Analog Corner

Cleaning 10 records per day, how long to clean the entire collection?

how much for the needed solution ?,

can the Solution be filtered and recycled ?

Is it even worth the effort considering our leading golden Ears Audiophiles never seem to mention cleaning their collections.

As far as I can tell, New Audiophile vinyl records come from Chad having NOT been cleaned, why is that ?

Do Vinyl 33.3 Pressing plants recommend cleaning the vinyl ?, if so is there a recommended method ?

How much floor space is suggested for a proper installation of a fully functional record cleaning station ?

It would be nice and appropriate for a qualified audiophile to comparatively audition both the before and after cleaned record, wouldn't it ?

So now, I'm pondering, is this a product review or a product promotion ?

Tony in Venice

ps. I've cleaned every 33.3 Vinyl record I've ever owned, numerous times !

How many records do you have that need cleaning?

Give us a sense about your place in the vinyl aspect of audiophilia, without using past tense.

You might enjoy these very cool records -- there's a subscription option -- from Adrian Younge recorded in his fabulous LA studio. The latest one is two 45s (and very reasonably priced). Great new music and great sonics converge! https://jazzisdead.bandcamp.com/subscribe

There is currently a Kickstarter campaign for an ultrasonic record cleaner called Humminguru that looks amazing for the price.

I have no vested interest, so will not even post a link.

You can Google the product.

It's Kickstarter, so the usual caveats apply.

I must admit to being a little puzzled why Michael did not compare this machine with the Kirmuss machine, given that the Degritter costs significantly more than the Kirmuss machine, Michael referenced the Kirmuss machine in his column, and Michael has positively reviewed and subsequently commented upon the Kirmuss machine. What does this machine do for the extra coin that the Kirmuss machine does not? Seems to me like a question begging for an answer.

To add a little to the confusion.

I reiterate some of my conclusions, that I shared in a comment to the review of the Kirmuss.
Cleaning records with ultrasound RCMs yields stunning sonic improvements. Also – especially? - on brand new records.
I only have experience with the Audiodesk RCM machine, having used a Spin Clean Record Washer before. The use of the latter did NOT result in any SONIC improvement.
I do not sympathize with Audiodesk because Herr Glass brought onto the market unreliable machines which would irreparably break down over time (check out the complaints on the internet! I discovered I was not alone…). I exchanged my broken one with the latest iteration and had to pay a hefty trade-in price (still cheaper than switching to a Degritter). This latest iteration – The Original – is a much more mature design and highly effective, if used properly. And therein lies the rub.
Paul Rigby – the Audiophile Man – researched the subject in depth. Ultrasound RCM manufacturers are wrong. They request that their “secret” surfactant be added to the water in the tank of the ultrasound cleaner. As a result, the surface of the record emerges contaminated with surfactant residue after the wash/dry cycle. This is embarrassingly audible (see below). I follow Paul’s recommendation. The surfactant, in my case diluted Tergikleen, must be dripped onto the record surface and gently spread with a kabuki brush. The record can then be washed/ dried in the RCM which contains only demineralized water to which 1% isopropyl alcohol has been added. Replace the water in the tank every 50 discs or so. Paul’s methodology spectacularly improves the sound of records, also of those which I had previously cleaned in the Audiodesk using the manufacturer’s method (!!!)
I am now at the stage of cleaning – again - my record collection.
To answer a few questions by your readers: I subject each record to two washing cycles of 5 minutes each. Followed by a final 4 min drying cycle. Applying the surfactant to the record prior to washing takes 2 minutes.
Record manufacturers are mute on the subject. Paul Rigby has formed a reasoned opinion as to why that is.
The longevity of LPs is most probably unaffected. But the full glory of vinyl cannot be appreciated without cleaning LPs in such a machine (or perhaps RCMs based on different principles).
Given the vast improvements RCMs confer to vinyl playing, reviewers should systematically research the subject and share their conclusions with readers. Shootouts between various offerings should reveal spectacular differences. (My guess? provided the surfactant is applied properly, all ultrasound RCMs should yield similar results. Be it a Kirmuss at usd 970 or an Audiodesk at usd 4000. Price, reliability, footprint, and convenience should then become the prevailing criteria. I cannot judge on non-ultrasound RCMs).

One of my favorite things about this machine is the removeable water tank. You can buy extras as accessories, and having two means you can have one filled with a surfactant solution and the other with just distilled water. You can then run a wash cycle without dry and after that is done swap to the water only tank and run a short cycle with dry. I think the lack of rinse is the fatal flaw with many of the record cleaning systems out there. I can't wait to get my own Degritter!

Want to save some money, clean more records simultaneously and achieve the same results? Check out CleanerVinyl.com.

For cleaning vinyl LP records, does this device or something like it work as well or better than using a thin coating of Franklin International Titebond-II PVA carpentry adhesive?

Jack Pot (great handle!) and for others interested, Mr. Fremer has already done an excellent review of the CleanerVinyl system on Analog Planet. Here's a link: https://www.analogplanet.com/content/cleanervinylcoms-reasonaly-priced-multi-lp-cavitation-based-recod-cleaning-system
Further, for those interested in the method to my madness you can check out "My Take" in the Comments section. I cannot, honestly, compare my results with this system with those of the 3 and 4 thousand dollar machines on the market because I've never used one of those but I can assure you this beats cleaning or washing records by hand, by a long shot!

I was one of the early adopters, having bought one from the first batch of machines on Indiegogo and having to wait a year to have it delivered. I have been very happy with it. I used an Audiodesk until it broke, and a VPI 16.5 for 15 years before that. The Degritter is clearly superior. Heavily soiled records still needs to be pre-cleaned, but I clean all LPs before listening. As one of the readers mentioned above, I have a second water tank that only contains distilled water for rinsing. The original machine developed a fault a couple of months ago, and Degritter sent me a new replacement machine right away without charge. The problem had been fixed on all the new machines. To be honest, I listen mostly to master tapes nowadays, but I am still surprised how good LPs can sound amazingly close after proper cleaning.

Establish you cred by showing receipts for gear, like public officials are expected to do.

As a Manufacturer, we supply reviewers with "complimentary" not "paid for".

Tony in Venice Florida

We live in a Capitalistic Business world. Everything is for profit and for money.
Reviewers aren't Charities, Audio Magazines are not Charities, are you a charity? Do you pay for your Stereophile subscription ? I do !

As a manufacturer I expect somewhat honest reviewing from insightful reviewers, the more insightful the better. I don't expect Reviewers to have to purchase Audio Gear ( which is frightfully expensive for a not so well paid review person )

We should keep in mind that everything a Magazine publishes is Opinion ( with the exception of John Atkinson's measurements ).

You can hold and cherish all the opinions you may have, they will remain challengeable opinions until proven with established facts.

I do know of reviewers that have paid for gear, it's the rare exception more than the established norm.

Besides; even when an "influencer" buys, is it established on what basis the pay is arranged ?

I am not at all angry about any of this. I'm not on a mission to correct our cozy little system. Reviewers can choose to keep gear on a long term basis, which is how I identify which gear is outstanding and which gear is so-so.

Reviewers are low paid individuals, I'm thankful for the service they perform.

Tony in Venice Florida

I've been doing a fair amount of reading & research (always dangerous) on ultrasonic cleaning specifically applied to cleaning vinyl or PVC records for about the last 4 or 5 years now. This has involved direct contact (i.e. email exchanges) with some of the major manufacturers of tabletop and much larger ultrasonic machines used for medical applications and in clean rooms for the manufacture of microchips, semiconductors, integrated circuits and things like that. I'm not a scientist or expert on such things or anything else, for that matter; just an audiophile and lover of music seeking a better education or understanding of such things.

Seems there is at least a little controversy about what the best or better frequency might be for ultrasonic cleaning of records (e.g. 35 kHz; 40 kHz; 80 kHz; 120 kHz; etc.). This Degritter machine having piqued my interest, I decided to email them and respectfully request if they had any scientific data or any data at all they could share with me that supported their determination that 120 kHz seemed best for ultrasonically cleaning records. That was over a month ago and I haven't received any reply at all. Just about all of the major manufacturers I contacted responded within days or a week, at most. All of them were very careful to explicitly point out their scientific expertise was relegated to things other than cleaning vinyl records and all, with that stated proviso, indicated the relatively standard 40 kHz frequency would likely be safe and sufficient. I was hoping to catch at least one audiophile amongst them that, just maybe, had experimented with this and would be brave enough to venture a scientifically oriented opinion or his or her findings on this but, alas, it was evidently not meant to be. This is one reason I enjoy reading John Atkinson's and other audiophiles' testing and measurement reports in addition to reviewers' subjective takes.

Still no word or response of any kind from Degritter. Not even a peep. At the very least, they could have addressed the question of a prospective customer interested in their machine and said something, anything, however vague or subjective, alluding to the research they claim to have done on cleaning frequencies. Remember that old TV commercial with the cute little old lady asking: "Where's the beef?" As I understand it, it's not the microbubbles or their size that do the actual cleaning but the force or energy released when the bubbles implode. Any real scientists out there?

It irks me when sales & marketing babble is not backed-up with at least a modicum of evidence, especially when there are some audiophile publications out there giving a product like this a nod of approval.

Mr. Fremer, perhaps the good people at Degritter would respond to a query from you regarding how they came to the conclusion that 120 kHz/300 watts is the best or, at least, a better frequency for cleaning vinyl records. The apparent convenience of a record cleaning machine like this is, I'm sure, very appealing to many vinyl lovers. As such, I'd seriously be inclined to part with $3,000 of hard earned green if only I could get just a little in the way of proof as to how these folks determined that 120 kHz/300 watts is the way to go. It doesn't have to be proprietary corporate secrets; just some evidence or rationale! In the absence of such, perhaps this calls for a shoot-out review amongst several top machines or systems (e.g. inexpensive; mid-priced; high-priced). A comparative critical listening analysis like this conducted by professional, respected audiophiles would, I'm certain, be of great interest to many vinyl lovers!

I do vinyl. Have used a VPI 16.5 long time. I mix 20% of the 91% pure isop. and 80% distilled water. (I used to buy 94% pure but it is hard to find.) I usually only clean an LP once. AM I missing something? I use a carbon fiber brush when I play an LP. I do not encounter much goo that won't come off a record, I don't quite know how far down into dirty some people find discarded/used/secondhand LPs.

Do I really need to update my cleaning? Maybe a better brush than the 22 yr old original from VPI, one with finer, yet stiff, bristles, to touch the bottom, of the groove??? I have a real system, VPI Prime, Lyra, "ribbon" type speakers. I Buy some 180 gram re-issues and some 45s.

All opinions are welcome. Trump vs Hilary comments are not needed at this time.

Since you have extensive experience with the Kirmuss I wish you had compared the end efficacy of one against the other. I realize that one is automated, the other quite labor intensive but since I have the Kirmuss, and they do use dramatically different frequencies, if the results differ. Thanks