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
daveyf's avatar
daveyf
2,915 posts
 
@mijostyn   The problem with just buying new LP's is the selection. There are numerous great LP's that have not been reissued, or are no longer available. I do agree with you that the likelihood of damage and wear is far greater with the used LP. However, to just restrict oneself to only new vinyl is going to mean leaving a lot of great music behind, IMO. 
If one does some research and gains some experience in buying used LP's, one can generally get good condition vinyl that is used. There are always condition issues that can crop up, but again IME, these tend to be less common if one knows what to look for.
antinn
408 posts
 
@mijostyn,

What I wrote is correct -  Understanding Surfactants: A Guide - International Products Corporation (ipcol.com)
antinn
408 posts
 
@oldaudiophile,

This thread starting about page 18 to ~page 30 a pretty extensive review was performed by one person -  Degritter Users | Steve Hoffman Music Forum.  I started contributing about page 20 - handle pacvr.

Paul Rigby did a pretty extensive review of the Degritter -  Degritter Ultrasonic Record Cleaning Machine - The Audiophile Man, however his use of Tergikleen is not shared with the above.

I did a quick summary of the Degritter (based on my involvement with the Degritter Users thread) here https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/degritter-review-in-hifi.33448/post-740168

The best results are obtained by those who use a separate rinse-tank.  Otherwise, for dirty records, most people perform some type of pre-clean before final clean with the Degritter.

Take care,
Neil
sokogear
1,100 posts
 
+1 @mijostyn.   Only thing I would add is that if there is an out of print record I want, I will occasionally buy it if it is NM or mint condition.

i have never had one of those come back dirty. Occasionally they have a minor scratch/pop for a revolution or two, but I’ve had new records sometimes sound worse. In the worst of those cases, the vendor will allow a return, especially if they’ve seen a pattern of problems. 
I know one person who has a multi $K RCM who never brushes his records before playing them. What a waste, pure insanity.
anthonya
126 posts
 
hi all

having good results with sota vacuum.. been playing with custom liquid and I think it's ok. removes most of the dirt. grime. pops. 

however some around 5 % of the vinyl still unable to remove stubborn stains like tars. and pops and don't look like it's worn out. will ultrasonic help and how different it is from vaccuum style? is it worth the investments? 



More to discover