Ultrasonic record cleaners

The Humminguru seems bargain priced.

The Kurmiss seems to clean as well as the Degritter and the Audiodesk based on Fremer's assessment, but a lot of steps to accomplish it.

KL is out of the USRCM business

The Degritter is a later design, does a comparable job, and generally has a lower price than the AudioDesk.  Degritter is also working on a Reference model at $7k for sale in May 2023 - very surprised and curious that the current USRCMs sonic results can be improved upon.

I think the main change for the Degritter Pro is that it uses two baths, with one reserved for rinsing. It automates what many people already do by swapping the tank with a second one for a DW rinse.

I can take my cleaned record out of the Degritter and put it back on the Loricraft for a DW rinse and vacuum, but the the thing is, I can't hear any difference if I do that.

I am going to try using the Degritter with plain DW after a wash and vacuum on the Loricraft, hoping the ultrasonic cavitation alone will remove what the Loricraft missed, and at the same time rinsing any detergent residue left after the Loricraft vacuumed it.

@kennyc said" "KL is out of the USRCM business." They were. But Chad at Acoustic Sounds struck a deal to distribute a version of the smaller unit that has a separate reservoir. It also offers a connection to a household water supply.

I have no details on the effectiveness of the filtering. It is quite expensive.

Neil Antin, upthread, posted a link to What’sBest where a question of mine was answered regarding the use of a second bath. This one is DIY, using high grade hardware, filtering, possibly cooling as well. Not cheap either, but high "throughput" as Neil would say. (@antinn).

I use a Monks Omni for pre-cleaning, have the older, bigger KL (with the tank integrated into the unit) and will rinse the record and vac it on the Monks in some cases rather than "blow dry."

There are many DIY approaches that work well, but not all are money savers. :)

@antinn

The ultrasonic cleaner that I currently have it 6" in width, which leaves 3" on each side of the LP if I clean 1 LP at a time. Is there any practical or theoretical disadvantage if I were to clean 2 LP’s at a time, with a distance of 2" between each LP and 2" from each edge of the tub for a standard 180 W, 3 head, 40 kHz machine?
Thanks.

@drbond 

The spacing is fine.  BUT you have a 6L tank.  From a previous post you stated:  "4. I slowed the rotation of the motor to about 3 cycles per minute (this is using a low voltage adjustable DC adapter set at its lowest 3V), which is as slow as my adapter will turn the motor.".

Spinning at 3-rpm and a 6L tank, the most records you should clean is 1-record.  If you add another record, then to maintain maximum cavitation intensity you would need to decrease the spin speed to 1.5 rpm.  See the book XIV.5.3.e.