I own a H Guru and have used the KL and the DeGritter ( version 1). The Guru, so long as one uses a surfactant (crucial), works well. The results from the KL, with a surfactant, were slightly better than the Guru and the DeGritter. The DeGritter offers a better build than the Guru, as does of course the KL. If build quality and ability to do multiple LP’s over time, ie for library work, then the order of preference is attached to the price asked. For the money, the Guru, for most folks, is an easy answer and the best option. IMO.
KLaudio or Degritter Mark II
Just curious to know if anyone out there has used both the KLaudio ultrasonic record cleaning machine and the Degritter Mark II (or the original Degritter) and which you thought achieved the best or better results.
I've got a lash-up ultrasonic cleaning system that I've put together which costs significantly less than the original Degritter. The end result I get with my lash-up system is, at least, as effective as the original Degritter but significantly more labor intensive. The Degritter is much more eloquent in this regard, which is its allure. I know the KLaudio is twice the price, but I'm much more interested in optimum results.
Thanks!
- ...
- 45 posts total
First some observations on your current cleaning regime:
Now on to the Elamsonic P60, and I have worked with a number of people setting up their process.
This setup tima's DIY RCM | What's Best Audio and Video Forum. The Best High End Audio Forum on the planet! (whatsbestforum.com) uses two UT tanks using the P120 with the high-end filtration system addressed in the book with a 2nd cheaper 12L UT for rinse. Let me emphasize that the P-series are powerful units. One individual was running at 0.15-rpm and allowed the tank to reach 50C, and one record was damaged (a molted surface occurred - but played OK). Lesson learned - do not spin to slow and do not let the tank get to hot. Now for the extensional question - will the Elamasomic P60 yield a cleaner record than what you are getting now - it may. Depends on what you are cleaning. But if you are pre-cleaning before UT, you should be able to just use a no-rinse bath of Tergitol 15-S-9 at 0.004%. This is 0.24-ml per tank. This is 6-drops from a Nalgene Dropper Bottle Nalgene 2 oz. Leakproof Travel Dropper Bottle | The Container Store. The Nalgene Dropper Bottle delivers accurately 0.04-ml/drop - Factors to consider in accuracy and precision of Nalgene Dropper Bottles (thermofisher.com). For this no-rinse formula, 2% IPA can make a difference, but if using the bath for extended periods (weeks), you will need to periodically re-add Tergitol and IPA. As I always say, the devil is in the details, and the best cleaning process is the one that is best for you. Take care, Neil
|
@antinn First and foremost, thanks so much for your kind attention to my record cleaning madness! Also, a correction of a typo I made: Rotation speed for my final ultrasonic rinse cycle(s) is/was 0.5 RPM; not 5 RPM. In answer to your questions/observations/constructive feedback: (1) I did, indeed, use 15ml of Tergitol. Using 0.9ml to achieve a 0.015% concentration seemed like so vanishingly little. I did not encounter any issues or problems with foaming. Also, I continue to struggle with the idea of possibly using a little alcohol in the cleaning process, either in the US cleaning cycle or the Knosti pre-cleaning step, because the records I've been cleaning (i.e. my core collection) are already very, very clean. (2) If I reduce my throughput, so to speak, to 2 records instead of 3, the records would be spaced by approximately 1.25". Would that make a huge or significant difference? Would 1 record at a time be better still? Also, what impact would this have on rotational speed? (3) Thanks! (4) That looks like the US machine I have except mine is a 6-liter capacity; not 6.5 liters. I set the heat to 26 Celsius. Toward the end of a 15-minute cleaning cycle the tank fluid sometimes reaches 30 Celsius. If it gets higher than that, I allow for extra cooling time. (5) Thanks! It appears this filter pump is doing its job because I'm starting to notice some discoloration (dirt) captured by the filter. I did not expect dramatic results in this regard because of how clean my core collection is. (6) Thanks! According to LAST's marketing/advertising, this solution or treatment is supposed to meld or bond on a molecular level with PVC, last for at least 200 plays or more, etc., etc., etc. As such, I assumed this would not amount to a film or residue, per se. However, now that I think of this a bit more, if this treatment has a life span of 200 plays or more, then I suppose it's reasonable to assume it is gradually etched off or eroded by the stylus and ultimately becomes a residue. This ushers in a whole new set of questions! Since I haven't played any records on my relatively new TT that haven't been ultrasonically cleaned, first, and treated with LAST, I would wonder if LAST actually does contribute to significantly less surface noise and at what cost of fidelity. |
Tergitol 15-S-9 is a very powerful nonionic surfactant. The critical micelle concentration (CMC) as listed in the book is 52-ppm =~0.0052%. The CMC is the concentration that gives the lowest surface tension. Greater than the CMC, micelles are formed, and they are what provide detergency. There is little benefit of more than 5XCMC - you do not get better cleaning, only a higher residue bath that can be more difficult to rinse. Otherwise, do not worry about the alcohol.
Your process is fine, just try to increase the spacing between the records, and keep the records away from the tank walls. Reducing to cleaning just 2-records spaced 1.25" apart may have some subtle benefit - it opens the space between the records reduces the 'load' on the tank but leave the rotation speed at 0.5-rpm. A rotation speed of 0.5-rpm is proving pretty much optimal for bottom firing UT record cleaning based on user's reports. Based on your observation that the water can heat 4C (7.2F) in 15-min = ~0.5F/min, something is happening. The P1 12L Elamsonic heats at about 50% higher, and the P60 6L Elamsonic heats at about 2X.
That has been disputed and proven wrong many times. It just a fluorinated solvent with a very low vapor pressure (high boiling point) fluorinated oil dissolved in it. When the solvent evaporates, the fluorinated oil (its used in vacuum pumps and satellites) remains behind. The fluorinated oil is very stable and will not meld or bond to the record. If you search this forum, @wizzzard who is a chemist, did a very good job of analyzing LAST. Take care, Neil |
I had the KLAudio for several years. At the beginning of the year, I made a switch to the Degritter Mk II. For me, it’s no contest. The Degritter is better at cleaning. Period. I think this is because you can use a cleaning agent with it, whereas you can’t (or shouldn’t) with the KLA. And it’s easier to use. It’s a super piece of hardware and software.
|
- 45 posts total