Record Cleaning Machines

Here's where I'm at in my findings & deliberations.

Please keep in mind, here, there is no way this can or should be considered anything other than my own feeble, half-baked attempt to see or, rather, hear what the Degritter might be able to do for my old records. This is nothing other than a rough evaluation, particularly regarding the first 2 LP's I used for my grand experiment, records that hadn't been played for years and never on the sound system I have now (e.g. Mofi Ultradeck+M & MAC integrated). For those, I had to rely on a heavy dose of nostalgia, if you know what I mean. Regardless, I'd still be interested in any & all constructive feedback. That being said, here goes!

I had the shop with the demo Degritter run 4 of my LP's through its heavy cycle. Degritter instructions were followed, including use of the recommended cleaning fluid. All 4 records were purchased new, relatively well cared for, according to the times, and never loaned or played by anyone else but me. In short, I did the best I knew how in those days (e.g. proper handling & storage + played only on a Phillips 212 TT with various carts between 1.5 and 2 grams VTF + use of WATTS Parostatik Disc Preener + later, Discwasher & D3 + Discwasher D2 stylus cleaner + etc.). 

Records cleaned: "The Hurting" by Tears For Fears (1983 Mercury-Phonogram Ltd. London-manufactured in USA by Polygram Records). This LP had never been cleaned in any way. (Nothing goes on my new TT without going through US cleaning first). Next was: "Nothing But A Breeze" by Jesse Winchester (1977 Bearsville Records-manufactured in USA by Warner Bros. Records). I may have cleaned this one in the early 1980's. If so, as best I can recall, it would have been with city treated tap water, a tiny amount of Kodak Photo-Flo, tiny amount of dishwashing detergent and, maybe, a small amount of IPA. Next was: "Pieces Of The Sky" by Emmylou Harris (1975 Reprise Records/Division of Warner Bros-manufactured  in USA). I might have manually cleaned this one in the 80's, too, with the same concoction previously mentioned. Can't remember. However, I had cleaned this one, recently, using my present US cleaning regimen and treated it with LAST record preservative. Lastly: "Desperado" by Eagles (1973 Asylum Records-manufactured by Atlantic Recording Corp. USA). I likely cleaned this one manually in the 80's. I was on a cleaning kick back then. I, also, recently ran this one through my US cleaning regimen and treated it with LAST.

Results: before playing the first 2 records on my present sound system I treated them with LAST. If there was a sonic improvement in the Tears For Fears LP, I couldn't tell. Then again, this one hadn't been played in 20 to 25 years on the old sound system. Surface noise was, comparatively,  more prominent than all the other Degrittered records. My wife thought it sounded "kind of tinny". However, this isn't her favorite Tears For Fears album and it hasn't been played much. I'm far from an expert on this sort of thing, or anything else, but I don't think this is or was a particularly good recording. Maybe bad or mediocre pressing? Lousy PVC composition? Not the best sound engineering? Maybe another US cleaning would help? No clue!

The Jesse Winchester LP was/is WONDERFUL! Virtually no surface noise to speak of and great frequency response from bottom to top; noticeably better than I remembered on my old sound system about 20 years ago. However, my new sound system is WAY better! Also, I love Jesse Winchester and this is my favorite album of his. It also seems, to my ears, that this is a good recording and a good pressing. This record already had lots of plays on it. Was my perceived improvement(s) the result of my new sound system? That's got to be part of it. Did the Degritter play a part? No way to really know, of course.

The results with these last 2 records, I think, gave me a little bit better insight into what I might be able to expect from the Degritter because I had already recently run them through my US cleaning regimen and played them on my present sound system.

Emmylou Harris's voice was/is SUBLIME, POWERFUL, CRYSTAL CLEAR, ABSOLUTELY STELLAR, as always! In this case, I think the Degritter definitely improved or brought out a little more of the music hiding in the grooves and all through the frequencies from bottom to top. However, IMHO, the improvement(s) was very subtle.

Finally, on Desperado, one of my favorite albums of all time, an album I've played LOTS, again, I believe there was/were sonic improvement(s) and, again, I think that or those improvements were very subtle.

So, for me, this is a little like buying a new car and trying to decide whether I feel the extra money for the model just above the one I like is worth it because of the variable speed windshield wipers, extra cup-holders, lighted vanity mirrors & glove box or whatever. The Degritter would certainly be more convenient, considerably less labor intensive and less time consuming than what I'm doing now. Also, there's no question in my mind, now, that it was able to wrestle or squeeze out a little bit better sonic results from the 2 records I had recently run through my US cleaning process. Frankly, I really wasn't expecting "wow" results from the Degritter. I fully expected improvements, if there were any, to be subtle, at best, and that is exactly what I found. The eloquence of the Degritter cleaning process is really what attracts me more, at this point. It's price doesn't dissuade me. So, I guess I'll continue to struggle with whether the cleaning eloquence and ever so subtle sonic improvements are worth three grand.

Anyone else out there wrestle with the same dilemma? If so, I'd be interested in how you resolved or reconciled it.

Thanks, folks! You're the best!     

@oldaudiophile You bring up some really good points. I agree with you, spending $3K on a single slot US cleaner is a real struggle. When the Degritter was out for its pre-sale testing with beta testers, I was under the impression that it was going to be priced in the $1K area!! Clearly some USA marketing guru got involved and the price was increased substantially. The new Humminguru US cleaner from China is on my radar, and its price could be sub $1K..easily. OTOH, I also know that once the ’reps’ in the USA get their hands on the thing, it will rise to the sky...:0(

You ask how others have come to terms with the pricing...While I cannot talk for others, I have voted with my wallet and as such i have NOT bought the Degritter. I suspect if enough of us did exactly this, the pricing of a lot of these 'high end' products would be modified accordingly.

@daveyf, methinks you and I are on the same wavelength!

The young folks who designed the Degritter have every right to price their machine at what the market will bear and, hence, enjoy the rewards of their innovation and hard work. After all, the Degritter is a nifty, well designed RCM providing stiff competition for all the other RCM’s on the market. With all the attention it’s receiving and the accolades & awards it has already won, I don’t think we’re likely to see a price reduction anytime soon. The HumminGuru (interesting product name), introduced at less than a grand, might prompt some thinking in this direction. However, it’s expected to be a 40 kHz machine. I think 120 kHz might have had something to do with the improvements I heard on the records I’d already cleaned with my 40 kHz process. OTH, could those improvements have been the result of just another US cleaning at whatever kHz? I’d be interested in hearing what Neil would have to say about that. Maybe an additional cleaning with my system, using Neil’s recommended tweaks, might produce the same results? Sooner or later, I’m going to find out. No matter how many times I read Neil’s book or paper on this, I just don’t have the science smarts to understand all this stuff. My understanding, though, is that different cleaning frequencies are better at targeting different contaminants.

Apparently, there are US machines on the market that cycle or sweep between 40, 80 and 120 kHz at, roughly, half the cost of the Degritter. Of course, those I’ve read about are strictly US tanks, use a heck of a lot more fluid and are not as convenient as bespoke machines like the Degritter. It’s understandable that the more sophisticated the US machine, the more it costs to manufacture and the higher its retail cost. Regardless, volume, supply and demand might have some impact on this. CleanerVinyl has a multi-cycle US machine on their website. Once you add everything to it to achieve a complete start to finish record cleaning process like the Degritter, though, you’re in the same price ballpark. Theoretically, the advantage would be the multi-cycle cleaning. I’m going to have to investigate this more closely. Regardless, I keep coming back to the same cost benefit questions: How much? How much time? To achieve what?

Paul Rigby, The Audiophile Man, completed a great comprehensive review of the Degritter and found that repeated heavy cleaning cycles with it and his own cleaning fluid concoction produced progressively improved sonic results. If I remember correctly, the Degritter’s heavy cycle is somewhere around 6 minutes (not including drying time). I do 15 minute cleaning cycles with my 40 kHz machine. I wonder how this factors into the comparative sonic results. I’m sure Neil would know. Paul and others, attest to the superior results of the Degritter, versus other 40 kHz machines. Regardless, for me, it’s the same old Gordian’s knot: How much? How much time? To achieve what?.

I’m going to try adding a little extra elbow grease (e.g. pre-cleaning with LAST POWER CLEANER) and the tweaks Neil suggested to the method of my madness and see/hear what happens because, like you, I think I’m voting with my wallet on this one. Even if I didn’t already have a lash-up US cleaning system and was just beginning to look into a system like this, my sense is that the better mousetrap has yet to be invented.

All the Best! Keep spinning those records!

@oldaudiophile,

First, the Degritter is pretty complex device; and probably the most powerful for record cleaning produced with 300W from four 75W 120 kHz transducers pointed directly at the record.  Its fully digital controlled with a water management system that includes a surface skimmer and filter, and the option to easily swap tanks.   For the overall convenience, ease of use and performance it obtains for cleaning one record at a time, its the best available and with a very well written manual  Degritter-manual-v2.2-ENG.pdf.

But that does not mean that the Degritter gets the best achievable cleanliness.  People who aspire to that goal will at-least pre-clean their records - generally with a vacuum-RCM (since most already have one) and then final clean/dry with the Degritter - often with DIW only.  But the Degritter filter system is limited so as good as it is, you can do better - but not with the same convenience.  

Very simply - A 40 kHz UCM will produce cavitation 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.  The cavitation intensity is dependent on the bubble size  and the transducer power.  A high powered 40kHz UCM will produce greater cavitation intensity (good for record surface contaminants) than a 120kHz UCM, but the 120 kHz UCM produces more cavitation bubbles.

Can a UCM with bottom firing transducers equal what the Degritter can do with optimized transducer position.  Yes, but you really need a very good UCM such as the  Elmasonic P-series which is a high powered dual-frequency unit with 37kHz & 80kHz and also has a high-power pulse mode.  Right now the Elmasonic P-series may be the best for cleaning multiple records with the right spinner and an industrial pump/filter system with 0.2 micron absolute filter.  

Fundamentally, in the tank there are layers of peak energy with peak cavitation intensity that for bottom firing UT transducers should be in horizontal layers Ultrasonic Energy Distribution - Zenith Ultrasonics (zenith-ultrasonics.com). Ideally, the peaks will be spaced at ~1/2 of the wavelength lamda Microsoft PowerPoint - 1200_L_22_VWS_3.pptx (uiowa.edu). For DIW with a speed of sound of 1498 m/s, and 80 kHz, the peaks will be spaced at (0.5)(1,498,000 mm/80,000 Hz) = ~19 mm.  

Many UT tanks have a sweep function that is intended to shift the operating frequency +/- some kHz to broaden the zone of peak UT energy (ergo-cavitation intensity); but it may reduce the absolute peak. They do this since the normal use of UT cleaning is with parts that are static in the tank. So the sweep function is intended to even-out the cavitation intensity in the tank. The value of sweep is debated in the industry.

BUT, cleaning records rotates the record and this means that the record is constantly passing through these peak-layers. As the record passes from lower to higher to lower zones of cavitation intensity, a scrubbing type action should occur; so standing waves should be good. And, the Elmasonic also has a Pulse-mode - that increases the UT energy by 20% which means the peak cavitation intensity should be higher.  And this could be very beneficial for the higher kHz such as 80kHz since it improves removal of small particulate that requires a lot of energy to remove.  

Is all this very technical - yes, and  this is just skimming the surface.  But this in many ways is what you are buying with the Degritte.  Otherwise, you can get good cleaning by doing a pre-clean step prior to UT tank cleaning but chemistry, bath management, rinsing and drying can undo your best efforts if you are not paying attention to the details.  If your are not into this, then the Degritter is a great way to go.

Will the  HumminGuru all-in-one ultrasonic vinyl record cleaner be a cheap Degritter - no.  But for many people who have only cleaned with a brush it will be a revelation.  

Good Luck,
 Neil

I just finished demoing a Kirmuss machine. The Kirmuss method of adding a surfactant and multiple sweeps of the US was not something that I was particularly interested in doing. My a'phile friend who let me use the Kirmuss does use the Kirmuss method, and I do think that there are some benefits to it ( although whether they are worth the risk to both stylus ( if you don't get all of the surfactant off) and record(s) ( if you have a problem with the slot load after multiple loads!) is questionable). I used the machine just with DW and nothing else,I also just did one sweep per record. The results were not that bad, and definitely better than I could get with my VPI 16.5 and various MoFi cleaners. OTOH, the concern that I had, and still have, for this machine is the possibility of its rather poor slot design damaging the vinyl. That alone discounted the Kirmuss for me. The ability to clean and increase the SQ on a generally clean and non-scratched LP was certainly there...just not enough for me to risk any precious vinyl damage.