Kirmuss Cleaning System Discuss?


Looking at the Kirmuss system and their process is explained in detail and the concepts are a bit more detailed than other discussions. 

Yeah the presenter in a lab coat brings back memories of Matthew Polk. But aside from that the process appears to have merits.

 

Any thoughts or observations?

neonknight

It can be used without the extra treatment. 5min cleans 3 records and removes most of the dirt. Very few of my records needed more then 2 5 mins cleanings.

yes, drying off is manual…

The whole surfactant story seems half marketing half truth. I have not seen the white residue on many records so I considered the spray optional.

 

@tom2015 Well the reality is every company needs a story to separate itself from their competitors. We can say the product sells itself, but that really isn't the truth. 

You want to spend the rest of your life cleaning records? This is the silliest system on the market. 

Rules of the road. A machine must use fresh fluid with each cleaning. There is more than particulate matter in the environment. There is all sorts of stuff in the air and on the record that gets dissolved in the fluid. Filters will not remove it. If you then fan or air dry the record you evaporate the water and leave everything else on the record. like paint. The record must be vacuum dried. It is the only way to remove almost everything from the record. As far as ultrasonic cleaning vs agitation with a microfiber brush goes, I would bet there is no difference at all. IMHO the best machines on the market are the Clearaudios and the Nessie. The Clearaudio Double Matrix is the only machine that meets all these requirements and does both sides at the same time with a cleaning cycle of 3 minutes. It is expensive but worth every cent.

Here are my thoughts. 

 

As some have mentioned, you don't have to go through the entire process if you don't think its necessary. It functions as any other ultrasonic tank. Although it becomes an expensive system to do so. 

The idea that records spacing and direction of the ultrasonic devices matters, appears to make sense, and the tests with foil corroborate this. I cannot see how this arrangement cannot be beneficial. 

The two 33 1/3 record is a limitation for sure. Wish it could do more. But the drop in the slot set up is convenient and that looks beneficial. 

Changing fluid after 25 records. This point should apply to any ultrasonic tank, as all records will be dirty to an extent. If you are using it for touch up, then I imagine the time interval can be extended. Unless you can filter to the micron level every tank is going to suffer from this issue. 

Finally, the noise level question is in regards to using it in my dining room which is just off my audio room. It would be nice to run it and still have music playing in the background while I wait. I have a 2 by 2 cube I have records in which would be a nice place to store it. I can use the dining room table for sleeves and processing while I clean, and then put everything away in a jiffy. If I can listen to casual music during the process that is a plus. 

 

Oh as far as drying goes. I have noticed in my current ultrasonic tank that records come out pretty dry as is, and given a bit of time they do air dry quickly. I also tried drying with a VPI 16.5 and then later a Record Doctor since its orientation is more favorable for doing ultrasonic cleaned records. I am not convinced this is a benefit over air drying. I think the opportunity to add noise exists here.