Degritter ultrasonic record cleaner

Hi y’all, just a few words on what I think is a worthy alternative to the Audio Desk Systeme and KLAudio ultrasonic cleaners.

http://degritter.com/media-kit/

I’ve been a beta tester on the Degritter for the last few weeks, and am happy to offer my opinions and answer any qs for those interested.

I believe official launch is in early May, and at this stage after a couple of quibbles in day to day use, I’m planning to keep my unit, it’s been a pretty good success, and invaluable addition to day to day life as a vinyl addict.

 

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 (...)

Do you want us to cry or laugh? These pages are really childish ...

 

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...

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

 

These brave people wrote almost 2000 posts along six years about the subject -http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/analogue-source/218276-version-ultrasonic-record-cleaner.html

 

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

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

 

The first ten pages are the inventor’s fruitless search for a 60kHz unit over standard 40KHz.

That suggests Degritter are definitely highlighting the right thing.

 

I’ve invited Taniel Põld of Degritter to join the forum, and answer everyone’s qs.

With so many industry people now regularly taking part on WBF, it only seems logical Taniel answers queries where he can.

 

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

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...

 

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

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

Impossible - I only read some random pages and the last 5 pages! The basic safety questions were still unanswered, my feeling is : great cleaning technique , use a machine well tested by WBF members as little as possible, avoid using systematically.

 

Here’s my LP cleaning regimen per side with my VPI.
First, apply Enzyme cleaner and fully brush in....leave on for about five(5) minutes...then vacuum off.
Second, apply Super deep cleaner, fully brush in and then vacuum off...
Third, apply Super record wash, for this application I use a mobile fidelity brush and sweep around extensively. Leave on for about one minute and then vacuum off. I ONLY use new Mobile Fidelity inner sleeves for all cleaned records, there is no point putting a clean record back into a grundgy sleeve.
After this regimen, which takes about 10 minutes per side, there is absolutely no gunk or static on the LP. Occasionally, I will also apply Gruv Glide to LP’s that are not pristine to begin with. Lot more work than just popping the LP into the US machine, but I’m pretty sure the finished LP is as clean...if not more so.

 

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

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...

 

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

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".

 

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".

This article addresses only mechanical damage - many people fear that the damage to vinyl in the long time can be due to chemical action. Most reports of damage due to over power or over time go in this direction - the grayish surface.

Sweeping was a latest advance in 2003 , not nowadays.

 

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.

I Googled "KLAUDIO + damage" so there is no ambiguity here. I experimented yesterday and cleaned one record 5 times on the KLAUDIO on the maximum setting. There was no damage, no change in sound, nothing.

 

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

 

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

The distortion is an annoyance, something additional that shouldn't be there. I could isolate the problem because I know the rest of my system well enough.

david

 

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?

. . . .

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

 

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.

 

Tim, ok, you won’t hear me refer to ADS issues anymore.

Indeed I’m friends with an owner, and his unit has never skipped a beat.

 

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.

Welcome to the forum Taniel! First the credit for that article goes to microstrip, it originally was his link.

Like some others I'm quite interested in your product you've addressed the issues with commercial ultrasonic cleaners with your design. You seem to have incorporated a removable tank in your design which I think is a necessity, specially if the tank came with a cap sealing it. One of the issues with all vinyl cleaners is evaporating liquid bath it would be great to remove the tank and seal it between uses. The other benefit of course is for people like me who own and love shellac 78's we need a different chemical bath for them with multiple sealed removable containers life becomes easy, not sure if you have an adaptor for 10" records but would be nice to get one with multiple sealable liquid tanks.

david

 

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

When my friend's Audio Desk broke for the third time 6 months ago, Reiner informed him that you had to think of the Audio Desk like a cartridge, it wears out and has to be refreshed/refurbished every few years. Hilarious explination for a poor design. I have 5 friends that purchased the Audio Desk, all of them had multiple failures and now have KM, VPI or KLAUDIO machines.

The audio community will stop talking about the problems with Audio Desk when the Audio Desk stops having problems.