Analog Corner

While Kirmuss's process is said to kill the fungus and prevent its further growth, in my experience it doesn't remove the fungus's visible after-effects: a cloudy white patch on the record surface.

Obviously, this half-hour procedure is not a casual record-cleaning process to be used after returning from a garage sale with a nice haul!

According to Kirmuss, even though new records are assumed to be free from baked-in cleaning fluids, the heat and pressure of the pressing process can cause mold-release compound—a chemical added to the PVC to make records easier to remove from the stamper—to migrate to the record's surface. That's why even new records can produce white paste and may require the full cleaning regimen. At Munich High End 2018, Kirmuss demonstrated that using a new Monty Alexander album I'd picked up at the show—but it took only three cycles be fore the white paste ceased to appear.

And for maintenance
As with any record-cleaning system, maintenance is key. I can't tell you how many homes and businesses I've visited where I've seen Audiodesksysteme G;läss Vinyl Cleaners with filthy, damp microfiber rollers that have gone from white to brown. (I could name names and ruin people!) That's crazy] Those machines are just spreading bacteria, fungus, and dirt—I don't even ask how many records have been cleaned with the same vat of water and surfactant...

At least the water in the Audiodesk systeme cleaner is automatically filtered during each cleaning cycle—something the Kirmuss KA-RC-1 can't boast. That's not a problem as long as you change the water every dozen or so records and avoid putting truly filthy records into the machine without first removing the copious dirt by some other means (footnote 5)—and never reuse water that's been left in the machine overnight. Distilled water and small quantities of alcohol are cheap, though the thought of lugging home gallons of water can tempt some to reuse the same bath for too long a time.

Each time you empty the vat, you must clean it out using alcohol and dis tilled water. You must also clean, with tap water, the bottom of the motorized cover and, most critically, remove the foam record guides that line the "slits" into which you place the records. Clean them per Kirmuss's instructions, because the wet foam will absorb dirt and other contaminants. It's also critical to rinse the microfiber cloths (I bought extras on Amazon), and—especially—the goat-hair brush. Fail to do these things and you will not get the desired results. Fail to brush your teeth and they'll rot and fall out—just saying!

M is for the man and the madness
Charles Kirmuss is a take-no-prisoners advocate for his system, and he is highly critical of other record-cleaning systems. According to him, wet-wash/ vacuum-dry machines, whether their contact points are velvet-lined lips or a thread-cushioned nozzle, are no good: They draw dirt into the grooves, he says, and no matter how clean you keep those velvet lips, they press that dirt into place. Fan drying is awful for records, Kirmuss contends, because it blows dirt and contaminants onto the record and dries in place the residues of surfactants and other fluids. The only effective means of drying a record, he says, is to do so physically, with the microfiber cloth.

Other cavitation machines are mostly no good, Kirmuss says. They operate at the wrong frequency, or their "spits" place the records too close together.

And according to Kirmuss, those that don't use surfactants—the KLaudio is one example—can't emulsify grease and fingerprints because cavitation alone isn't up to that job.

When Kirmuss first visited—shortly after I'd met him at AXPONA 2018—he claimed that the Audiodesksysteme machine was not cavitation-based at all: news to me! I did some research and am satisfied that the Audiodesksysteme G;läss Vinyl Cleaner does, in fact, use cavitation. Kirmuss, though, is adamant. Later, he contended that the Vinyl Cleaner's cavitation frequency is not high enough and, more critically, that the cavitation generator is incorrectly placed.

I've been using the Audiodesksysteme G;läss Vinyl Cleaner for years, as have thousands of other people. Early reliability issues aside, it cleans records, and does so better than any other type of machine I've tried and/or owned.

Does that mean it's the best?
Not necessarily, but I see no reason to dump on it. The same is true of record-cleaning machines from VPI, Nitty Gritty, Clearaudio, Loricraft, Keith Monks, Oki-Noki, Pro-Ject, and others, including other cavitation-based machines. These are all useftil record-cleaning machines.

In some of his early emails to me, Kirmuss made claims that eroded rather than fortified his credibility: the guy has been all over the map. In the months since, he has backed some of his claims with science—but others not so much. Kirmuss once claimed that the white paste was "sugar," or a molecule related to sugar. He continues to call old 78s "shellacked records," a term I've never before heard, and one that surely doesn't describe the vast majority of 78s made entirely of shellac.

And in another series of e-mails, Kirmuss told me that "LOVE" was one of the worst chemicals ever used on LPs, that it produced sonic degradation and was difficult to remove—difficult but not impossible, since, he claimed, his machine and regimen could re move it. I told him I'd never heard of "LOVE," and that it must be extremely obscure. Eventually I learned that he'd meant LAST, the vinyl-preservation treatment co-developed in the 1970s by chemist Walter Davies and used by a great many collectors and institutions. My understanding of LAST, which I've used for decades without a single instance of noise or any other sonic alteration, is that it is not a coating and thus cannot be "removed." Indeed, according to The LAST Factory, "LAST Record Preservative chemically enhances the molecular stability;...[it] affects the vinyl to a depth of about ten molecular layers and becomes part of the groove wall There are no surface residues that can be picked up by the stylus." Anyway, why pick a fight with LAST? All we need is LOVE!

The 7th M: Mikey likes it!
Let's just say Mr. Kirmuss and I have had a contentious relationship: I have been respectful, yet highly skeptical of claims, which often have a whiff of hucksterism about them. We've gone back and forth, bickering for more than a Year—last thing (or should I say the "love" tiling?) I want to do is damage my reputation recommending a product of dubious merit.

That's why I've withheld my recommendation of the KA-RC-1 Ultimate Ultrasonic Vinyl Restoration System for some time. But now that I've spent a great deal of time using it, testing it, and clearing away some of the hype, apparent misinformation, and mystifying instructions—that "sugar" business really bothered me, as did the early instructions that overlooked the need to clean the paste-polluted goat-hair brush—I wholeheartedly endorse the Kirmuss system as long as you follow the directions, which include remembering that, when the unit heats up beyond a certain point, you must turn it off (This is now covered in the manual; the previous instructions said "stop using it," which is not at all the same thing.) I endorse it because it works.

Examples?
I have an original UK pressing, on Track Records, of The Who's Tommy (2 LPs, Track 613 013/4, limited edition #16137), which I bought new in the fall of 1969 and have been playing constantly ever since—more than 50 years! I can never get enough of Keith Moon's drumming on this LP, or of how well it was recorded. (Quadrophenia was such a sonic disappointment.)

The last time I played Tommy, I realized it had gotten noisy. Worse than that, it seemed to have lost its top end—and worse than that, the music seemed to have faded into the distance. "It's finally wearing out," I told myself, sadly.

After the first dip into the Kirmuss vat, the record fairly joamed with pulled-up paste. It took five cycles to reduce the foam enough that an application of the propylene glycol evaporated, leaving no paste behind,

I followed the rest of the instructions and was left with a gleaming, shiny, like-new-looking record, even more brilliant than a similar record cleaned with the Audiodesksysteme G;läss Vinyl Cleaner. That's pretty stellar.

Best of all, when I played it—holy crap! The top end was fully restored, the backgrounds were superquiet, transients were sharpened, and the amount of inner detail—particularly the microdynamic shifts in Pete Townsend's rhythm guitar strums—produced an almost new listening experience. That's not hype.

Then I tried two original "six-eye" copies of Miles Davis's Kind of Blue (Columbia CS 8163). The results were the same. Then an original UK pressing of Abbey Road (Apple PCS 7088). And then both of my copies of The Beatles (2 LPs, Apple PCS 7067/8). All of these records sounded very good prior to "restoration," doubtlessly because I took good care of them and kept them clean using, in recent years, the Audiodesksysteme cleaner. Now their top ends sparkle as never before. I brought a 24/96 needle-drop file of Abbey Road to last February's Tampa Audio Expo and played side two for a roomful (60 people) who sat transfixed throughout. It sounded quieter, and more musically lustrous, than it had for years.

So yes, the Kirmuss KA-RC-1 Ultimate Ultrasonic Vinyl Restoration System works as promised—and it's reasonably priced. I enthusiastically recommend it—but I'm not getting rid of either my Audiodesksysteme G;läss Vinyl Cleaner or my Loricraft thread-drive wet-wash/vacuum-dry machine. Both do a damn good job, at least until it's time for a full restoration. I don't always have half an hour to clean a single record!

---

Footnote 5: Precleaning can be done with any simple method: the Allsop Orbitrac, a Discwasher brush (with fluid), or whatever. Just remember to clean those cleaners, too!