Record cleaning machines..

[michaelw]

i've had a nitty gritty hybrid 2 since ~1990.

in 29 years it's had one motor replacement and one general refurbishment.

still works well.

diy us is too much like hard work so saving up for an audiodesk...

 

[Assisi]

I am totally digital and know nothing about RCMs.  The latest issue of "Australian HiFi has and article comparing and measuring 4 RCMs before and after cleaning .  It may be of interest to some posters.

John

[EV Cali]

9 minutes ago, Assisi said:

I am totally digital and know nothing about RCMs.  The latest issue of "Australian HiFi has and article comparing and measuring 4 RCMs before and after cleaning .  It may be of interest to some posters.

John

Would be interested to read this    link not working for me.

[H.E. Pennypacker]

12 minutes ago, Assisi said:

I am totally digital and know nothing about RCMs.  The latest issue of "Australian HiFi has and article comparing and measuring 4 RCMs before and after cleaning .  It may be of interest to some posters.

John

Is it only a physical magazine  ?

[Stump]

49 minutes ago, Assisi said:

I am totally digital and know nothing about RCMs. 

John

You need one of these then!

[andyr]

1 hour ago, Frank Prowse Hi-Fi said:

Have a read here:-

https://audiokarma.org/forums/index.php?threads/interesting-all-in-one-ultrasonic-cleaner-kirmuss.818998/

 

Personally, even if it works, a US cleaner that requires more work than a bottle of RR? Pass!

 

Maybe your comment is relevant to the Kirmuss, 'Sales Staff' - I've never seen one in the flesh, let alone used one.

 

But I moved on to us cleaning chiefly for its efficiency - I can clean (& then dry) 6 LPs simultaneously!  Compared to one side at a time with my Nitty Gritty!  And the effort & time for 6 is less than you with your RR on 1 LP, I would suspect.   

 

But for this you need a 10l tank (wider than the standard 6l tank) plus a 60kHz us resonator - as this means the spacing between each LP (and between the sides of the tank and the outermost LPs) needs to be only 1" ... as compared to 1 1/2" for a 40kHz tank.

 

So ... much more efficient than RR - as well as doing a better cleaning job. 

 

Andy

 

[H.E. Pennypacker]

8 minutes ago, andyr said:

 

Maybe your comment is relevant to the Kirmuss, 'Sales Staff' - I've never seen one in the flesh, let alone used one.

 

But I moved on to us cleaning chiefly for its efficiency - I can clean (& then dry) 6 LPs simultaneously!  Compared to one side at a time with my Nitty Gritty!  And the effort & time for 6 is less than you with your RR on 1 LP, I would suspect.   

 

But for this you need a 10l tank (wider than the standard 6l tank) plus a 60kHz us resonator - as this means the spacing between each LP (and between the sides of the tank and the outermost LPs) needs to be only 1" ... as compared to 1 1/2" for a 40kHz tank.

 

So ... much more efficient than RR - as well as doing a better cleaning job. 

 

Andy

 

I read the quoted link... There seems to be little complaint on the effectiveness of the Kirmuss, but agree on the convenience. Plenty of devolved discussion on what is or isn’t a surfactant or the chemical makeup of something, but no complaints on the actual performance. 

 

That’s my issue with revirginizer... the convenience.

 

What (exactly) are you using @andyr ?

Edited May 21, 2019 by furtherpale

[Frank Prowse Hi-Fi]

8 minutes ago, andyr said:

 

Maybe your comment is relevant to the Kirmuss, 'Sales Staff' - I've never seen one in the flesh, let alone used one.

 

But I moved on to us cleaning chiefly for its efficiency - I can clean (& then dry) 6 LPs simultaneously!  Compared to one side at a time with my Nitty Gritty!  And the effort & time for 6 is less than you with your RR on 1 LP, I would suspect.   

 

But for this you need a 10l tank (wider than the standard 6l tank) plus a 60kHz us resonator - as this means the spacing between each LP (and between the sides of the tank and the outermost LPs) needs to be only 1" ... as compared to 1 1/2" for a 40kHz tank.

 

So ... much more efficient than RR - as well as doing a better cleaning job. 

 

Andy

 

Not questioning whether the Kirmuss does the job or not, but am dubious when somebody in a white coat makes up chemistry terms to flog a product. if the product is so good why go to the trouble of damaging said products ability by ruining reputation?

We are big big fans of US cleaning here.

[andyr]

40 minutes ago, furtherpale said:

 

That’s my issue with revirginizer... the convenience.

 

 

RR convenient, fp?  You have to:

• ladle it onto the record surface (one side at a time)
• let it dry
• then peel it off
• then repeat for the 2nd side. 

Quote

 

What (exactly) are you using @andyr ?

 

 

Because I am anal (that's a polite way of saying 'Aspie'! ), I spent most of 2 years researching us cleaning technology, before I purchased what I have now.  After my manual NG - which cleaned only 1 side at a time - I wanted to be able to clean (and dry) multiple LPs simultaneously (I had several hundred LPs that I'd bought but not cleaned - so I hadn't listened to them).

 

I also wanted a 60kHz tank - for 2 reasons:

• 60kHz cavitation is less aggressive than 40kHz cavitation - so it will do less damage to the groove wall.
• you can fit more LPs in the tank.  The wavelength of a 60kHz vibration is about 1" - so that's the spacing you need between each LP, and between the outermost LPs and the side walls of the tank.  Whereas the wavelength of a 40kHz vibration is about 1  1/2".

 

I could only find one 60kHz tank - so I bought a US-made 'Sonix IV', 10l tank.  The 10l tank is wider than the standard 6l tank - so I can fit 6x LPs in the tank.    This has a stopcock to drain the tank - and a heater.

 

But that's just the cleaning tank - then you need:

• a rotisserie motor and a spindle (and spacers) to turn the LPs in the tank
• and then you need to dry them (as IMO air drying is a. not efficient and b. allows dust to fall on the LPs ... which is not a good thing)
• I subsequently found I needed to incorporate a 1 micron filter (and pump) into my tank setup - otherwise you need to dry the freshly us-washed LPs using a vac RCM ... which sucks off the fluid out of the grooves, together with the gunk which is in solution.  I found if I didn't do this ... the gunk stays in the groove when the liquid evaporates - and the LPs are crackly! 

 

Then I found www.ultrasonicrecords.com - which offers 3 things which I subsequently purchased:

• a motor and a frame to hold the spindle which supports the LPs - with a gear for the motor-drive.
• 1" spacers to go between the LPs.
• a 'Dryer Cube' - with a computer fan to blow dry the wet LPs.  I simply lift the spindle with the 6 LPs off the us tank, lower it into the Dryer Cube, turn on the fan and leave it for 10 mins (whilst a 2nd spindle with another 6 LPs is in the us tank).  But I had to improve the Dryer Cube's operation by adding a motor and gear to turn the spindle-full of LPs inside the Cube.

 

That's my us setup, fp. 

 

Andy

 

Edited May 21, 2019 by andyr

[rusty48]

14 hours ago, andyr said:

 

RR convenient, fp?  You have to:

• ladle it onto the record surface (one side at a time)
• let it dry
• then peel it off
• then repeat for the 2nd side. 

 

Because I am anal (that's a polite way of saying 'Aspie'! ), I spent most of 2 years researching us cleaning technology, before I purchased what I have now.  After my manual NG - which cleaned only 1 side at a time - I wanted to be able to clean (and dry) multiple LPs simultaneously (I had several hundred LPs that I'd bought but not cleaned - so I hadn't listened to them).

 

I also wanted a 60kHz tank - for 2 reasons:

• 60kHz cavitation is less aggressive than 40kHz cavitation - so it will do less damage to the groove wall.
• you can fit more LPs in the tank.  The wavelength of a 60kHz vibration is about 1" - so that's the spacing you need between each LP, and between the outermost LPs and the side walls of the tank.  Whereas the wavelength of a 40kHz vibration is about 1  1/2".

 

I could only find one 60kHz tank - so I bought a US-made 'Sonix IV', 10l tank.  The 10l tank is wider than the standard 6l tank - so I can fit 6x LPs in the tank.    This has a stopcock to drain the tank - and a heater.

 

But that's just the cleaning tank - then you need:

• a rotisserie motor and a spindle (and spacers) to turn the LPs in the tank
• and then you need to dry them (as IMO air drying is a. not efficient and b. allows dust to fall on the LPs ... which is not a good thing)
• I subsequently found I needed to incorporate a 1 micron filter (and pump) into my tank setup - otherwise you need to dry the freshly us-washed LPs using a vac RCM ... which sucks off the fluid out of the grooves, together with the gunk which is in solution.  I found if I didn't do this ... the gunk stays in the groove when the liquid evaporates - and the LPs are crackly! 

 

Then I found www.ultrasonicrecords.com - which offers 3 things which I subsequently purchased:

• a motor and a frame to hold the spindle which supports the LPs - with a gear for the motor-drive.
• 1" spacers to go between the LPs.
• a 'Dryer Cube' - with a computer fan to blow dry the wet LPs.  I simply lift the spindle with the 6 LPs off the us tank, lower it into the Dryer Cube, turn on the fan and leave it for 10 mins (whilst a 2nd spindle with another 6 LPs is in the us tank).  But I had to improve the Dryer Cube's operation by adding a motor and gear to turn the spindle-full of LPs inside the Cube.

 

That's my us setup, fp. 

 

Andy

 

Yep, that's anal.

[Assisi]

21 hours ago, EV Cali said:

Would be interested to read this    link not working for me.

 

21 hours ago, furtherpale said:

Is it only a physical magazine  ?

I think that there is no online access to the article unfortunately and you need to pay for a subscription.  You may be able to pay a fee just for a copy of the article

John

[H.E. Pennypacker]

19 minutes ago, Assisi said:

 

I think that there is no online access to the article unfortunately and you need to pay for a subscription.  You may be able to pay a fee just for a copy of the article

John

I’m happy to buy the magazine, but not a subscription. Is it available in newsagents (I assume they still exist)?

[Assisi]

8 minutes ago, furtherpale said:

I’m happy to buy the magazine, but not a subscription. Is it available in newsagents (I assume they still exist)?

@furtherpale

 

I would expect so.  It is the May/June issue.  Cos $9.99.  I was given  a sub for this year and my issue arrived in the mail yesterday.  The issue does feature an extensive review of the Mag Lev floating TT. If that is what floats your boat (excuse the pun) the review may interest you.  The comparison of RCMs does include a Kirmuss.  The graphs of the before and after are interesting.

John

 

[Hydrology]

What mag/link are we talking about?

Struggling to find a reference in the thread!!!

[Guest DarkNark]

4 minutes ago, Hydrology said:

What mag/link are we talking about?

Struggling to find a reference in the thread!!!

Quote "The latest issue of "Australian HiFi has and article comparing and measuring 4 RCMs before and after cleaning .  It may be of interest to some posters."

Page 3 Assisi's post

Edited May 22, 2019 by DarkNark

[Hydrology]

Cool, isn't that the magazine that loves EVERYTHING they review??? 

[Doomguy]

I've been getting by with just a carbon fiber brush since I got into vinyl three years ago, but I have been thinking about being able to clean my collection more thoroughly. Are there any economical tried and true methods that give good results? I can deal with manual methods as my collection is fairly small and I think I'd only bother cleaning the ones that have noticeable or bothersome surface noise, which would be 20% or less of what I own.

A machine would be nice, but it just isn't a priority for me right now, especially since I'd rather put money into my collection and chain.

Edited May 22, 2019 by Doomguy

[Guest DarkNark]

8 minutes ago, Doomguy said:

I've been getting by with just a carbon fiber brush since I got into vinyl three years ago, but I have been thinking about being able to clean my collection more thoroughly. Are there any economical tried and true methods that give good results? I can deal with manual methods as my collection is fairly small and I think I'd only bother cleaning the ones that have noticeable or bothersome surface noise, which would be 20% or less of what I own.

A machine would be nice, but it just isn't a priority for me right now, especially since I'd rather put money into my collection and chain.

Hi @Doomguy

 

I haven't tried it personally, but this thread may be worth a read, especially if you only have a few records you want to clean.

 

 

[Doomguy]

Ah yes, I'd heard of the wood glue method before, the major bottleneck there being how long it takes to dry, so if this one is a lot faster it could be a decent way to go. I'll check it out!

[Juzbear]

20 minutes ago, Doomguy said:

I've been getting by with just a carbon fiber brush since I got into vinyl three years ago, but I have been thinking about being able to clean my collection more thoroughly. Are there any economical tried and true methods that give good results? I can deal with manual methods as my collection is fairly small and I think I'd only bother cleaning the ones that have noticeable or bothersome surface noise, which would be 20% or less of what I own.

A machine would be nice, but it just isn't a priority for me right now, especially since I'd rather put money into my collection and chain.

Whilst squeaky clean vinyl is very nice, until you have lots of records, the manual methods like record revirginiser and mont marte glue are more than enough, I reckon. Keep buying more records and then when you get over doing them one by one, revisit this thread! The amount of money people are prepared to pay to pay relatively few records amazes me sometimes.

Edited May 22, 2019 by Juzbear

[H.E. Pennypacker]

17 minutes ago, Juzbear said:

Whilst squeaky clean vinyl is very nice, until you have lots of records, the manual methods like record revirginiser and mont marte glue are more than enough, I reckon. Keep buying more records and then when you get over doing them one by one, revisit this thread! The amount of money people are prepared to pay to pay relatively few records amazes me sometimes.

@Brad24

[Brad24]

You blokes that have Nitty Gritty RCM’s, where did you purchase them?

Ive sent an email to the address on their site with no response 

[Citroen]

@Brad24 just get one of these

 

Half the price and twice the value.

[Colin Rutter]

I use glue and ultra sonic
Both work well
I built a prototype us cleaner back in the early 80's but the cost of the machine was over $1000s (just for the tank no record mounting system)
The modern tanks are much cheaper and work well
If a disc is really filthy a run in some type of rcm is essential
It is amazing how well some discs come back to life
Others sometimes are just dead
There is a chap on eBay who sells the record spinners
The tanks are readily available on eBay
Total cost should be well under $500