I agree. I had the Kirmuss and it does clean but the process is time consuming. Get a Degritter.

@@jimdalto6254 I prefer the Audio Desk - the Degritter has what I consider the fatal flaw of no physical cleaning rollers.

The Kirmuss processes 4 records in 18 to 20 minutes. Once processed with pressing oil removed the process does not have to be repeated. No other known process advertises minum gain after a record cleaning as does Kirmuss.

The PVC biscuit before it gets pressed into a record has added carbon, stabilizers, liquefiers, plasticizers added to the mix. Heated, just as with injection molding, and pressed, a lubricant surfaces. Otherwise the record could not "pop out" of the stamper. The Shure Brothers discovered this in the 70's. We use the slide they made at the time of their introduction of the V15 Mark iV that had issues picking up "materials" from record grooves. They tried removing it using various chemicals and methods. If none recalls, they supplied brush that attached to the tone arm... no matter, idea long lost, 40 years later we discovered this ourselves and how to remove this, improving also sound reproduction, soundstage, imagery, timbre and the like. Hope this provides you with some details.

Yep. The warnings on the Tergikleen surfactant recommend a rinse after use. Wouldn't want to leave that stuff on the record after cleaning.

One would assume perhaps where the pvc already making contact with the ethylene oxide has been affected somewhat, this before any rinse.

@@kirmussaudio7578 One could indeed assume such. However, one can always make one's own assumptions about anything we want. Such is the nature of news. political, and sales narratives. The question then becomes one of if one even notices changes in the sound quality. It is my sense that changes in equipment would far outweigh such minute differences. This only starts to bug me when the noise is loud enough to distract from the music.

It is a sonic bubbler, not a sonic that uses cavitation, that is why it would seem you are having issues. If it were a sonic using 120 KHz cavitation, the size of the bubble and effect cannot effectively remove 3 to 5 micron sized dirt, dust and fungus. 120 KHz used for sub microbial contaminants.

@@kirmussaudio7578 Thanks for the info. I will probably separate out albums which still have issues after the 2 different ultrasonic cleanings that I have done. If this stack grows a bit, I may think about the Kirmuss mechanism. ie. The extra effort for the more problematic albums.

The aluminum foil test is used by all bonafide ultrasonic manufacturers. The foil used is of a special type. One needs to add resonance to even out the effect from the transducers. Able to detect the effect of cavitation. PVC is not of the same fragile condition of aluminum foil. The Keyence VHX-7000 microscope used confirms that the Kirmuss modified process is record safe for both PVC and shellacked records.

Added, cavitation shows up as convex dimples not concave on the foil. The collapsing micro bubbles create a negative pressure pulling materials off the record. The bubbles are not hitting a record as one would think. The cavitation energy is measured in Cavins or watts per square centimeter.

You are right, there is some labor and love involved. Both the PVC record and water with or without a soap have the same electrical charge per the Tribelectric Table of Charges, that is why cleaning processes unless one ionized the record does not remove the release agent, where also water droplets are 100 microns in diameter, too large to enter a 30-35 micron wide groove, so no affectation of what's in the groove. Ionizing the record sees the charge wear off in our process as the record turns. So one needs to repeat the process, first stripping out films left over from prior cleanings, then the release agent that holds that piece of dust in it that caused that unwanted pop heard in a new record. Once "restored", the process does not have to be repeated per sey. The resulting sound, imagery, timbre, is well worth the 18 to 25 minutes in processing 4 records at a time.

At the shows we encounter severely coated records with fungus. At the Florida Show 4 people around our workspace all sneezed when a cloud of white powder rose from the record that was being removed from the jacket. I personally want to protect myself and my clothes. JR Boisclair if Walky Tools had an allergic reaction to the event for a day or so.

He says he has an added transducer that changed the frequency for better and safer cleaning.

The basic machine is made by Codyson, we are not willing to create an ultrasonic. Rather, my own staff have modified the uneveness of a 35 KHz adding a resonance to even out the uneven effects of cavitation and have the patented suspension system with proper spacing to show the 810 Cavins of even cavitation from the records edge to the dead wax area between all records. The Chinese made machine(s) with skewer style rotisserie spears that hold upwards of 1 records in a 5 to 8 liter tank of water cannot offer what we have as a process, irrespective of our ionizing the record.

Most Respectfully: Vincent Belanger, Cellist from Quebec Canada, in some of the Audio Note studios at the various shows has at times the KA-RC-1 in the washroom adjacent to the hotel suite used, restoring records brought in; or sends audiophiles with his autographed records to our booth, usually in the record fair area. For Peter in the recent UK Shows, Chicago, DC, and Seattle, we have now been doing this ourselves when requested in our booth. Just as we have performed this service for Margueles in Mexico Coty last week or so. If you have followed Jeff Rowland Design and their studio in Chicago and Denver, you would have seen Lucien Pichette, Rowland Design's Sales Manager, restore records brought in by audiophiles before they are played. They own our equipment of course restore their own records that they bring to these shows just as does Oracle, Galaxy, Magnepan etc..

@@kirmussaudio7578 I don't follow any brand's as such. But I do know audio note and Peter qvortrup very well. I just had dinner with him this Sunday. I've never seen him use one and I haven't seen any at the factory or at his house. But maybe other has been using them? It's not to be disrespectful. But I've just not seen one in anything audio note related myself.

Peter and I last met in Bristol at the show. Vincent was there as well. His staff brought us records to restore. In Canada at prior shows Vincent had his machine in the Audio Note Room. Paul and I spoke at length in Bristol what we were doing in North America. At the Seattle show Vincent had visitors come see us. In Montreal he had our sign outside the Audio Note room. Cannot say more.

No worries. Have not seen him this side of the pond. Our staff here usually have a poster outside their room. Added, Vincent plays his cello, then a record. Learned from Vincent in his demos in their room that the cello is very difficult to reproduce in sound. Interesting coming from a cellist. Merry Christmas!

@@kirmussaudio7578 it sure is. Vincent is a great guy and so sweet. I'm actually thinking about getting one of your record cleaners myself.

I don’t mean to be demeaning towards Dr. Kirmuss. I’m sure he is passionate about this subject and believes what he says. I’m also sure he has done much research in this field. It’s his delivery and style I question. I venture to say that the vast majority of those who play vinyl are not interested in the level of minutia conveyed here. And to overload a vinyl beginner with this level of detail can be discouraging and off putting. Surely there must be a simpler way.

as quoted in Stereophile Nov 2022, if one advertises an ultrasonic, it should see cavitation measured by both a cavitation meter, or, by a simple universal aluminum foil test. To your point: Good to hear your perspective. Sorry, but no one in 70 years it would seem has studied chemical cleaning agents and their affectation on PVC, their safety, or even provide list of ingredients so as to ensure records are not affected by one using these soaps or provide results in dB gain over signal to noise ratio after using a cleaner or procdess? . Just as J R Boisclair of Wally Tools has disrupted the hobby with his discoveries as to cartridge manufacture and alignment etc., we both have unfortunately using science and invested in expensive microscopy elements have cleared mistruths dating back 70 or so years. The true test is to take a record, bring it to a trade show, have a cleaning machine or solution manufacturer play a record before subjecting it to a process, and measure the signal to noise ratio, frequency response, both notably before and after using a process. Added, your ears also are the judge.,,, listening to specific passages before and after. I ask as a thought as implied by Michel Fremer in the August 2022 issue of Stereophile the need for STANDARDS... and openly infer why no other manufacturer does this, and rely just on sales brochures. To circle around the subject matter: Some manufacturers use filters in their product offerings. If known as fact where dirt, dust and fungus are in the 3 to 5 micron size range, why are they supplying filters that have 100 to 300 micron sized pores, one would ask??. Not being argumentative, trying to explore the science, a appreciate sincerely your comment. If we all agree that there is a release agent, (as actually discovered by the Shure Brothers with their introduction of their V-15 Mark IV, long forgotten), which one (we) can measure, ( after our restoration process we attest to the effectiveness using a Keyence VHX-7000 $175,000 microscope and Shure and Ortofon cartridge testers and test records), why do not others do the same?

There is nothing wrong with trying to clarify and amend the science of ultrasonic cleaning of vinyl records. But you really never responded to my main point. Much of what you claim may be true but how many of us are willing to spend the time it takes to remove every bit of residue in the groove. Judging by users of your system, this can be a lengthy and burdensome procedure. How many of us are willing to devote the time to accomplish this? I venture to predict that many vinyl beginners would be immediately discouraged by hearing the level of minutia you bring to the table. And for what? My records sound great with a thorough wet cleaning and vacuuming on my Clearaudio machine. I would much rather spend my time listening to music than spending time getting every bit of residue out of the groove. For those who are more anal oriented, what can I say! If cleaning is your thing, Have at it!

I agree that his market is likely a tightly niched market as the majority of mass music listening is done via digital streaming for convenience not for ultimate sonic quality. But there are those of us who are sincerely interested in getting the most out of our vintage and newer vinyl purchases. I don't yet own a Kirmuss system myself but have met him at a an audio show and was not offput by his presentation but rather appreciated the fact that the man who engineered this "controversial" system which claims to restore vinyl actually shows up in person to demonstrate and answer all questions. Never have I witnessed him to respond to questions, whether sincere or ridiculing in nature, with anything but patient response in a language that does take some focus to understand for the average layperson, myself included. True, most people likely won't want to extend the patience required to objectively investigate his device or his claims let alone utilize it according to his clear instructions. But I'm curious enough, when I can afford to, to investigate his claims by purchasing and using his system on my own modest vinyl collection, the majority of which is in fairly pristine condition. I do believe it's possible to hear and appreciate more of what's contained within the grooves, aside from investing in turntable and stylus upgrades, which also can make sense I'm sure @@ericlubow4354

@@NOMQN What it ultimately comes down to is how many vinyl users will ultimately buy his product. Judging by the comment of those on forums that have used his system, I think a distinct minority. Even those that liked it and felt it improved their records said it was a long, often laborious process. If you enjoy the process, great- buy it. I’d rather be doing almost anything else.

KL Audio’s new machine is now $6500. Crazy!

@@ericlubow4354 Thanks for the correction Eric and yes it is good to know that they are still around. That is an expensive record cleaning machine for sure, but it fits in with the rest of Jays gear and would be cheap by comparison to everything else he has and it’s the best out there. Jay operates on the ultra hi end and that record cleaner is the ultra hi end . The guy that runs the Ngroove record store that has a channel has three of that companies machines and he swears by them.

Respectfully: Surface cleaning and record shining is not record groove restoration. One time process.

Respectfully: replacing a kidney is also hopefully a onetime process. That doesn’t mean we should do it! You pointedly avoid responding to all my objections. How many of us want to go to all the trouble? You call others systems “surface cleaning and shining”. All I can say is my RCM makes a measurable audio improvement in removing the existing noise, one that I am exceedingly happy with.

Noted your point. As an overview...Surface shining and the resulting cooating that results as vacuum and air drying processes all leave a film, these processes gives us all the sense of satisfaction removing noises, ...but ....after 4 years of study and 5 years of manufacturing noted where eventually as these records gets played over and over, over time, the needle eventually rediscovers the pops and noises and the like. Exactly what the Shure Brothers discovered. So just as I did with my vacuum system in the 80's, I processed the record once again. I cleared the problem.. i even used the various sprays sold by Lafayette and Radio Shack to sikence those noises again as they reappeared.... so I thought. So moving forward and with the forced upon luxury of investing in VHX 7000 microscope made by Keyence allowed me to validate to my satisfaction and of inquiring journalists such as Michael Fremer the rediscovery of this long lost observation made by Shure. The release agent hides the detail pressed by the stamper. So unless one is able to remove this coating we all end up through cleaning processes in fact further mask the detail as we are focused on immediate satisfaction in not hearing the noises but at the sane time inadvertently hiding the detail that analog is respected for. Your point is well taken. So once someone has been able to review the science and the results, as custodian Lowell Graham would say,...it's like opening a window and taking in a breath of fresh air. That is why both JR Boisclair of Wally Tools and I both focus on the science and provide the testing and proof of our observations that one can in fact replicate. With a restored record you will have to reduce the volume control setting and where you will hear and feel the breath of the artist and imagery once hidden. It's like playing a direct to disk lathe recording or picking up the detail of the stamper. Lots of science and value your comment and allowing for a more detailed explanation. Restoration means many things and where it does require multiple cycles as the ionizing agent that is brushed onto the record washes off as the record spins, but once finished, no need to repeat the process as films left over from prior cleaning sessions and the release agent are all removed. May I suggest if you are so inclined, to visit a dealer that has our machine. Bringing a troublesome record or a new one. You'll discover for yourself te music of the stamper first hidden by the pressing oil as stated by the Shure Brothers, then any films inadvertently dried on the record as a result of air or vacuum drying methods. Thanks for bringing up your point. Lots of science, perhaps too much for someone just trying to listen to music...I term it listening to AM radio or FM.