Degritter Mark II
- Thread starter tima
- Start date
Jim:
Is this the Record Dr brush you use dry for final dusting: Record Doctor Clean Sweep Brush - Audio Advisor Inc.? Do you get static? If you look at Chapter VI, Table IV TriboElectric Table., see that PVC is at -100, and see that Polyimide (which is nylon) is at -70. From Table IV, PVC is very high (potential for negative charge) on the triboelectric series. The risk of static charging is the difference between two materials. The material with the most negative charge affinity will charge negative; the other material can be left with a positive charge. This is why in Chapter XII, the book states: Additionally, use of the Nylon brush ‘wet’ mitigates developing static that could occur if used ‘dry’ because of the strong triboelectric effect... FYI - Table IV shows HDPE (inner record sleeve material) at -90 which is very close to PVC and therefore lower risk of developing static on the record.
Couple of items:
1. As the book says in Chapter XIII for vacuum-RCM, Do not use acids with vacuum-RCM. The blowers and vacuum pumps use metals that can be corroded and damaged by acids.
2. For cleaning with vacuum-RCM, the Liquinox (at 0.5%) and Tergitol (at 0.05%) concentrations are 50% less than when manual-sink cleaning with faucet rinsing. You can further reduce the Liquinox to 0.25% but do not go any lower otherwise there is no value to using it. Liquinox contains anionic and nonionic surfactants, and while nonionic surfactants can be effective at very low concentrations, anionic surfactants require much higher concentrations.
3. When measuring out concentrated cleaning agents (Citranox, Liquinox, Tergitol) use reasonably accurate measurements such as the pipettes recommended by the book.
3. Sink-cleaning means using a record label protector such that during cleaning & rinsing, the record surface is touched only by fluids (cleaners & water). Wear gloves - your hands are a major source of small particles; your body is shedding all the time. When sink-cleaning follow the Chapter V explicitly before attempting any variations. Citranox does not rinse at easy as Liquinox. Make sure to use the brush during the rinse cycle as the book says. FYI - for manual-sink cleaning, I use only one Record Dr brush for the entire process. The nylon handle and the bristles thermally bonded to the handle make it easy to rinse and in 5-yrs I have lost 1-bristle; it's pretty indestructible. Also, you can (and I do) wash with the brush aligned parallel to the grooves. This is actually the safest way to wash (with the light downward force the book specifies) since when the handle is parallel to the grooves, and there is very little risk of the brush handle contacting the record.
4. For your process and what you are trying to achieve, you can try the entire manual-sink method - Liquinox, tap-rinse, Citranox, tap-rinse, Tergitol, tap-rinse & DIW spray. The DIW spray is very important. After the final tap-water rinse, with the record near vertical, almost all the water should 'run' off the record; if it does not something is wrong. At this point there is very little tap-water on the record. The DIW spray now rinses what is left from the record and then leaves the record completely covered with DIW drops that further dilute anything that maybe left. Shake the record to remove some drops, remove from record label protector and dry on the vacuum-RCM and go directly to play and listen. Do not sleeve and then play since the sleeve may be a source of contamination. After play, put the record through a Degritter heavy wash & dry. Play and listen. Are there differences? This is a bit risky since playing the record can cause contamination depending on cleanliness of your record mat, and any brush used to dry-brush the record that may contaminate or cause static.
5. HOWEVER, not sure of the convenience/practicality of the full manual-sink clean followed by the Degritter. Please recall what the book says Chapter XII, The incorporation of the acid chemistry does manually what ultrasonics can do with power. Ideally, you really want a streamlined process for all but the worst records where you quickly pre-clean with the vacuum-RCM and then final clean with the Degritter UT. But, as you and @rDin have uncovered, for the best results from the Degritter you want to minimize any ionic-residue carryover. Both the Liquinox and Citranox are ionic, and carryover will contribute to TDS. Tergitol is "nonionic" and does not contribute to TDS. So, any use of Liquinox or Citranox needs to be carefully rinsed and for you always followed by Tergitol to remove any residue to avoid ionic carryover.
Please think through carefully what you plan on doing before executing so that you get the best meaningful data/results. And understand for what you are trying to achieve, what I always say applies even more - "The Devil is in Details".
Hope this is of some help,
Neil
Thanks. As with anything, my opinions are mine alone and subject to change as I learn more. I agree that there's likely no process that would ever eliminate the need for hands on work. For me, given I work with a lot of records of unknown provenance, just removing surface debris so I can properly inspect the disc for obvious stylus wrecking damage, and to give it a spin to check for warps takes time. Setting up any cleaning apparatus, loading and unloading records, maintaining it all will always take time, too. What I hope to eliminate or at least reduce is the amount of time, number of steps in my pre-cleaning process. I'd also like to be able to process more than one disc at a time, and to eliminate the need to constantly come back to the cleaning room, just to start another Degritter cleaning cycle on the same disc. That's what I hope to accomplish by setting up a system similar to what @tima has assembled.
Hi Tim. "not a fanboy post." Yeah. I tried to show both sides of the coin, so to speak, but gushing's just not me. It's been quite a journey from the first discs when I did it pretty much the Degritter way, which suggested one Medium cycle (two full rotations through the bath, using OEM cleaning concentrate), which certainly "opened up the highs," to where I am now.
The older GUI named the cycles Quick, Medium & Heavy. Early on, I set up the camera to count rotations and figure out how long the full disc was in the bath. Think I still have that raw vid. Heavy came in at four rotations, which has since been confirmed by Degritter as they ditched the subjective naming conventions, making Heavy "4".
They also added a 3 rotation cycle, which I've not tested. My suspicion is they wanted to give the Heavy users an option that might, in some cases, avoid the dreaded Cooling Cycle, which will kick in if the bath reaches 95 f. Forget how long it runs, but the machine just shuts off the transducers, sets a new clock, lets the disc continue to rotate through the bath until that clock expires, then kicks the transducers back on and finishes the cycle. Again, if they could have added a "5," I suspect they would have done that, but there's a thermal limit at play.
While I don't have the numbers in front of me (I do have them if you're interested), I was a little surprised to find how little time the disc was fully subjected to the ultrasonics for the four rotation Heavy cycle. Something like 20 seconds to fill the tank, more than 20 to empty it and kick in the drying fan, or if you kill the fan mode entirely, to re-set so you can start another cleaning cycle. It would be interesting to compare your total in-tank wash time to mine. Totally different systems, ears, etc. but you must have worked out what it took to get what you consider to be satisfactory results just as I have and my gut tells me the difference in contact time might not be all that great.
Morning Neil. Yes that's the brush I use. If I said "dry" I mis-spoke. My "dry" routine actually involves using a small bottle of DW, sprayed into the air so I can wave the brush through the mist. I don't think of it as a means of eliminating static, but as a means of assuring the bristles will actually pick up any dust, not just move it around. Most of the time I don't have a static charge problem at the turntable, but that does change when the temp drops to near zero if I don't keep the whole house humidifier set in the 30% range. The windows I installed are far better than the originals, but still I get too much condensation if I set it too high and that's something I don't care to do, so occasionally it becomes an issue for the turntable.
And thanks for the additional info, especially the different concentrations when mixing for use on the VPI vs manual sink cleaning. Unfortunately I mixed a gallon of Liquinox and Tergitol based on the sink concentrations so now will have the fun of working out how to dilute them - and finding more jugs to work with. Thanks also for the caution against using acids on the VPI.
I reviewed all the book excerpts you provided to be certain I hadn't missed anything when I originally studied those portions of the book. Yes, I use gloves. With respect to accurate metering of solutions, I did start with pipettes, but moved to 1 mL syringes. Yes, I have a Gruvemaster label protector. Yes, I brush with the groove and the brush handle never touches the record. Yes, I follow tap water rinses with my deionized water. Yes, I got the desired sheeting. No, I didn't look at wearing gloves as a means of reducing skin cells getting on the record (my understanding was it was best not to get some of the cleaning agents on my skin), so appreciate that insight. Yes, when working over the sink I re-used my nylon brushes (at that time I used only the Osage Audio brush), but when working on the VPI, I choose to have separate ones for each step, simply because the VPI is on one side of a large room, the sink for rinsing brushes the other. Generally, I like to get one side of a disc fully processed on the VPI, go rinse out the brushes and then do the second side.
A bit about how I audition records between cleaning steps. Records cleaned over the sink would be placed into the Degritter, loaded with deionized water only. They would go through a soak cycle first, as that would be sufficient to break up the larger droplets of deionized rinse water still clinging to the disc, then dried using the Degritter's fan, set on low, usually for 3 minutes. Drying without the soak cycle took about ten. The disc was then walked upstairs without being placed in a sleeve (everything eventually goes into a fresh MoFi sleeve) and auditioned. Auditioning generally is limited to the entirety of track 01 and the following track break. Auditioning post VPI cleaning is done much the same way, sans the Degritter steps. Auditioning after each Degritter cycle is also done the same way. At this point I don't audition after every step unless I make a change to my process intended to improve results. Given the number of steps, when I did fully audition, I played through track 01 at least five times - more if the disc in question wasn't playing at the level I thought it should play after the fourth 4-rotation cycle in the Degritter.
I should add that I do rinse in the Degritter and that the rinse may be a fifth 4-rotation cycle or it may be done in place of the fourth 4-rotation cleaning cycle, if the record in question appears to be in excellent condition. In those cases, I generally audition after the 3rd cleaning cycle and make a decision as to whether more cleaning is really necessary.
I do use a second tank for rinsing on the Degritter, but I do not always simply swap it out. If I've allowed the wash TDS to get to 3 PPM, I will fill the rinse tank about 25%, run a manual machine maintenance cycle, dump the water, rinse out the tank and refill with deionized water before running a rinse. While I don't have a specific schedule for doing it, I also occasionally go one more step, sacrificing an entire tank of deionized water to fully flush the machine's internals. When I do that, the fresh tank is run trough the degas cycle, dumped, and sprayed down before I rinse.
Neil, I agree that the full manual cleaning process isn't necessary if one is going to follow it up with the Degritter, nor is it necessary if pre-cleaning is done on the VPI. As I said earlier, no pre-cleaning method I've tried has ever beaten the results of one 4-rotation cycle in the Degritter, though I wish that were the case. My pre-cleaning is done for two reasons; (1) the records I work with have all manner of surface debris that I don't wish to have contaminate the Degritter; (2) the records also may have films of tar and nicotine I also don't want to get into the Degritter.
If the machine could be completely broken down and cleaned the way a commercial paint spray system can, I wouldn't concern myself with pre-cleaning so much, but there is no way to get to the plumbing, pumps, valves, behind the transport rollers, etc. To reduce the chance for re-deposition on the record surface and to reduce component failure, it's just best practice, IMO, to keep the machine as clean as possible. To that end, while Degritter recommends the vinegar wash after 200 cycles (four filter changes), I do it at 150.
I'd extend that further and say you want to minimise ANY residue carry over if the goal is to minimise the risk of audible veiling...
One benefit of using TDS measurable products is that you can test how effective you are at rinsing by watching the TDS changes in the Degritter water - if you don’t rinse at all you will see the biggest rise, giving a benchmark, then the better the rinsing the lower the subsequent rise.
Last edited:
Thanks for the follow-up, Jim. I'm not where I can access those numbers but I can say this...
If you draw a line across a record with the line tangential to the runout area, say 1/4-inch inside the runout area, that is the area covered by solution in my RD+Elmasonic wash tank at any point in time. Gross approximation says that's roughly 1/3 of the record, probably a bit more. If we go by that for my two 10-minute wash cycles, its about 6 minutes 40 seconds of total record coverage. I can get more or less by changing the cycle time for automated shut off up to 30 minutes. 20 minutes works for temperature control.
I vaguely recall Neil has something to say about this in his book.
Morning Tim. I just pulled up one of the old videos and first off, I find I was incorrect about the total number of rotations through the bath when set on Heavy. It's five, not four, which means I'll need to confirm that the new GUI "4" didn't actually cut one rotation. Anyway, Here are the raw numbers. The actual time for each rotation's a little hard to catch, as the Degritter transport uses a rocking motion.
heavy cycle total time 6:45
fill complete 6:25
rotation 1 5:14
rotation 2 4:00
rotation 3 2:50
rotation 4 1:37
rotation 5 0:26
drain complete 0:00
Total in tank time: approximately 6:00
1/3 of that would be approximately 2:00
My normal routine *used to be* four Heavy cycles, so the entire disc was subjected to the 120 kHz ultrasonics for approximately 8 minutes, or about 1:20 more than your two 10-minute washes. However, if Degritter dropped one rotation when they changed the GUI, then currently I'd be very close to your total contact time.
Last edited:
I wish there were an inexpensive camera wirh enough power to look at the grooves and see if they are clean. Also to see damage.
I don't know if my ultrasonic does anything beyond what my hand cleaning is doing. I use it mostly as a rinse and place to drop a record before the next step.
With my hand cleaning, I only rince between and at the finish with Zero Water. I bought a counter top unit and put it on a table with a 5 gallon home depot bucket below. I let the water out of the counter unit, across the record and into the bucket. I rarely get any on the floor.
I always finish by droppint the record in a spin clean with zero water in that. Just slide a 1/4 inch aluminum dowl through the spindle hole and hand spin the record.
An ultrasonic like Tima's seems to bulk clean faster. I don't know it does any better job. My hand cleaning knocks out 4 records in about 20 minuts.
I don't know if my ultrasonic does anything beyond what my hand cleaning is doing. I use it mostly as a rinse and place to drop a record before the next step.
With my hand cleaning, I only rince between and at the finish with Zero Water. I bought a counter top unit and put it on a table with a 5 gallon home depot bucket below. I let the water out of the counter unit, across the record and into the bucket. I rarely get any on the floor.
I always finish by droppint the record in a spin clean with zero water in that. Just slide a 1/4 inch aluminum dowl through the spindle hole and hand spin the record.
An ultrasonic like Tima's seems to bulk clean faster. I don't know it does any better job. My hand cleaning knocks out 4 records in about 20 minuts.
The fundamental problem with high-magnification is image stability and field of view, it gets so small that you end up viewing only a fraction of an inch and to get image stability you need a very stable surface, making the use of high-magnification for cleanliness of a record with a surface nearly 1-sq-ft mostly impractical. Otherwise, Olympus makes some very high-magnification (>15,000X) digital microscopes - olympus-ims.com/en/.downloads/download/?file=285216326&fl=en_US&inline.
Jim,
Something you may wish to consider when comparing your contact time with @tima, is that his process spins the record at only ~0.5-rpm, so cumulative and continuous contact time is very different. Also, Tim does 10-min in a rinse UT tank @37-kHz at 0.5-rpm. So, this would all work out to about the following assuming 1/3 or the record is wet at any time:
1. Clean Phase-I, 10-min cycling at 37 & 80-kHz spinning at 0.5-rpm (2-min/rev): Each record accumulates 3:33-min contact time of which 40-sec is continuous contact time.
2. Clean Phase-II, 10-min at 80-kHz spinning at 0.5-rpm (2-min/rev): Each record accumulates 3:33-min contact time of which 40-sec is continuous contact time and continuously filtered at 0.2-micron absolute.
3. Rinse Phase: 10-min -kHz spinning at 0.5-rpm (2-min/rev): Each record accumulates 3:33-min contact time of which 40-sec is continuous contact time and continuously filtered at 0.35-micron nominal.
4. Summary: Each record is exposed to ultrasonics for a cumulative period of 10-min of which 2-min is continuous.
Take care,
Neil
Not exactly clear on what you are using.
I would say that I used a VPI vacuum for years, it worked well as I was fastidious in trying to get the most out of this technique as I could, no regrets! Having said that I have now purchased an ultrasonic I won't be going back.
It is not faster but the results are better. As usual it depends on what you are using and how you use it.
I read the whole Tima DIY record clean thread. Asked some questions. Cobbled together hand wash tools and formula to use in conjunction with an ultrasonic. I have a Kirmuss. Not sure if the Kirmuss does anything extra beyond what the brushing does. I have a process I stick too using.the Kirmuss and manual work. In Kirmuss first for mabe 2 minutes. Then hand wash for maybe 2 minutes, then rinse and back in Kirmuss while I hand wash the other in the kirmuss. Then into a spin clean with Zero water to really rinse it of any chemicals. Then dry with a tiger cloth and rack to completely dry. I only do 4 to 6. Then I have had enough.
Morning Neil. Now, here's a link to the most boring video ever. This is the static shot of the Degritter MKII I used to time the cycles. I put a watt meter in line, so at one point I bring that into view. - Jim
https://www.icloud.com/sharedalbum/#B0e5p3ichE2pde
Neil, I certainly hadn't thought of the difference in RPM. Thanks. It sounds like @tima is getting similar, or perhaps superior results to me without (I think?) all the pre-cleaning, with less total ultrasonic contact time. I'm really not surprised by this, given the Elmasonic is much more powerful (I don't know what @tima us using for a power setting) and utilizes much lower frequency ultrasonics. Whether the Degritter MKII at 120 kHz removes any non-vinyl from the groove or lands that the lower frequencies can't, I can't say, though my suspicion is you're right in saying that's very unlikely, but continuing to use it as a dedicated rinse machine would make the question moot I think. Certainly having you point to the much lower total contact time @tima is applying - to far more records at a time than I am - gives me more confidence that following in his footsteps will result in my upping my game.
BTW, while it's too early to conclude the Record Doctor brush when used on the VPI for pre-cleaning prior to the Degritter MKII is providing superior results, two discs from the same buy suggests it is, and that's using only the AIVS Down With Dirty Enzyme cleaner, along with multiple rinses. The records were given one quick DWD treatment, then given a second and allowed to soak for 20 minutes (lid on the VPI assures the surface remains coated). In both cases Track 01 played more like what I'd expect after two Heavy cycles in the Degritter, which I don't think has ever happened.
Certainly the action of the Record Doctor Brush is different from all the rest. While I still workde the discs initially with the Osage Audio twin nylon brush (I glued two together) because it's stiffer, I do like the overall feel of the Record Doctor brush and the fact it tends to sop up more of the contaminated fluid. I took a bit of a break from the fun of cleaning records, but expect to process some more discs that weren't part of that batch and will let you know if the improved results are anomaly or are reliably repeatable.
In any event, thank you for giving me cause to put my lone Disc Doctor brush into play. This is the full pre-cleaning process, which I post here only because it's important to put anything I say about my Degritter MKII results in context
pre-wash routine 02-22-2024
Primary change: Use of Disc Doctor (DD) black bristle nylon brush for all brushwork, save first DW wash on the VPI. Custom dual Osage Audio (OA) white bristle nylon brush used for that step, as it’s a somewhat stiffer bristle more likely to catch hard bits and remove them early on. *
(1) Lightly sprayed OA brush is used during initial inspection on free spinning turntable to remove most surface debris.
(2) Lightly sprayed white Zeiss microfiber brush is then used to remove more surface debris.
(3) Disc is inspected. Any visible hard bits are removed.
(4) Disc is placed on VPI and dry vacuumed for one rotation.
(4) OA brush is used to spread and agitate DW, which is then vaccumed off.
(5) DD brush is used to spread Down with Dirty Enzyme cleaner. Sufficient fluid is applied to create head in front of brush. Brush is held steady for several rotations, then platter is reversed and brushed again. Rotations continue until surface tension is reduced to the point the entire record remains covered for a full rotation. Fluid is agitated, creating a small amount of foam. Fluid is then vacuumed off.
(6) A fresh application of Down With Dirty is applied, covering the record. Fluid is agitated, creating a small amount of foam. The VPI lid is then placed over the disc to reduce evaporation and keep it wet as it soaks for 20 minutes.
(7) After 20 minutes, the DD brush is held steady as the record rotates in both directions. If the remaining fluid isn’t sufficient to create a good head in front of the brush, additional cleaning solution is applied. After several rotations in both directions, the fluid is vacuumed off.
(8) the DD brush is then used to spread DW. The brush is held steady as the turntable rotates in both directions. Sufficient fluid is applied to assure a head is created in front of the brush. The fluid is then vacuumed off.
(9) the VPI clear wand assembly is replaced with the rinse-only delrin wand assembly. DW is applied a second time and vacuumed off.
* Note: Between each step, the brushes are thoroughly rinsed, hard sprayed with warm water and sprayed heavily with either DW or the cleaning fluid that will be used for the next step.
Neil, this is somewhat off topic, but am I correct in thinking electron microscope imagry is of limited value when trying to assess the cleanliness and condition of a vinyl record groove? My understanding is the process requires deposition of a conductive layer of metal, but I don't know what thickness is required. Without knowing more, my concern is that layer could hide some of what we're trying to see, i.e any evidence of films, the smallest pits, etc.? Doesn't it also mask the true color of the vinyl? Any insight would be appreciated - Jim
The only way to decide if one cleaning process works better than another for you is to work with them personally, but I will say this - I considered almost every cleaning process I used "good enough" until I found a better process.
I also found that as my turntable, cartridge, tonearm, amp, speakers were changed out for better equipment, it became much easier to hear the differences between good records and truly excellent ones, whether the difference was cleanliness, pressing quality, mastering quality, mic positioning, etc.
At this point, I consider having a process that gets the record as clean as I possibly can to be a key component in my playback system. Garbage in - Garbage out as they say.
And I'm still learning, my process still improving, because I'm far from perfect. @Neil.Antin and others are nudging me along, giving me insight and suggestions that continue to surprise me with how much even small changes can do to improve my results.
I can't speak to the results @tima gets with his system, although I am studying it and hope to adopt much of it, but with respect to the Degritter MKII, while there are users who are happy running it in the manner the manufacturer considers sufficient for most records (one run on Medium, perhaps changing the tank and rinsing), I'd caution against concluding that any results you get that way is the limit of what the machine can do. If you aren't satisfied with the results at that point, you may want to add more cycles, give the ultrasonics more time to work.
That said, hand cleaning, done right, can work. It certainly worked well for me and I say that knowing full well I could have done better. But I never found it possible to get the best results without considerable time and effort. I would guess manual cleaning of a single disc took me close to 15 minutes.
And I've used the Spin-Clean. At one point I had two of them that I used for rinsing after manual cleaning over the sink. My method was to spin them by hand while wearing chemically resistant gloves. My experiece was that the Spin-Clean rollers would frequently grab and shave off bits of vinyl the factory trimming process missed, depositing them in the bottom of the tank, along with fibers shed from the velvet pads. I could not convince myself that none of that stray vinyl in the bath ever got between the disc and the pads and my auditioning of track breaks made me suspect some of that fiberous material ended up in the groove.
Perhaps with more changes to my manual pre-cleaning process I would find no improvement from following it up with the Degritter MKII, but after months of work, changing pre-cleaning processes and fluids many times, that has yet to occur. I achieve my Degritter MKII results by using only the wash cycle that provides the longest time, and instead of just distilled water or the OEM cleaning fluid, use an enzyme cleaning concentrate specifically formulated for use in ultrasonics. And while I certainly hear an improvement after just one cycle every time, I never stop there, because time after time, auditioning after every cleaning cycle, the difference is substantial.
I started questioning what all is going on after using the Kirmuss as it is designed and finding no difference between that and inserting a record doctor brush with the Alconox spray into the process.
I began using the Brush as it was all I could afford. Then I got the Kirmuss. The Kirmuss seemed to work well, but it was really time intensive with 5 to 7 brushing and 3 to 5 minutes in the tank between brush. I was only getting 2 records done in 20 to 30 minutes.
That made me try Tergitol in the Kirmus as a pre and inbetween clean. Drop the fresh record into the Kirmuss for 2 minutes, pull it, hand wash for 2 minutes with a record doctor brush and Alconox spray, rinse with zero water, back in the Kirmuss, then into a spin clean with 0 water before drying. That got me 4 to maybe 6 records in the time the traditional Kirmuss process took.
I don't know I can hear a difference. What I have found is no process removes pops and clicks from old records that probably have groove damage. I mostly just feel good thinking they are clean. I find a whole lot of what makes a good record compared to a bad record is the mastering/pressing itself. Not the removal of some contaminants.
I began using the Brush as it was all I could afford. Then I got the Kirmuss. The Kirmuss seemed to work well, but it was really time intensive with 5 to 7 brushing and 3 to 5 minutes in the tank between brush. I was only getting 2 records done in 20 to 30 minutes.
That made me try Tergitol in the Kirmus as a pre and inbetween clean. Drop the fresh record into the Kirmuss for 2 minutes, pull it, hand wash for 2 minutes with a record doctor brush and Alconox spray, rinse with zero water, back in the Kirmuss, then into a spin clean with 0 water before drying. That got me 4 to maybe 6 records in the time the traditional Kirmuss process took.
I don't know I can hear a difference. What I have found is no process removes pops and clicks from old records that probably have groove damage. I mostly just feel good thinking they are clean. I find a whole lot of what makes a good record compared to a bad record is the mastering/pressing itself. Not the removal of some contaminants.
There's no doubt some noise people assume are contaminants are actually damage. In my experience, as the Degritter removes contaminants, it often clears out scratches and pits the stylus didn't really "play" before. Thus, if the record's damaged, it can end up playing worse after proper cleaning. For me, that "oh crap, it's going in the trash bin" moment might not happen until it's been through at least two Heavy cycles.
What's been your experience in that regard with the Kirmuss?
Admittedly, when I speak of the improvements in playback as a result of my cleaning process, I'm talking about records that are visibly dirty, not new presses, although I've certainly found they improve given the same amount of attention, just not to the same degree. Undoubtely if the record wasn't produced by people who actually knew their stuff, or if they were all over-rulled at the last minute by someone who decided 25 minutes a side was a good idea, cleaning's only going to do so much. But when I've worked with old Columbia 6-eyes of Ellington or anything else that rises to that level, what I've found is the difference between what I hear initially and what I hear when I'm done is honestly astounding and I say that knowing my sound system still leaves quite a bit to be desired. Time and again, records that just sounded dull, old, tired end up playing so well that the emotional connection, the "OK, NOW I get it" feeling comes on. It makes performances I didn't much care for become ones that bring a smile, bring joy, which is really the reason I put all the effort into cleaning in the first place.
Jim:
This video of how a stylus in a groove video was produced should answer all your questions -
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |