Record Cleaning Machines

@oldaudiophile
I too am deciding between the Kirmuss and/or Degritter.

Although one can save $ on a more home made Ultrasonic record cleaner solutions, the Kirmuss seem to perform with the best RCMs as reviewed by Fremer:https://www.stereophile.com/content/analog-corner-287-charles-kirmuss-vinyl-restoration-system
“….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.”
“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.”
“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..”
So my conclusion is the Kirmuss is at least amongst the “best” at cleaning vinyl records.
ElusiveDisc often has a cheaper package deal while UpscaleAudio has a 3 LP version- both are on sale now.

The Degritter at $3k is cheaper and a newer design than AudioDesk.

KL Audio has exited the automatic RCM market likely due to high repair costs.

I thought about chasing which ultrasonic cleaning frequency is “better” or is “gentler” on the vinyl, but gave up as to not be important rabbit hole to chase- they both work great

If budget a concern, get the Kirmuss. If convenience a concern, get the Degritter.

Looking forward for your report on your new RCM. Thanks for supporting this forum community

Oldaudiophile, in case you did not know it, @antinn is a high class expert on cleaning technologies.

For relatively clean records I use 80KHz exclusively, although I have used 37KHz on some very dirty specimens with good results. Temperature is an issue, as antinn suggests. Body temperature is safe for vinyl, but colder is less good for cleaning.

@terry9, ...you are too kind.

@oldaudiophile, a few quotes from the book:

Chapter XII.6.a - "...The paper Adhesion and Removal of Fine Particles on Surfaces, Aerosol Science and Technology, M. B. Ranade, 1987 (38) shows for aluminum oxide particles, the force (acceleration) required to remove a 10-micron particle is 4.5 x 10^4 g’s, a 1-micron particle is 4.5 x 10^6 g’s and a 0.1-micron particle is 4.5 x 10^8 g’s. A simple brush or wipe is not going to get the smallest particles/debris that can ‘hide’ in the valleys between the groove side wall ridges.|"

But this is where UT has an advantage:  

XIV.1....For ultrasonics there is a minimum power (wattage) necessary to produce cavitation. The higher the frequency, the more power is required. The minimum power required at 40 kHz is reported between 0.3 and 0.5 W/cm² (per transducer radiating surface). As the UCM tank volume increases, less power, measured as W/gal or W/cm³ is required to maintain cavitation throughout the tank. A very small 0.5-gal/1.9-L 40-kHz tank may require 125 W/gal while a 12.75-L/3.4-gal 40-kHz tank may only require 80 W/gal; noting that as the ultrasonic kHz increases so does the power required. There is a limit to increasing power above which no additional benefit (cavitation intensity)  is obtained.

XIV.1.b The lower the ultrasonic frequency, the larger the bubble that is created. A 40 kHz UCM will produce bubbles about 75 microns diameter. These are not going to get into the record groove. A 120 kHz UCM will produce bubbles about 20 microns and these can get into the groove. But the larger bubble can produce more energy when it collapses/implodes (cavitation) so there is fluid agitation around the collapsing event that can provide cleaning. How violently the bubbles collapse is determined by the amount of power provided by the ultrasonic transducers. A low power 40 kHz unit may be safe for soft metal such as jewelry, while a 40 kHz high power unit may not. The smaller bubble by its size is limited to how violent it can collapse. A high powered 120 kHz unit has less potential for damage than a high powered 40 kHz.  

XIV.1.c Further complicating the effectiveness of ultrasonics is the fluid boundary layer. The fluid flow at the record (or any) surface develops a static layer that is separate from the bulk fluid that is moving. The boundary layer thickness is dependent on the ultrasonic frequency (high kHz = thinner boundary layer), acoustic energy, and fluid properties (viscosity & density). To get the most effective cleaning, the cleaning process has to penetrate the boundary layer to remove the soil and particles that are contained within it. ...At 40-kHz, the boundary layer can be as thick as 5 microns, while at 120-kHz, the boundary layer can be as thick as 2 microns.".

I’ll just say, I had a Kirmuss and liked the end result, but I started getting royally pissed at it for constantly overheating and continuously sitting around for 20 minutes while it cooled off! I have an Audio Desk system now and glad I paid the extra for quality cleaning. I did start off my cleaning adventure with an okki nokki but moved up to ultra cleaning....imo.

I’ve maybe got $600 into it, and other than the initial spreading of cleaner and putting on the spindle, it’s pretty much hands off.  I can do 6 at a time but usually do 4 with a little more space between them