Not a chance a vacuum cleaner can do a better job than Degritter or any other well engineered ultrasonic cleaner for that matter…
Why?
Why? Isn’t that obvious?
You make a statement that you don’t back up and when I ask why you say it’s obvious. That is just what is wrong with this hobby, people saying it’s obvious without supplying scientific evidence to back up their statements.
Think about it for a moment. When you are cleaning a record you are attempting to remove contaminants from the surface of the record and deep within the grooves of the record. These contaminants will be mould release agents, grease (from finger prints), proteins, bacteria, dust and depending upon the state of the vinyl being cleaned, general detritus.
Ultrasonic cleaning relies on high frequency sound waves being transmitted through a fluid (in the case of the Degritter this is water) and causing cavitation of the fluid molecules. This cavitation causes a void (or cavity) which gets trapped as a bubble in the fluid. The microscopic bubbles then implode with high force. If the bubbles implode close to a surface they may cause adhering contaminants to be dislodged. So for this to work effectively the liquid needs to be in very close contact with the record surface , including the grooves of the record, for a requisite period of time. If this is the case then the contaminants will fall off the surface into the fluid. One issue with vinyl is that some of the energy can be absorbed by the record (it is vinyl not metal) and this can reduce effectiveness, so time in the bath is important. The other important factor in industrial applications of ultrasonics is the use of heat to loosen dirt and chemical bonds. Then you have to make sure that the ultrasonic transducer works constantly and without degradation. To my knowledge no ultrasonic cleaner currently monitors the status of the transducer, so that reduction in the efficiency is something that can go unnoticed.
Finally the fluid in an ultrasonic bath, if it is used for multiple washes, needs to be cleansed of the contaminants. Larger particles can be removed by filtration but the filters used are not fine enough to remove all of this detritus, so one must make sure that the fluid is refreshed appropriately.
Now consider a wet vacuum cleaner. Here a liquid is applied to the surface of the record and pushed deep into the grooves. For this the right record cleaner is required to be added to the water in order to reduce surface tension and thoroughly wet the whole surface. The solution can be made up of various detergents and enzymes. In some cases (to be avoided) it may contain alcohol. In this case the whole point is to disassociate the contaminant from the surface of the record and dissolve, or suspend the contaminant in the solution. This can then be removed by suction. Note that unlike in an ultrasonic cleaner, this fluid is not used to clean another record!
So both systems have some things in common the need for the fluid to be in close proximity to the record surface, a way to reduce surface tension and wet the vinyl surface effectively and a means to help reduce the chemical bonds that hold the contaminant to the surface. And finally removal
Of the fluid containing the contaminants. Something that both methods do in different ways.
So to say it’s obvious that ultrasonic cleaning is better than a wet-vacuum cleaner is, in my view a simplification. Does ultrasonic cleaning work -Yes. Is it always better than a robust cleaning regime, using appropriate solutions in a well designed wet-vacuum RCM….I’m not so sure!
Let the debate continue but don’t discount something because you have decided to go a different route in order to get to achieve the same goal!!!
This is very interesting to me. As I said previously I am saving up to purchase a Degritter currently.
My experience admittedly on a sample of approximately 10 records.
All the records had previously been manually cleaned using my VPI 16.5 Machine.
I took them to my friend who has a degritter and cleaned them on a heavy cycle. I am pretty sure he adds Degritter cleaning solution to his water tank.
Anyhow I was pretty shocked at how much better my LPs sounded after being cleaned on his machine.
I have not been able as yet to try this Levar machine. I looked it up and it’s in a similar price range to the Degritter well the twin machine is.
I assume you must have had some dissatisfaction with the performance of the Degritter to consider switching to the Levar.
Were you able to do comparisons before switching?
There is no need to complicate things, when not needed. The simple truth is that ultrasonic technology, properly implemented, is superior to the traditional one. That’s all.
You keep saying that but it doesn’t make it true
I owned a Degritter for 12 months before switching back to a wet-vacuum RCM. I am not saying the Degritter doesn’t work, it does. It’s just that for me the Levar is a better solution and removes some of the more persistent and “sticky” residues found on second hand records.
If you like what the Degritter does that’s great. I prefer the wet-vac method. I am not here to sway anyone, one way or the other, but we need balanced discussion in all things HIFi otherwise we go back to flat earth thinking !!
Thanks for your reply. That is interesting. I intend to keep my VPI anyhow.
As I said I was impressed with the Degritter on my sample of 10 records but no doubt there are other excellent RCMs on the market.
To be honest even though I am impressed with the Degritter I am struggling to justify the cost of one!
Yes, not realizing that is like not understanding that a Tesla is better than a T-Ford… But we can stop there.
Just to add to the mix it is difficult to argue either way. Once you have cleaned a record by any method, how can you go back and do it again with a different machine.
I have two cleaners, an Audiodeske and a Keith Monks Prodigy (the KM is shared with relatives specifically for 7 and 10 inch). I find the KM fiddly, but have tried both. I have also tried multiple cleaning having read reviews by Paul Rigby where he found three cleanings optimal.
It didn’t matter ultrasonic or vacuum first or second, I felt there was a further improvement after a second cleaning.
Unless I have someone with me with both cleaning sessions and they hear the same effect as me, it is only my opinion.
Similarly, whilst audible memory is not good, I recall an experiment many years ago using a CD cleaner, where after cleaning I was sure I could hear more detail in the backing track. The only thing was that a couple of days later I heard the same track over the PA system in B&Q. I could hear that extra detail!
Very funny. I am struggling to justify £2600. £4000 is a bit too much.
Is that the machine you have?
Yes let’s stop on that poor analogy
I never got that criticism of ultrasound vs. vacuum suction cleaners: The same vacuum wand/brush (which still has some rest contaminants) is used to clean the next records. I assume the concentration of contaminants is still pretty high so to avoid cross contamination the wand would have to be rinsed several times to remove all particles. In contrast, in the Degitter, the particles are distributed over 1+ litre of water, filtered, and very little of those particles end up on the next record (and if they do the articles are loosened again through US action). Only very few would end up drying on the record.
The cacuum method really rises and falls with the right cleaning fluids and application of multiple rinse cycles to remove fluid. The same is true for ultrasound cleaners which depends on what fluids and supporting cleaning regiments are used - the Degritter makes it easy to clean filters, change water, and even uses multiple tanks for cleaning/rinse if needed.
I use a Clearaudio Double Matrix for precleaning used records using either Audio Intelligent or Tergitol cleaning fluids. Brushes are cleaned/rinsed every 2-3 records. After the pre clean - records are then rinsed in a Degritter. I use 1 tank for at most 10-20 LPs, filters are rinsed and cleaned after 20 LPs. The Degritter has a significant advantage for the rinse and final contaminant removal and results in a much improved sounds (lower background noise, clarity, resolution). Transducers in the Degritter are tightly controlled using a broader frequency sweep.
Before the Clearaudio and Degritter, I have owned and used a VPI 16.5, Loricraft PRC3, Keith Monks Ruby, AudioDesk, KL Audio. The Clearaudio and Degitter are by far the best of the ones I had in terms of simplicity of use, effectiveness and sound impact. However I would not use either of the two machines alone - the Degritter will need some precleaning and all vacuum cleaners require very effective rinsing.
Re vacuum vs ultrasonic, a few years ago I tried out the AudioSysteme at my dealers. I was hopeful it would be better than my VPI, but I was underwhelmed. A shame, as I’m very open to finding a way of cleaning records that’s less laborious than my current method.
With vacuum cleaning I’ve found that being meticulous about cleanliness - using top quality distilled water, and avoiding any cross-contamination between the clean and rinse cycles - is critically important. My big reservation about the ultrasonic machines I’ve come across is that the records sit in the same fluid that’s used to clean them. If I was to use one again, I would want to give the records a final rinse and vacuum on my VPI, which would defeat the purpose.
When someone comes up with an ultrasonic machine that has a decent rinse capability, I’ll be very interested to check it out.
I agree, this is so important with a vacuum RCM.
Also critical is the method of applying the fluid. I find that paying particular attention to the outer rim edge where most dirt and grease with be found as well as really scrubbing in a circular motion across the LP and getting a good lather works best. Also make sure all the fluid is fully removed by the vacuum. An angled light is good here so you can always tell exactly when it is all removed.
no, my Humminguru is all i need, at 1/10 of that cost
Some very good points