2. analog
  3. 133916-3933

Thumbs up for ultrasonic record cleaning

My Cleaner Vinyl ultrasonic record cleaner arrived today and it’s impressive.

Everything I’d read indicated that ultrasonic was the way to go, and now I count myself among the believers. Everything is better - records are quieter, less ticks and pops, more detail etc.

All my records had been previously cleaned with a vacuum record cleaner and were well cared for. Nonetheless, the difference is obvious and overwhelmingly positive.

Phil
phil0618
prof
3,485 posts
 


Well, I put my money where my laziness is...and ordered the upcoming Degritter Ultrasonic RCM!

Interacting with the folks at Degritter (as well as reading beta user reports) has given me confidence in their product and in their character, so it seems like worthwhile gamble. If it works as advertised it would be the perfect record cleaner for me.

It’s supposed to ship in September. Whenever it arrives, I’ll let people know my impressions.

More info here, with some demos:

http://degritter.com/

FYI: Just a couple days left to get in on the first batch. 
audiotomb's avatar
audiotomb
1,112 posts
 
I have a KLaudio and a Loricraft
i have never heard any issues with sonic degradation

I have cleaned a large amount of my rare collection of records. They only sound more refined with enhanced sonics


only better resolved low level resolution, removed tics pops static noise floor, separation of instruments etc

as for the ’hypothetical’ issue
Klaudio did extensive 9 hour continuous tests with yellow vinyl and found no traces of vinyl shavings

I have had the KL since 2013
it has been incredibly reliable
The machine was heavily researched, patented ultrasonic array, etc. F

I don’t find a salesman in a white coat to dismiss a viable urc Using fear of 'improper' variables to sell his wares. Especially when some of his comments are the opposite of physics

hopefully he sells a great urc at a good price
pryso
1,956 posts
 
prof, not your doing but it looks like they designed the Degritter filtering system backwards.  It seems the water should be drained from the bottom where released particles would fall, pass through the filter, then be pumped back in at the top.

I'm not an engineer but this doesn't look logical to me.
restock
831 posts
 
It seems the water should be drained from the bottom where released particles would fall, pass through the filter, then be pumped back in at the top.

I'm not an engineer but this doesn't look logical to me.


It seems there is a lot more thought than that which went into the Degritter. From the Degritter website:

"The active filtering solution works by circulating water through the filter and then back into the bath while your record is being cleaned. Water is pulled into the filter from the top of the tank in order to remove all floating dust and particles. Heavy particles that settle at the bottom will be pumped out to the external water tank, which has a dedicated sediment section."

It looks like they have all issues covered.
dgarretson
2,608 posts
 

If not filtered out after each cycle, visible particles definitely settle to the bottom of a US tank, aggregating into long chains of grey fluff. Some remain at the bottom, and some agitate into the middle and upper reaches of the tank during use, settling to the bottom thereafter. IME, if using a standard open-bath US tank that is periodically filtered, it’s best to draw those heavier aggregated particles off at the bottom. However, as the Degritter filters during the cavitation cycle, the opposite direction of flow may make sense. At that point the unaggregated particles are small, widely distributed throughout the tank, and will likely follow whatever flow of current is presented.

I didn't read the entire website, but it would be good to know how fine the filter is.  Mine catches 1um particles.  At some point I'll probably shift to a .5um filter. 

More to discover