had on the cleaning topic myself. Is the foil disc only usable with the cleaner unit you were using? I haven't heard of the foil test and wonder if there's a way to do that on other reported cavitation cleaners? Brian in Fort Worth 🎶
The foil test has been used since the 1960's. It is a universal test of cavitation. I worked on the space shuttle in 1978 in Montreal (on the Shuttle's Canadarm). Twice a day we used a 6 foot by 4 foot sheet of aluminum to test the ultrasonic transducers to ensure that space flight materials were cleaned properly. In fact someone owns the patent for this simple test/technology. No matter, I use a special aluminum foil sold to laboratories that are mandated in the UK, Canada and Australia to test and record daily the efficacy of their ultrasonic used for cleaning medical instruments, dental fixtures etc, by law! I buy 12" rings from an arts and crafts store and create foil records. You saw where Mr. Fremer had to spin the record by hand, as the rollers were not making contact very well with the ring so as to spin the record. The test did show that there was cavitation, hurray!, but where we did not cover the entire pressed media and dead wax area. You may make a create a test record yourself. We have the luxury of a cavitation meter to also test for cavitation. In the Audio Deske, we need to remove one of the rubber "O" rings (not both) that grip and spin the record, so you may need to do some adjustments to the machine to spin the record. In the DG Version 1, we have to aid by hand as was the case in the KL to spin the record. To test systems that use rotisserie style skewers, if you review some of our seminars, you will see where we have had to mount onto the foil the plastic spacers they use in the record label area to support the records, thereafter, to then install them onto the respective machine to then test for presence and/or even coverage of the entire record via cavitation.
Oh Micheal… Please will you clarify the mistaken and scientifically-incorrect statement you have made in this video regarding cavitation and surfactants. It is an established scientific principle (as established as any of newton’s laws) that surfactants aid the cavitation process. Patrick (The Vinyl Archivist) has described the process well elsewhere in these comments so I will not do so again here. That you may not hear or see a difference in the Klaudio may be due to the quality of the $6500 Klaudio machine itself, or perhaps a lack of testing, etc etc. However, in making a scientifically incorrect and sweeping statement about all cavitation processes you are doing your channel and the many viewers who are using other ultrasonic machines a huge disservice. Surfactants generally and provably (per many other articles and experiments from those quoted by Patrick to those conducted by Paul Rigby the Audiophile Man) show a clear improvement over distilled water alone. Regardless of these experimental results, scientific facts are scientific facts, please separate them from personal experience. And, regarding any resulting residue, of course any advice on surfactant worth it’s salt that I’ve read advises an additional rinsing step for that very reason. Please amend or update this video as it’s genuinely incorrect advice. Thank you.
I think if I were to try to buy this machine I'd get a note back saying, "Bro you're using an RPM3 with a basic Sumiko cartridge, your purchase request is denied."
I am re-watching this. Couple of comments: 1- The Klaudio has the transducers “perpendicular” to the record surface. Pretty sure it means they are on either side of the record. I am sure Mr Klaudio can verify/deny. 2- A frequency of 125KHz actually produces bubbles of about 2.5um in size, which is the size of the bottom of the groove. 35KHz produces bubbles of about 10um which are not small enough to compare dimensionally with the bottom of the groove size. I am not saying it doesn’t clean alright, I am saying there’s a good reason to choose 125KHz (which is what Degritter uses). There are actually entire journals on cavitation cleaning, and some seminal papers on the subject of bubble size and other aspects of cavitation. An important takeaway from these papers (which I have purchased and read) is that 125KHz or thereabouts is the sweet spot. Frequencies above 500KHz produce enough ozone to acidify (ie make an acid) in the water. Lower than 100KHz produces bubbles that are slightly too large. And there’s another aspect: higher frequencies produce many more bubbles than lower frequencies, so you have a higher density of bubbles at 125KHz than 35KHz.
As far as I'm concerned you can stop heaping any praise on the Audio Desk Cleaner. I took one that I bought "used" from the dishonest guy that owns Gingko platforms and accessories completely apart and repaired it after it stopped working after 100 hundred records. I have photos. It was the latest PRO X model, although it was from 2019 which is when they first came out. Maybe $100 worth of parts in that thing plus the circuit board and a retail of $4600. Chinese aquarium pumps that cost $20. Most have 1 mine had 2. I found the OEM of the pumps in China. You are correct about the transducer because I ran it without water in the tank (which is not possible unless you have opened up the glued together plastic box where the components are) and it gives a fine mist from the water droplets laying on top of it. I couldn't see where the 4 barrels of microfiber did much of anything, they barely contact the record. But the new owner loves it! Thank you Ebay!
HI Michael, Just want to add a note that I believe that the Transducers fitted to the KLaudio LP200T URCM are fitted to the sides of the unit (two per side - like the Degritter) and not fitted to the bottom of the unit (like majority of the commercial Ultrasonic Cleaning Baths are that are designed to clean objects put into a suspended basket in the units bath). This is so that the KLaudio and Degritter unit's Transducers are firing directly at the sides of the records being cleaned and not from the bottom up. I also believe that the KLaudio unit also operates at an ultrasonic frequency of 40kHz.
Boy. I'd love to have the KLAUDIO. I own a Kirmuss and a Degritter. I clean with surfactant in my vacuum machine, then use plain distilled water in the Degritter. So I'm basically doing a US rinse, which works quite well. If you can't do a truly thororugh rinse using any system, don't use surfactants. Charles might have a coronary when he hears your comment about surfactant since he is very big on what he uses and maintains it changes the charge of the contaminants on your records so that they release. Is that true? I don't know. Charles says so. One other reason for the use of 35-40k frequencies is that there are many off the shelf generators that work at those frequencies. Economies of scale that high end audio will never see. I used ultrasonic machines to clean flux off of circuit boards in a manufacturing process 40 years ago. Certainly anything but new technology although a new application, Totally agree on surfactants in general. Some are scary. I've experienced some damage with a couple. I've also found that otherwise benign (if well rinsed) surfactants in a vacuum machine can do damage in an US machine. Also be very cautious about mixing them, even the remnants on a brush.
I use a homemade machine made by a Polish guy. It works really well. It is a bit more work unscrewing the discs from the spindle, and manual drying and such. But boy, I am so happy with it. 6 records at a time. 3 x 10 mins on 35 Celcius. Using bit of alcohol and few drops of photoflow on a 6 liter tank. But you say it is not needed? I will try next time with distilled water only and measure. Although I use a rinse bath after with a spin clean with water only. I inspect the record before and after with a microscope connected to my laptop. Then play it for the hearing test. Cost around 250 Euro only ... maybe add such a solution to the test in comparison with expensive solutions. Greetings, love what you do and share on youtube everytime. Ray
Photoflow defeats the purpose of allowing the record to benefit from cavitation. Records spaced too close together either reduces cavitation or creates "hot zones". Distilled water alone will not remove the pressing oil/release agent. Records properly processed in an ultrasonic come out virtually dry. Cavitation generates heat, be careful and watch the temperature. Stop at 105 deg F. (40.5 deg F.)
Speaking as someone that owns a Degritter, the compelling feature of this machine is the external pump/tank/filter. That lends itself to using a BIG water tank (say 5 gallons) to prevent the water from heating up so you can do things like clean 50 records in a row. It would also let you have separate intake and evac water tanks with extra filtration between them.
The KLAudio machine (at least the KD-CLN-LP200T one - I haven't looked at the one with the built-in tank that used to be available) definitely constantly circulates the water during the cleaning process - you need only look at the tank and watch both the drain and the input lines to see it happening...
I agree. I have the KLAudio machine that is one generation behind the one shown here, and mine constantly cirdulates the water, which I think is great because it is always being filtered.
The filter sizes tested does not filter out 1 to 3 microns of particles using test particles that have a UV colorant poured into the tank. @@daleromney6062
And, in reference to my post below, I now own a Klaudio. It's far better than anything I've used and that includes both the Kirmuss and the Degritter. I still clean truly dirty records on my vacuum machine first, then into the Klaudio. I'm convinced this is the best way to go. I really miss the Nitty Gritty First product for really challenging cleaning
Great review. I have the previous generation of the same machine you reviewed. I always use a spin clean first just to take off all the surface dirt and then use the KLAudio. It is a great machine. So far I have replaced the pump once, and it was probably my fault for replacing the water often enough. Lesson learned. The KLAudio seems to build like a tank. If it broke tomorrow I would buy another one. It is that good.
I bought the larger self contained KLaudio machine in late 2003. It has cleaned over 4,000 records flawlessly. I had to replace a pump which was done quickly. Wonderful - quiet, no static, minimal pops, micro detail and resolution. I have never had any grey gunk in the machine, only a greenish black residue that is not in suspension and wipes clean with a cloth from within the tank (change out at 50-100 lps).
It seems the more I hear from other people about the Kirmuss restoring system, the more I gravitate towards purchasing one. I've been listening to records all my life and continue to accumulate more and more. I'm over 4K in my library. I've owned a VPI vacuum for over two of decades and it has served me well. Naturally, I don't use their solution. I use a distilled water and a cap of 70% alcohol per gallon. But as ultrasonics have gained popularity, and I see the rigorus testing results, it's time to retire the VPI.
I used a Nitty Gritty 1.5fi back in the 90's and WOW. Blew me away. Using Pure1 and 2, the mould and MRA didnt have a chance. That was with an LP12 special 😁and an original Ittok. Now I'm using a cheap version of it and that also does a great job although my LP's have been well looked after. Turntables a SOTA Nova Mk 5.
both degritter and klaudio use the ‘blasters’ that are perpendicular to the records, face to face so to speaker. kirmuss uses generic machine, which cleans the edge of the record really well.😊
Thanks for this very thorough, educational review, Michael! I have one question though: how well do proper cavitation machines like the KL Audio remove things like fingerprint oil, given the lack of soap, etc.? I know that one should never touch the groove so this isn't likely be much of an issue, but it might be for used records.
As always Michael, this is very informative & helpful. I think the idea of user replacement parts is excellent. If I could afford this machine it would be my number one choice. I am waiting on the Degritter II & chose a the optional second tank, so it will be good to try it. As virtually all of the LPs I buy are secondhand & I see & read about some of the crazy dumbass solutions & methods that people inflict on their LPs, I would never dream of just playing one of these purchases, without having cleaned it. If a person owns a turntable that is cheap & nasty or only spends $20-$30 on a cartridge, then they will never benefit from proper cleaning. The last thing I want to happen is my $2000.00 cartridge tracking through remenents of wood glue or window cleaning solution.
Michael, Greetings from Russia.Great story.!I have an analogue of "Hummin Guru".I am very happy with the operation of the machine.I always watch your videos.I have my own experience in setting up vinyl players.The sound of vinyl is divine.!
you know I'm not going to say these solutions aren't warranted or that they don't work, I know in fact that they do work quite well, however it is such a freaking time killer. I've got two turntables and I also have my local record store whom has a real nice VPI machine that they use to clean their records and of course you can bring records in and have them cleaned for a small fee. there's one guy on here talking about cleaning the records in his machine then drying them off and then cleaning them again but this time in a just a clean solution and then inspecting them with a microscope. I mean come on man how much time do you need to spend to be able to enjoy your records? That's why I mentioned I had two turntables, I have one for records that aren't so great and I have my good turntable for my records that are spotless and or new.
I use a "record friend" (a version of the "spin clean") and eventhough I use water only (distilled), I have to play it on a "lesser" turntable (sometimes twice) before I play it on my main TT because it's still noisy for a couple plays! After that it's great! I must be doing something wrong! I wish I could afford this (no chance unfortunately)! But it's great if you can!
I hope you're able to review the Degritter. Mark ll preferably. Everything you stated about proper cavitation is antithetical to the Degritter philosophy and it's not cheap. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Big MFer fan. Greg
Something I have never seen mentioned in the context of record pollutants is dandruff. I am sure it gets in the grooves and causes pops and clicks. How you deal with that I simply do not know.
Well not sure about that if wattage is not important I would have thought it would have a bearing on the power of the cavitation, what we don't really hear about we hear about frequency but we don't hear about intensity what could cause damage if it's too much. What about electrolysis? Should work if you charge the record up and have an anode in the water should attract the dirt away. I'm not convinced some guy did a test and said it should be 80 kHz the higher the Frequency the smaller the bubble
Cavitation energy is measured in Cavins or Watts per square centimeter. It is not measured in watts of power consumption of the machine, neither the rating of the transducer. Cavitation generates pressure when the micro bubbles implode. Cavitational energy should be even from bottom of an ultrasonic's basin to the top of the water in the basin. This said the goal is for cavitation to evenly process whatever is being cleaned. The aluminum foil test allows one to see this. It is important therefore to ask what is the measured Cavitational effect in Cavins or watts per square centimeter if any ultrasonic cleaning machine. I believe the inference is where many so called ultrasonic machines advertised as such do not use cavitation and are ultrasonic bubblers or misters.
Hope they have solved the reliability issues that my original version hit. Been to the manufacturer twice and fixed locally twice by the distributor. Currently sitting unused as it has failed again and deciding if I throw good money after bad. Would not have cleaned 300 records in it.
The degritter runs at 120khz, so I'm not sure where you get your 25 to 40khz from. The lower the frequency the larger the bubbles, so bubbles at 25k likely wouldn't fit inside the groove
One needs to look at what one is trying to remove. Dirt, dust, fungus are 3 to 5 microns in size . Large particles. The vacuum action formed at 35KHz when the micro bubbles implode dislodges easily these large particles. A 120 KHz signal produces indeed smaller microbubbles, destined to clean surgical instruments, silicon wafers, where particles are usually sub micron. Proof is in the pudding where some higher frequency manufacturers indicate both in the manuals and some slides where one may need to do several cycles as they are not apt to removing larger particles as we see with records. There is a misconception where we are trying to reach the finite details of the pressing, down in the groove, yet we have to first contend with the surface contaminants, 3 to 5 microns in size, plus films and release agent that ride above.
As a Degritter user, the manual states that the use of a surfactant is optional. Also, the burst of the bubble is the force mechanism that jars the dirt loose, the water then washes it away, hence high frequency and high power is recommended. Finally, the ultrasonic process creates heat. The Degritter measure and controls water temp.
Cavitations sees bubbles Implode, not explode, and the action does not jar, cavitation creates a vacuum. Further, pvc and water have the same electrical charge and as such they repell each other. Little cleaning.
Cool vintage vibes soundwise as your microphone sounds like reporting from a telephone booth at least through my equipment. Liked it. As records are getting more expensive it was time to offer more expensive cleaning machines I guess. Does that make sense?
Great point! On the KirmussAudio web site there are images of before and after Kirmuss Restoration. Release agent measured. Will soon have a video on the KirmussAudio UA-cam channel where the Ortofon TC3000 is used on a test record that provides a print out of frequency response and bandwidth before and after Kirmuss Restoration. I also use the Sugar Cube to better analyze pops and the like.
@paul davies FYI at the varios audio shows and record fairs we usually have with us a spectrum and audio analyzer in addition to having a turntable and headphones present. We invite record enthusiasts to bring in a record from home. We do a before and after audition. The results speak for themselves. In fact we also see audiophiles bring in records that were processed by other cleaning systems and processes. Lots of fun!
Kirmuss Before and After testing at the CONSAM MEXICO Audio Show Nov 2023: BEFORE KIRMUSS: ua-cam.com/users/shorts_6_fhGWMBjM AFTER KIRMUSS: ua-cam.com/users/shorts_6_fhGWMBjM
Isonic's old model uses 3 transducers and does use cavitation. If you insert 12 records mounted on the DIY skewers, the load level is exceeded and if you inserted either aluminum foil test records or use a cavitation energy meter you will see uneven cavitation or areas of severe cavitational energy between records at various levels within the tank. The test results are self explanatory. FYI As to evaluating ultrasonic energy, the Kirmuss uses 70 khz resonance to even out the effects of cavitation and cannot process more than 4 records due to ultrasonic loading rules. The cavitation energy is measured at 810 Cavins plus or minus 10% throughout the 7.5 liter basin. The alumimum foil record test sees even cavitation from the edge of the record to the dead wax area, both sides of all records.
Great video and informative! would be interesting, if Mr. Kirmuss would test this new machine with his measuring devices and the foil test. or as he says, it's another Bubbler machine on the market?
I can tell you why you would want a surfactant in a cavitation cleaning machine. With the polar H2O molcules having a strong hydrogen bond, and not having an affinity to non-polar molecules, water does not really want to be in contact with vinyl. there could very well be voids, or small bubbles of air in the grooves of the record, preventing any water, and hence any bubbles from contacting the record surface. It is simple science. You will get better cleaning with a surfactant, as it lowers the surface tension of the water, making it "wetter" so to speak. Also, bubbles get smaller as the Hz go up, yet they get "weaker".
@@trackingangle929 That is correct. As to records and cleaning: Further, water is a DIPOLE. The Kirmuss process takes advantage of this and applying the spray to the record and not in the water changes the charge of the record to be opposite to that of water where PVC and water have per the Tribelectic Table of Charges, like small charges. Thus the spray attracts water. The charge needs to be reapplied as the record spins and the charge wears off. To change the charge of a liquid in a vat would need large amounts of an agent, but will not necessarily attract the PVC to the water with and agent".
Hey Michael, you should explore the woodglue cleaning method… sounds funny but a bottle of Titebond II won’t cost you too much. Don’t knock it till you try it!
The Shure Brothers slide in the Kirmuss generic presentation shows where wood glue cannot enter a 6 X 30-40 micron deep/wide groove. FYI The size of a water droplet is 100-110 microns in diameter. What is the size of the glue material? Question answers itself.
@@kirmussaudio7578 hey doc, I’ve done many experiments with this method over the last 15+ years since I first became aware of it. I’ve tried this on records with very fine grooves - think extended silent portions, where the lathe’s computer would cut at the highest LPI permissible for the most efficient use of the available recording area - it completely forms to the groove just fine. You or anyone can very quickly evaluate this for yourself with a microscope. No labcoat required!
@MrRom92DAW The bottom of the groove is 6 microns in a "u" shape. The details of the groove see sub micron details. It is impossible for wood glue to remove release agent or materials that are 3 to 5 microns in diameter. Or touch sub micron details. The wood glue also leaves a film. If you come by the Masterclass theater at Axpona you will see the slide created by the Shure Brothers circa 1977 where they unsuccessfully tested cleaning processes at the time, unsuccessfully removing the pressing oil that they discovered. You may also consult the presentations by JR Boiclair of Wally Tools. It is impossible for you to see glue make contact with the minute detail as pressed in the groove. I can send you a before and after image of 0.89 microns of pressing oil as the Shure Brothers termed it from a record. No lab coat required, just a Keyence VHX 7000 2D 3D microscope.
The KL circulates the water during the entire cleaning process. Watch the drain tube. There is constantly water returning to the tank during the cleaning process, not just to drain it. Michael, it seems you've been drinking a lot of Kirmuss Kool Aid (I've owned one for years as well)
@@kirmussaudio7578 Why, Charles. And what does "just as an increase in temperature" mean? Are you comparing it to an increase in temperature? The Kirmuss gets very hot and this doesn't. Please, no unfounded/vague statements .
@rickmilam413 Good points raised. 1. True ultrasonics that use cavitation create heat by way of kinetic energy. So as we process records, the cavitating bubbles created cause the heat. 2 Heat is needed as room temperature water at 68 degrees creates less cavitation . Too much heat also reduces cavitation. So we provide the proper range for processing records. 3. Circulating water in any ultrasonic reduces cavitation. The above are known facts. Do not understand your query.
@@kirmussaudio7578 I'm always looking for logic. Take point #2 - My Kirmuss is in a finished baseement in the U.S. It's pretty cool down there. So the Kirmuss water starts quite cool and works it's way to very warm to the point of requiring a shut down/cool off period. This is hardly a consistent, optimized water temperature.. I fully understand that cavitation creates heat. A serious issue with the Degritter is the very small watt reservoir that heats up very quickly. I realize that you maintain it is not an ultrasonic machine but, whatever the case, it really heats water. As to point 3, I've no idea what you're basing that on. If there is objective documentation to that effect I would love to be directed to it. I don't think the Klaudio's designer is an ignorant man.
@rickmilam413 When we take a KL record and process it we lower the noise floor level by 1.6 dB average and increase frequency response by 11 % average. Proves our cavitation and record ionization ip. Cannot say more. We preheat water using heater while using the system. at the start, critical in your environment if a colder room... stop when we hit 72 degrees. If we have true cavitation, all true cavitation machines see water heated by the collapsing bubbles. Proof of proper cavitation ction on records is where processed records should not need need air blow drying. They come out dry. Repelling water. In our processing up to 4 records at a time, one needs every 20 records to degas the water to reduce the temperature increases as a result of cavitation. Air introduced reduces cavitation. When the small red bar to the right of the long red bar flashes, simply change out the water. Well understood where you are starting in a colder environment, that is why we incorporated a heater that works if your water is too cold to provide effective cavitation. Do read the articles suggested as a reference.
I do recommend it if you want to restore as opposed to just clean, though you can do a two minute cleaning cycle and not do the whole restoration thing. However, it's still hand dry with microfiber. Not time consuming...
@@GiancarloBenzina What can i say? ... A Kirmuss restored record due to the Tribelectric table of charges repels water. Obviously you do not own a Kirmuss. Take a record out of the KL, before air dryoing, you will see it weep. Mr. Fremer at Axpona in Chicago last week brought in 2 records. The Kirmuss one that he processed in the Kirmuss machine as later identified in his test came out virtually dry. The other processed by another machine for 5 minutes had tremendous amounts of contaminants seen surface and was wet after removal from the Kirmuss machine. I suggest you review the subject matter as to measuring cavitation in watts per sq. cm.. Also suggest where you ask peer manufacturers what they guarantee in writing as to signal gain after processing a record. This will allow you to see the forest between the trees. This will validate any subjects as to the Kirmuss (Not Kirmess).
Thank You Michael don't pay attention to negative comments , people just don't understand what a reviewer job is its simply idiotic that they think everything you own is free. Just like Mr Ken Kessler said , I write a full review on a magazine that cost thousands and a record cost 60 dollars (who is loosing money) the reviewer of course. God Bless
Kirmuss Before and After testing at the CONSAM MEXICO Audio Show Nov 2023: BEFORE KIRMUSS: ua-cam.com/users/shorts_6_fhGWMBjM AFTER KIRMUSS: ua-cam.com/users/shorts_6_fhGWMBjM
Michael, the latest firmware update allows you to perform the rinse cycle on a Degritter v1. You just need to dump the surfactant water tank into a bowl (or buy a second tank) and rinse water into a second bowl after the rinse cycle.
Audio Intelligent now makes an ultrasonic liquid that the say leaves no residue, so no rinsing needed.. I have it. So far, so good. “ Audio Intelligent Vinyl Solutions first began experimenting with ultrasonic record cleaning in 2011. One of the issues they found to overcome, for the method to be used successfully, was to find a way to eliminate as much as possible the introduction of dissolved solids in the cleaning formula. In the time since then Audio Intelligent Vinyl Solutions have experimented and tested from time to time with both commercially available ultrasonic record cleaning machines as well as "home-built" machines. Audio Intelligent Vinyl Solutions' final field testing of this product was conducted during summer 2021. They are now able to offer a non-foaming, very low dissolved solids product that contains no chemical detergents or solvents and that is appropriate for use in all ultrasonic record cleaning machines. The product does not leave any residue and no after-bath rinsing is required.”
By coincidence I watched a science based youtuber discussing ultrasonic cleaning and cavitation from a completely different approach just a day ago. Detailed graphics on how the bubbles develop. Where the energy for cleaning comes from. Measured pressures and temperatures. You may not like the subject line though. "Can Ultrasonic Waves Dissolve Metal?" The Action Lab ua-cam.com/video/uRmoPc7l9qg/v-deo.html I put in their Comments about how popular cavitation is in record cleaning. Interesting to see if there are responses.
There is also cavitation as it applies to marine circles, and the use of propellers. The references to metal have to do with cavitation effect when screws in a ship turn. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutions_for_cavitation_in_marine_propellers Going into more detail, when the local pressure decreases below the vapor pressure, water evaporates, a cavitation bubble forms, grows larger and gets transported with the flow to a region with a higher pressure. At this point the bubble stops growing and when the local pressure exceeds the vapor pressure, vapor condenses starting from the wall of the bubble. Eventually, the surface of the bubble starts to break down in its weakest spot and the bubble implodes. During this implosion, the water flows back into the space to fill the collapsed void whereby pressure surges arise that can have orders of magnitude of several hundred MPa. This process creates pressure waves with high pressure peaks. If the vapor bubbles are in the vicinity or directly on top of a solid wall surface, such as propeller blades, the implosion produces a liquid microjet, which exerts high stresses onto the surface. The sudden release of energy causes pressure loads on the surface, which create crater-shaped material erosion in the propeller blades.
@@kirmussaudio7578 Yes in fact that video I provided goes into cavitation RE ship propellers and how it eats away at the metal blades. I am working on a "reverse" cavitation cleaning system.
Great video! Thank you Michael. I would also like to see magnification of the groove of the record through stages of the multiple cycles of the cavitation process, just to be sure it is not damaging the grooves, although it is not chipping the vinyl. That would be reassuring to me, and a great video as well I think. Thanks as well, for your consideration on this.
Hi Michael, Thanks for a new informative video. I enjoy them all very much. Just an addition: Cavitation is not bursting bubbles! Because of the high frequency energy, water will boil. Tiny droplets will change into steam, and this steam will implode. The implosion will create the energy to release dirt in any form. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavitation Gr. Klaas
@@GiancarloBenzina INCORRECT ONCE MORE MR. BENZINA. Most respectfully, as i have responded to yoiu before a half dozen occasions, Per Steris and Wiki: QUOTE: The ultrasonic cleaning process uses mechanical vibrations to agitate a solution to aid in the removal of soil from surfaces, and in some cases inside lumens. The sound waves in the liquid produce microscopic implosions of bubbles that collapse on contact with surfaces, creating a vacuum-like scrubbing action dislodging soil from surfaces; this effect is called cavitation. The cavitation then removes bioburden from the surface of the items submerged in the chamber. END QUOTE. Stated where the bubbles implode (explode if you call it) and unlike my peers that state it is the micro bubbles that hit the record, we use the vacuum like action where with the record charged we facilitate the record making contact with the distilled water and see the effects of this process pulling away contaminants and the like. We have been doing this for 6 years.
Added where the micro bubbles also implode as they rise. So this as well as collisions see the implosionls. In our case, the changing of the charge pulls water to the record. The burst bubble creates a vacuum and as it was attracted to the record ir by collision pulls the materials off the record. Out if the record's grooves.
Proof is in the pudding: Kirmuss Before and After testing at the CONSAM MEXICO Audio Show Nov 2023: BEFORE KIRMUSS: ua-cam.com/users/shorts_6_fhGWMBjM AFTER KIRMUSS: ua-cam.com/users/shorts_6_fhGWMBjM
Good stuff Michael. One thing I noticed with my Kirmuss. After “restoring” I get a “louder” record in general this also means surface noise too. When cleaning out the “release stuff” what you get left is the disk and virgin. What that means is by removing the “release stuff” it exposes the “true” surface of the disk. Micro pits where release agent was are now empty allowing the groove to traverse thru them. So, My point. When you get the supposed 1.5db bump in signal. You get a bump in surface noise. All ticks and pops gone…yes. But the true surface of the disk is revealed. Pretty easy to see what disks are pressed with high quality. Remember, lacquer is cut, then it is plated. Plating will never be perfect…so there are imperfections from plating that make their way into the produced pressings. DMM may reduce some of this problem. The plating process seems to be incredibly important to a “quiet”disk. All my MOVLP DMM cuts are silent. Non DMM cuts are unfortunately more subject to plating or stamping equipment anomalies.
By removing the pressing oil (Shure) release agent (Kirmuss) we will discover if the plasticizer was affected by ether, ethylene oxide or other based cleaners which in turn see the grooves affected if the record was under those conditions if played more than once per day per side as the record was not able to return to the rest position after play. Indeed we will discover issues. At the many shows where we restore records of provenance unknown brought in to us for restoration, where we do a before and after audition, rare is the case where we hear this. .
Had a good chat with Revelry on records that have been subjected to aggressive cleaning solutions and where some record resellers use WD-40, shoe polish, lighter fuel mixes to dress up a record for sale, nice and shiny. When we remove the cosmetic dressing and the release agent, we will hear background crackles after restoration revealing any damage caused by aggressive cleaning agents used prior. Hidden by the film coating left and the release agent. Before using any cleaning solution: For those using chemicals; Never use it on a record if there is no ingredients list. Check the PVC Chemical Compatibility Chart to see if listed ingredients are PVC safe.
Also never play a record more than once a side per day so the record's grooves may return to their "rest" / "pressed" position. The plasticizer helps in the process. Using ethers, some enzymatic cleaners affect this.
Omg, that’s waay too big. Where do you put this ugly thing when you’re not using it? If it were just the main unit, like the DeGritter, it would be fine.
"Cavitation is in fact clearly aided by the presence of a surfactant. The role of a surfactant is to reduce surface tension. When surface tension is reduced, cavitation levels increase. Cavitation involves the creation of bubbles which requires breaking of surface tension. So lower tension means more bubbles, and more cavitation. Distilled and deionized water have higher surface tensions making cavitation more difficult, making the use of a surfactant in fact more valuable."
That quote is from Neil Antin, a man who used to be in charge of precision cleaning for the US navy
Based on the performance of the KLAUDIO machine without using any surfactants or any kind of detergent and just plain water, I do not see or hear how using a surfactant could provide any sonic improvement. If the record is then fan dried, it will leave a residue on the record. That's a negative.
@tracking angle - Not necessarily if you don’t hear a difference. What percentage of people do you think would hear a difference using the same machine, one using a surfactant, the other just water? I would predict almost no one. So should we care? Audiophiles pride themselves on their ability to detect the smallest differences in sound. But most are just blowing hot air.
Remember the videos you did comparing cartridges? In terms of audible differences, it seemed there was no consensus that the very expensive cartridges were favored over the inexpensive.
In terms of cleaning a record, we have to ask ourselves when is enough, enough? I’ve got a Degritter and that’s enough for me…
@@GiancarloBenzina Dentists use enzymatic cleaners in their ultrasonics
@@trackingangle929 I have a ton of quotes saved on this subject, do not know from what forum/thread that one was sourced so I reached out to Neil Antin to confirm that was his finding
Response from neil regarding the quote
PB,
What is stated is correct and reflects what is written in Precision Aqueous Cleaning of Vinyl Records-3rd Edition - The Vinyl Press:
Para XIV.2.4 Surface Tension & Vapor Pressure: As the fluid surface tension drops less power is required to develop cavitation, and more cavitation bubbles are developed, but with less cavitation intensity, but cleaning efficiency increases. As vapor pressure (boiling point) drops, such as when using a solvent, the cavitation intensity can drop if the fluid density decreases. The density of the fluid affects the cavitation intensity. A denser fluid (such as water) is essentially stiffer and allows a higher pressure to develop in the cavitation bubble which upon implosion releases more energy. So, there is a trade-off with the chemistry of the fluid. But chemistry can bring a host of other problems if not careful, such as fire and explosion hazards if using flammable solvents (i.e., alcohol), and residue if using high concentrations of surfactants.
I'm going to put my life savings into investing with Mobile Fidelity. It's that transparency and honesty about their products which really makes me trust the industry (no need to even review the product, we can take them on their word that it will be the best thing in the world since the Star Wars prequels)
$6500 seems a bit pricey..... I am happy with my Spin Clean $79 unit for the very modest size of my LP collection ! More $$$ to spend for records ! :)
I use Tergikleen (shame about the name) which is stunning and even improves the sonic quality a little and for just $40. How many people will pay $6,500 just to clean their records...very very few i suspect.
Get a Kirmuss. It’s more labor but seems like a better… more clean process
Spin Clean is a great value and does a very good job.
try insert a tin foil into it, to see if you can see tiny silver debris after that.
The KLaudio does circulate water during the cleaning process. You noticed during the entire cleaning process the machine is intaking water via the pump and expelling water via the 1/2 inch hose. Since the foil is plenty punctured somethings not adding up with kirmuss theory of circulating water interrupting the cavitation process.
That's something I will surely bring up to him at AXPONA!
@@trackingangle929 Question just answered
@@trackingangle929 The effectiveness of an ultrasonic cleaning system is greatly reduced when the cleaning fluid is in motion, or circulating. This is the primary reason why filtration systems which are installed on an ultrasonic cleaning tank are typically operated intermittently, or with significantly reduced flow rates. Therefore, fluid circulation in ultrasonic cleaners is something that is generally avoided.
When ultrasonic cleaning fluid is in motion, cavitation is difficult to achieve since cavities are created when sound waves separate fluid molecules momentarily, followed by an immediate collapse of the cavity which products a microscopic jet of liquid which strikes the surface of the parts to remove contamination. When fluids are in motion, the ultrasonic energy is never working on the exact same location in the fluid at any time, which prevents ultrasonic cavitation from occurring. In addition, the turbulence can buffer the jet of liquid which reduces its striking force on the surfaces of parts being cleaned. This from Zenith Ultrasonics. It could account for the lack of full coverage to the dead wax area.
One thing I wish you would have touched on is when the record spins in the KL audio machine you can see drops of water around the record. I don’t get that from my Kirmuss machine. In my opinion, there’s a reason why it’s a manual process to allow the water to adhere to the record as opposed to the kl audio being the same charge and not allowing the water in the grooves. I wish you would have came back about the audio difference after applying the Kirmuss method and the results from that test.
You're awefully brave to put that tin foil in your machine. Hope it doesn't violate your warranty. I bought a Degritter Mk 2 and it works like a dream. The only thing I noticed was it doesn't get the dead wax area very well. So I'll do a preclean first and that takes care of it. I've cleaned some the filthiest records loaded up with record cleaning solution out of the 70's. And they come out spotless. Another thing I've found was the more times you run an old record through the machine, the better it's going to sound. I've done a lot of study into additives and you are right. Distilled water alone is the best way to go.
I own a Kirmuss and a Degritter. Neither removes surface noise anything like this does. I have the curren Klaudio machine. I like the Degritter but never knew how much noise could be removed and how much was part of theLP, either from the time of pressing or became one with it over time. I actually still don't know but I can absolutely say that more of the surface noise can be removed that I thought and hoped.
The aluminum foil test is universal for testing all ultrasonics, this is a known fact.
I suggest folks consult the American Ultrasonic Manufacturers Association for details which will provide a good point of reference. Lots of trolls out there not understanding Ultrasonics.
Hi Michael, Great Video. Thank you.
As it's been a good year now Michael since you shot this video, how is it going with the KLaudio KD-CLN-LP200T ? Do you still use it ? Have you had any issues with it over the past 12 months ?, if you do still use it, have you changed any of your cleaning regime with it ? i.e. you now add additives to the water ? etc.
Also have you had chance to use and test the Degritter Mk2 and compare directly against the Klaudio KD-CLN-LP200T (particularly as one operates at 40kHz and recommended by the manufacturer to only to use distilled / tap water and the other operates at 120kHz and recommended by the Manufacturer to use their own cleaning additive to add to the distilled water for the washing process with a final distilled water rinse afterwards) ?
Reason I ask these questions is I am currently on the fence whether to buy an Ultrasonic Cleaning Machine to do a final / polish clean on my records (as I currently wash and clean my records over the past 10+ years using my trusted original Keith Monks Classic RCM (the one the BBC use to use in their Archive Dept) where I undertake a pre-wash cycle, main wash cycle & a final rinse cycle using the recommended Keith Monks new cleaning brushes and Discovery Record Cleaning Fluid specifically specified for this RCM) and yet I still hear some pops and clicks even after my Keith Monks RCM cleaning regime (I am a critical listener i.e. I listen to most of my music via my TOTL Headphone System - a Hifiman EF1000 Amp with Susvara headphones which is connected to my CH Precision P1 with X1 Phono Stage and Kuzma XL DC TT with Kuzma 4Point 11" arm and a MSL Eminent Ex cartridge).
The URCMs I am currently considering is the Degritter MK2 (or wait for the MK3 / Professional Unit to come out hopefully some time this year), the KLaudio KD-CLN-LP200T (with possibility of purchasing the 5 LP auto record changer and Silencer cabinet some time in the future) or go down the DIY route with a commercial Ultrasonic Cleaning Bath i.e. the Elma Elmasonic P120H fitted with the Kuzma RD Ultrasonic Kit (LP spinner that can hold multiple records up to 10 LPs) and also fitted with a water pump & filter circulating system !
Your thoughts on the above questions etc. would be much appreciated.
Hi Michael, How's it going with your KLaudio LP200T ?
Michael,
Assume you have been using your LP200T for some time now, have you needed to clean inside the machine in particular the internal tank and if so, how have you managed to clean it with it being a sealed unit (unlike the older LP200 model which had a large cap you could unscrew to get inside the tank and with a stick and cloth able to reach all of the edges and corners !) ?
And if you haven't cleaned, and or visually inspected the internal tank, how do you know the internal tank is clean and that no particulate debris is finding it's way to the surface of the record being cleaned ?
Reply
I bought a vevor $150
Gonna try with distilled water
😂❤😢🎉😮😢😅😮😊😅😢😮🎉😢😂🎉❤
Lots to clean zappa ,boc,bad Company, trower and alot of Dave brubeck. Maybe 12 😂😢❤😮😢😊😅😂😢😮😢😅😂
Excellent video. Patiently waiting for the next episode. I've had Nitty Gritty, Record Doctor, Okki Nokki, AudioDeske and now have Kirmuss. Hand drying records after a 2 minute cycle on the Kirmuss takes less than 15 seconds with microfiber towel. I can clean more Records Per Hour (RPH) with Kirmuss than any other method used in the past 25 years. Has anyone looked at what happens when unfiltered air is blown into record grooves for 5 minutes? If the Klaudio had a HEPA air filter on the blower, then blowing air into the grooves would be acceptable. BUT, blowing unfiltered room air into record grooves definitely adds dust to a wet record. Look at the blades of ANY fan after it has been used for 100+ hours. The leading edge of the fan blades are coated with a fine white dust. I saw that fine dust on the AudioDeske fan blades and vacuumed it off frequently. That is one of the reasons that I sold my AudioDeske and bought Kirmuss. It doesn't make sense to blow unfiltered (or minimally filtered) air onto recently cleaned records.
Correct observation, thanks! A RESTORED RECORD comes (should come) out virtually dry, that is why we do not need to use any extensive drying methods. The Tribelectric table of charges states this.
You are correct where air drying (using a fan) will add dust to the surface. ( A vacuum system will also dry a film onto the record as the water with surfactant plus whatever is sitting on the record is sucked off, but also leaving a film. This at times accounts for the "shine". ..and if repeated several times on the record, will charge the record. (Venturi effect).
As Mr. Fremer has stated, using any surfactant will see a film added to the record.
To water and pumps, it has been our experience in using our Keyence VHX-7000 2D 3D microscope where many if not most of the filters we have tested and shown images of their efficacy to Mr. Fremer sees most not doing much. Holes of 120 to 320 micron pores in the filter media. Dirt, dust, fungus are 3 to 5 microns in diameter.
Thanks for sharing your experience, Bob! I'm planning a DIY ultrasonic cleaner here in Brazil and would like to ask you: why not leave the record to air dry in a dish drying rack?
@@yuriwalter385 The wet record if you used a cleaning solution will dry and leave a film on it. The needle will then gouge whatever was air dried in the record.
Dust around the area could also potentially land on the record and get stuck to it.
In a dish drying rack water will also perhaps migrate onto the record's label.
without going into the mathematical approach, I offer a hand waving argument regarding surfactant. imagine 5 drops into 5L of water. now imagine the amount of water that attaches to the LP,.... the residual surfactant on the LP must be very small. so without actual evidence of a problem.
washing a record better then with normal quality dishwasher soap and a quality lens brush (for camera lenses) I’ve never done,
Took home a record that one of the local Hifi stores couldn’t make silent, normal good quality dishwasher soap did!
Took it back and played it in store,
They would not believe it until i they se the video doing it.
@18:00 Could you use the Klaudio U/S Cleaner to remove the clicks and pops from your narration audio Michael?.....🤔
I heard those during editing and I didn't have the heart to tell the old guy to go out there and do it again.... he was grateful....
6500 for this cleaning machine...good grief! Have the Chinese manufacturer this device at a much lower price.
Nice facts that I have also past on as it is logical. No additives in the water. Even alcohol I wouldn't do that. Just don't see the point. What comes to this machine and price just makes me smile why would anyone buy this. Sure it might work but you would get the same result with $200 ultrasonic cleaner and added motor for it. No containers, pumps, hoses, etc. And when the ultrasonic cleaner is industrial you can be sure it will do it job perfect the first and every time and then just drain the water and wipe it clean. Looking at that machine I'm thinking how much dirt is left inside and how to clean it. It looks good but as value I value the $200 option as better option even if the $6500 option would be the same price.
I will let My Wife watch this. I make her clean all My Records.
how about fingerprints, only water won't get rid of that, or ain't those prints influence the sonic performance.
Please answer this question Michael.
I was torn between buying a space heater or a vevor record cleaner. Now that winter is over I got the machine 😂😢🎉😮😢😅😮😊😅❤
It appears Your remarks and opinions are directed at the degritter. I can tell you are not a fan of it based on several things the degritter stands on such as placement of the transducers, the power and how the water is actively filtered. You say you like the degritter but your comments at the start state otherwise
kirmus didn't invent the foil test either for the love of god any manufacturer of these machines has been using foil for decades fact
If you have to spend this much money to clean your records something is wrong. There ain't no sense like common sense no more.
Whats your opinion of kirmus system???
Any information regarding the noise….dBa at 2 meters perhaps?
I don't buy this crud about "mold release agents" being on all records from the factory. Sorry I just don't. Now I have ocasionally seen some cheap records come with some kind of oily looking film on them. My high end records, such as Rhino HiFi, Analogue Productions, Mofi, etc. are perfectly clean. They sound PERFECT and look perfectly clean. So... unless it's invisible, then it's not on there. If it's invisible then what harm is it causing? Well I don't know... harming the stylus maybe? Maybe the experts can explain. Should we really clean a brand new audiophile LP? and why? If there's an invisible film that doesn't affect sound why try to remove? I'm not say that pressing plants don't use the stuff but maybe they remove it...
I understand your skepticism but this has nothing to do with “cheap” or “expensive” records. Mold release agents are part of the vinyl pellet formulation. Its purpose is to prevent records from sticking to the stamper. Heat separates it from the binder and though you don’t see it, it is there. You normally don’t hear it but if you remove it, you will hear the difference. That said, most of us haven’t the time or patience to go through the removal process. But if you did it once you’d no doubt hear it but most likely not want to repeat the process because YOU HAVE A LIFE!
What a great video after 50 years as an audiophile I’m on exactly the same page
I don't doubt the effectiveness of the KLAudio but the price is a killer. Imported into Canada that's a $10k machine. Charles Kirmuss device is much more affordable at his quoted Cad$1300. I can hand dry a 2 min cycle for my (mostly) clean discs and restore the bad ones no problem.
Looking forward to the rest of the cleaner reviews. Thanks Michael.
5:22 And that’s when I see myself out.
I have owned the whole unit machine for 5 years. That’s the one with the tank and cleaner in a single housing. It has never had a hiccup. Works every time and I have not found records to need re-cleaning more than every few years. The only drawback to it is that it’s very heavy with the water in the tank. Otherwise it is built like a the proverbial brick hit house.
Hello Michael, greetings from Australia, very interesting video. The KLaudio is a very good unit, more reliable than the AudioDesk, which is a cranky, typically German machine. The grey grunge you mentioned from your first KLaudio machine was most likely residue from previous cleaning fluids used on the records. I have been building my own variant of an ultrasonic cleaner, I have used the same Codyson base unit that Kirmuss uses. I found it to be ok, but 35khz is too big a cavitation number, does not get deep into the groove. The 35 to 60khz units work, but the frequency that works best is 80 to 120khz. This is not just my opinion, it is also recommended by others who have been into ultrasonics for as long as I have. (The reason most manufacturers use the 35 to 40khz transducers is because they are about 20% of the price of the 125khz transducers and easier to get because of the volume of the amount manufactured in that frequency. Every jewelry, dental, automotive and general use ultrasonic runs 35 to 40 khz.) As for having the transducers on the bottom of the tank instead of the sides, you are correct, works much better. The KLaudio runs too fast for my liking, it does not give the cavitation time to work on the record. Personally, I do feel, having tested the Degritter in comparo with the KL and A/Desk units, the Degritter did a better job. Enjoy the music.
The Kirmuss unit is not the standard Codyson unit. We have added resonance to even out the uneven effects of cavitation subject to all like machines.
Hi Peter, I am also from Australia and am considering buying a Degritter. Is it ok to run it without using surfactant? And if so, does that mean it is also a true Cavitation machine? Thanks in advance
Heard of water and soap?
What about the Label?
Thanks for the detailed video. It answered a lot of questions I've had on the cleaning topic myself.
Is the foil disc only usable with the cleaner unit you were using? I haven't heard of the foil test and wonder if there's a way to do that on other reported cavitation cleaners?
Brian in Fort Worth 🎶
The foil test has been used since the 1960's. It is a universal test of cavitation. I worked on the space shuttle in 1978 in Montreal (on the Shuttle's Canadarm). Twice a day we used a 6 foot by 4 foot sheet of aluminum to test the ultrasonic transducers to ensure that space flight materials were cleaned properly. In fact someone owns the patent for this simple test/technology.
No matter, I use a special aluminum foil sold to laboratories that are mandated in the UK, Canada and Australia to test and record daily the efficacy of their ultrasonic used for cleaning medical instruments, dental fixtures etc, by law! I buy 12" rings from an arts and crafts store and create foil records. You saw where Mr. Fremer had to spin the record by hand, as the rollers were not making contact very well with the ring so as to spin the record. The test did show that there was cavitation, hurray!, but where we did not cover the entire pressed media and dead wax area.
You may make a create a test record yourself.
We have the luxury of a cavitation meter to also test for cavitation.
In the Audio Deske, we need to remove one of the rubber "O" rings (not both) that grip and spin the record, so you may need to do some adjustments to the machine to spin the record. In the DG Version 1, we have to aid by hand as was the case in the KL to spin the record.
To test systems that use rotisserie style skewers, if you review some of our seminars, you will see where we have had to mount onto the foil the plastic spacers they use in the record label area to support the records, thereafter, to then install them onto the respective machine to then test for presence and/or even coverage of the entire record via cavitation.
Oh Micheal… Please will you clarify the mistaken and scientifically-incorrect statement you have made in this video regarding cavitation and surfactants.
It is an established scientific principle (as established as any of newton’s laws) that surfactants aid the cavitation process. Patrick (The Vinyl Archivist) has described the process well elsewhere in these comments so I will not do so again here.
That you may not hear or see a difference in the Klaudio may be due to the quality of the $6500 Klaudio machine itself, or perhaps a lack of testing, etc etc. However, in making a scientifically incorrect and sweeping statement about all cavitation processes you are doing your channel and the many viewers who are using other ultrasonic machines a huge disservice. Surfactants generally and provably (per many other articles and experiments from those quoted by Patrick to those conducted by Paul Rigby the Audiophile Man) show a clear improvement over distilled water alone. Regardless of these experimental results, scientific facts are scientific facts, please separate them from personal experience.
And, regarding any resulting residue, of course any advice on surfactant worth it’s salt that I’ve read advises an additional rinsing step for that very reason.
Please amend or update this video as it’s genuinely incorrect advice. Thank you.
I think if I were to try to buy this machine I'd get a note back saying, "Bro you're using an RPM3 with a basic Sumiko cartridge, your purchase request is denied."
I am re-watching this. Couple of comments:
1- The Klaudio has the transducers “perpendicular” to the record surface. Pretty sure it means they are on either side of the record. I am sure Mr Klaudio can verify/deny.
2- A frequency of 125KHz actually produces bubbles of about 2.5um in size, which is the size of the bottom of the groove. 35KHz produces bubbles of about 10um which are not small enough to compare dimensionally with the bottom of the groove size. I am not saying it doesn’t clean alright, I am saying there’s a good reason to choose 125KHz (which is what Degritter uses).
There are actually entire journals on cavitation cleaning, and some seminal papers on the subject of bubble size and other aspects of cavitation. An important takeaway from these papers (which I have purchased and read) is that 125KHz or thereabouts is the sweet spot. Frequencies above 500KHz produce enough ozone to acidify (ie make an acid) in the water. Lower than 100KHz produces bubbles that are slightly too large. And there’s another aspect: higher frequencies produce many more bubbles than lower frequencies, so you have a higher density of bubbles at 125KHz than 35KHz.
As far as I'm concerned you can stop heaping any praise on the Audio Desk Cleaner. I took one that I bought "used" from the dishonest guy that owns Gingko platforms and accessories completely apart and repaired it after it stopped working after 100 hundred records. I have photos. It was the latest PRO X model, although it was from 2019 which is when they first came out. Maybe $100 worth of parts in that thing plus the circuit board and a retail of $4600. Chinese aquarium pumps that cost $20. Most have 1 mine had 2. I found the OEM of the pumps in China. You are correct about the transducer because I ran it without water in the tank (which is not possible unless you have opened up the glued together plastic box where the components are) and it gives a fine mist from the water droplets laying on top of it. I couldn't see where the 4 barrels of microfiber did much of anything, they barely contact the record. But the new owner loves it! Thank you Ebay!
HI Michael, Just want to add a note that I believe that the Transducers fitted to the KLaudio LP200T URCM are fitted to the sides of the unit (two per side - like the Degritter) and not fitted to the bottom of the unit (like majority of the commercial Ultrasonic Cleaning Baths are that are designed to clean objects put into a suspended basket in the units bath). This is so that the KLaudio and Degritter unit's Transducers are firing directly at the sides of the records being cleaned and not from the bottom up.
I also believe that the KLaudio unit also operates at an ultrasonic frequency of 40kHz.
Boy. I'd love to have the KLAUDIO. I own a Kirmuss and a Degritter. I clean with surfactant in my vacuum machine, then use plain distilled water in the Degritter. So I'm basically doing a US rinse, which works quite well. If you can't do a truly thororugh rinse using any system, don't use surfactants. Charles might have a coronary when he hears your comment about surfactant since he is very big on what he uses and maintains it changes the charge of the contaminants on your records so that they release. Is that true? I don't know. Charles says so. One other reason for the use of 35-40k frequencies is that there are many off the shelf generators that work at those frequencies. Economies of scale that high end audio will never see. I used ultrasonic machines to clean flux off of circuit boards in a manufacturing process 40 years ago. Certainly anything but new technology although a new application, Totally agree on surfactants in general. Some are scary. I've experienced some damage with a couple. I've also found that otherwise benign (if well rinsed) surfactants in a vacuum machine can do damage in an US machine. Also be very cautious about mixing them, even the remnants on a brush.
I use a homemade machine made by a Polish guy. It works really well. It is a bit more work unscrewing the discs from the spindle, and manual drying and such. But boy, I am so happy with it. 6 records at a time. 3 x 10 mins on 35 Celcius. Using bit of alcohol and few drops of photoflow on a 6 liter tank. But you say it is not needed? I will try next time with distilled water only and measure. Although I use a rinse bath after with a spin clean with water only. I inspect the record before and after with a microscope connected to my laptop. Then play it for the hearing test. Cost around 250 Euro only ... maybe add such a solution to the test in comparison with expensive solutions. Greetings, love what you do and share on youtube everytime. Ray
What brand is that?
Photoflow defeats the purpose of allowing the record to benefit from cavitation.
Records spaced too close together either reduces cavitation or creates "hot zones".
Distilled water alone will not remove the pressing oil/release agent.
Records properly processed in an ultrasonic come out virtually dry.
Cavitation generates heat, be careful and watch the temperature. Stop at 105 deg F. (40.5 deg F.)
Speaking as someone that owns a Degritter, the compelling feature of this machine is the external pump/tank/filter. That lends itself to using a BIG water tank (say 5 gallons) to prevent the water from heating up so you can do things like clean 50 records in a row. It would also let you have separate intake and evac water tanks with extra filtration between them.
FYI: Between processing records one needs to degas the water.
@@kirmussaudio7578huh? I thought degassing is done once, when you start a session.
65k 😂
Great video Michael! I once had a girlfriend with small dimples but only when wearing a bikini😮
The KLAudio machine (at least the KD-CLN-LP200T one - I haven't looked at the one with the built-in tank that used to be available) definitely constantly circulates the water during the cleaning process - you need only look at the tank and watch both the drain and the input lines to see it happening...
Thanks for the info!
I agree. I have the KLAudio machine that is one generation behind the one shown here, and mine constantly cirdulates the water, which I think is great because it is always being filtered.
The filter sizes tested does not filter out 1 to 3 microns of particles using test particles that have a UV colorant poured into the tank. @@daleromney6062
And, in reference to my post below, I now own a Klaudio. It's far better than anything I've used and that includes both the Kirmuss and the Degritter. I still clean truly dirty records on my vacuum machine first, then into the Klaudio. I'm convinced this is the best way to go. I really miss the Nitty Gritty First product for really challenging cleaning
Great review. I have the previous generation of the same machine you reviewed. I always use a spin clean first just to take off all the surface dirt and then use the KLAudio. It is a great machine. So far I have replaced the pump once, and it was probably my fault for replacing the water often enough. Lesson learned. The KLAudio seems to build like a tank. If it broke tomorrow I would buy another one. It is that good.
I bought the larger self contained KLaudio machine in late 2003. It has cleaned over 4,000 records flawlessly. I had to replace a pump which was done quickly. Wonderful - quiet, no static, minimal pops, micro detail and resolution. I have never had any grey gunk in the machine, only a greenish black residue that is not in suspension and wipes clean with a cloth from within the tank (change out at 50-100 lps).
It seems the more I hear from other people about the Kirmuss restoring system, the more I gravitate towards purchasing one. I've been listening to records all my life and continue to accumulate more and more. I'm over 4K in my library. I've owned a VPI vacuum for over two of decades and it has served me well. Naturally, I don't use their solution. I use a distilled water and a cap of 70% alcohol per gallon. But as ultrasonics have gained popularity, and I see the rigorus testing results, it's time to retire the VPI.
Amazingly transferred all those ticks and pops straight to your mic.
I used a Nitty Gritty 1.5fi back in the 90's and WOW. Blew me away. Using Pure1 and 2, the mould and MRA didnt have a chance. That was with an LP12 special 😁and an original Ittok. Now I'm using a cheap version of it and that also does a great job although my LP's have been well looked after. Turntables a SOTA Nova Mk 5.
both degritter and klaudio use the ‘blasters’ that are perpendicular to the records, face to face so to speaker. kirmuss uses generic machine, which cleans the edge of the record really well.😊
Thanks for this very thorough, educational review, Michael! I have one question though: how well do proper cavitation machines like the KL Audio remove things like fingerprint oil, given the lack of soap, etc.? I know that one should never touch the groove so this isn't likely be much of an issue, but it might be for used records.
As always Michael, this is very informative & helpful. I think the idea of user replacement parts is excellent. If I could afford this machine it would be my number one choice. I am waiting on the Degritter II & chose a the optional second tank, so it will be good to try it. As virtually all of the LPs I buy are secondhand & I see & read about some of the crazy dumbass solutions & methods that people inflict on their LPs, I would never dream of just playing one of these purchases, without having cleaned it. If a person owns a turntable that is cheap & nasty or only spends $20-$30 on a cartridge, then they will never benefit from proper cleaning. The last thing I want to happen is my $2000.00 cartridge tracking through remenents of wood glue or window cleaning solution.
Michael, Greetings from Russia.Great story.!I have an analogue of "Hummin Guru".I am very happy with the operation of the machine.I always watch your videos.I have my own experience in setting up vinyl players.The sound of vinyl is divine.!
you know I'm not going to say these solutions aren't warranted or that they don't work, I know in fact that they do work quite well, however it is such a freaking time killer.
I've got two turntables and I also have my local record store whom has a real nice VPI machine that they use to clean their records and of course you can bring records in and have them cleaned for a small fee.
there's one guy on here talking about cleaning the records in his machine then drying them off and then cleaning them again but this time in a just a clean solution and then inspecting them with a microscope. I mean come on man how much time do you need to spend to be able to enjoy your records?
That's why I mentioned I had two turntables, I have one for records that aren't so great and I have my good turntable for my records that are spotless and or new.
I use a "record friend" (a version of the "spin clean") and eventhough I use water only (distilled), I have to play it on a "lesser" turntable (sometimes twice) before I play it on my main TT because it's still noisy for a couple plays! After that it's great! I must be doing something wrong! I wish I could afford this (no chance unfortunately)! But it's great if you can!
$6k+ 😂
Michael, I was thinking of getting a cleaning machine. Then I see you here and you’re trying to burst my bubbles! 😳😂
Thanks for the video Mr Fremmer. I’m very happy using a spin clean and then putting it on a record doctor. Using only distilled water
I have an older Klaudio which seems to work quite well. How is the new one different? Thanks
I hope you're able to review the Degritter. Mark ll preferably. Everything you stated about proper cavitation is antithetical to the Degritter philosophy and it's not cheap. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Big MFer fan. Greg
I hope to get ahold of the new Degritter if possible. For now it's not.
I love that it dimpled.
I do use surfactant in the fluid with my VPI vacuum machine. I hope the vacuum process gets it all off before it dries on the record???
It’s safer to use a distilled water rinsing step Eddie
Something I have never seen mentioned in the context of record pollutants is dandruff. I am sure it gets in the grooves and causes pops and clicks. How you deal with that I simply do not know.
Use a 10 micron fiber brush before any play, it will remove this and other contaminants from the record.
I used this machine to clean my Taylor Swift records and now she sounds like Louis Armstrong. Cool.
You are living at the wrong speed.
Well not sure about that if wattage is not important I would have thought it would have a bearing on the power of the cavitation, what we don't really hear about we hear about frequency but we don't hear about intensity what could cause damage if it's too much.
What about electrolysis? Should work if you charge the record up and have an anode in the water should attract the dirt away.
I'm not convinced some guy did a test and said it should be 80 kHz the higher the Frequency the smaller the bubble
Cavitation energy is measured in Cavins or Watts per square centimeter. It is not measured in watts of power consumption of the machine, neither the rating of the transducer. Cavitation generates pressure when the micro bubbles implode. Cavitational energy should be even from bottom of an ultrasonic's basin to the top of the water in the basin.
This said the goal is for cavitation to evenly process whatever is being cleaned.
The aluminum foil test allows one to see this.
It is important therefore to ask what is the measured Cavitational effect in Cavins or watts per square centimeter if any ultrasonic cleaning machine. I believe the inference is where many so called ultrasonic machines advertised as such do not use cavitation and are ultrasonic bubblers or misters.
Hope they have solved the reliability issues that my original version hit. Been to the manufacturer twice and fixed locally twice by the distributor. Currently sitting unused as it has failed again and deciding if I throw good money after bad. Would not have cleaned 300 records in it.
Are you talking about a KLAUDIO?
The degritter runs at 120khz, so I'm not sure where you get your 25 to 40khz from. The lower the frequency the larger the bubbles, so bubbles at 25k likely wouldn't fit inside the groove
This is one of the areas of contention but clearly machines at 35-40K produce sufficiently small bubbles.
One needs to look at what one is trying to remove. Dirt, dust, fungus are 3 to 5 microns in size . Large particles. The vacuum action formed at 35KHz when the micro bubbles implode dislodges easily these large particles. A 120 KHz signal produces indeed smaller microbubbles, destined to clean surgical instruments, silicon wafers, where particles are usually sub micron. Proof is in the pudding where some higher frequency manufacturers indicate both in the manuals and some slides where one may need to do several cycles as they are not apt to removing larger particles as we see with records.
There is a misconception where we are trying to reach the finite details of the pressing, down in the groove, yet we have to first contend with the surface contaminants, 3 to 5 microns in size, plus films and release agent that ride above.
As a Degritter user, the manual states that the use of a surfactant is optional. Also, the burst of the bubble is the force mechanism that jars the dirt loose, the water then washes it away, hence high frequency and high power is recommended.
Finally, the ultrasonic process creates heat. The Degritter measure and controls water temp.
Cavitations sees bubbles Implode, not explode, and the action does not jar, cavitation creates a vacuum. Further, pvc and water have the same electrical charge and as such they repell each other. Little cleaning.
Cool vintage vibes soundwise as your microphone sounds like reporting from a telephone booth at least through my equipment. Liked it. As records are getting more expensive it was time to offer more expensive cleaning machines I guess. Does that make sense?
I’m using Rode wireless microphones that are highly regarded. I still have some learning to do regarding placement relative to my mouth. I’m trying!
Great, thank you for doing this, this really helps.
Great review why not do some microscope before and after sessions with those machines and pop and crackle computer storage results
Great point!
On the KirmussAudio web site there are images of before and after Kirmuss Restoration.
Release agent measured.
Will soon have a video on the KirmussAudio UA-cam channel where the Ortofon TC3000 is used on a test record that provides a print out of frequency response and bandwidth before and after Kirmuss Restoration.
I also use the Sugar Cube to better analyze pops and the like.
@@kirmussaudio7578 FAB news
@paul davies FYI at the varios audio shows and record fairs we usually have with us a spectrum and audio analyzer in addition to having a turntable and headphones present. We invite record enthusiasts to bring in a record from home. We do a before and after audition. The results speak for themselves. In fact we also see audiophiles bring in records that were processed by other cleaning systems and processes. Lots of fun!
Kirmuss Before and After testing at the CONSAM MEXICO Audio Show Nov 2023:
BEFORE KIRMUSS:
ua-cam.com/users/shorts_6_fhGWMBjM
AFTER KIRMUSS:
ua-cam.com/users/shorts_6_fhGWMBjM
What is the most effective cleaning machine for 7” records?
The Kirmuss processes both 7 and 10 inch records.
Sure wish I could afford one. I can just imagine how many records I could buy for $6500. instead.
If you can somehow, get one, please do! Your vinyl woes will vanish!
Yeah but they all would need cleaning
Is the isonic record cleaner a true cavitation device???
Isonic's old model uses 3 transducers and does use cavitation. If you insert 12 records mounted on the DIY skewers, the load level is exceeded and if you inserted either aluminum foil test records or use a cavitation energy meter you will see uneven cavitation or areas of severe cavitational energy between records at various levels within the tank. The test results are self explanatory.
FYI As to evaluating ultrasonic energy, the Kirmuss uses 70 khz resonance to even out the effects of cavitation and cannot process more than 4 records due to ultrasonic loading rules. The cavitation energy is measured at 810 Cavins plus or minus 10% throughout the 7.5 liter basin. The alumimum foil record test sees even cavitation from the edge of the record to the dead wax area, both sides of all records.
Great video and informative! would be interesting, if Mr. Kirmuss would test this new machine with his measuring devices and the foil test. or as he says, it's another Bubbler machine on the market?
@2002sprocket
“would be interesting, if Mr. Kirmuss would test this new machine with his measuring devices and the foil test”
PLEASE! NO!
Which new machine> The KL is an ultrasonic. Mr, Fremer used my aluminum foil record I gave him for the test.
I can tell you why you would want a surfactant in a cavitation cleaning machine. With the polar H2O molcules having a strong hydrogen bond, and not having an affinity to non-polar molecules, water does not really want to be in contact with vinyl. there could very well be voids, or small bubbles of air in the grooves of the record, preventing any water, and hence any bubbles from contacting the record surface. It is simple science. You will get better cleaning with a surfactant, as it lowers the surface tension of the water, making it "wetter" so to speak. Also, bubbles get smaller as the Hz go up, yet they get "weaker".
The Kirmuss process uses a propane based liquid to change vinyl polarity but he insists it is not a surfactant
@@trackingangle929 That is correct. As to records and cleaning: Further, water is a DIPOLE. The Kirmuss process takes advantage of this and applying the spray to the record and not in the water changes the charge of the record to be opposite to that of water where PVC and water have per the Tribelectic Table of Charges, like small charges. Thus the spray attracts water. The charge needs to be reapplied as the record spins and the charge wears off. To change the charge of a liquid in a vat would need large amounts of an agent, but will not necessarily attract the PVC to the water with and agent".
Added to the spray is a colorant that allows one to see what the ultrasonic brought up in the previous cycle.
Weckods?
Hey Michael, you should explore the woodglue cleaning method… sounds funny but a bottle of Titebond II won’t cost you too much. Don’t knock it till you try it!
The Shure Brothers slide in the Kirmuss generic presentation shows where wood glue cannot enter a 6 X 30-40 micron deep/wide groove. FYI The size of a water droplet is 100-110 microns in diameter. What is the size of the glue material? Question answers itself.
@@kirmussaudio7578 hey doc, I’ve done many experiments with this method over the last 15+ years since I first became aware of it. I’ve tried this on records with very fine grooves - think extended silent portions, where the lathe’s computer would cut at the highest LPI permissible for the most efficient use of the available recording area - it completely forms to the groove just fine. You or anyone can very quickly evaluate this for yourself with a microscope. No labcoat required!
@MrRom92DAW The bottom of the groove is 6 microns in a "u" shape. The details of the groove see sub micron details. It is impossible for wood glue to remove release agent or materials that are 3 to 5 microns in diameter. Or touch sub micron details. The wood glue also leaves a film. If you come by the Masterclass theater at Axpona you will see the slide created by the Shure Brothers circa 1977 where they unsuccessfully tested cleaning processes at the time, unsuccessfully removing the pressing oil that they discovered.
You may also consult the presentations by JR Boiclair of Wally Tools. It is impossible for you to see glue make contact with the minute detail as pressed in the groove.
I can send you a before and after image of 0.89 microns of pressing oil as the Shure Brothers termed it from a record.
No lab coat required, just a Keyence VHX 7000 2D 3D microscope.
For a man involved in audio the sound on this video is appalling
I'm using one of the best available wireless microphones. You can see it in the video. However, still learning how to best position the microphone.
First thing I noticed too. How could you not hear how horrible the audio is on this video?
@@GiancarloBenzina HUH? And that means what exactly? Ognet is correct. The audio quality is terrible.
@@trackingangle929 tough crowd here. The audio is not that bad. Lol
@@GiancarloBenzina I think Mr. Fremer can defend himself, no need to personally attack viewers. Lighten up. You take yourself way too seriously.
100%👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
Shana tova
The KL circulates the water during the entire cleaning process. Watch the drain tube. There is constantly water returning to the tank during the cleaning process, not just to drain it. Michael, it seems you've been drinking a lot of Kirmuss Kool Aid (I've owned one for years as well)
Circulating water in an ultrasonic basin is known to reduce the effectiveness of cavitation just as an increase in temperature.
@@kirmussaudio7578 Why, Charles. And what does "just as an increase in temperature" mean? Are you comparing it to an increase in temperature? The Kirmuss gets very hot and this doesn't. Please, no unfounded/vague statements .
@rickmilam413 Good points raised.
1. True ultrasonics that use cavitation create heat by way of kinetic energy. So as we process records, the cavitating bubbles created cause the heat.
2 Heat is needed as room temperature water at 68 degrees creates less cavitation . Too much heat also reduces cavitation.
So we provide the proper range for processing records.
3. Circulating water in any ultrasonic reduces cavitation.
The above are known facts.
Do not understand your query.
@@kirmussaudio7578 I'm always looking for logic. Take point #2 - My Kirmuss is in a finished baseement in the U.S. It's pretty cool down there. So the Kirmuss water starts quite cool and works it's way to very warm to the point of requiring a shut down/cool off period. This is hardly a consistent, optimized water temperature.. I fully understand that cavitation creates heat. A serious issue with the Degritter is the very small watt reservoir that heats up very quickly. I realize that you maintain it is not an ultrasonic machine but, whatever the case, it really heats water. As to point 3, I've no idea what you're basing that on. If there is objective documentation to that effect I would love to be directed to it. I don't think the Klaudio's designer is an ignorant man.
@rickmilam413 When we take a KL record and process it we lower the noise floor level by 1.6 dB average and increase frequency response by 11 % average. Proves our cavitation and record ionization ip. Cannot say more.
We preheat water using heater while using the system. at the start, critical in your environment if a colder room... stop when we hit 72 degrees.
If we have true cavitation, all true cavitation machines see water heated by the collapsing bubbles.
Proof of proper cavitation ction on records is where processed records should not need need air blow drying. They come out dry. Repelling water.
In our processing up to 4 records at a time, one needs every 20 records to degas the water to reduce the temperature increases as a result of cavitation. Air introduced reduces cavitation.
When the small red bar to the right of the long red bar flashes, simply change out the water.
Well understood where you are starting in a colder environment, that is why we incorporated a heater that works if your water is too cold to provide effective cavitation.
Do read the articles suggested as a reference.
So you don't recommend the Kirmuss?
I do recommend it if you want to restore as opposed to just clean, though you can do a two minute cleaning cycle and not do the whole restoration thing. However, it's still hand dry with microfiber. Not time consuming...
@@GiancarloBenzina What can i say? ... A Kirmuss restored record due to the Tribelectric table of charges repels water. Obviously you do not own a Kirmuss. Take a record out of the KL, before air dryoing, you will see it weep.
Mr. Fremer at Axpona in Chicago last week brought in 2 records. The Kirmuss one that he processed in the Kirmuss machine as later identified in his test came out virtually dry. The other processed by another machine for 5 minutes had tremendous amounts of contaminants seen surface and was wet after removal from the Kirmuss machine.
I suggest you review the subject matter as to measuring cavitation in watts per sq. cm..
Also suggest where you ask peer manufacturers what they guarantee in writing as to signal gain after processing a record. This will allow you to see the forest between the trees.
This will validate any subjects as to the Kirmuss (Not Kirmess).
Thank You Michael don't pay attention to negative comments , people just don't understand what a reviewer job is its simply idiotic that they think everything you own is free. Just like Mr Ken Kessler said , I write a full review on a magazine that cost thousands and a record cost 60 dollars (who is loosing money) the reviewer of course. God Bless
Kirmuss Before and After testing at the CONSAM MEXICO Audio Show Nov 2023:
BEFORE KIRMUSS:
ua-cam.com/users/shorts_6_fhGWMBjM
AFTER KIRMUSS:
ua-cam.com/users/shorts_6_fhGWMBjM
Still happy with my AudioDesk after 5 years with no issues, great video Michael...cheers...✌
Michael, the latest firmware update allows you to perform the rinse cycle on a Degritter v1. You just need to dump the surfactant water tank into a bowl (or buy a second tank) and rinse water into a second bowl after the rinse cycle.
Audio Intelligent now makes an ultrasonic liquid that the say leaves no residue, so no rinsing needed.. I have it. So far, so good.
“ Audio Intelligent Vinyl Solutions first began experimenting with ultrasonic record cleaning in 2011. One of the issues they found to overcome, for the method to be used successfully, was to find a way to eliminate as much as possible the introduction of dissolved solids in the cleaning formula. In the time since then Audio Intelligent Vinyl Solutions have experimented and tested from time to time with both commercially available ultrasonic record cleaning machines as well as "home-built" machines.
Audio Intelligent Vinyl Solutions' final field testing of this product was conducted during summer 2021. They are now able to offer a non-foaming, very low dissolved solids product that contains no chemical detergents or solvents and that is appropriate for use in all ultrasonic record cleaning machines. The product does not leave any residue and no after-bath rinsing is required.”
By coincidence I watched a science based youtuber discussing ultrasonic cleaning and cavitation from a completely different approach just a day ago. Detailed graphics on how the bubbles develop. Where the energy for cleaning comes from. Measured pressures and temperatures. You may not like the subject line though.
"Can Ultrasonic Waves Dissolve Metal?" The Action Lab ua-cam.com/video/uRmoPc7l9qg/v-deo.html
I put in their Comments about how popular cavitation is in record cleaning. Interesting to see if there are responses.
Well there are different applications and different frequencies etc.
@@trackingangle929 That's why this was interesting from the simply what is it approach.
There is also cavitation as it applies to marine circles, and the use of propellers. The references to metal have to do with cavitation effect when screws in a ship turn. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutions_for_cavitation_in_marine_propellers
Going into more detail, when the local pressure decreases below the vapor pressure, water evaporates, a cavitation bubble forms, grows larger and gets transported with the flow to a region with a higher pressure. At this point the bubble stops growing and when the local pressure exceeds the vapor pressure, vapor condenses starting from the wall of the bubble. Eventually, the surface of the bubble starts to break down in its weakest spot and the bubble implodes. During this implosion, the water flows back into the space to fill the collapsed void whereby pressure surges arise that can have orders of magnitude of several hundred MPa. This process creates pressure waves with high pressure peaks. If the vapor bubbles are in the vicinity or directly on top of a solid wall surface, such as propeller blades, the implosion produces a liquid microjet, which exerts high stresses onto the surface. The sudden release of energy causes pressure loads on the surface, which create crater-shaped material erosion in the propeller blades.
@@kirmussaudio7578 Yes in fact that video I provided goes into cavitation RE ship propellers and how it eats away at the metal blades. I am working on a "reverse" cavitation cleaning system.
I have the original KLAudio machine - - POSITIVELY love it.
Great video! Thank you Michael. I would also like to see magnification of the groove of the record through stages of the multiple cycles of the cavitation process, just to be sure it is not damaging the grooves, although it is not chipping the vinyl. That would be reassuring to me, and a great video as well I think. Thanks as well, for your consideration on this.
Good lord. The Wilson speakers…. It’s all I wanted to see!
The sound of that papers you are holding in your hand is very annoying - not really worthy for a High End channel ;-)
The new Degritter does not come with a second water tank. It’s extra. I have the new one. Only one water tank.
The new new Degritter coming in the fall has two in the machine.
Really? For the same price?
I had my dealer send an email to Degritter and there is no new new Degritter in the fore seeable future.
Hi Michael, Thanks for a new informative video. I enjoy them all very much. Just an addition: Cavitation is not bursting bubbles! Because of the high frequency energy, water will boil. Tiny droplets will change into steam, and this steam will implode. The implosion will create the energy to release dirt in any form. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavitation Gr. Klaas
I did say it wasn't the bubbles that produce cavitation.....
@@GiancarloBenzina INCORRECT ONCE MORE MR. BENZINA. Most respectfully, as i have responded to yoiu before a half dozen occasions, Per Steris and Wiki: QUOTE: The ultrasonic cleaning process uses mechanical vibrations to agitate a solution to aid in the removal of soil from surfaces, and in some cases inside lumens. The sound waves in the liquid produce microscopic implosions of bubbles that collapse on contact with surfaces, creating a vacuum-like scrubbing action dislodging soil from surfaces; this effect is called cavitation. The cavitation then removes bioburden from the surface of the items submerged in the chamber. END QUOTE.
Stated where the bubbles implode (explode if you call it) and unlike my peers that state it is the micro bubbles that hit the record, we use the vacuum like action where with the record charged we facilitate the record making contact with the distilled water and see the effects of this process pulling away contaminants and the like. We have been doing this for 6 years.
Added where the micro bubbles also implode as they rise. So this as well as collisions see the implosionls. In our case, the changing of the charge pulls water to the record. The burst bubble creates a vacuum and as it was attracted to the record ir by collision pulls the materials off the record. Out if the record's grooves.
Proof is in the pudding:
Kirmuss Before and After testing at the CONSAM MEXICO Audio Show Nov 2023:
BEFORE KIRMUSS:
ua-cam.com/users/shorts_6_fhGWMBjM
AFTER KIRMUSS:
ua-cam.com/users/shorts_6_fhGWMBjM