2. analog
  3. 168889-145141

Record Cleaning Machines

Has anyone out there done an A/B comparison of the cleaning results or efficacy using the Degritter ultra sonic record cleaning machine which operates at 120 kHz/300 watts and an ultrasonic cleaner that operates at 40 kHz/300 or 380 watts (e.g. Audio Desk; CleanerVinyl; the Kirmuss machine; etc.)?  I have a system I put together using CleanerVinyl equipment, a standard 40 kHz ultrasonic tank and a Knosti Disco-Antistat for final rinse.  I clean 3 records at a time and get great results.  Surface noise on well cared for records (only kind I have) is virtually totally eliminated, sound comes from a totally black background and audio performance is noticeably improved in every way.  Even though the Degritter only cleans 1 record at a time, it seems significantly easier to use, more compact and relatively quick, compared to the system I have now.  I'm wondering if the Degritter's 120 kHz is all that much more effective, if at all, in rendering better audio performance than the standard 40 kHz frequency.  I don't mind, at all, spending a little extra time cleaning my records if the audio results using the Degritter are not going to be any different.  I'm not inclined to spend three grand for a little more ease & convenience and to save a few minutes.  However, if I could be assured the Degritter would render better audio performance results, even relatively small improvements, that would be a whole other story.
oldaudiophile
antinn
421 posts
 
@mglik,

The Keith Monks Discovery RCM is an awesome machine.  I have worked with some people over at the VPI forum with VPI vacuum RCMs and the Loricraft™ PRC-4 RCM with the following cleaning process (as quoting from the book Chapter XIII): 

XIII.4.a Pre-clean exceptionally dirty records with Alconox™ Liquinox™ at 0.5% (5 mL/L) - vacuum but do not fully dry. Depending on the record condition, two pre-clean steps may be required. Although the Alconox™ Liquinox™ will foam, most of the foam is collected in the brush as noted Figure 15.

XIII.4.b Rinse pre-cleaner with DIW - vacuum, but do not fully dry.

XIII.4.c Final clean with Dow™ Tergitol 15-S-9 at 0.05% (0.5 mL/L) - vacuum and do not fully dry. There will be some foam as noted Figure 17, but most of the foam will be in the brush.

XIII.4.d Rinse final cleaner with DIW - vacuum and fully dry. When drying be careful of drying too long that can cause static to form.

jehowlind
18 posts
 
I purchased a Degritter just over a year ago, after using a DIY ultra-sonic setup for 3 yrs. with basically good results. I got tired of wasting an entire afternoon/evening performing labor intensive, noisy work to clean records, of which I own thousands- both LPs and 45s. I am extremely pleased with the Degritter. I generally use the medium length clean cycle, and generally get anywhere from 6-12 records cleaned before the cooling water cycle kicks in. I found if I use the quick clean (shortest) cycle, I almost never have the unit stop to cool. If I have a bunch to clean, then I can use the short cycle 2-3 times for each record. If you like, you can shorten the drying cycle with a quick turn of the knob, and make time between cycles even faster, and on the last cycle, adjust the drying time a bit longer. Not a big deal. Or you can leave it set, and just go about your business doing other things. I premix Tergikleen in a gallon jug of distilled water and add that to the tank. For a rinse cycle, I use distilled water with just a "splash" of 99.9% medical grade Iso alcohol on the short clean cycle. The records come out spotlessly, beautifully clean. This machine has saved me countless hours of cleaning records, and was worth every penny for me.
dhcod
710 posts
 
You need to call Albert Porter at Porterhouse Audio. Before I bought my Degritter, he gave me the whole comparison. He is or was a dealer for all the top line ultrasonics. Without reservation, liked the sound of the Degritter the best.
oldaudiophile OP
334 posts
 
Neil, thanks again!

Firstly, I think you are correct about the MoFi Super Record Wash. It certainly doesn't behave like a high surface tension solution; quite the opposite. Rather, it looks and behaves like a solution containing a surfactant. I used Kodak Photoflo to manually clean my records years ago. However, Tergitol seems to be more popular nowadays. When I bought the Super Record Wash, I assumed it contained a surfactant and "high-surface-tension" had to be a mistake. The solution is odorless. What it contains by way of natural degreasers & dirt solvents is likely known only to MoFi and the manufacturer(s).

Secondly, yes, all the records I've run through the UCM were exceptionally clean. At this point, my predominant concern is removing mold release agents from new records and whatever might remain from earlier manual cleanings years ago. Hence, another reason why I wonder if the Degritter's 120 kHz might be more effective in this regard. An approach I'm contemplating is using LAST POWER CLEANER as a pre-cleaner, prior to the 40 kHz UCM.

Lastly, thanks for the tip on the power supply gadgets! I just re-read Chapter XIV. Despite being a straight A student all through high school and college, including Calculus, I wish I could confess to a solid grasp of that material. Guess this will require another read with calculator in hand.

Thanks Again!
oldaudiophile OP
334 posts
 
Neil, thought you might find this interesting.  I certainly did!

According to a representative of MoFi, Super Record Wash is, indeed, a "high-surface-tension water composition". The response I got to my question about this was that "the high surface tension allows it to be more easily removed from the grooves along with the gunk you are trying to remove, as it wants to bead up after being spread into the grooves by the brush." The "brush"? Apparently, it seems this solution was or is intended for use with vacuum RCM's and manual cleaning. Despite the good results I've been getting with it, I guess I will now be doing some research on a more appropriate solution.
More to discover