Thank you for watching and letting me know. Means a lot!! //Jonas

It’s a solid machine and with the restoration process it’s a no brained imo. But it’s not a quick fix. Takes time, love and a lot of elbow grease 😀

@@SublimMedia Once restored, one does not have to go through the same process except over time, where a 2 minute cycle is all that is needed depending on how many times we handled the record, as we always in handling the record will leave hand oils on the edges of the record.

For restoring the record I would say that the spray is the key, as you point out. But I have had great results with just the ultrasonic. It all comes down to the record and how much work it takes. I seldom buy records below VG+ and for that the US alone is good enough (for me). When I find a deal on a rare record that is graded below VG+ I do the spray dance and 9 out of 10 times the record comes out sounding at least a grade better than before.

Yep liquinox

I have never had the chance to meet or speak with you to the best of my knowledge. Jonas has commented on the exceptional service we are known for, receiving an Award as to going above an beyond. No matter: 1) To processing records: Per our instructions, you may empty the tank of the distilled water when the small red light to the longer red bar flashes, water emptied back into its original container, allowing the water to cool and then to reuse the same day. In parallel, refill the basin with new fresh (room temperature) distilled water. Follow the start up and prep instructions, then continue. When the small red light flashed, then go back and use the water from the first session, now cooled. Always discard any water used after processing 15 to 20 records or if the water is cloudy. Never keep water overnight in the unit. Discard. To managing temperature: ALWAYS after processing 5 records or so, and per the manual, disconnect the cover, remove the cover, run a single degas/pulse cycle. This as records as they are inserted, they introduce air into the water that is in the basin. This as both the record and the distilled water have the same slight negative electrical charge, so both repel each other. This reduces the efficiency of the ultrasonic and accelerates the heating of the water due to the kinetic energy introduced by cavitation. This should extend the time between the need to change water/cool down.. 2) Perhaps this is where we disagree. A. Our spray is not a cleaning solution or a solvent. In reading your post, YOU ARE NOT USING THE SYSTEM AS IT WAS DESIGNED. Our spray when brushed onto the record changes the charge of the record, to attract the effects of caitation which in essence sees a low pressure area created that "pull" materials off the record as the microbubbles created by cavitation implode, and not hit the record. So your cleaning solution does not do this. Might as well use any machine, vacuum, manual, ultrasonic (whether a working one that uses cavitation or not). B. A restored record using the Kirmuss process and ionizing agent (not a cleaning solution), changes the charge of the record temporarily, as it dissipates as the record spins, and hence the need to reapply after observing the rise and fall of the colorant added to the Kirmuss solution. This, we remove with the Kirmuss ionizing spray and attracting cavitation: (i) First, films left over from prior cleaning processes, either air or vacuum dried, (as in your case of using your own mix which cannot reach into the record's grooves as the record sees it repel your solution and where the water droplets are larger than the record's grooves; (ii) The film left on the record by the outgassing of the plasticizer while the record is in its sleeve. (just like in your new car with that new car smell and where you see on the windshield a "film", at time hard to remove (coming from the plasticizer); (iii) Then the release agent (Pressing Oil as termed by the Shure Brothers in 1977 when they encountered the needle of their new V15 Mark IV cartridge "dig out" materials from the record's groove and appear on the needle. Using your chemicals in our machine does nothing to remove the release agent and any fused dust particles that have landed on the cooling of the pressing oil at the pressing plant. Using any other machine to remove standing liquids as a secondary step is further proof where ionization and removal of the release agent has not occurred as a restored record should repel water. Only a few droplets to remove using the supplied lint free optician's cloth. C. As to your chemicals. There is a potential warranty issue as we use neoprene and rubber elements in our machine as well as foam and felt adhesives in our machine. No other chemical (whether they work or not) should ever be used in our machine. When you are using any chemical on a record, (or any device), first get the full ingredients list. Not the brand name of the cleaner Then compare the ingredients to both the PVC and Plasticizer Chemical Compatibility Chart. In our machine's case, the neoprene and rubber chemical compatibility chart as well. I will not say more as to the result. 3) If our process was used following our instructions and supplemental guide, as well as our 10 part short videos on our KZfaq channel, records come out dry. Using another process reintroduces issues. Coats the records. Records processed with the Kirmuss come out virtually dry. Use of the Kirmuss: Below, Part 2 of 10 part series. Part 1 described setting up the system. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/hKt_aNKdzdmRf4U.html

Behentrimonium chloride is used in a hair care products and is ingredient used to reduce static and frizzing in hair conditioning products. While Behentrimonium chloride is an antistatic ingredient and is also an emulsifying agent, which helps to improve the moisture content of the hair by coating the hair. This is opposite to what we want to do with records. Triton X 100 per the MSDS is Octylphenol polyethoxyethanol is classified as a Polyethylene glycol tert-octylphenyl ether that can be used as a wetting agent, detergent, dispersant, emulsifier in household and industrial cleaners, textile processing, wool scouring, and emulsifying agent for insecticides and herbicides. Widely used non-ionic surfactant for recovery of membrane components under mild non-denaturing conditions. For records we are looking for an ionic cleaning agent. As mentioned many a time, one should never use a chemical on a record without checking its affectation to PVC or one's health, or both. www.sigmaaldrich.com/US/en/sds/sial/x100 Triton X-100 is very toxic and is an irritant. An ether should never be used on PVC per the chemical compatibility chart. Neither Polyethylene glycol. Also check affectations to rubber and neoprene, common materials and parts used in cleaning machines. 99% IPA even if diluted should not be used as it reacts with the ethanol. marketing.industrialspec.com/acton/attachment/30397/f-0004/1/-/-/-/-/chemical-compatibility-chart-from-ism.pdf You should not use both systems. Waste of time and money with risk. The Kirmuss ionizing spray is just that, it is not a cleaning agent. It changes the charge of the record to attract the effects of cavitation. Imploding bubbles create a vacuum drawing materials out of, in our case, first the surface of the record, then repeated applications as the charge wears off, further down materials in the groove, then the release agent itself. Your solution is non ionic and does not attract cavitation, especially poured into a cleaning machine's tank. Indeed many a time one has a false sense of security after a cleaning as some pops disapear, actually coated and hidden by the film left on the record, only to be gouged out by the needle over time and return. A Kirmuss restored record come out virtually dry, needing no air or vacuum drying. To the use of the Kirmuss: Cavitation generates heat via kinetic energy. When the small red light to the right of the long red temperature bar flashes, easy way to continue processing records is to empty the water from the basin, returning it to its original container to cool down, then fill the basin with fresh distilled water, follow instructions, then continue processing records. When it reaches the high temperature set point, the original water should have cooled down. Added guidance: With the Kirmuss: Every 5 records or so, disconnect and remove the record cover assembly. Use a single degas/pulse cycle. This will remove air from the water and reduce heat generation. Always discard water every 15 or so cleanings as good practice, as well as never leave water in any machine overnight. You should see (hear) an increase in frequency response, (imagery, soundstage, separation) and signal as some of the attributes noted by users of the Kirmuss process. Summary: Coating a record and making it shiny should not be the intent of any cleaning process. The needle should not be the medium to clean record grooves over multiple plays.

Have you used the Audio Intelligent fluid for ultrasonic machines? Audio Intelligent products are enzymatic and fafe even for 78s.

@johnparks6172 78 records have different compositions. Before using any liquid consult the materials safety data sheet and see the list of ingredients. Then review compatability with schellac, pvc, plasticizers etc depending on what you are to apply ut on. Your description is very general and generic.

@johnparks6172 One needs to use an ionizing agent to attract the effects of cavitation. The AI is not such a liquid.

Well thank you sir! 🙏

@@SublimMedia It's how I like to record my episodes too. Ragged Trouser Vinylist.

Hi and thanks for the kind words! Really warms my heart. With restoring I would suggest you watch some of the links down below. My video tells the short version. The biggest difference is the spray but the spray comes with some more elbow grease. I surface clean by just letting it run in the ultrasonic tub for 5min. That’s more than enough to get the dirt and grime of the record.

Water or soap droplets are 100 to 110 microns in diameter. Record grooves are "U" shaped, 6 microns on the bottom, to 35 to 45 on the top, so cleaning processes cannot get into the groove. So one only surface cleans the surface at best. Case in point, issues are where the chemicals to be used need to be PVC and plasticizer safe, so before using any cleaning process, check if the ingredients are safe to the record by consulting the PVC and plasticizer chemical compatibility chart (easy to google)... If no ingredients, do not use. Indeed, you have in fact have done some cleaning. This removes the problem where your needle acts as a cleaning agent itself. So restoration we remove in order: The films left over from prior cleaning solutions that were air or vacuum dried on the surface, then the outgassing of the plasticizer of the record in the record's sleeves. Then finally the pressing oil. FYI: A restored record will reveal sometime backround noises caused by someone using an alcohol based cleaning solution. Especially if someone has played a record more than once per day per side.

Surface clean.....looks shinny, and helps to keep records NOT getting worse Restoration is making the record sound BETTER than it did when it was first ever played. ....once you hear a 1970s Decca London, 1960s Verve, 1980s Epic, 1950s Columbia 6 Eye, 1960 Mercury Living Presence, or 1950s Blue Note restored; your idea of good sound will change FOREVER !!

@MrNicks-gn8jc Right on, thanks! Your removing the pressing oil and films from the outgassing of the record in its sleeve and air or vacuum dried liquids from other processes sees your needle pick up all the detail.

The Degritter is a great one with a all in one solution and the little experience I have with it and other people that I have talk about with it is positive. But the Kirmuss is better and does a better job. It can go down way deeper in the grooves, letting the stylus find information that you dident know existed and go deeper than many surface scratches. It’s more work but if you want the best I would go for the Kirmuss. If you want a quick and handy solution it’s the Degritter.

@@SublimMedia thanks Jonas. That s useful. As I m living in the US I will by the Upscale Audio one which has the 3 slots for 33rpm

I image that is Charles you are talking about and I think he is capable of "defending" himself. He is very good at answering the comments. I can understand that the sales technique he has can be a little bit overwhelming. I think its charming. Its a old school approach to selling and I never feel treated with disrespect. He is passionate of his product and rightfully so but maybe we could all be a little bit more humble to for example other brands or ways of cleaning records. I have had it for quite some time now and I still love it. Takes work and a lot of time but the result is better than anything else. My two cents. Thanks so much for watching and commenting! //Jonas

I bought one at the vevor page. I think there are a bunch. Check it out!

I never clean new records. If they pop I give them a bath but no imo it’s not worth the time.

The pressings of the last 16 years do not use the same PVC mix. In fact the new pressings do have pressing oils that need to be removed. At the recent T H E Show in Los Angeles as well as the AXPONA the month prior, we did A B testing of the latest Impact release of Take Five. We saw average 1.63 dB gain over floor. Everyone saw the immediate auditory result. To note, the Shure Brothers in 1977 had issues with their V15 mark IV, noting materials being picked up by their new cartridge. They did an extensive survey and found no systems solved the problem. So, in 1978, they provided a brush to attach to the tone arm. This in fact started the record cleaning industry. Indeed some are quiet as you note, but the breath and emotion of the analog stamping is hidden.

I drain it in a bucket and empty it in the toilet.

I think all of them use different cavitation streanght. I’m pretty sure that as a plain cavitation machine they are all on par. The Kirmuss use the sulotion and technique witch in my opinion gives the best result.

We provide 810 Cavins of energy, plus or minus 10% or so from the edge of the record to the dead wax area, between all records, and the re ord and the wall of the stainless steel basin. When using the ultrasonic aluminum foil test, we provide even coverage.

Audio Desk is a joke. No ultrasonic transducer just a bubbler, rollers are paint rollers that do nothing unless you use his additive then record looks shiny. Search my comments to find out how I know. I owned and repaired one. If you're big on placebo effect then have at it.

You can get them at retailers or the Kirmuss page. But I would say that most is included in the box.

@@SublimMedia Correct!

I can’t remember where I read a report or article about the difference between water but if I understood it correctly there are a difference and it’s recommended to use distilled. Can’t remember why, sorry.

The system actually comes with a stylus cleaner. If I understood Kirmuss correct, it’s the same liquid as in the spray. Now I use this but before I had a small stylus brush that I used. No liquids but only dry clean.

The 1.4 ounces of 70% IPA in 1.78 gallons of distilled water is used TO KILL FUNGUS that comes off the record. Fungus is either live or dormant. The mix is PVC and plasticizer safe. Alcohol will affect the epoxy used that holds the diamond to the cantiliver. When using a liquid cleaning agent, make sure that you do not wet the cantiliver. There is a danger of caplilliary action going up the cantiliver to the motor (MM/MC element in the cartdridge.)

@@SublimMedia Correct. It is antistatic that also is not only epoxy safe but repell dust.

@@SublimMedia Correct!

Once a record is restored can you then just put it in the machine for an ultrasonic treatment that might be characterized as a “tune-up? Or is it necessary to do another full restore?

I did not know that. Thinking about it I don’t think I have cleaned anything over 180gram so maybe I just haven’t noticed it yet. Thanks for commenting.

I have some 180 and 200gram mint records and I've noticed marks under flood light that weren't there before the cleaning but it did not effect playback but I didn't like to see that on my records.@@SublimMedia

There are no marks left by the machine when a 180 g record is pulled out. The felt will leave a streak of materials. Make sure the pads are inserted correctly with the knotch on the left hand side. This said, the Kirmuss process will remove polishes that have been applied by record resellers to increase the value of the record. Of late at the many trade shows we see new 180 gram records under the Mofi label that after processing we see scratches on the record. When the record reseller at the record fair was contacted, opening up a new record and not processed by the Kirmuss noted under inspection with the record reseller where we all saw scratches on the record. Obviously that record was not sold. Robert Grossman who retired as basoonist and curator of records for the Philadelphia Orchestra was witness to this in 2019 as well as recently at the Capitol Audio Fest in Washington DC this past November 2023. We do knot know if this problem originates at the factory or at the distributor, the middleman. Or is it the record reseller. At the UK NW Audio Show and the recent show in Daventry UK in 2023 we also saw the same on new Mofi records. Moreover we discovered where someone at some point in time used a black marker to hide in a so called new record a white line at the edge of the record. The white line covered 2/3 of the edge.

Hi, the record cleaner works well but with my thicker perfect mint records hairline marks were left on them that were not there before and I think its because when putting them in and out there isn't as much clearance on the sides, that is my honest experience with it, with thin records I never had that issue. @@kirmussaudio7578

Its a hobby and it can be a pretty pricy one. Like I cant understand how a golf club can cost more than another... They do the same thing... But whatever rocks your boat =) To be fair a spin clean works great. I had a Rega P1 TT a long time and that worked great. A old JVC amp and some 50 dollar speakers. Played all records like a champ and I enjoyed it so much. So to each his own I guess.

We are working on changing the grading system. (Kirmuss restored records see av 20% added value on Discogs if advertised). We can restore a G-, P+ record to a G+ or G- in look, but with sound many a times with VG-, VG+ if not better. The films left over from prior cleanings, the plasticizer outgassing as well as the pressing oil (Shure 1977), Kirmuss termed release agent (2017), hav in some ways protected records. This is a tremendous increase in soundtage, signal, imagery, frequency response. At times these coatings described which affect both the look and sound of the record are beneficial as after the Kirmuss restoration process sees scratches and the like once visible being now removed. So a visually graded P+ or G- record in fact sees these coatings deemed protective at times removed, resulting in a record that is graded as a VG+ both audibly and visually. I would like us to maintain the letter grading system, and offering a numerical grade between 0 to 5, 5 being a totally silent record as pressed, result of the Kirmuss restoration process. New records have a film on the surface due from the pressing process. Pops heard at the edges of a new record are usually the result of dust etc . landing on a cooling record at the factory. using our process on new records sees a gain of 1.3 dB over floor, 20% or so increase in frequency response, (which accounts for one hearing better timbre, imagery, soundstage, and separation. So A $1,200 USD investment for processing records is reasonable. With the needle now making the intended contact with the pressed record grooves in the vinyl record, even modest systems with entry level cartridges and not that precise needles see a lower coefficient of friction and enhances one's listening experience, the way it was recorded on tape and cut by the lathe. Keep those records spinning! On new concept of encapsulating records: trackingangle.com/features/at-pacific-audio-fest-2023-ari-craneheritage-auctions-director-of-vinyl-acquisitions-interviewed#comments

Charles is great on answering the questions here in the comment sections so I bet he will come around and watch this and answer. My experience is that the spray loosens up what ever is in the grooves. I always rinse the brush after each round so that it is as clean as possible.

I agree that they look very similar. Charles is very good at responding to the questions so I bet he will see this and answer about the differences.

Charles admits that it starts life as a generic Chinese machine that he modifies. The top mechanism, really top quality once you get the feel of inserting a record, is totally his. He discusses other modifications he has made. At legth.

Hi. Awesome that you watched and commented. I don’t think I’m the best one to answer the question why the machine works at the kHz that it does. I’m pretty sure Charles will see this and explain him self. The only thing I can say is that it works magic. My records has never been this clean and some records has even gone up a grade or two. I couldn’t be happier. What machine are you using yourself?

As to ultrasonic frequency, one needs to first analyze what one is cleaning. Records have a groove size between 6 microns and 35 to 45 microns at the surface. Pressing oils, outgassing of the plasticizer as well as air ir vacuum dried films from other cleaning surfaces are on the record. Dirt dust and fungus varies in size from 3 to 5 microns.. So what is best? 25 KHZ is used for oils. 120 KHZ is used for bacteria abd sub micron particles. 35 Khz we feel is good for the films on records as well as dirt and dust. Smaller cavitational bubble size with very high frequency requires more cycles and energy to remove particles that are larger. Frequency alone is not just the only factor. Cavitation is uneven. As bu bles rise they implode. Records need even coverage from the edge of the record to the dead wax area. So we apply a passive resonance which sees even coverage as seen in the aluminum foil test performed.

60 Khz frequency creates too small a bubble. The 35 Khz we use is properly sized to remove the oils, films, plasticizer outgassing as well as the 3 to 5 micron sized dirt, dust and fungus we are interested in. A 70 Khz passive resonance is present with the Kirmuss to even out the cavitation of the water from bottom to the top of the tank allowing inserted records benefitting from the even cavitation from record's edge to the dead wax area. The misconception is higher frequency will create smaller sized bubbles thinking that one is cleaning, so to say, better the detail of the record groove. Whike this is correct in silicon substrates as is the case with 120 khz systems, dealing with sub micron sized particles, they are not effective in efficiently pulling out 3 to 5 micron sized contaminants. One needs to recall where we see cavitation rely on the collapse of a bubble, which then creates a vacuum and pulls materials away from the item being cleaned. The efficacy is thus determined by considering what we are trying to accomplish. What material we are trying to process. If it would be strictly oils, 25 khz is used to clean machined parts. Removing the tools lubricant and cooling oil. A record is a hybrid with different contaminants that we are trying to remove. As expressed, with records, one needs also to ionize the record in order to change the charge of the record to be opposite to that of water. That allows one to benefit from cavitation.

All ultrasonics do not remove the materials such as pressing oil, vinyl outgassing or films left over from prior cleaning processes adequately unless one changes the charge of the record to be opposite to that of water as is used in the Kirmuss process. Proof is where those ultrasonics after their cleaning cycle sees a record pulled out before the air or spin dry cycle. One sees sheets of water on the record. The record should not need any extensive air or spin drying it it was restored in the Kirmuss system.

Thanks for the comment. We seem to have different experiences with the machine. To be fair I have not tried the Klaudio and it seems to be a great machine.

@@SublimMedia It is. I thought the Degritter was great for rinsing, and I'm a big believer in that, but sometimes the Kirmuss would leave more surface noise than pre cleaning, even though the music sounded better. Charles acknowledged that this can be the case and it needs more cycles. I didn't find that to be the case. The laudio removes much of that. In fairness it's five times the price. I still use the Kirmuss on occasion but follow it with a quick cycle in the Klaudio. (I always feel stupid typing that - Wish they just called it KL Audio)

I have tried a bunch and this is the o e I have had the best result with but with that being said there might be others.

We use a Keyence VHX-7000 microscope to see and what we measure. Processes known have the cleaning agent supplied seen to have the same charge as the record. In any event, we prove visually as well as audibly including using signal and frequency response measurements taken before and after our restoration of records previously processed by all known cleaning methods where they do not remove the release agent as well as where in fact the air or vacuum drying leaves a coating. Our colorant in our ionizing spray allows one to see what one has removed in a prior cycle. In the Michael Fremer video and visit at AXPONA 2023, we were able to show on camera a record he processed with our system and a record he processed with a peer ultrasonic. We can also tell records that have been processed by a vacuum system ir a manual spin style by observing the colorant and its presence when we apply the ionizing agent to the record between cycles.

@@kirmussaudio7578 Thankyou, that's very interesting. I had to rebuild my Okki Nokki, its internal construction was terrible but it does a good enough job for me now. However when it dies I will save up for one of yours. Cheers.

@faultyecho4196 FYI we are at the UK Audio Show Oct 7. May swing by the record show in the Netherlands. Have a dealer event in Riga Sept 29. Bring a record you processed with another system. We can restore it. You'll hear the difference. Cheers!

Maybe so. Charles seems to have pretty solid proof on it. Imo the main thing is that it seems to get down better than any other machine I have tried out. Oil or no oil. 😀

@@SublimMedia What is his proof? I tell, you, There is no stage in the process of pressing where any form of coating or lubricant is applied. And if you think about the temperatures involved, it would make zero sense, as they would evaporate in less than a second. But there are none. The fact that this is a good machine, I can believe. But the fact that he adds a completely false point, snakeoil, as you say, makes this somewhat suspicious to me. Maybe I should talk with him.

@@SublimMedia Ah, I see. I watched one of the videos you linked, with the creator. I confirm, snakeoil : the release oi. in the puck theory is not true, and a quick conversation with the chemists who design the PVC in use would debunk that in a second. I've had those conversation, with several of them. And there aren't many.

@@StuntrockConfusion I think he will answer this pretty soon. He is very good at addressing questions on all platforms

@@StuntrockConfusion Charles puts down a pretty good case but I’m sure that he could address this.

Absolutely! By the way... Which one of you is Pink?

Quite the character and I’m pretty sure he is the first one to say so. 😂😂 I think it’s highly entertaining. The passion he has shines thru. As I say in the video. He doesn’t take any prisoners 🤣🤣

Hi John, noted your comment. Both JR Boisclair of Wally Tools/Wam Engineering (Tone arm and cartridge alignment guru) are disruptive. None of our peers measure by any means the auditory improvement. My excitement is not of arrogance but for the love of music and the hobby. Sorry your do not like the many posts by third parties of the science and our results. Also now validated by Jonas. Ton the science and our messaging: Sad that peers do not warranty their end result after "cleaning" in dB gain over floor. As also discovered, my research has resulted in several journalists and manufacturers admit where their so called ultrasonic machines sold to audio enthusiasts are bubblers or misters. Even a very expensive German maker.

Just met Mr. Kirmuss at an audio show out in Seattle last weekend. I have to say I was impressed with his overall command of the subject and patience with all the questions from newbies and long time vinyl enthusiasts alike while enthusiastically cleaning attendees’ records at the show. I also sensed an obvious passion for the music and the science that serves the music, and rather than condescension he was refreshingly candid and to the point when discussing the science of analog vinyl, his system, and other systems currently touted. After watching several videos now featuring him and / or his system I’m ready to place an order myself, while letting go of my own significant investment in other vinyl “cleaning” systems. Why fight what appears to be solid science? I just want the best approach to reveal the most music while preserving my collection and I’m surprised it’s so relatively accessible compared to other systems.

@NOMQN Thank you for the compliment. Of interest to collectors, Found on Michael Fremer's Tracking Angle, Seattle Show Report just posted, an interview with Ari Crane Director of Vinyl of Heritage Auctions where he discusses new way if selling and collecting one of a kind vinyls.