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
clearthinker's avatar
clearthinker
1,582 posts
 
Massive thanks to everyone.
This thread is hugely informative and I have been following it closely.
Currently it appears the Degritter has the best recommendation ratio.
But goodness me, aren't there a lot of variables once you start analysing additions to plain distilled water!
sokogear
1,100 posts
 
@oldaudiophile- i use a very dense brush to clean my stylus maybe once a week with a slight amount of MFSL stylus cleaning fluid. That sometimes makes a difference in SQ when I can see some dust on the brush.

Sounds like youve got a good tracking system down. You must go through a lot of stickers! So you count the number of plays per cleaning, or does it very by time, or record condition? 
Ag insider logo xs@2x
cleeds
6,004 posts
 
oldaudiophile
I use a carbon fiber brush, as well. I also use an Onzow stylus cleaner that I love. Using one of those shows you what kind of gunk or dirt a stylus picks up, even on a "clean" record after one play.
If you’re truly playing a clean LP there won’t be any visible dust on the stylus after one play.

There’s a lot of good information in this thread and I have a lot of respect for those who are willing to put so much time and energy into this. My protocol is simple compared to many here: I use a Klaudio US cleaner using nothing but distilled water. It’s an easy, convenient, one-button process, which means there’s never a reason to play anything but a clean record.

I still have my original Nitty-Gritty cleaner but I never used it much. It’s just too much trouble. I keep it on hand in case I ever get an LP the Klaudio can’t sufficiently clean, but that hasn’t happened yet in the years I’ve had the Klaudio.
bslon's avatar
bslon
2,218 posts
 

I used a VPI HW16.5 for years, using VPI’s cleaning solution when I did. The records were spotless afterwards but I don’t think it actually improved the sound. It did add a static charge frequently, so I kept a Zerostat close by.

Now I use an AudioDesk Pro X machine with distilled water and a bottle of AD’s surfactant. It eliminates more surface noise than the VPI ever did with no static buildup. In addition to the ultrasonic cleaning, it has 4 microfiber brushes that brush the record with the cleaning agent. The brushes may also help circulate the fluid because I’ve had some lengthy cleaning sessions with no overheating. It’s easy and convenient to use, takes about 5 minutes to clean and dry a record and is much quieter than the VPI. The cleaning time is adjustable. All of my records have gone through cleaning and occasionally I’ll clean a record a second time. That’s over 1000 cleanings so far without an issue.

The records are stored in poly liner sleeves like I’ve used for the past 50 years, no issues with these liners. I mark the inside edge of the jacket opening with a set of faint lines to indicate how many US cleanings the record has had and the duration.

Now when I pull a record from its jacket it just needs a couple rotations on the platter with a Hunt EDA brush before play.

Occasional stylus cleaning is done with an Onzow and Lyra SPT Stylus Treatment.

The AudioDesk is expensive but if you have a lot of records I think it’s worth it.

kirmuss
6 posts
 
I am sorry but to our Kirmuss KA-RC-1 being made by Isonic  is incorrect. Isonic in Chicagoland is a distributor of sonic cleaning devices. Our machine in purchased from the same factory that makes the Isonic machine. That is the only commonality. As a speaker on technology at the annual Global Sources Electronics Shows in Honk Kong since 2007, I volunteer my time to educate overseas buyers how to protect IT and deal with mainland Chinese manufacturers. I have interest in my own factory in Shenzhen where we take the basic machine purchased die to economy of scale and the manufacturer's expertise and make changes to it. Simply stated, the products do not work in the same fashion. Added, it is impossible to actually see a sonic work reaching all the recorded groove data if records are skewered as in the Isonic offering.  Just wanted to clarify the matter.
More to discover