 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
97.90.18.39
After using the Kirmuss ultrasonic (US) cleaner, for about six months --- one thing stands out. Those records cleaned, maybe in the 1980-90s, may have a thick layer of surfactants. These need three or more, 5-minute cleanings to remove that layer. I don't know what product or system used this much surface chemicals.Does anyone remember a cleaning system or application, which permanently applied a dense layer of surfactants to the LPs? Then, left it on the records to dry, as part of the cleaning protocol? I know it's not the Nitty-Gritty system, as those records, which I cleaned with my Nitty-Gritty... easily clean with the Kirmuss.
It's simple to tell with the Kirmuss. Those that dry-off fast, within seconds of removal from the bath --- don't need further cleaning. Those records which hold onto water (esp their entire surface area) --- have a thick layer of surfactants. Some, like the white-labeled DJ vinyl of "Tea for the Tillerman" I just got, has a lot of this detergent material on it.
You can't tell which album possesses the most surfactants when you first look at it. These can look as clean as ones with no surface-active agent. But, these records foam-up between the US cleanings, using the brush and spray solution supplied with the Kirmuss unit.
Cleaning does reveal fine musical details, missed by the un-cleaned, heavy surfactant vinyl. Well worth the time and effort. Once again, thanks to Sondek for the recommendation. I still feel this is one of the best additions to my system in terms of positive sonic changes.
Thanks, again!
8^)
Edits: 06/11/19 06/11/19 06/11/19Follow Ups:
BTW, a 16oz bottle sells for $385 nowadays, it would appear.
"Man, that mouse is Awesome." - Kaemon (referring to Jerry, of Tom and Jerry fame)
I would suggest these are LPs which had been treated with Milty 'Permostat' - to remove static?
Andy
I've only cleaned about 20 LPs so far and half of those were previously cleaned on my Loricraft using Disc Doctor fluid and a distilled water rinse. I didn't get the white haze but the Kirmuss did further reduce noise on some records.
The other records were recent buys on discogs. The only problem LP for me was an early repress of Pink Floyd Piper At The Gates Of Dawn. I must of did 7 or 8 cycles. I wasn't sure if it was old cleaners coming out or if it was baked in pot smoke.
If you have surfactant residue then it wasn't properly rinsed. Surfactants are hard to rinse and I suspect they are used in too high a concentration in many cases and not enough rinse water is used to prevent residue.
The surfactant in a cleaner is a wetting agent used to get other ingredients to the surface. You don't need much of it, especially in an ultrasonic, which enhances their effect by orders of magnitude.
A company I worked for in the past had a system for critical cleaning of silicon wafers that had a clean step that used surfacants in the ppm range. One drop of surfactant in 5 gallons of water and then one drop of that into a large high frequency (750kHz) u/s tank. That was all that was needed to aid the other chemicals to do their job.
Rinsing was also done with ultrasonic energy, with DI water flowing through the tank at about 10GPM for several minutes.
Think of rinsing surfactant as diluting it. You just have to keep adding water till it's been diluted to a non-detectable level.
+1
And my cleaning solution is 30% isopropyl and 70% distilled water with a few drops of Dawn dish detergent to the mix... then follow the wash with a distilled water rinse... works perfectly, clean records and no residue.
Sim
Happy with the 16.5 here as well. I use the VPI concentrated fluid (mix with a gallon of distilled water) and no residue seen or heard in about 20 years of use.
WW
"I'd crawl over twenty miles of bad country to listen to you pee in a tin cup on the telephone." (Jo Carol Pierce)
nt
and I don't get any gunk buildup either. And I don't believe for one nanosecond that running a velvet vacuum wand over a wet record sucks the vinyl off. And only the high frequencies at that.
Hornswoop me bungo pony on dogsled on ice
Once again I like my Kirmuss. I skip some steps here and there and silence is golden. They don't use release agents making tires anymore either.
I just don't buy some of the claims made by its designer.
Hornswoop me bungo pony on dogsled on ice
Not at all!!! But it's only a couple of drops of detergent per total volume. And I rinse thoroughly with distilled water.Sim
Edits: 06/14/19 06/14/19
machine is fine, but I cannot agree with some of his procedures, statements, and clothing.
drivel about the re-treatmenst and "release agent" bothers me. ok, he got the attention of the market and his price is realistic. i'm thinking that KL has the right approach with distilled water only.
a little research about the power used by each of the manufacturers and some adjustment of actual cleaning time could equalize the results. the best remedy is to go for the big bucks on a KL but that price IS daunting.
i use a SpinClean with a little adjustment of technique. after a short drain period, i lay the LP down on a couple of microfiber cloths and with a folded (in fours) one, i wipe the fluid off following the groove pattern on each side and then place the disc on a lucite picture frame tripod to complete the air drying. i am pretty sure i get most of the surfactant fluid off. i consider this to be the next best thing to Us cleaning at the least expense.
if i had a VPI device, i would follow the draining with the vacuum instead of the microfiber cloths. a SpinCleabn is about 1/6 the cost of a vpi.
...regards...tr
I have a friend who only wipes his records with a damp cloth, but one of his records was so dirty that he couldn't stand to hear it. I cleaned and rinsed it on my $250 Record Doctor, and the difference was astonishing. He was plenty happy, and we didn't need a $850 to $4000 ultrasonic unit to achieve the great results.
I actually purchased two used Spin Cleans for my 78rpm records, one for detergent and one for rinse. I am guessing that one advantage of the Spin Clean is the orientation of the record. As the brushes and cleaning solution remove the debris off the record, the debris should probably fall to the bottom of the tank. A second Spin Clean with just distilled water would be cool for a rinse. Drip dry after that would be fine, and I did something like this years ago with one of those gold, metal, record racks. The distilled rinse would prevent any hard water spots.
My $750 ultrasonic system does just fine with a clean, rinse, and vacuum(pic below). I cannot imagine spending $4000 to achieve the same thing, and the $4000 units don't provide a rinse!
One for detergent and one with distilled water. I let it drip dry. The results now that I have done this for a while betters the Nitty Gritty I had before. I just look at the manual cleaning as a arm workout. I too can not justify spending $1K or more on a machine to clean albums but that's just me.
I see you have a filter unit - I'm guessing 1 micron cartridges (which I have)? :-))
Just as a suggestion though ... your cleaning will be improved - if you have a 40kHz tank - by using wider spacers between LPs.
For optimal cleaning, 40kHz tanks need 1.5" between LPs - and between the outermost LPs and the sides of the tanks. 60kHz tanks need 1" spacing - 80kHz needs 3/4". These numbers are the wavelength of the vibration frequency.
Andy
told me that the cavitation action could not be effective with 3 LPs mounted so closely on the vinyl stack device. Thanks though. Too bad, because I do have a lot of LPs to clean. :(
Also, thanks Andy for the wavelength information. That beats common sense.
My filter is 1 micron by the way. Bill.
Yes, it's a pain, Bill! :-((
That's why I bought:
a) a 60kHz tank, and
b) an extra-wide tank.
With 1" spacing, I can fit 5 LPs at a time.
Andy
I have still doubled my capacity from my original ultrasonic unit I purchased in Taiwan 20 years ago.
i had thought about the two spincleans using one as a rinse. great minds. the KL Audio doesn't want ANY chemical used in their machine, just distilled water and i know three people with them. the results are better than any other that i have seen. no brushes either. the audio deske has brushes and makes a squealy noise when operating. both have drying cycles so the record comes out ready to play.
when i use my spinclean, i don't pour the 15ml of fluid over the brushes, i slowly mix it in the tank with first one brush and then the other. if a record has obvious silty dust on it, i rinse it in the sink with the reverse osmosis filtered water right out of its spigot.
after the wash cycle, i allow a short drainage until the runoff slows. i lay the rekkid down on a couple of microfiber cloths and wipe the side up with a folded one and then the other side.
i have ten lucite photoframe tripods that i got at walmart and let them air dry for a while.
i had a record doctor but the impeller on the motor that moved the air self destructed. inside, the thing is so cheaply constructed----the motor is foam glued down, and the impeller was press fit, no way to repair the damn thing. i had to bash the fiberboard bottom in because it too was glued, not screwed on.
audio advisor said they would repair it for $100. fukkem'! i manually cleaned them records with a spot of dawn on a wetted cheap red lint brush with the directional bristles and sprayed them copiously in the sink and then dryed them with paper towels, which remarkably didn't leave fibers.
THEN i discovered the spinclean. so now i clean them and sell off the ones i probably won't ever play. i will probably reduce the quantity from about 6k to 2.5k by selling them in my friends garage where the locals are going nuts over what we sell there. my discards, some inventory that we bought, and my friend consistently buys replacement stock of the big sellers.
fun work for retired me and my friend who still works.
...regards...tr
started his record store. He collected like me, then started selling the excess on eBay. He then started buying lots at garage and estate sales, until his garage filled up. He then made the big leap from eBay to opening up the first record store in years in Anchorage. He has done a great job selling used and new records as well as accessories and tables. He has a facebook page and participates in the two national record store days. Just when people thought selling records was a bad idea, he and his wife have become very successful. Young and old frequent the place, as well as out-of-towners.
The ones that were cleaned with a cleaner and wiped dry. Vacuum cleaners will remove most of the cleaners. Manual cleaning without the benefit of vacuum removal, leaves that stuff in the grooves.
I am certain a bunch of users of the old manual process will pipe up here with what I wrote. You just cannot wipe it clean. And no matter how hard you try a certain amount of the cleaners will remain in the groove unless you vacuum it.
OK, someone will now say how many times they rinse their LPs. Nonetheless you cannot remove everything that is in the grooves. You need to vacuum it clean. I am not about to use gallons of water to make sure the LP is clean. That's why I bought a vacuum cleaner.
That is one of the things that makes me leery of the ultrasonic systems I have seen so far. Yes ultrasonic cleaning has benefits but then we go backwards and wipe it dry. Once someone comes out with a combo ultrasonic/vacuum machine I will take notice.
It will also have to filter the tank contents or I am not interested. Too much dirt being re-introduced via the dirty water.
Ed
We don't shush around here!
Life is analog...digital is just samples thereof
nt
nt
nt
from The Amari company in mainland China. The one from Taiwan is fully automatic.
comes from a poster on the analogplanet:
Record Cleaning
Submitted by M Material on Tue, 2018-06-05 13:15
Under NO circumstances should anyone attempt to clean their Redd Foxx records.
Read more at https://www.analogplanet.com/content/if-charles-kirmusss-record-cleaning-machine-and-regimen-correct-everyone-elses-wrong#Ju5JUzTov6hvlH94.99
I wonder if it could be a mold release agent used in the pressing process?
I just did some searching, and see that there's a lot of speculation and debate regarding whether pressing plants use mold release. I can't comment on that, but, having been around manufacturing including plastic forming for a long time, I can confirm it is quite commonly used.
I was in Salina a few years back and took the tour of the QRP plant. I actually had a convo in the pressing room with the guy leading the tour about this very subject - actually it was about record cleaning. He did not understand why people felt like a new record needed cleaning. I mentioned release compound, and he told me they do not use any kind of release compound in the pressing. The biscuit goes in the press and heat and pressure is all there is. In watching the pressing process, I can confirm what he said ... biscuits and labels is all that goes into the machine.
In subsequent readings, and Kirmuss may have touched on this in one or another of his statements, it seems the release compound is in the vinyl itself. The heating and pressure causes it to come to the surface and helps with a nice clean release from the mold. This could, I think, easily account for varying levels of this stuff on different records. Different vinyl formulations, differing heats, times in the press and the pressure applied.
Is only conjecture. I have no proof of it, but I think it does explain much if true.
FL: Good, old German Knosti Disco-Antistat cleaning system, maybe? The original Knosti brew is well known to leave quite a bit of residue - which is why users over here often switch to home brew, either right away or as soon as they've used up their bottle of original brew.
I don't know, whether the same might apply to the original brew of the American Spin-Clean system, but maybe some users can comment on that...
Greetings from Munich!
Manfred / lini
I am guessing that you are talking about records that you did not buy new but are " pre-used".
My first thought is that they were played wet using something like Lencoclean. Anthony ( Flood2) mentions something along these lines below. Here is a link below to a thread referring to someone with a similar problem.
Furthermore, after reading many,many, threads on various forums over the years it is clear that there are those whose record hygiene regime leads much to be desired. For example people cleaning discs with proprietary liquids that require an RCM to remove them but who do not own such a machine. Then there's the washing up liquid and rinse under the tap approach. How much of the surfactant is actually removed by this method is open to question.
I have to say that from this review of the Kirmuss machine that although clearly effective it does seem to be unbelievably laborious:
https://hifipig.com/kirmuss-audio-ka-rc-1-ultrasonic-vinyl-restoration-system/
Drying with a dish towel at the end bothers me.
I'm happy with my system. Kirmuss offers proof that all other systems don't work by pointing to white debris left on the stylus after playing a side. I've never seen anything like that on my stylus after cleaning.
If I had a Kirmuss machine I know myself well enough that,given the regime, I would clean some discs during the first week. Fewer in the second. After that it would likely just gather dust in my spare room. Record cleaning at best needs to be more of a bore than a chore.
Say thirty minutes a disc? I have maybe 2500 LPs. I am not going to spend 1250 hours of the few years that I have left to me cleaning records!
Hopefully you realize that not every record requires that level of cleaning. I've done several hundred LPs with mine and my average time per disc is ~6 min. And I am not temporarily deaf from the noise my VPI 16.5 made, nor am I buying expensive MoFi fluids anymore. The Kirmuss does a so much better job than the VPI that I sold my VPI in a heartbeat after experiencing the Kirmuss. BTW, a near-mint condition 16.5 with extra wands and fluids will fetch ~$350 on the used market. For years I thought the VPI was it, but guess what? It's not. Comparatively speaking, the VPI does a poor job.
Like many on this thread I've graduated step by step to better cleaning. My journey:
Spin Clean - easy and fast, barely helpful
Okki Nokki - Similar to most vacuum cleaners. Better, with more rigor, but still wanting more. Clearly vacuuming after a rinse was helpful.
Kirmuss - US cleaning is clearly the best approach. I augment this with my Okki Nokki, just for a final rinse and vacuum. I have only had to resort to more than two cycles with the Kirmuss for a few really dirty records.
With each step in this journey I have increased the time spent on the cleaning protocol, but the results are worth it. For the first time I can now buy used records knowing most will clean up to very good listening condition. My last trip brought home a record that was so noisy I would have tossed it in the past, can't listen to it. Two cycles through the Kurmuss and amazingly clean.
I agree, the VPI used with their fluids and method does yield poor results. I developed a method years ago using my VPI and Disc Doctor fluids/brushes that is night and day much better, quick and all the cleaning I need based on sound and no stylus debris. With that said, the Degritter looks like the best system to have. Too bad it's so expensive.I'm glad you are happy with your Kirmuss and it's working well for you.
Edits: 06/16/19
In thirty minuttes I can clean 6-7 records on my Project RCM.
With my VPI 16.5, it's more like 30 seconds per side.
Opus 33 1/3
From Micheal Fremer in June's Stereophile about the Kirmuss. The link below also has a video.
Here's a more recent link to a very good review of the Kirmuss. This guy tells it like it is. The good and the bad. I'd been using mine for nearly six months when I found this guy's review and based on my own experience using it I can tell you he pretty well nails it - both good & bad. There is an embedded link at the bottom the part 2 of his review.
should read those and ignore the very last step in the Kirmuss cleaning regimen.
I agree. I just cant get my brain around why you'd want to spray more surfactant on, rub it in, and let it dry after having gone to so much trouble to clean the damned record
My own answer to that conundrum is, I wouldn't do it. I'd rather deal with static electricity on a totally clean surface. Moreover the surfactant isn't harmless to accurate playback.
Yeah, I was going to ask you! All those cycles and then you add some ethylene glycol to dry in the grooves?!!! What the heck?
I can't abide by equating polyvinyl chloride to sugar either.
Mike
nt
Dan Aykroyd Bass-O-Matic '76 SNL skit.
IMHO, Michael Fremer really sat on the fence, with that article. I would think part of a journalist's responsibility is to fully research claims, one way or the other.The Kirmuss either works or doesn't. He should do a comparison with other high-end cleaning systems and compare results. On a control turntable playing through a controlled system.
I don't know what to think. So, I'll continue to use the Kirmuss, as is. It seems to clean the records I've tried, quite well. Noticeable difference between cleaned and uncleaned. My old N-G system is long gone (for comparison purposes).
Edits: 06/11/19
in the July 2019 Issue of Stereophile provides a very thorough discussion of the Kirmuss method, with very specific conclusions.
Jim Austin, Editor
Stereophile
very last step in the Kirmuss procedure-that of applying a final thin coat of surfactant to reduce static electricity. Thanks for the article. Bill.
...but I admit the Kirmuss guy began to lose my confidence when he said in the video that (I'm paraphrasing) "records are made of sugar" and that "records are living, breathing things".
Huh?
I'd have been more impressed if the flowery prose had been omitted, since it caused my red "bullshit" light to begin flashing.
"Suddenly, I'm not half the man I used to be. 'Cause now I'm an amputee" J. Lennon
A valid criticism. I had many of the same misgivings about him when I first saw that video. The machine is a different story. It does the job better than ANY other cleaning machine I've tried. My first one had Ron Popeil's name on it, and have used Disc Washer, Obitrac, Shitty Gritty and VPI and a few others I can't recall. None of them come close to the job the Kirmuss does. Ignore the Kirmuss BS and focus on the product would be my advice. BTW, when I sent and email with questions about an aspect of the machine's operation, Charles answered me personally and I found his answers to be completely BS free.
I have no reason to doubt your experience, and appreciate your feedback. Thanks!
"Suddenly, I'm not half the man I used to be. 'Cause now I'm an amputee" J. Lennon
I think Fremer did a later, deeper dive. That article linked to is a year old. It's from 2018.
Gonna have to check that one out.
Thanks!
That stuff would build up if overused. I've got some records here that used to belong to a friend of mine and a few of them were thoroughly gunked up with D4. I remember him using too much of that stuff back in the day.
Hornswoop me bungo pony on dogsled on ice
list that only mentions isopropyl alcohol. The Discwasher SC-2 stylus cleaning fluid is also isopropyl alcohol.
I would guess that Gruv Glide and other antistatic(surfactant) fluids would explain the large buildups that fender lover found.
Last treatment is not a surfactant, and, from what I've read, it actually combines with the vinyl compound. I am not sure that Last can be removed.
After watching the Kirmuss video, I don't think that Kirmuss adequately removes his surfactant spray. In addition, each time he places the surfactant covered record into the ultrasonic alcohol bath, he is adding surfactant to the bath water. That is why I use distilled water with a vacuum cleaning machine after the ultrasonic cleaning step. My ultrasonic bath contains a surfactant, a wetting agent, and a small percentage of 99% isopropyl alcohol.
Finally, I would never spend so much time cleaning one record as Mr./Dr(haha) Kirmuss does. Like other people have said, get rid of the white lab coat too.
I was cleaning out an old box of hi-fi stuff a few weeks ago, and found a bottle of D4+, about 80% full. It has a price sticker on it marked $10, but I'll let it go for half that. It can't be more than 35 years old, and still tastes delicious.
(I'm not really offering to sell it, by the way. I just figured that since I lugged this around through too many moves over the last thirty-five years, I might as well at least have a little fun with it.)
"Suddenly, I'm not half the man I used to be. 'Cause now I'm an amputee" J. Lennon
Back in the day, we hated isopropyl and would never knowingly let alcohol anywhere near our LPs. But we never read the ingredients label on D4.
If memory serves though, we would occasionally play a record wet. That's probably what gunked up a couple of my friend's records.
As far as the Kirmuss goes, I'll stick with my tried and true DIY vacuum cleaner.
Hornswoop me bungo pony on dogsled on ice
Edits: 06/12/19
I've had similar observations, but I'm not convinced it's surfactant leftovers. I don't have a lot of used records in my collection, but yet seeing very similar things as you described. Many of these are records bought new and never cleaned by me. Comparing notes, with you I'm starting to put more credence in the mold release compound explanation.
BTW, I sincerely apologize to all you ultrasonic early adopters out there I might have given guff to over the years. I was wrong.
I remember in the 70s my dad "wet playing" the records with a tube of fluid (with a brush on the end).
Also, antistatic sprays like Milty were all the rage back then. My dad used to treat all his records with them - I still have all the records with the "P" sticker on them!!
I have the standard version of the bath from the same manufacturer (yeah I know he claims to have adjusted the power levels and placement of the transducers), but I have not had any of the issues he claims. I can see where the best position for the record is for optimal cleaning. The records play quietly on my ELP laser turntable (which is the ultimate test!) as well as on my conventional system. So I think some of his claims are a little exaggerated.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
> > > I remember in the 70s my dad "wet playing" the records with a tube of fluid (with a brush on the end) < < <
I remember that. A friend of mine used to use that stuff back in the 70's. I don't remember its name, but i vividly recall the image of it. It was fashionable at the time. I think people stopped using it because it left a residue.
jack
...-.
I don't know, but any thoughts? Many people that cleaned their records used other products as well , there was gruve glide as well. Norm
I believe that the manufacturers say that Last is not a coating but changes the molecular structure of the groove surface down to a micron below. The spray is quickly volatilised.So no residue per se.
Of course there is no way for a home user to verify this. Mikey Fremer touches on this very point in his review of the Kirmuss in the new Stereophile where he has doubts about claims for Last residue. Incidentally I think that Fremer's review is pretty thorough and, although he points out the downsides, he is overall very positive about the Kirmuss machine.
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
