I think it is about 3/4 minutes? You can set the cycle length depending on how dirty you consider your record to be if I remember correctly although I have had it on the longest cycle since I got it and not changed it at all.
KLAudio returns - new KD-CLN-LP200T RCM
- Thread starter tima
- Start date
Thanks. So with de-sleeving and re-sleeving, say 10 an hour, not counting any water change?
Water change should take 20 to 30 seconds? Dump cannister into bucket, pour water into cannister... supposedly good for 500 records per change... I would probably change water every 50 to 100?
I desleeve and sleeve whilst the next one is cleaning so I would say more than 10 an hour. Water changes after about 100 or even more.
I noticed Peter Cheon said the KLaudio uses 38 kHz transducer frequency which is close to the 37kHz the Elmasonic P and S series machines use. The Degritter uses 120kHz. Lower frequency equals larger stronger vacuum bubbles, higher frequency means more vacuum bubbles that can get into smaller places but their explosive power is less than lower frequency transducers. Degritter makes the claim that their machine is 'safer' on records. I've never experience any record damage from cleaning at the low frequency.
Both Klaudio and Degritter each have two transducers per side. Degritter claims ultrasonic power at 330W while Klaudio states 200W. More power is better up to a point. @Neil.Antin has data on this in his substantial compendium -- the bible on record cleaning.
As a reference the Elmasonic P120/H - which is not a one-button RCM but an ultrasonic tank -- offers 6 37kHz and 80kHz dual-frequency transducers on the bottom of the tank. One might argue side firing transducers are better directed for record cleaning specifically. The P120/H offers 330W power with 1320W peak power. Neil also has data on power requirements relative to tank size and number of transducers.
I understand KLaudio's views on surfactant -- Peter C said his approach is 'power and frequency and pure water' in the video. I believe surfactant is necessary for an optimal clean. Water alone is a relatively powerful solvent but even in conjunction with ultrasonic agiitation, will not remove certain particulate such as grease, oil and other substances. (I would love someone to test a Klaudio unit with Tergitol S-19 to see how it holds up. I vaguely recall a KLaudio claim that surfactant may damage internal parts in that machine.) I believe Peter Cheon alluded to foaming from surfactant -- many will foam but that is relatively straightforward to control. Of course the results are the best test of different methods. Since you can never clean the same record twice, comparison testing is tricky.
Neither KLaudio nor Degritter offer much information on their filters. KLaudio claims 500 hours use on a single filter. As far as I know, they give no efficiency rating on their filters (measured in micron size of trapped particulate) or whether that rating is absolute or nominal. The better the filter usually the higher the cost and the longer it will last for cleaning records. An optimal filter setup will have some way to monitor the state of the filter.
I see Klaudio has add-ons for silencing noise, water cooling and automatic feeding of 5 records. I don't know their machine will tell you water temperature, but keeping temperatures lowered (say no more than 35° degrees) can be important when you're doing many cycles successively. @dminches uses a gaming computer radiator as part of his filter setup.
I'm happy that KLaudio re-emerged with an advanced machine and manufacturers continue to seek improvements. There seems little question on its build quality and @howiebrou 's comments on longevity and reliability speak very well for a machine in regular use. I hope you get good use from your new machine.
Excellent throughput. Record cleaning can be a pita. The easier the operation the more likely records get cleaned!
"I've never experience any record damage from cleaning at the low frequency."
Tell us how you've determined this. I'm sure it'd be a function of power intensity, duration of exposure, cleaning agent used, and other variables. And how do you examine your records to determine whether or not they've sustained damage during the cleaning process? A profileometer, SEM, naked eye? What does that process entail?
Tell us how you've determined this. I'm sure it'd be a function of power intensity, duration of exposure, cleaning agent used, and other variables. And how do you examine your records to determine whether or not they've sustained damage during the cleaning process? A profileometer, SEM, naked eye? What does that process entail?
Actually, Degritter is not 330 watts, it has 4 x 75 watt transducers for 300 watts.
I believe somewhere in this video Peter states that when the transducers are mounted on the bottom facing up, there is no cavitation to the grooves, that the bubbles are just "washing".
Here is what Mike @ The InGroove shows how easy to upgrade filtering @13:50
@14:35 Peter talks about what happens when transducers are mounted on bottom of tank pointing up:
Not true. The bubble formation and collapse is not directional with the transducers, its far more chaotic - see this post - Ultrasonic Cavitation & Cleaning Explained | What's Best Audio and Video Forum. The Best High End Audio Forum on the planet! (whatsbestforum.com). Also pay attention to the average bubble size versus kHz.
Here are two other cavitation simulations that are pretty cool - Simulations of the acoustically-driven growth and collapse of a cavitation bubble near a wall - Bing video; Inertial collapse of a single bubble near a solid surface - Bing video
Sure. If you can't hear it, then it's not damaged. Must be the corollary to if it sounds clean then it is clean. Oh but you didn't buy the latter.
This is an amusing thread. When I was a kid, I spent my summers working for my dad who was one of the largest manufacturing jewelry manufacturers in the US. I spend many hours cleaning jewelry with ultrasonic cleaners. We used a very sophisticated process. We put the rings and diamonds into a basket and lowered them into an ultrasonic water bath for a few minutes and then removed them. We never rotated them or even used a timer. Remarkably, everything we put in came out very clean by visual inspection with a hand held magnifier. Then again, we were only cleaning silver, gold, platinum and diamonds,. Nothing a precious as vinyl of course.
Sometimes audiophilia just grows tiresome. All of these ultrasonic machines seem very useful to me and probably do a perfectly fine job. Clean the record with something other than a Hoover vacuum. Play it. It's not that hard.
Sometimes audiophilia just grows tiresome. All of these ultrasonic machines seem very useful to me and probably do a perfectly fine job. Clean the record with something other than a Hoover vacuum. Play it. It's not that hard.
I am just happy that (so far) no one has claimed that an upgraded power cord results in a cleaner record...
It is an hobby, Marty ... Even worst, a technological oriented subjective hobby!
Ultrasonic cleaning has detractors - some claim that cleaning LPs with ultra sounds make them sound like digital.
Do you remember the old claims that playing a digital recording LP in a Linn Sondek would damage the bearing?
@tima, @bazelio, @marty:
Make no mistake, that the powerful UT tanks that are used being used for record cleaning can damage a record. I recently assisted someone who was using an Elmasonic P60 with temperatures as high as 50C with a Vinylstack spinner at about 0.15-rpm, and at least one record was damaged. The record surface took on a dull, mottled finish. Now there was no subjective audible damage but without comparison to a new record that could be debatable.
Now in this case, four factors were in play - the high power of the Elmasonic, the 37kHz which with power can damage surfaces (with the power of the Elmasonic and 37kHz - it could pit gold), the high temperature and the very slow spin speed.
When people try to compare other uses of UT to UT for record cleaning, very often the comparison is not applicable. Always remember, there is the power needed for onset of cavitation, which is not that much, and then there is cavitation intensity which is power dependent. Cleaning jewelry is easy and does not need a lot of UT power and given the nature of the substrate that is metallic or jewels that are relatively soft, you definitely do not want a lot of power - it will pit the surface. Additionally, the surfaces do not want to hold on to detritus like a record does.
The record is a rather odd beast to clean. The stylus can produce an audible response equal to a displacement of less than 1-micron, and trying to remove particles and films this and smaller is not easy. And this is complicated by the material (the substrate) that has these wild properties - first its plastic which wants to hold on to all forms of detritus - this isn't Teflon, its elastic - it's not rigid like metal so it can deform under high cavitation intensity, and it has this crazy looking groove with side wall ridges - it's like trying to clean the Grand Canyon.
So, on first glance the record appears pretty simple, but dive deeper and it becomes quite a challenge to clean it well enough to recover all the music it can reproduce with mostly absent any crackly background.
Ultimately the devil is in the details.
Take care,
Neil
Make no mistake, that the powerful UT tanks that are used being used for record cleaning can damage a record. I recently assisted someone who was using an Elmasonic P60 with temperatures as high as 50C with a Vinylstack spinner at about 0.15-rpm, and at least one record was damaged. The record surface took on a dull, mottled finish. Now there was no subjective audible damage but without comparison to a new record that could be debatable.
Now in this case, four factors were in play - the high power of the Elmasonic, the 37kHz which with power can damage surfaces (with the power of the Elmasonic and 37kHz - it could pit gold), the high temperature and the very slow spin speed.
When people try to compare other uses of UT to UT for record cleaning, very often the comparison is not applicable. Always remember, there is the power needed for onset of cavitation, which is not that much, and then there is cavitation intensity which is power dependent. Cleaning jewelry is easy and does not need a lot of UT power and given the nature of the substrate that is metallic or jewels that are relatively soft, you definitely do not want a lot of power - it will pit the surface. Additionally, the surfaces do not want to hold on to detritus like a record does.
The record is a rather odd beast to clean. The stylus can produce an audible response equal to a displacement of less than 1-micron, and trying to remove particles and films this and smaller is not easy. And this is complicated by the material (the substrate) that has these wild properties - first its plastic which wants to hold on to all forms of detritus - this isn't Teflon, its elastic - it's not rigid like metal so it can deform under high cavitation intensity, and it has this crazy looking groove with side wall ridges - it's like trying to clean the Grand Canyon.
So, on first glance the record appears pretty simple, but dive deeper and it becomes quite a challenge to clean it well enough to recover all the music it can reproduce with mostly absent any crackly background.
Ultimately the devil is in the details.
Take care,
Neil
Of course -- if a UT tank is used incorrectly. Same holds true for most tools. If I saw a record surface turned dull and mottled after cleaning at 50° C, I would gauge that as damage. Lack of knowledge or operator error could be the case.
I agree understanding is in the details. And, paying attention to them.
I have heard from people who are reluctant to use ultrasonic exactly for the fear that it will damage their records. I applaud the work you are doing; it is important to tell the facts that ultrasonic cleaning does work when used correctly -- and what that mean practically. I have told my own story and stand by the success achieved through trial and caution (and your help.) To my knowledge none of my records have been damaged since I started using ultrasonic. I believe there is greater potential for damage from manual handling than from using a machine.
Not to say that innovation does not continue but much of the learning is already achieved. Establish a known good protocol and follow it.
Listening is obviously not a valid approach for determining whether or not damage has occurred. Temperature is but one variable and I'm more concerned about damage that might occur even under lower temperature conditions inside units such as the Elmasonic due to the characteristics of the unit itself rather than other factors. Temperature, TDS, etc can be monitored but doing so may still be insufficient for avoiding damage. And it's a question / concern that hasn't been satisfactorily answered. Thank you for your insight.
Last edited:
Listening also damages the record. Stylus causes incredible amount of pressure on a tiny area of grooves. Even brushing causes minor marks on records (Don't tell me "I use the best brush and mine doesn't cause damage". I'm talking about incredibly minor marks). Sleeves do the same. Damage looks inevitable unless records are kept inside covers without ever listening them.
The question here is how much damage is tolerable for the sake of listening/enjoying records. IMHO/IME the damage caused by stylus, brush and ultrasonic cleaning are tolerable for the sake of enjoying records cause life is passing by. There is no need to be OCD about ultrasonic cleaning or stylus damage if proper care is ensured.
The question here is how much damage is tolerable for the sake of listening/enjoying records. IMHO/IME the damage caused by stylus, brush and ultrasonic cleaning are tolerable for the sake of enjoying records cause life is passing by. There is no need to be OCD about ultrasonic cleaning or stylus damage if proper care is ensured.
Last edited:
We need to consider the type of damage and degrees of damage. It's not black and white. Listening causes wear and I'm personally ok with that simply because i like listening. I don't want to risk inner groove damage from a cleaner though. Perhaps I already am since this is a discussion of a topic that has no data to substantiate any claims. Horses for courses.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |