Ultrasonic Cavitation & Cleaning Explained
- Thread starter Neil.Antin
- Start date
I agree that Mr. Kirmuss has a certain personality and some of his statements are a bit on an aggressive side, but his cleaning process, although tedious and very time consuming, produces excellent results. At least in my case, I’ve had a few old records cleaned with Klaudio, and they still had some pops and clicks. Not so much after going through 4 to 6 cycles in the Kirmuss machine.
Do your records come out of the Kirmuss dry without the need for further drying as Mr. Kirmuss claimed they would?
Ok, good. Despite my dislike for the Kirmuss trade show tactics, I'm still somewhat interested in the product. The immediately obvious downside in my mind is the limitation of three full sized records combined with the long cycle time. But perhaps used as a post-Degritter ultrasonic rinse step with shorter cycle time, it could have utility for me. And I guess, averaged out, the time per record isn't too far off from what my Degritter workflow yields.
Is there any data for damage caused by stylus? Or brushing or sleeves? Lack of data on those doesn't keep anybody using them.
Why you're ok with damage caused by stylus but not ok with damage caused by ultrasonic cleaning even though there wasn't any obvious sonic degradation but oppositely there is sonic improvement? Couldn't it be possible to be personally ok with damage caused by ultrasonic cleaning simply because it sounds noticeably better?
Last edited:
For stylus damage yes. You can find it if you're so inclined. A poorly aligned micro ridge is worse than a poorly aligned conical for example.
I don't trust other people's ears when they claim something like this isn't audible. We all listen for different things.
I don't trust other people's ears when they claim something like this isn't audible. We all listen for different things.
Temperature alone did not cause the damage; kHz alone did not damage the record, power alone did not cause the damage, and record rotation alone did not cause the damage. BUT, high temp, low kHz, high power and very slow rotation now changes the equation, and the record may be damaged. As @tima said, a good process is not going to damage the record and given his UT process and his stereo system and his sensitive hearing, you should trust his experience, regardless of what I say or have written in the book. However, I am not here to convince you that UT is safe; I am not selling anything.
@Neil.Antin , Listening tests are flawed in multiple ways and I'm interested in data, though there isn't much to be found. Are you familiar with the Kirmuss metal (aluminum?) disc demonstration? He shows these discs that have supposedly been run through different machines as evidence of their cavitation efficacy. The Kirmuss aluminum disc was essentially deformed by the ultrasonic action where as the Degritter disc remained smooth. There were other discs from other types of machines (I think Kuzma was one). And the lack of deformation of an aluminum disc was one reason he sited for claiming the Degritter is merely a bubbler. But I looked at the disc test as possible evidence that the other cleaners or methods or both could actually damaging the media. At least it seems difficult to confidently rule it out.
Listening tests can be flawed, but not necessarily with how UT could damage the record. From all the videos Iinks that I have provided, you should be sensitive to how UT could damage the record - if it damages the record, it should be some form of abrasion - such as the dull-mottled surface finish or like the cavitation damage to metals - the surface is pitted. If the surface/groove is pitted, you should hear that.
Otherwise, yes, I am familiar with the aluminum foil test - read this post Degritter Users | Page 102 | Steve Hoffman Music Forums.
Last edited:
Yeah, I think we're at an impasse w.r.t. damage. The available information and "shoulds" are inconclusive. I'll leave it at that. By the way, have you addressed or considered whether or not being in close proximity to a high powered ultrasonic machine (e.g. 100W to 300W at XX kHz) could have detrimental effects on our hearing? I always wear ear plugs when operating mine because I simply don't know!
It's inconclusive because of the many variables. But consider that the precision cleaning industry has been using UT to clean delicate parts for >50-yrs and uses mega-sonics to clean semi-conductor chips. It's all about the kHz, power, temp & exposure duration. But if you are the least concerned - do not buy the Kirmuss with its 37-kHz large cavitation bubble/high cavitation energy. As I wrote the 120kHz Degitter produces a much smaller bubble but do not compare its power (300W) with the power of a lower kHz unit since as I wrote, the higher the kHz the more power that is required to produce cavitation - the book Chapter XIV goes into some detail.
Otherwise as far as hearing damage - there are no OSHA regulations, but there is some literature about it (PDF) Effects of Ultrasonic Noise on the Human Body—A Bibliographic Review (researchgate.net) and Possible Effects on Health of Ultrasound Exposure, Risk Factors in the Work Environment and Occupational Safety Review (nih.gov)
Let me add this:
What is the 'weakest" part of the record? Answer - the side wall ridges that produce the high frequencies. The peak of the modulation is very thin. Its the first place that stylus groove damage occurs - the stylus trenches the groove. Ergo, common sense - be it damage by a cleaning agent or a cleaning process - the first place this will occur is the side wall ridges and the likely result (given the variables) is either high frequency noise or loss of high frequency dB output. People have digitally recorded records before and after UT (37kHz and above with a protective process) showing no damage to the high frequency content. I do not have the links readily available - but if you dig around you should find them. Now there was an early post by Harry on the now gone VPI Forum addressing audible loss of high frequency content after UT - that was later determined to be failure to fully rinse cleaning agents that were being used.
If there is fear of damaging a record from ultrasonic cleaning or the mere lack of data about it, just think of all the other ways vinyl records can be damaged -- as noted by @mtemur . One with such fear may feel more comfortable if they confine themselves to digital.
Are you stating that KL ultrasonic cleaners damage records?
If you are not, why are you polluting a KLA ultrasonic thread with this stuff?
You have taken what I said out of context. I am not saying that KL ultrasonic cleaner damaged records. I reference where someone used a DIY w/Elmasonic UT incorrectly and the record was damaged. The KL audio is an automated machine that has been well designed to operate w/o damaging a record.
Otherwise, this is nothing more than an intellectual discussion in response to someone challenging whether UT damages a record - read back on this thread; and maybe in hindsight, the conversation should have probably been moved to another thread.
While I cannot speak for Neil, I don't believe their is any speaking ill of KLaudio. Neil is stating facts about ultrasonic tanks in general. The message (to me anyway) is that ultrasonic tanks are a tool and when used correctly can do a fine job cleaning records, KLaudio included.
Edit: what Neil said above, I was writing when he posted.
Similar threads
