I am with @frenchrooster and @Thegreatroberto and one or two others on here in that there’s no doubt that the Degritter is quicker, does a more thorough job, looks better and is a great compact size. But from this thread and it’s associated links, the HG does well enough at a fraction of the cost.
If 2 or 3 cleans can’t remove the clicks and pops I’d be trying to find another copy of the LP anyway.
Previously I would have been inclined towards a Project RCM. Respect to the dedication of those that employ both a vacuum and ultrasonic RCM but I don’t have a big record collection and am not going down that route.
His observation about dust and debris remaining on the records and the drying cycle not quite doing the job are fair enough: I initially found the same, but both those issues were eliminated by adding a few drops of rinse aid.
I’d hope the Degritter would do a better job given the cost differential.
Is the HG Ultrasonic ? I’ve cleaned my Wife’s jewellery in it and it did a great job. It may not be as powerful, but it seems just about powerful enough and it is definitely Ultrasonic.
I agree that I’d like to see a modification to prevent switching it on without water in it. I’ve done that a few times. It gives a hiss and cuts the power from somewhere within the SMPS. Power down, wait a few minutes, power back up and it will reset. I do worry a bit that one day it may not switch off before damage is done to the machine, but so far, so good.
Overall, I think HG have hit the nail on the head. Cost vs function it’s pretty perfectly pitched in my book.
Very quick check this morning, the HG only uses about 350ml for a LP, and the PS outputs up to 60W. I don’t think the power per unit volume is going to be far from the Degritter (214W/l - 300W into 1.4l). If the HG users all 60W for US it’s 170 odd W/l. IIRC the company behind the HG cleaner usually make US equipment, so I’d be surprised if they were not putting genuine US kit together.
In the paper the author points out that lower frequency machines require less power, the equivalent machines to the HG frequency wise produce between 25 and 83W/l, so if anything, on that basis, the HG is the most powerful equivalent machine. Myth: busted.
I listened to the video - it was mostly a discussion on whether the machine had ultrasonic capabilities to which the conclusion was yes because of the heat generated.
Two things to consider. The ultrasonic frequency used generates bubbles that are larger than the record grooves so it is likely to be less effective than the degritter at breaking down small particles in the grooves. It will be better at removing larger items. And the filtration system is as I understand it not so good - hence more particles get re-distributed over the record.
In both cases it is sensible to remove larger particles of dirt in a pre-wash prior to ultra sonic cleaning.
Thanks for watching the video Anything interesting about these microscope pictures?
It’s benevolent to call the HG’s filter a “filtration system”, it’s mainly there to keep larger particles out, like hairs and dust. But it is balanced by using a lot less water in the HG, so just don’t reuse it if worried.
Sure thing. Was being polite am replacing the water in the degritter about every 25 records or once a week but as I make my own distilled water that isn’t much of an issue.
I didn’t understood what’s the problem with HG water temperature ?
If I understand well, the Degritter maintains the water temperature at 17C but the HG , after many cleaning, rise the temperature to 40C, which seems not ideal for the reviewer. Is it what he said ?
The degritter has a temperature limiter which causes the ultrasonic to switch off before the temperature of the water damages / warps the vinyl. The HG does not. If I recall the temperature at which vinyl starts to be damaged is surprisingly low.
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.
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.
Anything interesting about these microscope pictures?
am replacing the water in the degritter about every 25 records or once a week but as I make my own distilled water that isn’t much of an issue.
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