PART 2: Kirmuss Ultrasonic Review

[@wiggywag]

I love these videos. It is very relaxing to see someone cleaning a record, almost therapeutic.

[@lindaming974]

This is so awesome! I didn't know that there was such a thing and now I know. Looking forward to catching up and watching all of the videos.

[@analogwisdom]

I'm watching a KZbin video of record cleaning while cleaning my own records. Classic.

[@aecnqewimnazxclwdxl]

Thanks for going through in such detail. Considering buying a Kurmiss, but for me it is quite an investment. This helps -- appreciate it!

[@ericelliott227]

I have a VPI 16.5. I notice we have the same methodology and I also have a separate wand for "cleaning fluid" (Yes, I use AIVS fluids exclusively. I experimented with many others and found AIVS to be the best. I also know the details) and rinse as well as separate brushes for everything. I have found though that when vacuuming, only two revolutions (either direction, the 16.5 only goes one direction, which is perfectly fine). Any more and you get fast static build up. What I do is let the VPI vacuum for two revolutions (switching it off to time it) and then I go over the record with either a lint free microfiber cloth or the "felt" end of the Kirmuss brush if one has extra or a similar brush if needed. Often times the record is perfectly dry after maybe 10 seconds and no cloth or brush needed. Of course that is in my region, if one lives in a more humid region it may require more and the worry of static build goes down where as a more dry region, perhaps one revolution may be enough (and likely an arsenal of anti-static devices constantly needed, it is what it is). Yes, since I have a VPI, I do clean the records I just picked up using it first before moving onto the Kirmuss machine. If I did not have the VPI I would still have something (Spin clean, Record Dr., etc.). I believe one should never put a soiled record into any ultrasonic vat. I have a scientific theory behind that, but I don't want to type out another dissertation. As for the Kirmuss machine overheating: I generally turn it off after about 30 minutes of use (about 12 records cycles through) and let sit for 20 minutes to 30 minutes, if the water is still usable (for me it generally is). Of course, changing the water out and letting it sit for 10 minutes is one ultimate cooling method. Degassing doesn't really aid in cooling it down. If I really want to cool it down and the water is still good, I stick a couple of small plastic ice cooler packs that I cleaned thoroughly and not used for anything else and stored in a zip lock bag or similar and let them sit in the tank for 15 to 20 minutes with the machine off of course. Cavitation heats water up naturally and the surface of the water gets hotter than the water below the surface. We don't want to subject our records to more than about 94F for long and the transducers break down if run for too long as well. (in this case 35kHz transducers). The water below the surface may be 94F, but the surface of the water is about 12 degrees hotter. So if the water below is 94F the surface temp will be around 106F, too high for records. It takes less energy/heat to warp the grooves of a record than the whole record. I use Diskkeeper inner sleeves. I have also used a few others. I have not tried the ones Kirmuss sells, but I am sure they are good. Most inner sleeves of that design are good no matter the brand. I can tell you beyond doubt that when you listened to the record after the "Kirmuss" process it was definitely louder. I have seen this happen with measurements live in real time myself! On average I find about a 3dB to 4dB gain on most used records, which is noticeable to most folks. You mileage may vary. I don't know about new records as I do not have any. My music is an average of 50 years old as well. I have 60+ year old records I took through the process (with my own subtle modifications) and they sound fantastic.

[@MrLovell1971]

I just subscribed your I picked up the Kirmuss a few weeks ago and I been very impressed with cleaning process. I live in the Midwest I stop and saw the Kirmuss at Axpona and I was very interested in a deep clean my older jazz records I collected over the years . I really enjoyed your break down thank you. Lovellandrew

[@DrAlanWeinstein]

Another great video

[@jeffjeezy7170]

There was a moment after the first, more automated cleaning, where you named out the tools you were about to use for the Kirmuss that I found striking. The sheer amount of things laid out on the table in preparation was interesting. I've seen the steps involved in using a Kirmuss before, but it's a little different side by side. One step has lots of buttons, one has lots of 'tools'. However, I think you made a good case for it being worth it for specific records. Great video.

[@kirmussaudio7578]

Check out the Kirmuss Audio KZbin channel for more videos and training videos on the subject of record production and care.

[@revelry1969]

Cool. Interesting when you put it in the klaudio you could see it was layered with the stuff you were cleaning with. Sort of an interesting test. By using kirmuss at the end a lot of the gunk was already off. But the kirmuss went to virgin vinyl

[@brucering1190]

I own the kirmuss and though time consuming it seems to work well for me…..

[@wickedexile4531]

Each bath in the kirmuss is increasing the concentration of the surfactant. I think the polishing brush is ineffective , the bristles cannot be small enough to reach in the microscopic groove. The last application of surfactant leaves a film that can not allow for a cleaner groove. It basically undoes much of what you previously achieved in your initial cleaning which was a very well thought out process. Kirmuss process is based on convoluted science. You have some wonderful effective tools and a number of processes that you’ve demonstrated in your videos. The only upgrade I can imagine may improve your results would be an ultrasonic with a higher frequency to clean deeper with its smaller cavitation bubbles. The kirmuss is redundant in respect that your other ultrasonic is operating at the same frequency. The only difference is the Charles kirmuss dance that you do and can repeat on your original machine if you believe in charles’ process.

[@LetsCleanaRecord]

I appreciate you sharing your thoughts and I will give further consideration to the final polish and static neutralization process. Thanks also for the floating the idea of a higher frequency US. And of course, thanks for watching!

[@kirmussaudio7578]

Your observation is somewhat flawed. The spray used is not a cleaning solution. The brush used has nothing to do with getting the spray into the groove. The spray applied by the brush changes the charge of the record to be opposite to that of water to attract the effects of cavitation. The ultrasonic cavitation then pulls out materials from the record to the surface. Reapplying the spray allows one to see the colorant in the spray to see what the ultrasonic softened in the prior cycle. There are several real cycles until the colorant dissipates, letting one know that that is the last cycle in the machine. Records come out virtually dry per the Tribelectric table of charges. Pvc and water have the same electrical charge. Several cycles are needed as we first remove the films left over from prior cleaning processes and thereafter the film deposited on the record by the outgassing of the plasticizer while the record is in its sleeve and finally the release agent that occurs as the vinyl is pressed at the pressing plant and where, as it cools, where dust landing on the record is cause of those annoying pops in new records.

[@kirmussaudio7578]

By the way, the materials coming off the record or the washed off ionizing spray is not an issue as a restored record in the Kirmuss at the last cycle repels water so no affectation to the record. It is good practice to change the water out every 15 or so records.

[@kirmussaudio7578]

​@@LetsCleanaRecordhigher frequency sees a smaller bubble that cannot remove the 3 to 5 .icron sized dirt, dust, fungus as well as a pressing oil. High frequencies are used in cleaning sikicon substrates, medical instruments, where we are interested in removing sub micron sized particles like bacteria and in very small spaces. Record grooves are in a u shape, 6 microns at the bottom, 35 to 50 or so microns at the surface, varies due to the sound recorded, and whike we have sub micron sized detail in the grooves, tge detail is hidden with oills and with the aforementioned contaminants that only a 35 Khz signal with 70 Khz passive resonance to even out cavitation from the record s edge to the dead wax area is the mission.

[@wickedexile4531]

I do enjoy your content even with my expressed opinions.

[@TheAgeOfAnalog]

So, I’ve seen a prolific commenter on several videos on the Kirmuss system, stating that he believes his Klaudio takes cleaning to a level beyond the Kirmuss, but he doesn’t say why. He claims to have both systems, but I’d be curious to know if he actually does have both units, and just might be here to troll Kirmuss devotees. Seeing as you have both, what are your thoughts?

[@krwd]

sufactant is not an antistat, surfactant is a tension reducer for water molecules it makes the water wetter

[@kirmussaudio7578]

We use our solution as an ionizing agent that changes the charge of the record to be opposite to that of water to attract the effects of cavitation. Not a cleaning solution.

[@ericelliott227]

That is true of some surfactants. It depends. There are many surfactants, some are strictly one charge, some are both charges (+/-) and can have antistat property, some are strictly hydrophobic, some are hyperhydrates (absorb moisture/water) and some are both. All are also temperature sensitive or dependent on the action. Ethylene glycol in this case is both a positive and negative charge which occurs at temperature. In this case it is used primarily to change the atomic charge of the record to be the opposite of the water temporarily. In this case distilled water, which has a near neutral charge (, but just enough of a atomic positive charge to match the positive atomic charge of a record. We are talking about the atomic charge, NOT the electrical charge, Distilled water is a very poor conductor. In neutral atoms negative electrons orbit around the positive nucleus. The nucleus is composed of positive protons and neutral neutrons. In the most common isotope of Hydrogen a single electron orbits a single proton. What is the magnitude of the electric charge represented by the the electrons in 1.57 kg of distilled water? (A 2 liter pop bottle can hold 2 kg of water.) One water molecule has ten electrons: eight from the Oxygen atom and two from the two Hydrogen atoms. The electric charge of an electron is 1.6022×10-19 C. This is called elementary charge. In other words, when you insert a record into the vat of distilled water, the water takes on the atomic charge of the record and they repel each other. So one needs to change the atomic charge of either the water or the object (in this case a vinyl record) to attract the cavitation. It is far easier to change the atomic charge of the record than it is the water! Ethylene glycol is excellent for this as it is less expensive to make than other surfactants of the same properties. Surfactants that are both hydrophobic and hyperhydrate are very hard and expensive to produce. In this case, we want a surfactant that is hyperhydrate (absorbs water/moisture) rather than (hydrophobic) repels it. One could interpret a hyperhydrate surfactant as a tension reducer for water molecules indeed. Surfactants such as used in dish soap are hydrophobic and leave a residue, not what we need here. If antistat is the focus, I would recommend good innersleeves with that property and either a zerostat gun (basically an ion device) or a thunderon brush (Thunderon is a material not a brand). Those work best. It also depends on ones environment. If one lives in a very dry region then it will be a larger battle.

[@slistone1940]

What do you think of the disc doctor miracle cleaner? I do a manual clean with it before sticking my records in an ultrasonic for a final clean. I’m out of the disc doctor and before I order more was wondering if you could recommend something even better?

[@LetsCleanaRecord]

BIG fan of the Disc Doctor brushes and RCF. Check out our video feature the good doctor: kzbin.info/www/bejne/oJ2okGyIbM5qd9k and of course, thanks for watching.

[@kirmussaudio7578]

As with any solution, check the ingredients of the bottle against the pvc and plasticizer chemical compatability chart for the compatability with pvc. No ingredients listed, suggest where you do not use.

[@ericlubow4354]

Isn’t it just easier to buy that record in better condition? What is one’s time worth anyway? Probably can find it in NM condition and maybe even in stereo.

[@divingfe]

I had all 5 of the Concertos, same artists, in Stereo, on R/R tape, in excellent condition; sadly they were all lost along with ALL my audio tapes, dating from early 60s, in a tragic move. Yes, even in mono, that record is a treasure.

[@LetsCleanaRecord]

Fair point, but that's the copy I had and I tend to prefer mono pressing from that era. Time is also a good point, but I must admit, I enjoy the ritual.

[@ericlubow4354]

@@LetsCleanaRecord “but I must admit, I enjoy the ritual.” If this is true, I’d like to invite you to my house; I have some lovely dishes, pots and pans that need washing. I’ll even provide an apron and some relaxing background music! And the sponge, dishwashing liquid, towels and all relevant armamentarium is on the house!

[@LetsCleanaRecord]

@@ericlubow4354Intriguing offer...

[@ericlubow4354]

I can see restoring an antique lamp, a dresser,a table. At least when you’re finished, if your skills are good, it’ll look pristine. But spending a half hour trying to salvage a dirty record and still hear surface noise, though improved, is not my idea of fun. But-each to his own, I guess.

[@kirmussaudio7578]

Our process allows your needle to make contact with the groove as pressed. Not riding on the pressing oil, ho.e to nasty pops crested in cooling g new records as dust lands on the record, or having to fight with and break through films left o er from prior cleaning processes as well as the film deposited on the record caused by the outgassing of the plasticizer while the record is in its sleeve for weeks or decades.

[@krwd]

that white substance coming up is the sudsing action of what you're doing

[@kirmussaudio7578]

No. The white material appearing is the colorant that we use in our ionizing spray applied to the record that aows us to see what the ultrasonic softened and brought out of the record in the previous cycle. A rapid evaporation or dissipation of this colorant confirms there is nothing left in the record to be removed, last cycle in the machine. Record now restored, the record comes out virtually dry and does not need air, vacuum or spin drying. The Tribelectric Table of charges states where plastic and water have the same electrical charge and repell each other.

[@PeterAndrews-il9ot]

26 minutes to "restore" a $2 LP.

[@LetsCleanaRecord]

Such a great sounding record, it's worth it to me. That it's not an expensive record is a bonus in my book! That said, I get your point and do very much appreciate your watching the episode. You've inspired me to clean and restore a truly valuable record.

[@danijelsan81]

This record may have been a $2 record due to its condition. As you know, monetary value of records such as this is severely impacted by the condition. If you must place a monetary value on this record after the restoration process, I would bet that it has increased. Restoring something that you treasure to much of its previous glory can be very satisfying and certainly worth the 26 minutes that it took. I have a few records in my collection that come to mind immediately that I would gladly spend an hour restoring if that meant dramatically lowering the surface noise and allow me to go deeper into the music. Yes, that makes me a vinyl nut. Frankly, most people shouldn’t be into vinyl. It takes too much effort, and therefore requires a lot of passion and love for the format.

[@krwd]

the value of the record is irrelevant, it could have been a 200 dollar record

[@kirmussaudio7578]

4 records restored in 18 to 20 , 25 minutes simultaneously. Once done, only a 2 minute cycle needed when you think it is appropriate.

[@kirmussaudio7578]

Kirmuss restored records fetch 20 to 300 plus percentage more resale value on Discogs. A g minus record many a time sees it being restored to a vg plus or minus. Surface scratches many a time are on the film of the outgassing of the plasticizer while the record is in its sleeve and the Kirmuss will remove these. Goodwill bin records are a precious find. Original artwork, original recording, artists, studio, etc.. A restored 4 $ record fetched a mumtiplier of 1,000 on Heritage Auctions after the Kirnuss.

[@krwd]

try running the machine without the heat on

[@automatedelectronics6062]

How about a microscopic inspection after each cleaning step? You showed us what was in the grooves before cleaning, why not show us what was left in the groove after each cleaning? It's like you are purposely trying to hide something. Please remake you videos to show inspections after the cleaning processes. Thank you!

[@krwd]

please don't waste money on gimmicky name brand pure water, used distilled with a drop of surfactant to rinse and there you have it

[@ericelliott227]

Just use a distilled water rinse, no surfactant needed. One can buy the "Pure water", separately, but it also comes with the kit of one orders that, so no big deal. Would I buy the "Pure water" separately? No.

[@krwd]

kirmus is not the manufacturer all off the shelf items believe it or not

[@kirmussaudio7578]

I have my ancillary items sourced from third parties and where as in the case of the ionizing solution this us specific to my company as well as other items such as the bunny cloth being lint free. In Part 3 I go I to my manufacturing process of the machine itself. Indeed I have some look alike containers that are understandably universal.

[@ericelliott227]

True to a point, but he or his company I should say, orders the machine to specs from the same maker many others order from, so not exactly off the shelf, but then modifies it to fit the logic unit. The specs count! One can't walk into Best Buy and get the vat and then all the other parts to build one. It is also the specs that count like I said. I would not stick a record in a machine with 200kHz transducers arrayed in a slip-shod fashion and a built in heater to get it to 120F and a skewer transport system! One may as well sandblast their records in that case. This is how many things are made. Stereo component companies do NOT make their own resistors and capacitors and the like. They don't often make their own chassis either. They might design the piece of course, but they basically have the parts gathered and made from elsewhere (usually China) and just assemble. Schiit Audio is one example of this, PS Audio is another and the list goes on. Don't pay much attention to what you may feel is the pitch part (I sure didn't), look up the science yourself and position it over the product and design and you get the real story. It is solid.