KLaudio or Degritter Mark II

@oldaudiophile,

First some observations on your current cleaning regime: 

1. The 15-ml of Tergitol 15-S-9 in a 6L bath = [(15-ml)/(6000-ml)]x100% = 0.25% which is 5-10X greater than what I recommend in the book - XIV.9.4.  Did you mean 15-ml or 1.5ml?
2. The spacing of 11/16 is too close for a 40-kHz machine, 1" would be better.
3. The CleanerVinyl: Ultrasonic Vinyl Cleaning Systems pump is 1.5-lpm (it does not filter the tank in 4-min, more on that later).  If you are cleaning 3-records at time with the pump operating and you plug & chug into the equation XIV.5.3.e, you get 0.5-rpm, so you are good here.
4. The UT tank RoHS Model 30A 180W ultrasonic power - what is this?  Is this one of the low-cost Chinese units such as Ultrasonic Cleaner PS-30A - China Ultrasonic Cleaner (made-in-china.com)?  How much does the water heat-up after 15-min, after 30-min.  There is advertised power and then there is real-power that gets into the bath.
5. Using the equation XIV.15.3, a 1.5-lpm pump/filter will take about 14-min to filter 97.5% of the tank. 
6. As far as Last Record Treatment, my position is to leave the record with a residue-free surface.  But I acknowledge other people's opinions, and no further comment.  

Now on to the Elamsonic P60, and I have worked with a number of people setting up their process.  

1. The Elmasonic P-series UCM is dual frequency - 37kHz and 80kHz; with pulse power and the P60H PP_Elmasonic_P60H_EN.pdf (elma-ultrasonic.com) is a 6L tank. Elmasonic has an excellent operator manual - Elmasonic P Ultrasonic Cleaning Units - Operating Instructions (elma-ultrasonic.co.nz). The Elmasonic P-series are powerful units.  The Elamsonic rating appears real since the tank heats accordingly from user experience; and if running sequential cycles, you may need to stop periodically to allow the tank to cool or install a cooler/radiator (addressed book XIV.15.2) to allow high throughput.
2. With the dual frequency you get the best of both worlds, the 37kHz for precleaning and then 80kHz for final cleaning. For the few really dirty records - clean them manually then clean with UCM. Note: with the dual frequency you should secure the pump/filter when operating at 37kHz (depending on # of records) but then operate the pump/filter at 80kHz. At higher frequencies, cavitation is not affected by tank flow rate. It has to do with the cavitation bubble size that is proportional to the kHz.
3. The general process for the Elamasonic P-series is the first phase is run at 80% power for 10 minutes under the auto frequency change mode where the tank runs at 37kHz for 30 seconds then it switches to 80kHz for 30 seconds, back and forth. The second phase runs for 10 minutes at 80kHz at 100% power or 100% in pulse power.
4. Bottom firing transducers may provide a cleaning benefit. In a traditional UCM with bottom firing transducers, the acoustic waves that are propagating upward through the liquid will reflect downward from the fluid surface. When reflected downward the acoustic waves will combine with the upward acoustic wave and the subsequent wave can be constructive(amplifying) if in-phase or destructive (attenuated) if out of phase. Ultimately areas/layers of higher acoustic energy/cavitation (standing waves) will form and there will be areas/layers of lower acoustic energy/cavitation. The standing waves tend to layer at a distance 1/2 of the wavelength with the book Table XXI showing the wavelengths and resultant standing wave of common UCMs frequencies; highlighted blue. The spacing of the standing wave is relative to themselves. Their position in the tank relative to a fixed point is dependent on the reflected surface – is it hard or soft; water height and other factors such as the type of transducer and water temperature. But the record(s) is rotating and standing waves may be beneficial since the record is exposed to a scrubbing type action as the record alternately moves from areas of lower cavitation intensity to areas of higher cavitation intensity and the Elmasonic pulse function should further enhance the scrubbing action.

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.

@oldaudiophile, 

(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.

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.

(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?

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.  

According to LAST's marketing/advertising, this solution or treatment is supposed to meld or bond on a molecular level with PVC...

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. 

jpan, I just want to compliment you on the beauty of your room and carefully chosen system.

On the current subject, I could never afford the KLAudio.  I had the Mark I and recently upgraded to Mark II with Degritter’s trade-in offer.  I very much like the upgrade —smoother operation, excellent results. Great company.