iSonic CS 6.1-PRO "Ultrasonic" Record Cleaning Machine-Reviewed
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 вер 2023
- CORRECTION: In the video and in the original description I mistakenly said there were two transducers in this machine. In fact, there is only one-it is the large circular outline at the bottom of the tank. The two square outlines are heaters. That there's but a single transducer better explains why the cavitation energy is so uneven across the width of the tank. I am sorry about this mistake but it doesn't change in any appreciable way the review itself.
The iSonic CS 6.1-PRO is an ingeniously designed, relatively compact cavitation-based $999 record cleaning machine capable of rotating up to ten 12" or 7" large hole 45rpm records in a stainless steel tank for up to fifteen minutes after which you drain the distilled water out into a bucket and actuate a dual-speed high speed spinning mechanism that spins the records dry. A new reservoir with pump station will soon be available to make easier and more convenient, vat draining and refilling.
The CS 6.1-PRO features ONE 48KHz cavitation transducer. In addition to showing the machine in action and how it works this review attempts to determine whether effective cavitation is possible when ten records in close proximity to one another helps or hinders the cavitation process.
Are the records being cavitated (cavitation is explained in the video) or just spinning in a vat of water with added surfactant that results in surface-clean vinyl? Please read the full, detailed product review on the trackingAngle.com website.
Subscribe to TrackingAngle UA-cam channel!
Follow Tracking Angle on social media!
Facebook group: / 605454337542602
Twitter: / tracking_angle
Instagram: / trackingangle - Наука та технологія
Great video Michael, thank you! We love your long form talking videos.
Excellent thought out and thorough review. Many thanks 🙏. Greg
Thank you for another top shelf video Mr. Fremmer. I will happily stick with my two step process of spin clean then Record Doctor
Hello Michael. Another excellent demonstration so good to watch.
Great Video Michael 😊
Michael.Thanks!Everything is very clear.When they were spinning fast, I was worried-what if at such a high speed the vocal parts would fly away and a minus soundtrack would remain? Thank you!I'm always waiting for your videos!Health!
Nice job Michael a real review👍🎧👌
very cool experiment.
Mike
Thanks for reviewing this
My 10 year old single disc KLaudio LP200 looks like a very wise investment
Thank you, always wondered if you could clean 5 or 6 lps at at time ultrasonically in one of these machines.
You can clean 1 to 10 records, any number in between. It's a flexible system. Cleaning less records takes about the same amount of handling time though so you would be more productive running multiple records. If you clean 5 records then the ultrasonic energy per record is doubled vs. 10 records so the cleaning time could be roughly half vs. 10 records, if everything else is the same. In other words, cleaning 10 records takes roughly about twice amount of the cleaning time to achieve the same results.
My first impression is that the machine was seriously overloaded. They seem to work best with at most 3 or 4 records in the machine at a time, evenly spaced across the “width” of the machine. Conservation of energy and all that, you get multiple times the energy to create the “microbubbles” that do the work for you, per record.
Do these machines work? Yes they do! And it beats sniffing glue.
I have a SpinClean, and that works well. The ultrasonic is for the harder cases, or because it makes you happy. :^)
The manufacturer states that 10 to 12 records many be processed. Looking at the video Mr. Fremer did the correct test to validate or not the manufacturer's claims.
Ultrasonic designers would agree where in a small tank as seen in the video with about 1.5 gallons of water in a small space with only a single 45 to 49 KHz low power transducer would see the standing waves and product loading negatively affect the cavitation attempted.
@@kirmussaudio7578 Understood. And as all civilized people know, just because you _can_ do something, doesn’t mean you _should_. :^/
I appreciate your comment. And it would have been interesting to see Mr. Fremer do the testing with only a few records, as well. And as somebody else alluded to, to see micrographs (?) of the result, before and after. It’s not too hard to do. If you can afford a “cavitometer”, well then…
@declanfarber Codyson shows one transducer in their promotional video. Old model in a larger tank by a quart had 3 transducers. I doubt two ir three records would see adequate even cavitation. Odd where unlike other manuals for other manufactured models mention the suggestion of regular testing for the presence of cavitation using aluminum foil throughout the tank is seemingly missing.
@@kirmussaudio7578 I built my own system a decade or so ago, and I’ve been quite happy with it, so I haven’t been on the upgrade train. But the principles are well known.
You are supposed to keep that shroud on through the first cycle of drying. Then remove between cycles of drying.
That noise you heard was probably that last record because it is off center and it was hitting something.
I have the older version of this with that new motor mechanism. I have talked to the people at Isonic and they recommend that you don’t use distilled water as it bizarrely adds noise as I have experienced. I use filtered tap water and it works much better.
I have been overall pretty happy with mine. I feel it does a better job than my VPI 16.5. I have done some records with my friends Degritter and found very little if any difference in performance. Admittedly it wasn’t all that scientific of a comparison.
I have the previous version isonic cleaner and like it. I made some changes, first I 3D printed spacers to take it from 10 records to 4. I purchased a universal power supply I could run the motor at a lower voltage slowing the rotation speed down. I also just use distilled water and a surfactant, no cleaning solution. I saw a significant improvement in my cleanings vs the stock unit.
There you go! Perfect. Very similar to how I do mine, I also use their older tank (very similar to the one Kirmuss uses/had used) I just use hockey pucks for the spacers in addition to washers and a metal spacer so that I get just a little over 1 1/2" in between records. I also bought a 3v power supply so that the rotation (I use another motor, not theirs) turns at about .6 RPM. I love that you can set the temperature (don't know why Fremer disregards that... All the deep researchers into ultrasonic record cleaning state that some heat is indeed beneficial) and you can adjust the chemistry to exactly what you want.
I've done well over 1000 of my albums and they all have turned out beautifully! Out of those, I would say that there were maybe 30 - 40 that needed a bit more loving care (meaning a more aggressive vacuum/laboratory regrade purified water rinse) But most came out absolutely lovely and quiet.
FWIW, if you are interested, I've detailed and linked to a lot of the really extensive research these guys have done on ultrasonic record cleaning, along with the guy who wrote the exhaustive paper on 'The Aqueous Cleaning of Vinyl Records' in the 4 part video series I posted here on my tiny, little channel 😊) I also show how I use a two part filtration system to filter the water back into the tank using a pump and a 1 micron + .35 micron filter in tandem. Works smashingly well! 😁
@@latheofheaven When one is considering the use of heaters, one needs to always relate to the material that will be cleaned and submerged in the ultrasonic's tank. Reference to "The Aqueous Cleaning of Vinyl Records" has some errors in the statements made. This said: Indeed in general cavitation benefits from heat, but we need to control it. Bringing the water temperature up to reasonable room temperature is one asset, but PVC deforms when critical temperature levels are reached. Cavitation and the resulting kinetic energy produced increases water temperature by itself. To have a record's edge located close by to a heater also is something to consider. Water at 85 deg is fine, alarms should go off when water reaches over 100 deg especially when dealing with polystyrene of novelty, thin records. One should stop at 105 deg F.
Other parameters are the interaction of heat and the cleaning solution used and its affectation on the record. Cleaning temperature is often recommended by cleaning solution manufacturers when used in an ultrasonic, another point to discuss and review. Indeed, as it relates to temperature and to respond to your point, not mentioned widely, where there is in fact a limit as to when increasing the temperature contributes then negates the cleaning process. There is an inverse proportion. Stated by ultrasonic manufacturers: As the cleaning solution temperature increases cavitation action decreases. Thus, as in the Kirmuss, not only does one see the increase in temperature but where the effectiveness of cavitation is also considered.
Fremer was very factual.
@@kirmussaudio7578 Thank you Mr. Kirmuss, that was a very interesting and informing reply! I do believe I remember reading about the relationship of too much heat and loss of cavitation. Very early on these guys were suggesting 40 degrees, but later many said that was too high. I generally shoot for just a little warmer than room temperature, maybe in the low 30's.
@latheofheaven With water at 23 deg c, 73 deg F as a starting point, this is good. Cavitation at 35 KHz with resonance added in our process sees even energy levels until the high temperature alarm point we have set. Temperature, cavitation frequency, load factor, are all tied together based on the material we are processing.
@@kirmussaudio7578Sounds good sir!
I did notice at 13:10 Michael inadevently changed the scale of the measurment meter....that's why the scale showed more activity afterwards.
Thanks for the review!
I did notice that as well...
Yes, there was so little cavitation he had to increase the energy meter's sensitivity scale.
if you watch the video at the time mentioned, this was not intentional. It was a thumb accident, or at least it appears so@@kirmussaudio7578
Michael excellent review. I do think however a cleaning review with one or two records might be needed to be fair and to verify if the cavitation actually works at all, as advertised. Keep up the important work!!
I think Mr. Fremer followed the distributor's instructions in testing the machine as it was advertised, as where claims were made that all records inserted can be processed.
It would seem where looking at the meter side to side, uneven cavitation in the tank, irrespective.
One would agree where reducing the number of records being processed and thus reducing the effect of overloading and standing wavess would I am sure see better cavitation just as you say.
Just my 2 cents.
The manufacturer states that only one double stacked single unit transducer is used. Previous models sold it would seem to have three single units. One would assume if processing many records where one would need adequate cavitation present evenly throughout the basin. Any number of records.
Rather than using just a cavitation energy meter in one area of the tank, a more accurate test would be taking a cavitational energy meter with the assembly loaded per the manufacturer then insert the tester between each record and noting the energy measured from the left side of the record to the right, at the bottom of the tank, then raising the cavitational energy meter by a half inch, repeating the test, and so on until one reaches the water line. This test then to be repeated between all records. Also between the first record and one side of the stainless steel tank, then the last record and the edge of the tank. Cavitational energy should be relatively even (as is with the KA RC 1).
Dear Mr Fremer,
Would you consider reviewing the SuperCleaner as a rival to a good ultrasonic cleaner with a VG+ record and above? Thank you for your consideration.
Kind regards,
David
It would be nice if someone sold the foil disks so that those who own a multi-record machine could test and find the most efficient configuration for the best cavitation.
This is really some next level trolling here. Brilliantly funny work
When the spin was engaged for drying those records where wobbling to violently causing contact between records I be curious to see if there was scrapping?
That machine is an accident waiting to happen. Whoever thought it was a good idea to spin the records at hi-speed with little or no safety device to prevent them from ejecting from that contraption is crazy. I hope they carry plenty of insurance, if they even sell any, they might need it.
@@67Pepperthere's a hood to cover them, he just took it off to demonstrate! 😅
This is something I've wondered about with the Kirmuss machine as well. Even though it will only do 2 - 12"s at a time, does the effectiveness of cleaning diminish with more records installed? One day I'll hit send on the question to Kirmuss. Thanks for another great video Mike.
Very good question. First of all, I have seen some manufacturers of real cavitation machines use a cavitation tester to prove the presence of cavitation. Results are as expected, presence of cavitation.
Before answering your question, cavitation alone is uneven. As one moves a cavitation meter around an empty tank just filled with water with one or more transducers, the energy will be uneven. So needed is some fashion to even out the effects of cavitation.
To your question and as seen in other videos, there is a factor of ultrasonic loading as well as how to even out cavitation.
More to cavitational energy than a simple test in an empty tank void of records.
In a 7.1 liter tank as is found in the Kirmuss, there are three transducers that alliws one to process only 4 records with a pressure of 810 Cavins, pkus or minus 10% from the bottom of the tank where the edge of the record resides to the top of the water where the dead wax area appears.
The more one loads a bath with more records, we create inadvertantly standing waves that can negate cavitation.
Our process allows one to process 4 records simultaneously where the loading is maximized to minimize standing waves. A passive resonance is introduced that further evens out the effects of cavitation. The cavitation energy meters used as seen in other videos and the aluminum foil test with the Kirmuss proves where the Kirmuss processes 4 records evenly. This said, records do not benefit fully from cavitation unless the charge of the record is changed to be opposite to that of water as in the Kirmuss process.
Thank you sir! I have the older, I think wider version of the iSonic tank SIMILAR to the one Kirmuss first used (I know, I know, you already told me it is not the same one 😊) If you wanna quick look at it I have a 4 part video series here on how to make one using that tank. Mine has 3 very large circular transducers about 3+ inches in diameter and they are placed in a triangular formation equally across the bottom.
FWIW, I had called and talked to one of the main iSonic people and quite honestly the guy didn't really know anything about record cleaning, even though they did offer one with this tank and a spindle for the 10 records if you wanted it. First off, as you already well know, you simply cannot do that many records that way. And, according to the experienced fellows I asked, the rotation speed they use is WAY too fast. I use a 3 volt AC to drive the spindle at a much slower rate (approx .6 rotations a minute) I do only 6 records across what I THINK is a wider tank with a good 1 1/2" at least between them and from the edges.
I don't know if I an getting a lot of true 'cavitation', but with my tank and doing it with records spaced that way, I would HOPE I'm getting more action (trust me... that would be the *ONLY* area where I would be getting any action... 😕) I based the design on talking with the guy who wrote the exhaustive paper on 'The Aqueous Cleaning of Vinyl Records' which I link to in my videos. And also I forget his name, but I think it was Paul who had done extensive research into this process who wrote several articles about this in a well known audio publication (Positive Feedback? I don't remember, but one like that)
Sonics cannot do much unless one changes the charge in our case the charge of the record to be opposite to that of water with or without a cleaning solution added.
The base ultrasonic cleaners used by iSonic (the previous version P4875II or P4875+MVR5/10) and Kirmuss are the same for the ultrasound part. iSonic uses a rotary spindle system with multiple records and Kirmuss uses custom top with slots and driving mechanisms with wheels attached to the bottom of the lid. The ultrasound has the same power and works the same way. Saying the ultrasonic cleaners are different (other than the control panels are slightly different) is lying and on purpose. iSonic previous version uses 5RPM. If yours is 6RPM then it would be faster but I assume you counted it wrong. Whether it's 5RPM, 6RPM, 10RPM or 3RPM, the exposure time to the ultrasound/cavitation is the same for a given cleaning time so the cleaning results are the same. Therefore it doesn't matter, as long as it's a reasonable speed.
@@user-ol7lp6lt7z You check with the fellows who have spent a LOT of time and study into this, and that rotation speed is just too fast to be effective. The records at these speeds are going way too fast for the cavitation what there is of it to have much effect. Even the speed I use on the one I built using the iSonic tank is considered faster than recommended at about .6 RPM using a 3 volt adapter instead of the 12 that came with the particular motor/spindle that I am using. I mean it only is common sense reasoning to see that with the vinyl speeding through the water/solution as opposed to is spending some time more slowly clearly allows the cavitation process to be far more thorough.
@@latheofheaven Have you compared the cleaning results for 5RPM vs. 0.6RPM with the same cleaning time and records with similar conditions?
@@user-ol7lp6lt7z A fair question, but Bro... When I get an e'mail with one of your replies, it shows the sender as *INFO iSonic* Gee... I can't imagine *WHY* you would deliberately hide who you are by this 'User.xxxx' business (uh, that was meant to be sarcastic 😊) So, c'mon man, you are not exactly unbiased here, *YOU ARE SELLING THE DAMN THINGS!* But, that doesn't automatically discount your comments here. BUT... again, you have a pretty powerful interest in selling your stuff, which is fully understandable.
When I called someone at 'Info iSonic' before buying my most EXCELLENT tank from you, BTW... and it is indeed a great tank! The fellow seemed like a fairly 'higher up' guy, and he was helpful, but honestly... You guys are selling very well made ultrasonic tanks, okay... BUT, I truly did not get the impression that you guys know anything about record cleaning. The representative just kept repeating the same things you do, and again, understandably so.
Look, from the extensive research I've done before building mine USING YOUR EXCELLENT TANK 😁 I wrote and conversed extensively with these guys who have been researching this forever. Thus my resulting 4 part series on how to make one, documentation about the chemistry, rotation speed, duration, and FWIW a nice two part filtering system that filters the solution going back into the tank (Part 4) Here is the bottom line from what I know... Your tank is great one of the best, I would most *HIGHLY* recommend it for record cleaning (I've done well over 1000 of mine and they turned out great!) BUT... for your record cleaning system, here is what a person should do... Simply use larger spaces between the records with your spindle so that you are cleaning no more than 6 at a time. And, figure out someway to bypass the full DC current going to the motor and use a lesser voltage to slow it down. That's all... THEN, you would have a great ultrasonic RCM! (BTW, this is with your older tank with the 3 oversized transducers, or if you have an updated version)
That's about the best I can do Mr. iSonic Representative 😊
Yo Mike. I think when you put the sensor in the middle of the records your finger hit the X100 toggle and changed that setting.
JD
Yes. Sorry about that but the important thing is the foil test....
It seems the world is rejecting the theory of listening to old people as they should know they are wise.. great review Mike, so many records to Clean !
I don't know how I got so old but it's better than dying young and I'm still good for 3 sets of 20 real push ups so....
Yes rise from The Fenix ...I'm finding Mike i'm getting very Cynical too, as I age, the good old days , good to Listen to Vinyl its the Attack & decay of those instruments which over shadows CD.
The info was great. I wonder if the unit would perform better with less records on the spit. maybe 2 or 3 at a time? Maybe it needs better spacing?
Mr. Fremer followed the instructions provided by the distributor, where 10-12 records are processed using an ultrasonic of 1.5 gallons or so. There should have been even cavitation as a result on all records, all sides, edge of record to the dead wax area, a consumer would expect. Seems only 1 special double stack transducer used instead of 3 or 4 as with other brands. Could account for the lack of cavitational energy. Agreed where reducing the number of skewered records and increasing the space between records should see better results. This said, the tested machine is advertised to process 10 or so. Mr. Fremer processed it would seem 8 foil records.
You are correct.
There is a relationship between tank size, frequency, power, and as it relates to audiophiles, the number of records to be processed, their spacing, heat management, among other factors. That is why some machines process one record successfully, others a maximum of 4.
Thanks Michael. I would love to see you try a Degritter MK2. I have one and I think (imagine?) that it works great. And it's simplicity is brilliant.
Hi Mike, interesting video. Just a few points in relation to ultrasonic units. With any multi record ultrasonic machine running at 40 to 60khz frequency, you need a space of one inch (25mm) between the records to have the right effect. On the Isonic the records are far to close together. The KLaudio, Degritter and Humminguru have the transducers mounted on the side whereas the Codyson, which is the base unit for the isonic has the transducers in bottom of tank, so you get different cavitation results from it. The Degritter also is the only one of these that uses 120khz which is the best frequency for record cleaning also the gentlest. I'm not an expert or biased to any unit, I have been using my own developed unit that runs 132khz transducers and spaces the records out at 30mm. My unit does not dry because I believe that contact less vacuuming is the best drying method, (my own designed unit).
Frequency alone does not equate to adequate cavitation being generated. The spacing mentioned is partially correct.
Tank size, tank gallonage, placement of transducers, power of the ultrasonic generator and ultimately the generated pressure measured in Cavins or watts per square centimeter, not watts, all come into play. Also not to forget ultrasonic loading. How many records can be evenly processed all sides, from the record's edge to the dead wax area.
Properly cleaned records come out virtually dry, no need for vacuum, spin or air blower actions. Still wet, ?, needs more cleaning.
Cavitation is at microscopic level. The 8-16 mm gaps iSonic has between the records are like a 4-lane highway to a motorcycle. Cavitation can pull dirt off the grooves which are much smaller than the gaps between the albums so worrying about the gaps in between the albums is misleading. How powerful is the ultrasound and how far the ultrasound can reach are the most important factors to clean items properly. Good ultrasonic cleaners can clean much more intricate and complex shapes than albums.
@@user-ol7lp6lt7z would you be able to see the marks Mede on tinfoil due to ultrasonic cleaning with a microscope?
@user-ol7lp6lt7z Partially correct. The closer the objects to be cleaned are to each other, ultrasonic theory and science both state where the standing waves created from the surface are increased..affecting cavitational efficacy.
Amateur radio and CB operators are akin to this.
RF output, signal through a coaxial cable, signal to antenna via connectors along the way, are alike to what we see in an ultrasonic cleaner. Issues with the antenna, issues with the coaxial cable, all see reflected power returned back to the transmitter. Reduction in radiated power and distance. And efficacy of the installation. Of course, I'm not considering ionospheric conditions.
To records, looking at the above, the water in the tank may be considered as the coaxial cable.
Records as impedance and inductance and capacitance.
Too many records in a tank, records too close to each other, sees the known published fact where forced downwards the reflected standing waves in a tank of water.
Known,
A standing wave exists caused by the surface of the water even if the tank is void of any item to be cleaned. That is why we see cavitation occur as the micro bubbles rise, then implode.
This, which is in fact amplified as the number of records inserted in the same gallonage tank increases. In this situation, skewered, and where the distance between the records is reduced as more records are inserted, cause and effect s inversely proportional to now reflecting cavitation back to the bottom of the tank due to the increase of standing waves. Seen in Mr. Fremer's test. I agree where reducing the number of records being processed and increasing the space between records should improve the results.
From personal experience the KA RC 1 cannot in a 7.1 liter tank with its three transducers process more than 4 records evenly all sides.
@@kirmussaudio7578 As long as it has enough ultrasonic power to project through the gaps, it'll have enough cavitation to do the proper cleaning. The reviews from the real customers regarding the sound effect after cleaning with iSonic machines prove it. I assume you told Mr. Kremer how to do the foil test and provided him with the cavitation meter and the foil discs, correct? One rotation is not long enough for the cavitation to take enough effect on the foil. The records are cleaned a minimum of 3 minutes which mean 30 rotations with this model. Was the foil test on KL Audio unit done with one rotation? It's not a fair and factual comparison. You guys presented false evidences to mislead the audiences.
What brand is the cavitation meter? I would like to purchase to test on the units I have. TIA another Michael
We bought one from Megasonics, $9800.00. Shows frequency, cavitational energy in watts per square centimeter among 3D modeling.
The prod style unit is available from Cavins at about 2,500 $. An aluminum foil test with one rotation or even two will replicate what a 2,500 $ cavitational energy meter will read, at lower cost.
How do think it would work with 2 to 3 Records ?
I’d love to see how such a unit compares to those $200 Chinese Tank Units sold on Ebay
Even if it worked too Rube Goldberg for my taste. I’ve used the Audio Deske System for 12 years and while not cavitation it does a good job except you need to buy a new one every 2/3 years. Second to that the Degritter. Personally I want to clean one record at a time. The best from everything I’ve read is the KL Audio but pricey.
I have the prior model with three transducers. I only do 5 records at the same time. And the records come out perfectly clean; no pops, ticks or crakles. And I am cleaning records that are really dirty. Some belonged to my father and have never been cleaned before. And I tested many before the iSonic cleaning and they were awful. The iSonic I have (the Pro) looks almost identical to the Kirmuss. I do not use any surfactants or “cleaning” fluids. And I never use the heater. Only distilled water. When I saw the new iSonic, I asked myself why the change. I am happy with the iSonic model I have. BTW, I use two filters instead of one, and I use them only if I reuse the distilled water before the cleaning cycle. During cleaning I take out the filters.
FYI: Most filters sold are 120-320 microns in pore diameter. Dirt dust and fungus are 3 to 5 microns in diameter. Records should not need any spin, vacuum or air drying if restored. Chack the filter pore size. These good filters are very expensive, in the hundreds of dollars if not more.
To the Kirmuss and your mention: Thanks to Mr. Fremer for this review. Much confusion arose when a look alike product appeared in the market 5 years or so ago, with a rotisserie style adapter. Stating where one can process successfully 10 or 12 records at a time. Advertised as the same results as with the Kirmuss KA-RC-1/2. Now seen: Proof is in the pudding!
To your comparison: iSONIC is a Chicago based reseller of a variety of dental and medical instrument cleaning systems made by Codyson and other manufacturers, selling the adapter added. Indeed while we purchase the base machine from the same manufacturer, we added own IP by my own staff in China. Also use 35 KHz with a 70 KHz resonance, and not a 40 KHz or 45-49 KHz sonic transducer. Everything controlled in-house.
To Mr. Fremer's credit, many journalists rely on product promotional brochures as the basis of their reviews. Nice to see qualitative and quantitative analysis.
We do not use a cleaning solution. We do use an ionizing agent that changes the charge of the record to be opposite to that of water to attract cavitation. NOT TO BE USED ON ANY RECORD IN A SONIC THAT IS NOT 35 KHz!. Reapplied as the charge wears off as the record spins. Noted where most cleaning solutions, some not PVC or plasticizer friendly, are known to coat a record with a film that is air, spin or vacuum dried giving at times a false sense of "cleaning", only to hear pops reappear after the needle has dug out the film over several plays.
As I mentioned, the records I clean with the iSonic come out perfect: no pops, clicks, or surface noise. And they are pretty dirty and old. I clean newer records as well with excellent results. The only downside with th iSonic is having to drain the water in order to spin dry the records. In addition, I am building a water recirculating system with an electric pump and reservoir so that whenever I have to spin dry the records, I can pump the water back again without having to deal with buckets or bottles. The system will incorporate two additional filters. Water will be disposed after four to five cycles.
@joseauger1353 Suggest you play the record once a day for 10 or so days. The needle will remove the film left on the record. The pops will reappear. Shiny records are not indicative of a successful cleaning. If the records come out of any machine and are wet indicate no true cleaning has occurred as properly processed records come out virtually dry as pvc and water per the Tribelectric table of charges have the same electrical charge.
Please note that I specifically said that I do not use any kind of surfactant or any other liquid except distilled water. Distilled water does not leave any film on the records. And I play my records regularly. I hope this clarifies my post.@@kirmussaudio7578
I guess if you think of the tank as a small room with two speakers in it, you will get peaks and troughs in the level just the same hence the uneven spread, remember wavelengths above 20khz are less than an inch, this could possibly be avoided if the frequency was varied during cleaning.
The drying cycle would need a n announcement like "We have a lift off". Not my machine for sure, thanks for the review.
Audio Intelligent makes an ultrasonic cleaning fluid. It would be good to evaluate the effectiveness of it.
While you were getting low cavitation readings the machine appeared to be “revving” high and low. It then began sounding like it was running steady, which is when you began getting the very high readings. I think you may want to make sure it was operating properly throughout the test.
Yeah. Seemed to be degassing and not really going yet.
But the foil test was far more important and telling than the meter readings. When used as advertised - with a full rack of LPs - the records clearly aren’t getting the benefits of cavitation.
@@JLeeeP I still think three questions remained unanswered. 1) what does the meter say with the device running properly? 2) How well does it work with say 5 records? If that’s a meaningful improvement I think people would want to know. 3) Are the benefits of cavitation irrefutable and demonstrable? That seems to be taken as a given here. The uninitiated, like myself, would benefit from a proof of concept on this point. All in all, a poorly recorded, poorly executed, and incomplete review which really begs for a follow up.
@edd2771 The foil test says it all. Manufacturer notes there is only one double stack transducer. Moving the meter left to right and in between records and from bottom of the tank to the record,'s dead wax area would support the results of uneven cavitstion it would seem.
@@kirmussaudio7578 the foil test may show cavitation occurred. The question remains, is cavitation more effective than simply bathing, brushing, and/or spinning a record? Is it more effective than bathing and extracting with a suction stylus or wick? The presumption here is that cavitation is an end-all. Like so many other things in this insane hobby, prove that it’s better before you try to sell me.
the edge of the record, is hitting the side of the container unit. I agree 100% with your cavitation data. Hard data.. not opinion.. I do one record at a time even though I could do more.. it has been my experience that one at a time works best.. and water temp is at 30 celcious.. and you did a presurface cleaning to get rid of surface grit or dust.
I enjoy your reviews. Nice work. Independent of how well a machine cavitates or does not cavitate, have never seen any photomicrograph images of before and after a given process. Maybe the manufacturers have done this work and do not want to share, or maybe they have not. Same would be true for all the RCM Vac machines as well. What would be an interesting test would be to take a given machine and its cleaning process (US, VAC, etc) take a dirty record, take high rez photos of the grooves, run the records through the given process, and re-take photos again to see how much a given machine really did or did not clean the grooves. A tri-optical scope with about 1500x-2000x should give some nice photos. The hard photo cleaning evidence would also remove all the BS and "opinion facts" (opinions that morph into facts over time after being repeated so many times) that surround vinyl cleaning and show which processes really do clean and which do not, rather than an indirect method of examining the aluminum foil after its exposure.
Check out the many videos and PowerPoint presentations where we are using the 178,000 $ Keyence VHX-7000 2D 3D microscope where we have shared unbiased findings.
Charles Kirmuss has produced many videos showing clear evidence that his restoration process works. Whether or not you wish to take the time to restore a record that way is of course your choice, but if given the opportunity to try it, you might be convinced!
@@kirmussaudio7578 thank you. I saw some thumb nail images but no hi rez images. are those available?
Proof is in the pudding: Use of Kirmuss record ionization, proper record spacing, resonance added to even out cavitation energies within the tank:
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
@TrackingAngle the scale switch, x1 and x100, keeps getting flipped. This accounts for some of the difference in reading on the cavitation meter. Go watch at 13:00, you can see your thumb flip it over right as the needle jumps up.
My take: When there is little cavitation, meters have sensitivity settings, increasing sensitivity to get a reading. Just like with an analog multimeter or with an oscilloscope, the change in setting allows for one to increase sensitivity of the device and not using the times 100 multiplier. Seeing more resolution as to cavitational energy and activity.
I noticed that after the video posted and I'm sorry about that but I think the foil test is really the more important part.
Think about a speed boat propeller that's turning fast enough to leave a trail of bubbles. When the speed of water is fast enough over a surface (propeller) it can reduce the pressure between the water and that surface, like air moving over a wing, until the water "boils". Those bubbles are the "cavitation". Usually cavitation is not desirable, like making your submarine noisy, or robbing horsepower with an inefficient speed boat propeller (for submarines and speed boats the goal would be zero amount of cavitation). Ultrasonic cleaning is using the very high speed water movement produced by the vibration of the transducer to create the low pressure at the surface of the record, or your jewelry, your eyeglasses, watch, or whatever you are cleaning ultrasonically. Cavitation bubbles are between the surface and the dirt, lifting loose particles off the surface. You may increase the time of the ultrasonic cycle if you don't like the results, or add some warmth. I clean motorcycle carburetors and fuel injector nozzles with ultrasonic cleaners, they are quite effective. But they do have some limits, crowding in the tank being one (and keep parts off of the bottom). I do an aluminum foil test regularly, sandwiched between two stainless steel grates. All I care about is that the foil is torn, or ruptured (it's only a test that the transducer is operational). I don't worry so much about where the foil has failed. Have you tried using only distilled water? I think I would dry with a vacuum machine; skip the show boat gee whiz stuff. And I don't like the idea of a filter, I want to see what has come off of my parts sitting there at the bottom of the tank, I mean, that's what I paid for..... I hope that record that was closest to the motor wasn't a favorite ;)
Thank you! Next one please.. 😂
You really go that extra mile Michael Fremmer. Thanks.
Not sure how someone could attack you over three lines in a 22 minute video, but they did. This coming form a guy who says he just got into Hi-Fi 5 years ago. Keep up with the great videos. Haters gonna hate.
I use older iSonic machine, likely similar to what was mentioned by others here. It came with spacers for 8 disks, but never clean more than 6 at once. My machine has 3 transducers and similar spinner (which does not have high rate though). I can confirm that cleaning works well and improves grade of vintage LPs one or steps to the better.
As to foil testing - I do not believe one turn is sufficient to see any change. You need to run machine for at least a minute to see foil damage.
I also have that machine. At least with 10 records spinning for 15 or 30 minutes the ultrasonic effect on the tinfoil is about what Mike shows. With one record it can ultrasonically clean.
@@TrueStereo- What foil did you use? Heavy duty foil shouldn't be used.
@@user-ol7lp6lt7z The box was labeled heavy duty and I will re-do the tests with standard grade foil. Thanks for getting back to me.
@@user-ol7lp6lt7z Here are the testsI did with regular foil and 10 records. ua-cam.com/video/eETeUK60-jc/v-deo.html
I also did a test with 7 records with better results.
At the various trade shows in front of audiophiles and record enthusiasts in our seminars we use standard aluminum foil records with one rotation. Proving the events of cavitation atleast of the KA RC 1 where a passive resonance is present.
At some events we bring along a cavitation energy meter that we use to prove the even distribution of cavitation from the edge of the record, bottom of the tank, to the dead wax area, near the waterline, surface... plus or minus 810 Cavins in the KARC1..
Both the foil test and logging of the energy levels using a cavitation energy meter support each other's claim.
Your points are very well taken.
The records spinning like that gave me anxiety
When you were using your cavitation meter, it appears you were initially getting low readings because the machine was still in the start up phase (or degassing phase, as you mentioned), as can be determined by the pulsing sound of the unit. When the sound of the unit shifted into a consistent buzzing sound, then you were getting the higher readings on the meter. Therefore, it had nothing to do with the placement of the meter in the tank. However, none of this negates the poor results you received with the aluminum foil test.
I noticed this too. I wouldn’t use this review as a guide. It is sort of disorganized. Maybe MF should ask someone like Kirmuss to do the same sort of experimental checks.
@@revelry1969 I don't feel it was 'disorganized'. I did most of the actual testing before shooting the video. The video is sort of a re-creation for the camera. I noticed I was in "pulse" degass mode while editing but the overall transducer coverage in the tank was not evenly distributed.
@revelry1969 Thank you for the compliment. To your point, do review the tracking angle video taken at the Florida International Audio Expo this past February.
In the video with Kirmuss Audio and JR Boisclair of Wally Tools, in the Kirmuss section you can jump to the section where slides of the tests made with the former isonic machine using three and not one ultrasonic transducer was shown.
Do note where both aluminum foil tests and energy meter tests showed areas of little, no, or dangerously high cavitation.
It is not easy to always multitask when making a video.
If one reviews the Florida Show video and the results in the slides and where now using a smaller tank size and less water with the same ultrasonic loading of 12 records, one would perhaps expect where a single transducer would either show the same or less cavitation registered when compared to the older 3 transducer model.
The "poor" result of foil test was caused by only one rotation was done, and only a fraction of that duration was applied to one section of the foil because it's rotating. That duration was grossly too short for the cavitation to take effect on the foile. The other foil from KL Audio test was done how long? That many dimples couldn't be the result of one rotation. It's a not a fair comparison. Looks like a fact but it's a fake fact.
@user-ol7lp6lt7z It is common to test ultrasonics with one revolution in a spinning environment if foil is used aside from a cavitation test meter. A single revolution is expected to see the detail as to the efficacy of the t
reflected standing waves crested, especially in a situation where items being processed that are located very close to each other. Of course the longer foil records are spun the more dimpling is seen. The testing of peer products with a standard one spin cycle shows the efficacy or peer products between each other. The KL test as well as the test on the KirmussAudio and AudioDeske saw one revolution. Mr. Fremer is correct in using the same method between all peer products.
In the AudioDeske, the foil record was spun longer proving the notion where definitely there was no cavitation and in fact would be a bubbler.
Noted in the video where the sensitivity of the meter had to be increased as in the habitual x100 setting did not see the same pressure seen as in other peer products, so it would seem.
So basically Mikey, the Keith Monks / Loricraft machine is still the undisputed GOAT? 😀
They are both very good at what they do...
I’ve had good luck with a Loricraft machine over the last few years. It’s labor intensive and not for everyone but it is quiet and effectively cleans records with little chance of causing damage to grooves.
With the Loricraft it’s important to closely follow the instructions that come with the machine. SME owns Loricraft.
11:48 degas mode: no cavitation intended.
Would you consider reviewing HumminGuru Ultrasonic Vinyl Record Cleaner? I feel like it's also a joke.
Michael, having built my own US record cleaner, I can see that isonic uses the same type of systems that Kirmus uses in their other models so I trust that this version has the capability to cavitate with fewer records. Ironically their other versions have three transducers and makes me wonder about the large cylindrical bulge at the bottom - seems too large to be just a heater. Whether 2 or 3, clearly still not enough to do a good job with that many records. A few minor comments (1) when you had your "cavitation tester" in the bath with the records, based on the sound signature, i could tell you were running in the "degass" mode at which point it switched to regular cleaning mode which is why your meter jumped from low to high readings right away (2) The fact that your "foil records" showed very little dimpling or explosions enough to deform aluminum shows that the "cavitation" tool may not be an overall good tool for getting to the final conclusion- meaning no positive result on the foil even at high readings on the meter. Though interesting to see such a tool even exists. (3) you mentioned that you were surprised that this unit had a heater, but there is a temperature higher than room temperature where the ultrasonic is more effective which is nice to use if you want to get to a higher temp quicker. Kirmus has opted to remove that feature from their unit but still monitors the water temp for over heating. I imagine this one uses a standard ultrasonic cleaner that has both heater and temp alarm. The unfortunate side-effect of giving the option of having a heater is that if you are not careful and forget to turn off the heater, you may well destroy/warp your records - which I have done.
This is not the Kirmuss Machine.
Much confusion arose when a look alike product appeared in the market 5 years or so ago, with a rotisserie style adapter. Stating where one can process successfully 10 or 12 records at a time. Advertised as the same results as with the Kirmuss KA-RC-1/2.
This said: iSONIC is a Chicago based reseller of a variety of dental and medical instrument cleaning systems made by Codyson and other manufacturers, selling the adapter added. Indeed while we purchase the base machine from the same manufacturer, I added our own IP by my own staff in China. Everything in-house.
To Mr. Fremer's credit, many journalists rely on product promotional brochures as the basis of their reviews. Nice to see qualitative and quantitative analysis.
To Kirmuss: we use 35KHz with a passive resonance of 70 KHz, three transducers, not 1, and provides even 810 Cavis of pressure, +/- 10% between all records, from edge of record to the dead wax area. Also for sonic loading we use 1.78 gallons of distilled water in a larger tank allowing for generous production of cavitational energy.
Also a sonic alone cannot process records. One needs an ionizing agent applied to the record to change the charge of the record to be opposite to that of water.
Indeed where the PULSE DEGAS Cycle affects the cavitation seen on the meter seen, and when the sonic is running and not in degas mode, one should see even cavitation measured from the bottom of the tank to the top, between all records and records to the wall. Plus or Minus 10%. Fremer's results are repeatable by any lay person using foil. Switching the sensitivity setting on any test device allows one to increase or decrease the scale. Little cavitation (on screen and foil) usually sees one to increase sensitivity of the testing device to determine better the actual situation.
DO Check the TrackingAngle video of the Florida Audio Show 2023: It will explain ultrasonic technology as well as cover cartridge alignment by WallyTools. trackingangle.com/features/two-must-see-seminars-at-florida-international-audio-expo-2023
To use any test meter, best to have someone hold the camera. The meter will indicate in Cavins (or watts per square centimeter) the cavitational pressure. One needs to change the scale of the meter as one goes from the bottom of the tank, to the top, between all records. This said, looking at the results, indeed where there is no cavitation both on the meter and on the foil.
The Kirmuss heats the water to 70 deg F, as cold water needs to be heated. This said: Cavitation creates kinetic energy and we never should process records when water is at 103 deg F. Hence the alarm with Kirmuss. Hence no temperature adjustments allowed in the Kirmuss.
About sonics:
Resonance is needed to even out cavitation.
Tank size affects loading and standing waves and negation of cavitation.
Whether the cavitation meter is used, or the aluminum foil test, one should see even cavitation in the tank, in our case where we have even cavitation from the edge of the record to the dead wax area, all sides.
At 13.11 you can see his thumb flip the sensitivity switch on the meter from X100 to X1
@gotham61 Yes. Very well noted. Great observation.
Just before the meter settings change, noted where there was seen little expected deflection in the mid and upper meter range and to the mid to mid right area of meter travel. An area where cavitational energy is seen in other peer products. Not seen seemingly here.
To better understand the reading at x100 multiplier, and the change of scale you noted, in looking at the video more carefully, Mr. Fremer, correctly, and to see more detail as to what is happening in the tank at that point in time of the video, decided where the scale setting, just like in a multimeter, needed to be dropped, needed to be changed, lowered, as the meter in x100 mode registerrd no major expected deflections or activity. . Thus Indicating little cavitation energy except when the sensor was closest to the bottom of the basin or the transducer.
The change of the meter setting seen lowered the scale, if you wish to call it that. More resolution , detail, but does not show more cavitation. The smaller than expected activity now seen better.
Pinging of the needle at this setting does not compensate for the actual view of cavitational activity. Rather, added detail where the pinging of the needle denotes more detail of what is happening in the liquid in a spot and not as an indicator of the expected level of cavitation. Allows one to see the nuances in cavitational energy and activity.
When set to the x100 scale where the meter should be, little energy until a peak of sorts, hot spot.
The meter should be at the setting to the right as used with other comparative tests to maintain the same sensitivity between varying models. With more resolution, one can see more details of the reflected standing waves.
That is the problem with testing while shooting video. However, I also did all of these tests before shooting the video...The foil test is really the most important one.@@gotham61
I want to see what that cavitation meter and the tinfoil test used on a Degritter.
It is on the KirmussAudio UA-cam channel.
Thank you for pointing out the short comings of this machine. Take away- It cannot clean heavy metal or even non-ferrous metal records ;)-
the foil test is an indicator of how it cavities vinyl records!
@@trackingangle929 Oi Vey Fremer, Humor me and pretend you got the joke.
See iSonic's video on various ways of testing the ultrasonic vinyl record cleaners, in responses and rebuttal to Michael Fremer's review. ua-cam.com/video/E5shPJ44MZk/v-deo.html. The most important point is that Michael Fremer didn't listen and review the sound effects after cleaning. That's the ultimate test of the product. Instead, he tried to find explanations that how the product wouldn't work. All he did was following Charles Kirmuss' instructions so they can destroy iSonic a competitor to Kirmuss.
Why do not others do scientific testing:
Proof of the results one would expect from any process. Used, 810 Cavins of ultrasonic energy in the Kirmuss tank:
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
The machine that iSonic used has a different transducer configuration than the one Fremer used. It appears to include 2 additional transducers. Fremer's machine only has 2.
The one used in this test is the model CS6.1-PRO which is actually the same unit that used by Fremer for his review. This model has one supersized transducer (underneath one big circle in the middle of the unit). Fremer mistakenly said it had two transducers. iSonic's CS6.2-PRO looks almost identical except it has a different color in the front, and two supersized transducers. It doubles the ultrasonic power vs. CS6.1-PRO. See a separate video at ua-cam.com/video/o7Lha22ff9o/v-deo.html or ua-cam.com/users/isonicinc. CS6.1-PRO is adequate for average customers. CS6.2-PRO is more suitable for record stores and customers with very large collections. CS6.2-PRO has even higher power intensity than iSonic's older models, the powerful P4875II+MVR5/10 or P4875-NH+MVR5/10 which Kirmuss also uses. It cleans faster and more thoroughly, and of course it costs more than CS6.1-PRO. @@johnparks6172
Plucking chickens !!! HA3 !!! Indeed, we are flooded with so many "experts" out there...
I have regrate that i have bought something like this. I should have bought a Project vacuum cleaning system. More pratical, and way more easy to use.
I think the audience will assume that the way you used the word surfactant means a cleaner or detergent but can be an additive to a detergent or cleaner.
I did not assume this…
@@amysarg I would, if I did not know what surfactant is...
"surfactant, also called surface-active agent, substance such as a detergent that, when added to a liquid, reduces its surface tension, thereby increasing its spreading and wetting properties"
While the iSonic uses the similar tank to the Kirmuss machine, it is still different in configuration. As you are likely aware, the manufacture of the tanks that both iSonic and Kirmuss uses will build to specs as far as transducer array, heat or no heat and the like. In the case of Kirmuss, his company goes in and reworks the electronics to match the mission critical aspects of the machine and synchronization with the logic unit on the transport. iSonic orders a similar model, but no modification is done. The problem here is that they paid no attention to the transducer array for starters.
The two transducers shown in the machine here can't possibly provide cavitation for 10 records and neither can the transducer array and all the modification in the world on the Kirmuss machine. With this machine shown though that transducer array is woefully inadequate.
I noticed when you first started testing with the meter you had the machine on pulse so that skewered it, however the results would have been similar with what you were trying to show when it was constant.
The transducer array in that machine may be ok if you were cleaning one record at a time in the middle of the vat, other than that you would have uneven cavitation anyway all around it partly due to the array. I can't afford one of those meters, but I would bet heavy money that that same test with the Kirmuss model would show near even cavitation in the tank do to the design of the array he chose. The Kirmuss machine does not try to defy the laws of physics with their design because one can't defy those laws.
I did a deep study of cavitation record cleaning before Kirmuss came out with his machine, which is the reason I waited for it and wanted the Kirmuss machine. I did not know I would see such a machine beforehand, I was just hoping someone would make it and then April 2016, along came Kirmuss. When I saw the machine it checked all the boxes for me according to my notes in my study. (That study included talking with undergrads, professors, engineers, etc. learning about the proper frequency, array and overall design of a machine to accomplish the task correctly. I already had a background in physics, although mostly theoretical, but one still needs to learn the basics first. (Such a study does nothing for one's career unless one plans on being a professor or what have you. I just do it for kicks because I'm a lifelong learner).
I wish someone would show me how to build the foil wheels so I could show that test as well. I also wish someone would make a meter I could hook up to a standard turntable that shows dB gain. I'd love to do a video myself showing such results. As yo may be aware, I use the Kirmuss machine.
What gets me is that the iSonic machine here and the Kirmuss machine are similar in price, but the Kirmuss machine is far superior by design.
As for the additives. Yes, no need for surfactants. In fact, a using a surfactant in an ultrasonic bath is defeating. One wants to attract the cavitation, not repel it. Anything that leaves a residue should not be used as well. Records and distilled water are the same charge by nature. Records naturally repel some of the cavitation in plain distilled water. The charge of the record or the water must be changed to get effective cavitation at the frequency of the transducers used in those machines. That is why Kirmuss uses a fluid (a propyl essentially) to change the charge of the record. Changing the charge of the water is next to impossible without having to add a laundry list of chemicals that would be very costly and temporary anyway, just as with the record. One can't permanently change the charge of an item, only temporary.
As for the "drying" function of the iSonic. That is a very bad design. Spinning records like that is a recipe for disaster. Records are not CDs, they are uneven by nature and rotating at such speeds introduces vibration that can lead to a disaster. Also the weight of 10 records, especially being uneven in many respects on that motor is suspect. Vacuum drying done correctly and cloth drying are the way to go.
@@kirmussaudio7578 Right on Charles! I knew you would be weighing in🙂. That drying cycle the iSonic has is frightening. I know Michael said it was but dismissed the concern in the same breath, which I beg to differ with. I think there is great cause for concern on that.
He correctly pointed out the the iSonic will surface clean the record, but why spend $1000 on a sketchy surface cleaner when $1100 will get you a true, proper cavitation cleaner and restoration that also is NOT sketchy!
A Spin Clean for $100 or less will do the same job and maybe leave less residue. A $500 Pro-Ject vacuum RCM with AIVS chemicals would out clean the iSonic and hardly leave any residue, if any, done properly.
@ericelliott227 Hi Eric. I like to stick to science. Surface cleaning using solutions that have no ingredients on the bottle, and if received, need to be compared to the compatability with pvc and plasticizers. If rubber or neoprene is used in a machine, one needs to check this out as well. Not to damage the machine.
Fremer followed the advertised use of the machine. Less cleaning solution. For obvious reasons to his health and that of his records it would seem. The statement made where the machine can process using ultrasonics a dozen records or a large amount has been discounted.
The meter in an empty tank as well as with the recommended load all over the map, valudating the aluminum foil test.
Odd where the manual states to use foil to check for even cavitation.
This new tank is smaller, less transducers, higher frequency, more surface area of records to process now with less cavitational energy. So it would seem.
And records if restored or even surface cleaned should not need air or vacuum drying or that violent spin. Just wondering what is happening to the labels and center hole. No detail seen.
Appreciated your observations as someone familiar with the art.
@@kirmussaudio7578 Yes, the first thing I noticed was the transducers or lack thereof, including the array of them (if two transducers constitutes an array) and the amount of records they claim it can process. The transducer array that is in that tank might be able to process one record straight in the middle of the tank over the transducers, but that is about it. To effectively process 10 records with cavitation, there would need to be more transducers in a particular array and the tank would be very large, about the size of a small garage. There would also have to be a different transport still allowing measured spacing of said records.
Yes, what is with that bottle of questionable fluid? Why does it tend to foam up? That tells me is might be a surfactant at best, which makes zero sense because surfactants only change the surface tension of water and applied to items being cleaned they repel rather than attract, which makes no sense to use in a cavitation situation. I liken it to dish washing soap. Such soaps have surfactants in them to make drying dishes easier and they leave behind a residue designed to not let food stick as much next time the plate is used. It is the antithesis of what is trying to be accomplished with cavitation process.
That spin cycle really alarmed me. I was also thinking "How long would that setup last especially on the other end where the skewer sits on plastic. At such speeds as that it would burn through the plastic in not too long a time and become lopsided so that records would end up touching the bottom of the tank!
Geez, there are several tings that bother me about iSonic and to think they were just the other side of your booth at the Costa Mesa show. I wonder if they sold any units there? They did not seem to have much in the way of traffic. iSonic gives me the shivers.
@ericelliott227 The Codyson web site describes one double stack transducer, 2 heaters. Different than details advertised. One transducer could account for little or no cavitation as reported by Mr. Fremer. Could account for Mr. Fremer to change the scale of the test meter to see the nuances over the habitual x100 setting as one does in an analog multimeter or oscilloscope.
Reducing the ultrasonic load by reducing the number of records and increasing spacing would I am sure improve results.
FYI, former model had three transducers. Had better results on both the foil and test meter.
The base ultrasonic cleaners used by iSonic (the previous version P4875II or P4875+MVR5/10) and Kirmuss are the same for the ultrasound part. Charles, what you said or did was for the chemicals you used, it has nothing to do with the ultrasonic cleaner itself. Kirmuss didn't change the transducers in any shape or form. That unit uses three transducers because it's a standard industrial unit we adapted for vinyl record cleaning. It works well for both iSonic and Kirmuss. But vinyl records rotate through the tank/water so only a central band needs to be covered and cleaned. The two far ends of the tank don't need to have ultrasonic energy for vinyl record cleaning but they are covered by the three transducers therefore there extra capacity wasted there. The new model has one super sized stack transducer with over 30% more power and more penetration power than the standard stack transducers used in the previous model. Therefore one such transducer is enough for the new model and for vinyl record cleaning. The two far ends of the tank have less ultrasonic energy but it doesn' affect vinyl record cleaning. You don't need uniform ultrasonic energy through out the tank to clean vinyl records.
Spin drying is the best and the cleanest way to dry records as nothing was applied to the records. It's faster than blow drying and much quieter and cleaner than vacuum drying.
iSonic's previous model and Kirmuss' have 35K ultrasonic frequency. iSonic's new model uses 48K. Charles claimed Kirmuss uses 70K. That's your creation. Show us a video evidence please.
I was not impressed, sorry. I have a ultrasonic cleaner, I paid less than $200 for it. I love it. I use my old groove washer for pre-washing and rinsing. I’ll let them air dry with a small fan blowing and they turn out perfect every time. Works out great and I love it. This process was so painful to watch.
What brand did you buy? Thanks.
The brand name is “Vevor” I did not buy the digital version. I just figured that was more chance for something to mess up. This works great.
@@Bo-hb3eo thanks I appreciate it.
This is real life testing. Thanks. Hope you do more like this. Was anything removed from the grooves of the records. Probably not.
It can’t fix scratches, but it can kick out the jams. :^)
Scratches can be removed using record ionization and an ultrasonic if the scratches are on the film on top of the record on the layer of film created by the outgassing of the plasticizer while in the record's sleeve and outer jacket. Like the film on your new car's windshield, cause of that new car smell and outgassing of the plastics.
@@declanfarber
@@kirmussaudio7578 That’s a very fine point indeed!
For anything deeper, you could use a microscope and a good quality pick. (I have done this, and it can actually work. Not always, and it’s tedious, but it can stop a skip on a valuable piece of vinyl.) That’s what I was referring to.
@@declanfarber we have pictures on our website using a 178,000 $ Keyence VHX-7000 2D 3D microscope
@@declanfarber a pick will scratch the pvc when trying to remove a dust particle that is fused into the record's pressing oil. Your needle will now skip. Nit a suffered method.
Well I’m fed up with my Project record cleaning machine….it wakes up all the neighbourhood. Is Michael going to test the Degritter or the Kirmuss?
Is there a hideen agenda here?
Fremer has already tested the Kirmuss machine.
From the video interview with Ari Crane:
Fremer states:
" I've cast a critical eye and pen at Charles Kirmuss for as long as he and his machine have been on the scene. I've gone after him on video and in print, asking for proof of his statements. Over the years he's gone to great lengths to clarify and amend his claims and statements and ultimately, I find his claims and statement about his machine and processes and others to be true. I suggest you watch the end of one of the AXPONA videos, in which a chemical engineer with no "skin" in this game discusses the science behind Kirmuss's record "charge" vs. water's "charge" and how his spray works. So yes, Kirmuss's statements over the years have been probed, disputed, and have been "fact checked" well before this video was posted."
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
He did review the Kirmus some time ago. It's a time consuming process.
@johnparks6172 but it restores sound, not just surface shines and leaves a film.
@@johnparks6172one needs to remove first films left over from prior cleaning processes. Then the film deposited on the record by the outgassing of the plasticizer while the record is in its sleeve for weeks or multiple decades. Then finally the release agent that surfaces as the vinyl is pressed at the pressing plant and where as the record cools, sees dirt and dust landing on the record seeing some of these contaminants fuse themselves into the groove, cause of those nasty and annoying pops in new records.
Thanks for this. I have done the same tinfoil test on both the older version 10 record isonic and humming guru. Isonic fails with 10 records and humming guru passes. Isonic did clean records well with the provided cleaner as long as they were rinsed. However the effects of the ultrasonics are minimal. It is more like an enzyme bath using the provided soap. The huming guru is able to evenly ultrasonically clean. With one record in the correct location the isonic can also clean a record ultrasonically. The down side of the humming guru is that you can not clean your jewelry and car parts or age wisky. I just posted the following video of a foil test of both the ISonic and HumminGuru. ua-cam.com/video/eETeUK60-jc/v-deo.html
I agree.The hummin guru household machine for one disk copes perfectly with old dirty disks.I'm happy with her.
Shining a record may be cleaning. Audiophiles and record lovers want to see pops removed from dust landing on a cooling record caused by dust fused at the pressing plant, as well removal of the film on the record caused by the outgassing of the plasticizer while in the record's sleeve and jacket, as well as commented on, films left over from prior cleaning methods using spin, air or vacuum drying.
Thus: Per the Tribelectric table of charges, water, with or without a soap, has the same electrical charge. That is why the Kirmuss process ionizes the record and takes advantage of cavitation, attracting the collapsing microbubbles. Mutiple applications of an ionizing agent is needed as the induced charge "washes off" Word of caution, ionizing a record and using a frequency higher than 35KHz promotes the risk of damage to the record. So presence of ultrasonic energy alone is not the key to record care.
Humminguru has absolutely not enough power. The total electrical power consumption is less than 40W while iSonic's old machine has three 60W each stack transducers. Claiming it's more powerful than iSonic is absurd.
The humming gurus tank is tiny. Thus I think a reasonable conclusion would be it needs less power than a large tank. In any event I have not made the claim the humming guru has more power.
@user-ol7lp6lt7z When some manufacturer claims they have a heater, ultrasonic generator implying a transducer, which you can consider is a speaker, a small external AC to DC adapter is first sign of your point. There is no power available in a small AC adapter to drive an ultrasonic transducer, heaters, motor, CPU, fans etc..
Second, if discussing or publishing wattage, we one thing where one should see two ratings, one for electrical load, i.e. current consumption, then not wattage, but ultrasonic cleaning power measured in watts per square centimeter or in Cavins.
Both seem to missing in many products.
Continuing the thought process, and looking at the sites that sell ultrasonic transducers, there are many like sized models with different wattage ratings, and also many ultrasonic generator boards. A rated 60 watt transducer is just that. Rated to accept a 60 watt signal received from the ultrasonic generator connected to it. Or to receive a 40 Watt lower signal. It is the power of the ultrasonic generator that needs to be also concidered, not only the transducer. There are many transducers. Double stack is one of them taking a lsrger profile than a single one. In any event, both do little to allow one to determine the efficiency of the product..
Continuing.. So as infetence and as an illustration and as implied, like a speaker, I can have a 60 watt speaker of sorts driven by a 25 watt amplifier. The speaker has an efficiency rating.
To ultrasonic cleaning machines we are interested in the cavitational energy in the tank, and in our case, between records. Messured by a cavitation energy meter or results and efficacy seen on an aluminum foil structure.
The KirmussAudio KA RC-1, KA-RC-2 is rated at 810 Cavins of energy between all records, all sides, between records and the outer walls, + or - 10% or so from the edge of the record to the dead wax area. In doing any measurements a degas cycle should always be performed. Current consumption or rating of the transducer as to its power handling alone is not useful. That pressure or messured cavitational energy should be sought and published. Some testing equipment such as the Megasonics has a built in memory and taking the time one can plot the cavitation energies and represent them on software giving a 3D style rendition. The aluminum foil test is simpler to look at the energy distribution.
I wonder what would happen if you just put one in?
That's what she said.
The Kirmuss man is laughing his ass off right now. Can you hear him Michael? Oh my, major fail.
What a Mickey Mouse machine.
Michael, That on and off pulsing is the degas. I think not actual running. After it ran you got good cavitation. Are you sure you are operating it properly? Did you do a humminguru review like this?
I never reviewed the Humminguru but if I do I will do the foil test. That's more important...And i did all of these tests before shooting the video and got similar results....the degassing cycle was my mistake..
All wheel damage the record ultrasonic machines it should be done once in its lifetime and less than 5 minutes per record. A good machines out there that does work is the degritter, because it works on multiple frequencies you have to have high frequencies not just 40 kilohertz.
Do a test Michael on the best Machine You Got keep running it every 10 minutes and playing it till it will degrade the record see how long it takes for audible noticeable difference.
21:55. Classic
Great review. I think this machine was made by the chicken pluckers you mentioned at the start of the video.
they do however use enzymatic cleaners designed for use with them other companies have it to such at Tuttnauer.
It wasn't tested with fewer records. I think it should have been. The comparison was a $6500 KLAudio machine that only cleans a single record. Similar testing with 1 records should have been done. It would also have good to see how adding an addioinal record affects it. I state this because the iSonic is considerably cheaper, about 1/8 of the price. And if the iSonic cleans a single record it would be a considerable savings. So this video really doesn't answer the question whether or not it would be worth buying. Myself, I'm not going to spend $6500 on any machine that cleans records. My turntable doesn't cost that much and I've spent what I thinks is a decent amount of money on my turntable. I have a $750 Hana SL on the tonearm. So I might not be against spending as much or maybe a little more on the iSonic it works as well as the KLAudio. I'm not suggesting it will. But I don't have the answer from this video.
KL Audio and similar designed machines uses two transducers on the sides of the tank. The transducers are very close to the records. It has some benefits with this design. It's easier to have the cleaning effects on the record in the area around the transducers. Whether it's good to cover the edges of the grooves depends on the power of the transducers, the design and the make of the unit. The downside with this design is that it can only handle one record. It simply can't clean two or more records. iSonic's units always have the transducer(s) on the bottom of the tank. They have to be more powerful in order to cover the entire width of the grooves and multiple records. Also more records absorb more ultrasonic energy. Comparing 5 records to 10 records for instance, it'll take roughly twice amount of the time when cleaning 10 records to achieve the same effect as for 5 records. Comparing the foil disc tests between KL Audio and iSonic is also not apple to apple. We don't have a KL Audio to test but we can expect that it will generate dimple much quicker as the transducers are so close to the foil. Using one rotation on iSonic is too quick for the cavitation to have effect on the foil. Cleaning is not done in one rotation anyway. Typical cleaning time say 10 minutes is equal to 100 rotations. We'll make a video to show people the correct ways to do the foil test and to use the cavitation meter. The bottom line is the sound effect after cleaning. Everything else is reasoning or speculations. We haven't heard any of our customers complained about the sound effects after cleaning. That's the ultimate approval of our products.
If this doesn't send you running to Spotify, nothing will.
I thought for an instance the machine was 😊going to fly
To be fair, adding ANYTHING (things to clean) to ANY ultrasonic cleaner will reduce the amount of cavitation in the rest of the fluid, in different areas due to changing the reflection modes within the volume of fluid. Nothing surprising there. Lower power simply requires longer time. Don't put the cavitation measuring device on the tank bottom - this would produce incorrect results. Also, I'm not sure that you understood the "on/off/on/off" pulsing of the degassing mode needs to finish before you start cleaning. Did you do this when you tested it with the foil, or was it pulsing then too? Or was it even on? You said it was but we couldn't see the control panel, and indeed there didn't appear to be anything indicating the machine was even on - no noise, no disruption on the fluid surface.
Using a cavitation meter one should measure the effects of cavitation from where the edge of the record resides, then moving it upwards, ideally between all records and not in an empty tank. This as there are reflections and standing waves that negate the effects of cavitation. Better proof is on the TrackingAngle review of Kirmuss and Wally Tools at the Florida International Audio Fest 2023. There are still images of testing of various sonics and especially ones where there are skewered records. The same cavitation meter used confirms the aluminum foil test records placed in various machines, some proven not to be using cavitation, rather are ultrasonic bubblers.
We use also a digital citational energy meter that logs in x-y-z fashion the expected evenness of cavitation in a properly designed ultrasonic record cleaner.
Cavitation Meter. The Stuff You Audiophiles come up with. Lol!
This review looks based on demonstrated facts but they are full of false pretenses. 1. The unit has one not two transducers and Mr. Fremer corrected in the note. This transducer is a 80-90W supersized stack transducer. Cavitation is not simply based on the number of the transducers. It depends on the power of the transducer(s), the design of the machine, and it's related to need to the items to be cleaned. 2. Vinyl records rotate through the tank while being cleaned, so only a central band needs to be covered in order to get the entire records cleaned. There is no need to have uniformed ultrasonic energy throughout the entire tank. This is the uniqueness of ultrasonic vinyl record cleaning. This supersized transducer is power enough to cover that central band. 3. When Mr. Fremer was checking the cavitation while the records were rotating, the machine was on Degas mode first, meaning the ultrasound was on pulses. Viewers can hear the buzzing sound on and off. When it has no ultrasound, the meter of course dropped to zero. When it changed to normal cleaning with continuous ultrasound, Mr. Kremer also said now it has cavitation, without realizing what's the difference in the background. When checking normal cavitation, the machine should never be running on degas mode. 4. The normal cavitation check also should be done without anything in the tank as anything in the tank will absorb certain amount of ultrasound energy. Checking it with 10 records in the tank distorted the original cavitation level or the ultrasound power of the machine. 5. Mr. Fremer demonstrated foil tests with record shaped aluminum foil discs. That's a good method. The problem is that he only rotated the disc with one rotation. That's too quick for cavitation to take effect on the foil. Typically a minimum of 1 minute exposure is needed. He compared the other foil disc supposedly done with a KL Audio ultrasonic cleaner. That disc foil full of dimples couldn't be the result of one rotation. Mr. Fremer didn't make a fair and factual comparison. 6. Cleaning solution helps to remove oily substances as water alone doesn't separate oil well. Saying only cavitation is all you need is false. 7. Mr. Fremer admitted the records looked "shining clean" after cleaning. That showed the machine cleaned well. Making the claim that the records were cleaned not because of cavitation is a false statement. 8. A sidenote is that the cavitation meter is an expensive and specialized instrument. Typically only people deeply involved with ultrasonic cleaners have this instrument. Clearly Mr. Fremer is not an expert on ultrasonic cleaners. Where that instrument came from and who taught Mr. Fremer how to use it in this biased way?
I sonic I suggest you make a video of the Isonic tinfoil test with 10 records and post it on UA-cam. I have the older machine and it does clean records well with the provided soap with a second rinse. I would not consider the machine a piece of junk at all. Also I have contacted Isonic via emailed twice for a safety sheet on the cleaner or a list of ingredients. Do you have this for the new soap?
iSonic provided a list of ingredients. I've listed them on the website review@@TrueStereo-
@@trackingangle929 Great. Thanks for letting me know.
The evenly pitted foil record produced by the KL Audio machine resulted from a single rotation. There was nothing false in this video. There were a few factual errors in need of correction and I did correct those. I have questioned and have been for years a critic of many of Kirmuss’s claims and demanded proof that he has provided. Ten records on a spit do not get evenly cavitated or cavitated at all. The test demonstrates that. I have no doubt a single record or perhaps a few can be properly cavitated but 10 spaced close together clearly cannot. I reject any insinuations that I am somehow working with Mr. Kirmuss. However he has been helpful. He provided the aluminum foil disc that demonstrated the effective cavitation produced by the KLAUDIO machine that is not a Kirmuss product and he did provide discs that demonstrated that 10 discs on a spit in the ISonic machine did not get cavitated or got minimal cavitation or in some places excessive energy.
@@TrueStereo-This test is seen in the PowerPoint presentation recorded by Fremer recorded at the 2023 Florida International Audio Expo.
Still haven't gotten past "pluckin' chicken's "
Yeah, Im not hyper spin drying my MMJs on that thing lol.
I'm sorry but reviews like this are a danger to consumers and companies alike.
At 3:19 the reviewer points to the heating elements and calls them transducers - The single trasnsducer (without knowing its design otherwise), which looks larger than what I've seen on other sonic cleaners, but who knows if it is, is actually under the large round feature in the middle.
Then at 4:29 he mounts 11 records onto the spindle, when the machine is designed for 10, then after a jump cut to correct the error the proper number gets mounted. This alone doesn't harm the review, but it is a taste of the lack of attention to detail we see throughout the video.
Then he admits confusion of why warm water would be benficial to cleaning records when we all know that without any other mechanisms, warm water naturally cleans (most things) better than cold, this is an imutable fact regardless of what other cleaning mechanism is employed by the device. Never mind that the mechanical affect of cavitation would naturally benefit from warm water, as would using warm water and simply rubbing with a cloth, for instance, or any method that requires physical contact. Warm water "cleans" better than cold. Period.
Then he compares the activity or another ultrasonic cleaner that wasn't filled to the max (which compresses the area the cavitation has to cover), using one aluminum sheet (which greatly reduces the surface area the cavitation has to work against), and compares that performance across a greater volume of water used in this machine and across 10 aluminum records (mulitplying the surface area by 10 and greatly diluting the cavitation effect).
The mesuring device looks faulty or improperly used with all the random, unrepeatable data it returns. Sometimes off the charts and sometimes barely a wiggle? Nope, that was a useless excercise.
Something is obvously not right with the spin drying process. There is no way that loud clicking sound is normal. That is either a faulty installation or an RMA needs to be issued.
The shroud seems to be meant for the intial high-speed spinning phase when there is a lot of water on the discs, to prevent water from going all over the place. It is to be removed during the second phase for better air drying. This would be cleared up in the manual one way or the other.
This is not science. This video simply documents a lazy process.
How does this RCM compare to the Degritter Mk2?
Good question, and how does it compare to doing virtually nothing? All it really did was get the records wet and dry them.
@@67Pepper Sounds like a special at the Holiday Inn. Think i'd go for the Degritter
WTF?
At 13.10 you can hear the machine switch from degas mode to cavitation mode, and almost immediately after that at 13.11 MF's thumb flips the sensitivity switch on the meter from X100 to X1, reducing the meter reading 100 fold.
The meter when switched from X100 to X 1 actually increases the sensitivity of the device, as seen by the appearance finally of cavitation. Like one decreasing the range of an analog meter or an oscilloscope. Allows to see better the minute variations. The X100 is usually the setting for most peer products. The higher sensitivity which pinged the needle saw the X1 go into over-range at times.
Yes. Understand that I performed all tests before shooting video with a camera in one hand. The results didn't differ. I'm sorry about the switch flip...
@@kirmussaudio7578 The comparison is invalid because you can clearly hear the machine switched from degas mode to cleaning mode exactly at the moment he moved the probe. Who know how much power it's designed to put out during the degas cycle?
@gotham61 Fremer said above where the video did not match the testing. Cannot say anything as I was not involved in this testing. This said using a cavitation meter with 10 records on a rotisserie style style skewer with aluminum foil records as others have commented, erratic, little cavitation. Check out some other channels and some of Fremer's other videos.
@@kirmussaudio7578 Your reply ignores my key complaint. He says "there's almost no cavitation" when the machine is clearly sending out short pulses in its degas mode. As soon as he moves the probe to the middle of the bath, you can hear at 13.09 that the sound changes to a continuous noise, suggesting the transducer has switched from degas to cleaning mode. One second later he inadvertently flips the sensitivity switch, and the readings go off the scale. It's a flawed test.
Do not watch this video with headphones 😂😅
@@DaleRC75 😹
I see it goes for $999.00 on their site. Hard pass from me!
My God...1000 bucks for this junk!
So build your own. The tanks themselves run about a hundred bucks or so, they’re all pretty much the same. If you have a 3d printer and a bent for DIY you can figure out the rest, just Google it. They do work.
Not everybody wants to do that.
@@lox_5017The lack of any criticism ever of the mark ups on this audio trash from Fremer types is laffable
👍👍👍👍👍🎶🙏
Expensive toys for the two precent of record collectors.
Just get a DeGritter and call it a day. This thing is ridiculous- no way I’m spinning my LPs at ~1000 rpm!
This is a VERY deceptive review. The cleaner he compares the Isonic to has nearly 3 times the cleaning power, cleans one record at a time and costs over 6 times as much.
This is like complaining that a Volkswagen bug, doesn't have the performance of a Porsche hardly a fair comparison.
Ironic costs $1k and has a transducer rated for 80 watts.
The KL audio machine has a transducer rated for 200 watts and costs $6,499.99
Apples to apples comparison? You decide, I am saying no in my opinion.
One does not measure cleaning power in watts. Cavitational energy is measured in Cavins or Watts per Square Centimeter. Example, I can have a loudspeaker rated at 100 watts driven by an amp rated at 12 watts. We all know there is an efficiency rating of the loudspeaker. A decibel meter would be used to measure the audible output just as a cavitational energy meter is used to plot the distribution in an ultrasonic's tank.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8799601/
That machine looks ridiculous, I realize you know about records and systems but that thing is a piece of junk 😂 - there is no way I would put a nice record on that.
Notice that he stated he wasn't using his good records on this junk.
I wud t drop a crap lp in there
$1000 USD for that and doesn't do anything. I say fail. Points for noting that you don't want any kind of film on your records. You don't want your $500-1000 stylus plowing the gunk and getting dirty. Cleaning the stylus can damage.
I would recommend 6L Chinese industrial ultrasonic cleaner with record motor/attachment. These are cheap $150. The bath does what it is suppose to do a very good and strong clean. 6L has 3 units for the sound. Not 2 like this one does. Still for best result I would recommend 2-3 records only at the time.
What you demonstrated with only 1 cycle what it does when it is working is that you only need 2-5 minutes MAX. 15 minutes is an overkill even for this cleaner. No chemicals and if you do have a clean filtered city water it is soft and usable. You don't really need to spend for distilled water. Hard well water do not use.
Personally I don't want any chemicals drying on the record. Alcohol can make the record brittle or it can expose a bubble in the record. Also when preparing the record check that it doesn't have any defects. Air bubble often is easy to spot and don't use the ultrasonic washer for these records because it can burst the bubble.
WTF is that sound when it's in ultra speed? 😂
IDK but somehow this product doesn't really looks/sounds very convincing of quality...
it shouldn't be so complex... is this a real product or a beta of some sort? 🤔
Do you know how Google works?
@@JLeeeP it was rhetorical question, genius.
@@net_news Why do dumb people always come back with a response that's just as dumb as their original thought? It's very interesting.
Michael I think you screwed up multiple times in this review.
Mike, this cleaning device is a joke. How much did they pay you to do this silly review test. This thing detail alot of scary sounds while in operation. And the fact you had to go out into your garage to do this demonstration is nonsense. Good grief! MIKE...on to your next video.
I am glad to see him review a machine and point out its faults and shortcomings. (that is the point of reviewing it) Not all reviews should be recommended products. I now know. not to buy it.
I do not get paid to produce these reviews.
@@trackingangle929 indirectly u do thru wages advertising free bees and I bet u have been paid before.. Why r we all so cynical about types like u??
@@matthewtaylor7355Your logic is tragic.
@@matthewtaylor7355 will you please spell out your words when responding !
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
what a joke michael you know its true
So many records to clean. So labour intensive to do manually or expensive / risky to do via a machine.
Maybe my cd’s were a better choice
I love you Fremer, but you having and using a cavitation meter made me howl. Is this what vinyl has come to?
Seeing you Putting the cavitation meter into the water tank may be vinyl’s “jump the shark” moment. But the you out did it with the tin foil records.
Go spend some time with the wife bro
They are a better choice in every way except for listening and for enjoying the packing and physical presence. Also record are a great acoustical room treatment
@@trackingangle929 totally. Love the videos
21:56.
That thing is noisy.
Don't understand what is even PRO about this primitive unit. Better for this money to buy a HumminGuru.
This machine does not make a good impression. Sorry.
Oh well, it’s crap. 😂