I’ve yet to breakdown and build an ultrasonic cleaner for my vinyl, so I’m testing the following service as an alternate option.
It’s $5/base or $8/best option (plus shipping).
I’m sending them a variety of (16) newer and older records to test before/after. All my before notes are captured and ready for comparison.
I’ll plan to post back once all are cleaned/returned.
I have heard the results and they are as stated. Starting with a handful to try the service out is a great idea. They are more or less in my backyard so using them is rather convenient. I have yet to try them but your post got me thinking it is time to give them a try. Now to set aside a few worthy candidates. I too have yet to purchase an ultrasonic cleaner. Came close but the deal was wonky so I backed off. I have so many records I’d rather listen than re-clean. I put my USC dollars to better use and purchased more LPs. Time to rethink it. Besides it is a great excuse to visit Jonathon at Ultra Fidelis in Wauwautosa. Looking forward to your experience with the cleaning results.
Guys, go for it. You will not be disappointed. Steve, the inventor and proprietor is a good guy and really knows what he’s doing. He has a deal with Ultra Fidelis as a drop off and and pick up point. Fortunately I’m local and have used the service many, many times. I’ve had albums of all type new and old return in pristine condition including some of my rare 60’s and 70’s collectibles. Steve’s process not only cleans the record, it really gets into the grooves with no detrimental effects and reveals details you probably didn’t know existed in some instances. Consider them high resolution LP’s after treatment.
Realize I’ve not replied here, but agree with both above. I shipped a variety of vinyl pressings with the Archival 3 option, and it made very clear improvements to both my new and used vinyl. Some specifics of what I sent included one album from my boxsets and single older pressings, like my old Zeppelin II RL, Daft Punk RAM, SVR Mofi One-Step, and my Holly Cole AP, which now side A and B sounds better than the Clarity vinyl post cleaning.
I would recommend you try this if you are considering a cleaning option. At $5-8 a record, it is a relatively low cost way to see for yourself if it makes a difference.
A head on comparison of Kind of Blue as released on MoFi UHQR clarity. The exercise brings into question, just what does the MoFi UHQR/One Step process bring to the table.
@weedeewop I did not want to comment or reply to your experience until you were complete, but where you landed is exactly what I’ve been doing…
Since my first post in this thread I have picked up an ultrasonic cleaner & use it to clean the vast majority of my vinyl —- I don’t use alcohols, but brush off, then run them through an ultrasonic using reverse osmosis water and a small amount of a tergitol-based solution included. Typically for 10-12 minutes in the ultrasonic- for dirty older records I may run them longer. Once out of the ultrasonic, I rinse off with reverse osmosis water only, then dry.
But my best records I still send to get the PVF-A treatment. I found it bettered my ultrasonic cleaning in the following head to head comparisons I completed:
(2) older, but similar condition Zeppelin II RL pressings,
(2) new SVR CSTW MoFi one-step (side 3 & 4),
(2) new Daft Punk RAM, and
(2) Harvest DSOTM A3/B3 pressings
In all (4) direct comparisons, the PFV-A cleaned pressings were clearly better.
I ship 16 at a time and have now made (4) shipments to/from - I’ve been pleased with all the returns to date and also recommend others try this service. It’s not practical to send all my albums, but worth it (to me) to send my best.
Did you try if a mechanical/vacuum cleaning after the ultrasonic gives you similar results as the PVF?
What I found in the past is, that the most relevant part of the ultrasonic cleaning is the longer watering of the record. If one does just a long watering with following mechanical/vacuum cleaning, results are usually better than ultrasonic without vacuum cleaning.
The basic problem with cleaning is, that the really effective methods take time. PVF in the backyard as for weedeewop seems a great solution 
Thanks - worth investigating.
I have tried soak and scrub with DI water, and prefer the method I am currently using until I attempted the PVF-A method. I am going to revisit my method and adjust with a reduction in alcohol, starting with a VPI cleaning followed by DI water ultrasonic cleaning and a DI water rinse and dry on the VPI. Extremely stubborn LPs may get a MoFi Super Record wash or the MoFi Enzyme cleaning.
I ordered a Degritter but because of competing distractions, I haven’t had a chance to use it.
There is a retired Naval Systems Sea Command officer and audiophile that has just revised a free 190 page eBook for anyone that is interested. You can find it here on The Vinyl Press at the bottom of the article:
Looks like a homework assignment. 190 pages.
Let us know if he says anything we haven’t already heard.
I can’t retrieve the link now, but if you go to Charles Kirmuss’ website, you can watch his video of “restoring” records at Michael Fremer’s house, obviously using Kirmuss’ system. For some crazy reason, I kept having flashes of an old movie; I think it was called “The 58 Year Old Virgin”.
Half way thru the process, I felt like kissing my PST.
I should add the following disclaimer. I have not viewed this prefer t listening to music.
Here some essential insights after extensive care for the right information about the best possible record cleaning device after my ordinary VPI HW 16.5.
Initially, as most of us reading about this topic, I was mainly interested in one of the new ultrasonic cleaners. After a lot of reading and getting aware about the accompanying procedures of every type of cleaners, I asked a pro/manufacturer (not cleaners) and deep insider in vinyl business who knows every cleaner available and owns many of mostly the professional versions of them (custom improved ultrasonics, slot vacuum and point/string vacuum based etc.), which we normal consumers rarely see (double platter versions etc.). He and his similarly anal colleagues evaluated and used them since quite a while and still use all of them when needed.
Before I get to the insights, it needs to be stated that all cleaners improve and can be a large benefit to each one who bought them, so this is just for those who are interested in the best possible solutions and like to go a bit deeper.
The basic insights of those who tried it all extensively, matching with my sense of logic are:
Ultrasonic cleaners currently on the market (Kirmuss, Glaess etc.) run on much too low frequency, which is needed to create small enough bubbles. High frequency isn’t a problem for the records (some manufacturers say so) as long as the sweep is low enough. The Degritter has the highest frequency of the non professional ultrasonics and therefore is a better one. The Fremer praised Glaess has serious durability problems and a too low frequency and is absolutely not well regarded among the other experts (which doesn’t mean it can’t provide great results for the individual as I said).
Leaving the contaminated (even if filtered) residue of any kind (remaining dirt in the grooves or remaining fluid) on the record and let it dry (fan or not) in there is a no-go. This is something even Kirmuss also states, but his suggestion to rub off the residue with a cloth surely is not for everyone.
Ultrasonic cleaning definitely needs a normal vacuum clean afterwards to wash out and suck off the residue. Which certainly extends the process uncomfortably.
So the pro’s say, ultrasonic cleaning needs a professional bath for 5-10 records (costing 2,5k alone) plus the necessary stand, rotation motor etc, summing up to easily over 3,5k. Plus having an add. vacuum cleaner for post treatment as discussed.
The Degritter would have done it for me, but the add. needed vacuum cleaning and the either permanently contaminated cleaning fluid or the frequent need of exchange was too elaborate for my taste. I get later to the comparative cleaning results.
Normal vacuum cleaners, even the expensive ones like Clearaudio, rely on just a fixed, slow brushing by the turning record, nothing really reaches the grooves, so the result is not on ultrasonic level, but fine as long as it fits one’s needs.
Point/string suction based ones like Loricraft are better because the point/string suction process catches more than slot vacuum suction. But still, the suction process is not what makes the main cleaning performance, it’s most important what happens before, how long the record is watered and how the water and cleaning process gets into the tiny grooves. A professional ultrasonic cleaning with a post cleaning on a string suction cleaner would be really good, just really time consuming and needing two expensive machines.
Then there’s one machine which they prefer and finally have in daily use, as it’s even better cleaning than market available ultrasonics and does it time saving on one device with suction of the residue.
It’s the Hannl Mera Professional, which unfortunately is 5k in the US but much cheaper (better: less expensive) in Europe. It’s basically a luxurious and quiet slot suction vacuum machine, fully flexible in platter speed, direction and suction power … but the main and decisive part is the patented automatic round brush, turning counterclockwise to the respective platter turning direction. This automatic roll brush constantly flushes/purges the grooves for an arbitrary time when cleaning. It’s a combination of mechanically brushing the record and very intensively flushing the grooves in a way no other brush or cloth can and no ultrasonic has the efficiency in.
After I initially was looking out for an ultrasonic, that Mera pro is what I personally finally ordered now after over a year observing the market and looking out for opinions of experienced folks. My final alternative would have been a custom professional multi record ultrasonic bath with some needed Kuzma accessories, but inspite of the advantageous multi record cleaning option, the constantly filled, standing around large ultrasonic bath frequently needing water exchange/refill, together with the need of a following vacuum cleaning, as well as the different advantages of the Mera pro made me decide otherwise.
After all, what would I do if I had to buy another market available machine (if I was in the US) due to the high price of the Mera there? I probably would have kept my VPI 16.5 for the following suction process and would have bought the Degritter. If I wouldn’t own an extent of original pressings, I would have been happy enough with a normal vacuum machine.
Hope this information is a helpful background for some looking out for a new cleaning solution.
I have been using ProJect VC-S for 3 years and considering adding a degritter. VC-S is pretty decent vacuum and has strong vacuum motor / gearbox inside, but the MDF like construction absorbed moisture and the base of suction wand got loose. I retreated the area with external paint / epoxy and added some beefy metal washers internaly to support the M3 socket screws and nuts. A bit intrigued by the fact ultrasonic can bring more music and less pops out of record. I suspect this record I bought from Double Decker Records last year might have been through ultrasonic cleaning, it hardly has any pops and sounded like new one. Only question is Degritter’s long term reliability. As it has software, controls, display, pumps, valves, and PZT electronics, when things get complicated the reliability could suffer. Wonder how is the quality track record of the degritter since it has been around for a few years. Will do more research and welcome any suggestions. thx.
So many words.
I love the results I get with my ultrasonic cleaner.
The end.
Short and sweet Al, I will check out the degritter at local dealer; thx.
