Degritter ultrasonic record cleaner

asiufy said:

Well, for all the scare that was put on the KL Audio, it has 200W ultrasonic "power", versus 340W for the Degritter.

By KL Audio's own admission, 200W is enough to damage vinyl, but they claim their machine won't. Seems they also have their own "secret sauce".

https://klaudio.com/frequently-asked-questions (...)

Click to expand...

asiufy said:

Well, for all the scare that was put on the KL Audio, it has 200W ultrasonic "power", versus 340W for the Degritter.

By KL Audio's own admission, 200W is enough to damage vinyl, but they claim their machine won't. Seems they also have their own "secret sauce".

https://klaudio.com/frequently-asked-questions

I wonder what steps the Degritter guys took, in order to blast 340W onto the vinyl, and not damage it...

Click to expand...

ddk said:

Its the frequency that matters, wattage is secondary. As with all these gadgets claims need to be personally verified, you know that already. Read the article that Micro linked earlier, it’s pretty informative.

david

Click to expand...

spiritofmusic said:

Francisco, can you summarise any salient points from this discussion?

I’ll do my best to read thru it in time.

Click to expand...

asiufy said:

Cool, thanks for that, I wasn't aware that was the case.
I checked the link Francisco sent earlier, and his initial findings are exactly mine, quoting:

[SIZE=+1]1.[/SIZE] Are there any other benefits with USC besides improved sonics?
Yes!
1. There is much less record static. In fact, there is basically no static charge that I can notice after the cleaning and air-drying. This is in stark contrast with the same records before the USC process, when my arm hair literally would stand on end when close to the records stacked on the Kuzma spindle.
2. It is rare now to see "dirt" on the stylus after playing an LP which has been ultra sonically cleaned. Before USC, there was usually visible debris on the stylus after play, even with new records and/or those records cleaned using the standard method. (I still clean the stylus after each play though, just to make certain, or maybe it's force of habit.)
3. Records look cleaner than you have ever seen them (even when new), which may be an aesthetic pleasure for some.
4. Records have a longer play-life after USC, which should be obvious and, accordingly, they should also be more (monetarily) valuable (see below).

#1 through #3 are clearly observable, and as I said, mimic my experiences. #4 is debatable, but still...

Click to expand...

ddk said:

This is is the link I wanted you to read, it describes how different frequencies work.

https://www.cemag.us/article/2003/10/development-ultrasonic-cleaning

david

Click to expand...

asiufy said:

Awesome, quite educational and easy to understand, thanks!

Seems like the "secret sauce" Audio Desk employs is just using a range of frequencies, as opposed to a fixed one, like mentioned under "Latest Advances".

Click to expand...

microstrip said:

I often say that if you do not find something in google usually it means you do not have used the proper keywords - I was able to find some other negative comments using other search words. I will not refer to them as they are anonymous and not meaningful to this thread - but as expected no product has 100% pleased people.

It is still too early to know about any long term negative effects of ultrasonic LP cleaning. Although not new, ultrasonic cleaning is an evolving subject, and new research is is currently being published, also in the field of polymer cleaning. I found a few interesting papers on the subject, unfortunately they were paid articles and my interest is very limited.

We must hope that the machine developers did their home work, and tested their machines extensively. A quick search shows that the possible problems are not in the ultrasonic process, but on how it is carried. As most of the time, the question is in the "why's" and manufacturers will not tell you all relevant information.

Just to end, what separates me from a KLAudio machine is the price, not the performance. IMHO, it is too expensive in Europe - almost x3 more expensive than the AutoDesk Pro. Also service iof AutoDesk is much faster and cheaper for EC customers.

Click to expand...

Tango said:

I am curious what the distortion in highs sounds like. I do have a minor annoyance I am experiencing and wonder if it is related.

Kind regards,
Tang

Click to expand...

microstrip said:

Thanks for the input on this technique. I can see that some people use just pure distilled water, but others claim that additional surfactant is needed for good cleaning. As most machines clean the record by evaporation I do not feel happy with the idea of using additional liquids. Any feedback on this issue?

. . . .

Click to expand...

• the 120kHz reduces the dead zone that is present near the cleaned object's surface (boundary layer)
• the 120kHz is generating the cleaning effect in a more focused beam like manner. Where as the 40kHz disperses more
• the 120kHz has better energy distribution

degritter_taniel said:

Hi to everyone! My name is Taniel Põld and I am the CEO and Co-Founder of Degritter.
I have to say you have a great discussion going on in here. 14 pages of posts within a week is a lot by my standards
I can comment the topic from the Degritter's point of view and therefore I am not a 100% objective eventhough I try to be.

I will start by comparing Degritter with a general purpose ultrasonic tank and explaining why these tanks or not best suited for cleaning Vinyls. This is one of the comparisons that we have done and I have it at hand

First, The common general purpose ultrasonic cleaning tank I am referring to is a 180W 6L model recommended in the CleanerVinyl webpage. These tanks are using 40kHz frequency and have three ultrasonic transducers (emitters) attached at the bottom of the cleaning tank. Because of the layout where the ultrasonic cleaning "energy" is emitted from the bottom, the cleaning effect is also strongest near the bottom.

Second, general purpose ultrasonic tanks are intended to be used with water temperature between 55ºC - 80ºC. These kinds of temperatures are not safe for vinyl and in order to get around it significantly more power will have to be used.

Third, general purpose tanks are designed for cleaning motionless objects placed in them for relatively long periods of time. For this reason the power output of them is realtively low (this ofcourse depends on the model). The movement of the water generated by the revolving record (and by the filtering mechanism) in the record cleaners also reduces cavitation generation.

Fourth, the benfits that the 120kHz has over 40kHz. ddk has linked a great article explaining the differences between lower and higher frequencies. In short:

• the 120kHz reduces the dead zone that is present near the cleaned object's surface (boundary layer)
• the 120kHz is generating the cleaning effect in a more focused beam like manner. Where as the 40kHz disperses more
• the 120kHz has better energy distribution

On the other hand, the 40kHZ cavitation has more energy with the cavitation bubbles. This means it can remove larger dirt particles with less energy (I have not seen any evidence that the 40kHz is harmful to the records).

In conclusion, in order to overcome the lower cleaning medium temperatures (below 35ºC) the revolving record, filtering mechanism and the softer cavitation effect we are using significantly more power 340W compared to the competitors. For example, when comparing this with the general purpose ultrasonic cleaner referred to above, Degritter has 300W / 1L = 300W per 1L power ration while the general tank has 180W / 6L = 30W per 1L power ratio. Of course both of these have different driving frequencies and the power per liter is not the best metric when comparing ultrasonic cleaning effectiveness.

Degritter is using custom ultrasonic bath with custom made ultrasonic amplifier that we have designed specifically for cleaning vinyl records. Degritter's cleaning bath has 4 ultrasonic transducers (emitters), two on both sides covering the whole record. It also comes with Frequency Sweep feature that is missing from the low end ultrasonic baths.

Here is an illustrative diagram

I am not saying that the records cannot be cleaned with the DIY ultrasonic cleaning solutions. I just do not recommend picking the cheapest ultrasonic tank for the purpose. Instead make sure that the Frequency Sweep feature is present and that the tank has more power than 180W for 6L.

Click to expand...

tima said:

I have cleaned about 250 LPs with my diy USC. While water itself is a surfactant, I do not believe water alone is optimal. For chemicals I use high-purity IPA and Ilfotol , which is a photographer's wetting and drying agent. I air dry my records and thus far find no problems with air drying. The Ilfotol aids in drying. Only about 1/3 of a record is in water at any one time. Most of that water sheets off when I pull a stack of records out of the USC. Records dry in roughly 20 minutes.

A heated solution is also more effective than one at room temp. I preheat the water to ~ 32° C.

IME, one of the critical keys is having a decent filter on the water/solution. I also own an Audio Desk and while it has a filter and that's a good thing, the filter is fairly porous and water moves through it on its own accord. While I've never seen a Degritter, its filter (again a good thing) looks fairly small and possibly porous.

On my diy USC, I use a 1 micron filter and water is pumped through it. I was quite surprised at the amount of dirt removed from the water after cleaning less than 100 not very dirtly LPs, enough so that I'm convinced of the necessity of a relatively fine filter. I have a brief write-up with before and after water and filter photos here.

A small editorial on Audio Desk. I do wish people would stop referring to past problems with the Audio Desk Systeme (ADS) machine as a decision point. Early models (10 yrs ago) did have some problems but those seem to be well in the past. Reiner Gläss (inventor) pioneered the one-stop automated desktop USC and imo the guy gets credit for servicing his customers while continually refining his product and sticking with it. He did the work and helped bring awareness to the audiophile community about the viability of USC cleaning. I used my ADS for over four years with zero problems, though admittedly it sits idle now, but not for any operational issues. /rant

Click to expand...