Er thats a lot of distilled water.
1 Like
Softened water from my tap. Plus a dash of rince aid. No need for distilled water.
It starts to warp at 37 but that reverses itself. The HG recommends not cleaning for more than an hour without pause, anyway, so it’s really easy to avoid.
About 50 eurocents per filling 
but it’s really not necessary to avoid it getting too warm. Most of us also manage to fill the bath tub with water of appropriate temperature
The Degritter Badger1 runs has a 1.4l tank, I think, plus a filter and recirculation pump that I assume recirculates water during the cleaning cycle, different to the HG that just let’s the LP fester in its own bath water 
That is a lot of water to replace every time.
1 Like
The very strong advice is to use purified water for the final rinse/clean before the drying stage ( Purified Water by Distillation, Mixed-Bed Resin or Reverse Osmosis) with less than 10 ppm dissolved solids. Otherwise you are leaving contaminants on the record surface that bake in to the grooves as the water dries. In the days I processed film, it was similarly essential to conduct a final DIW rinse of the film to prevent drying marks. This is covered in Neil Antin’s book referred to above.
Degritter recommend the use of DIW only in their tank also to prevent calcification of the internal workings of the machine.
I don’t think you can rely on a record that has warped to recover completely flat by itself so I would definitely monitor the temperature. The reason for changing the water is to remove contamination that builds up in the tank as dirt is removed from the record otherwise it is recycled back on to the record. A pre-rinse for very dirty records can help reduce the frequency of needing to change water.
If we don’t watch out here, we will be putting folks off buying any RCM due to the need to follow strick guidlines and a written procedure.
Yes, don’t let the water get too hot. Yes, use demin/softened water plus a splash of something to reduce the surface tension.
You can make it more complex than that, but it doesnt need to.
The HG is a well priced machine and it works well with minimal input from the user.
For super dirty records just give it a 5 min clean only, change the water then a 5 min clean followed by a dry on auto.
Doesn’t need any more than that.
1 Like
Your records, stylus and ears. Enjoy.
The machines are excellent labour saving devices. The cleaning science remains when they are used.
2 Likes
As an Engineer, I understand the science, but am happy to balance and manage any risk, rather than simply follow the science.
1 Like
I have to say, as a long lapsed scientist, I did enjoy the paper/book, and am enjoying developing a deeper understanding of the cleaning processes discussed. I will likely end up with some compromises in my own cleaning regime, but they’ll be made in the light of the available information. I do love an 80% solution (sic) to a problem.
At least this particular dark corner of the hobby seems to have reasonably well developed science backing it. Ethernet cables or microphonic effect or ground device threads are available for anyone wanting something more ambiguous to argue about
4 Likes
Having had both (still do actually, really need to sell the AD) the degritter is easier to use, looks much better and, most importantly makes records sound noticeably better once cleaned. I would not go back
2 Likes
I never realised the Jam did any stuff with the police 
1 Like
It wasn’t a successful collaboration 
2 Likes
I know, but I thought this discussion was about the HG’s simple filter in comparison. Let’s say you can reuse the water 4 times with the Degritter’s fancy filter. Then it uses approx. the same amount of water as the HG when you don’t reuse it at all
1 Like
Yes absolutely. We are privileged to have record reproduction machines at a level unrivalled in our history and an understanding of the cleaning science and new technologies (like both of these machines) that can really help to get the best out of records. Indeed I suspect some of the second hand records I have bought now sound better than they have ever done, certainly better than they have for the last 30 years.
One useful way of thinking is that the cleaning process is not a recipe but a series of targeted cleaning actions on a particular record. I reckon 80% of the records I buy now are new. Every single one of these are simply put in the degritter once in a DIW only clean on medium and the job is done.
20% are second hand records with no providence. These can have all kinds of dirt in the grooves masking the sound and potentially prematurely wearing the stylus. The range of containment’s potentially on the record is huge - from dust to oils to organic materials. No single cleaning action or chemical removes all of these contaminants in one go (without damaging the record or the environment at least) so it helps to have a battery of actions available to use when you want to get the best of these particular records. These chemicals can be applied manually or with the help of an rcm in many but not all cases. For me it is worth it for the pleasure I get hearing these particular records at their best.
1 Like
You can reuse the water 20-30 times in the Degritter.
I tested it based on recommendations by Kuzma. However, I am not recommending going over 37, this was just a side note. My main point was that it is really hard to heat the water in the HG to that point if you use the HG according to the manual
The reason for changing the water is to remove contamination that builds up in the tank as dirt is removed from the record otherwise it is recycled back on to the record. A pre-rinse for very dirty records can help reduce the frequency of needing to change water.
Well, I am aware. My point was that the poor filter system of the HG doesn’t matter if you don’t reuse the water, and due to the small amounts it’s not a huge issue.
OK that’s cool if you need it. It would be one year’s worth of cleaning for me
Thank you - very useful.
Ditto