Record Cleaning Tips

I think both products work well. Probably better that Charles just stick with what his machine does well rather than presenting it as the last word in cleaning.

The 11 micron claim is bogus.

That doesn't mean people can't like the Kirmiss Solution, just that that data point is in error.

I sort of choose not to believe any of them completely.

Do people still believe the 24 hour vinyl recovery time myth?

Notwithstanding that Kirmuss' system can clean vinyl, he presents as a man out of time who wold be more at ease handing out potions from the back of a wagon to frontier rubes.

...of the first LAST dealers when they went retail. That was in the early 1980's. I have used LAST product since day one and have NEVER encountered any problems of any kind.

No record hits my turntable(s) until it has been cleaned and LASTed...period.

very similar, good choice.
I bought a bottle of last a year or two, and never used it. I'll wait until the end of the match.
In between I like the explanation from Last about the change of the vinyl's molecular structure, they made a good point.
Kirmuss : 1
Last : 1

I was actually considering a Kirmuss, and I am also due to order some more LAST preservative. My gut instinct after watching this video and reading LAST's thoughtful response is to order more LAST as planned, and not purchase a Kirmuss. I may still order a different cleaning system though. Just my gut reaction, no affiliation either way.

Kirmuss can be his own worst enemy. Why go after another manufacturer? Promote your product on its capabilities without disparaging another product - in this case one that doesn't directly compete against a product he is selling. His machine looks like a good product, I'm just a bit reluctant to deal with him.

Matt

The LAST Factory began in 1979 according to its website. I've been preserving my vinyl with LAST Record Preservative for about that long it seems. Never have had any problem! In the past two weeks, after getting a new phono preamp, I've been playing a discovered cache of about 50 albums I ultrasonically cleaned and LAST treated in January 2015. I'd not played any of them back then. A number of the albums are un-played 'new' MoFi's and the rest flea market treasure/trash. The new/old MoFi's are impeccable, and the flea market stuff variable. Not a hint of a coating masking the sound. My cartridge has a Fritz Gyger FG80 stylus profile.

Let me put into play a strong recommendation for Mr. Davies 'other analog' preservative, i.e. his reel-to-reel tape preservative. I have a large collection of the Barclay-Crocker 7.5IPS Dolby reel-to-reel prerecorded albums, mostly classical. The special LAST 'Tape Preservative' is also great stuff. Just got a Project cleaner as an accessory to my ultrasonic cleaner (its the 'Hillbilly' one, a bit of a PITA). I'll be LAST treating all the new vinyl albums I have on hand (a bunch).

Full disclosure: I was the Canadian Sales Manager for CKirmuss until roughly 6 months ago.
As such, I worked closely with him at trade shows and saw first hand the development of his "schpiel".
First thing everyone needs to know is that I believe that the machine, which is awfully similar to the one available from Alibaba ( https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/Codyson-used-household-digital-pr...) is a good unit.
It does, however, have a couple of issues which have been outlined by others in numerous blogs and conversations: the "restoration" process being too long, the surfactant (an unmarked bottle of ??) that costs $80/300ml to replace (in Canadian Dollars...so probably only $5 US...LOL!) doesn't LAST very long, and yes...the unit overheats...often! My guess is that the lid is part of the problem for this LAST issue.
Truth be told, had Michael not pASTed by CK's booth with his video camera at Axpona, the machine would probably not have had the success that it has had.
Mr. (NOT DOCTOR!) Kirmuss then showed his process to Michael again in Munich (with the famous "Fungus among us") and the subsequent report which was titled "If Charles Kirmuss's Record Cleaning Machine and Regimen Are Correct, Are Everyone Else's Wrong? *"
Please note, at that time, the companies he was "against" were his direct competitors: KL Audio, AudioDesk and the Codyson unit mentioned earlier. Not one mention of LAST. We were at THE Show in California and clearly the bulk of his efforts were geared toward defending the lack of a drying system (or vacuum) on his machine. At one point in Chicago, he had said that he would make one which would be an "add-on" but then switched it up by mentioning the "Venturi Effect" instead. This became his new "schpiel" and sounded more scientific!
Then came the "wait at least 24 hours before re-playing a track on your record"...which leads to the point that these were all things he was adding as we went from show to show. In Toronto, he started talking of the "dB gain"...a new addition to the repertoire! It is at this show that someone brought us a record which took roughly 20-25 x 3-5 minute cycles to clean ...it was pearling and his surfactant simply wasn't cutting through. I think he would still be going at it had we not both decided that something was wrong after roughly an hour of cleaning. At that moment, WITH ZERO PROOF OF WHAT HE WAS CLAIMING; LAST & L'Art Du Son became his new targets! He could not prove which product had been used but there and then, he started the "anti-LAST" rant.
It was then added to his presentation in Washington DC the second his process would see "pearls" on a record...
I would like to point out the obvious, until that show in Toronto, he had NEVER mentioned issues with LAST. It is also at the Toronto show, roughly 6 months after the initial launch of his product, that he started advertising it as a "Restoration System"...a good marketing verbiage but unfortunately something that lead me to begin doubting him. Too many changes from show to show for my personal taste... I actually believe that he began drinking his own Kool-Aid (or surfactant!)!

His latest addition is that his machine can clean records in 2 minutes...because I believe the pushback to the length of his process is finally wearing him down... Even Michael points out on numerous occasions that we have better things to do than CLEANING records; Like "listening to them for one thing" or having a normal life for another! Here is the bottom line: The real process takes typically 25-30 minutes (for 2 LP's) but the machine will be overheating roughly at the 30 minute mark, if not sooner... so this is the real issue: How many records will you be able to clean in an hour? 2? 4? Even if we make it 6... when your collection is in the thousands, you may want to hire someone to start cleaning your records! It simply becomes too much of a chore!

As for LAST, I appreciate their fight back because their answers are based on scientific data which really does make sense...
My 2 cents (which equal about $10 Canadian!)

I for one appreciate the post from One Good Ear a past employee of Kirmuss. You have confirmed what I believe many of us were already thinking. As I have previously stated, I had this machine and sold it for one of his competitors that takes much less time.

Thank you for coming forward with this response.

Hi, "one good ear", I think I met you last year at a show. Thank you for the insider view of this. I have come to know Mr. Kirmuss and yes, he is over the top, but as you said, his machine is good. Sometimes one needs to judge the product separate from the representative.

I am not taking anyone’s side on this except my own. I would also point out that the machine you reference on Alibaba is a skewer transport system. Mr. Kirmuss is correct in his observations on this one, as far as he goes. I have done (and still do) my own studies on record cleaning from fluids to transport systems to methods, you name it. I ran tests for two years solid before finding the best methodology (I’ve been cleaning records for far longer). I did not and do not do this to try to become some expert or authority or what have you. I do it because I am a custodian of records for lack of a better term. I am passionate about records (music in general really) and I view records as historical documents of importance to be preserved and yes, enjoyed (that means played)! Rotating a record on a skewer for two minutes at 80-degree temperature or less will not likely do much harm if any. However, increase the time and temperature and you exponentially increase the potential to warp the spindle hole etc. Of course, Mr. Kirmuss uses the same bath machine but with modification to the temperature regulator and of course his transport invention, which I must admit is ingenious.

I also agree that there are actually two weak points to the system One is the over-heating. I agree that this is partly at least caused by the transport cover. As we know, cavitation itself produces heat and more so towards the surface of the water (it’s all molecular physics we don’t need to bore ourselves with here). The cover as you pointed out, traps that heat, like putting a lid on a skillet over a burner. This in turn cause the machine to overheat quicker. Mr. Kirmuss knew this and that is why he has an indicator light and instructions to lest the machine rest for 15 to 20 minutes every half hour or when the red light comes on, which ever occurs first. What his instructions fail to mention is to take the lid off during that time. Yes, I have one of his machines and this is what I do currently. I find that I can do about 12 records (two at a time) every other ½ hour or so at 5 minute runs. Recently though Mr. Fremer mentioned a good idea to speed up the cooling process that does no harm. His idea is to put a small blue ice thing or two in the vat during cool down! This would speed up the cool down period. I have not tried this yet, but I will soon as I will also be testing it to see if it extends the cleaning sessions by any measure as well.

The second weakness I have noted are the foam insert stabilizers. Mr. Kirmuss recommends taking them out and cleaning them after every session. I recommend against that because they are weak. The clips are plastic and thin to allow for springing. The problem is that the heat weakens them, so once you take them out a couple of times, they break off without touching them. My thought is since one is not supposed to put a very dirty record in any cavitation bath, the foam inserts stay relatively clean anyway. So, the only thing on the foam inserts is water, no worries, just leave them in. I do recommend getting a set of spares anyway, just in case. I feel the foam insert holders should have been made at least from aluminum or stainless steel or something that can resist weakening for heat or at least bounce back right away.

As for cleaning times, first let me say we agree again that we are “cleaning” records, not “restoring” them. Restoration infers replacement of worn or missing parts, make new again, etc. Nobody and no machine can do that (other than a record pressing machine making a new record, which would then be “replacement” and not “restoration”). That said though, cleaning records, getting the contaminants out of the grooves and what have you does indeed improve things greatly. The trick is to do it safely. Mr. Kirmuss’s machine is at the correct transducer frequency and temperature regulation, not to mention the ingenious transport. I waited a long time for someone to come out with a purpose-built cavitation machine for vinyl records that was correct in all ways, and the Kirmuss machine is that unit. The other thing about it that is good is the maintenance. Easy to drain and clean unlike some other $4k and $5k units I know, which are at the wrong frequency to start anyway.
I too was taken by surprise at the mention of a 2-minute clean cycle. I’m glad it was mentioned though because it got me thinking: Not every record needs a 5-minute cavitation cycle. As with any other valid method, cavitation cleaning goes so far and also depends on the item being cleaned. I already started experimenting with durations just before the mention of the 2-minute cycle. I have found that in some cases a 5-minute cycle makes no difference from a 2-minute cycle. So, I have determined that it depends. If a record has a substance on it that is difficult, such as dish soap residue or a lube-like product, then longer cycles (and often numerous ones) may be required. This is true even with other systems. However, for maintenance cleaning or records that don’t have such contaminates, shorter cycles will do.

As for drying, I also have a VPI 16.5 that I use for initial cleaning and treatment with AIVS fluids (Mr. Kirmuss doesn’t like enzymes either but doesn’t know or mention that there are different types such as synthetic (bad for records) and bio or plant-based (effective and safe for records) that rinse off completely. His thing about vacuum drying is a bit skewered as well. Yes, there is the venturi effect with poorly made vacuum systems, but well-made ones (such as the VPI) do not produce such risk. Its all about the seal. I also debunk the claim of static charging a record by vacuum drying. Yes, easily done if you over do it. It only takes two revolutions on the VPI and that is just under the threshold for that machine of building up a charge. (Of course, the number of revolutions and such can differ from machine to machine. Microfiber drying is fine (and more convenient for cavitation cleaning) as long as there are no contaminates remaining on the record that can be rubbed in or what have you.

As for LAST and the like, I have long been against such things as LAST, Gruv-Glide, etc. years long before this dust up. I don’t believe in the need to put any product on a record after cleaning. As we know, the needle generates heat as it travels the grooves, in turn any substance on the record or in the grooves will attach to the needle and potentially wick up the cantilever and into the cartridge workings. I don’t even agree with Mr. Kirmuss’s suggestion of spraying some of the “surfactant” on the record after cleaning. I mean, why do that? Makes no sense. I find it interesting that he calls it “polishing”.

Finally, this bit about waiting 24 hours before playing a record again, I say “nonsense”. Can one wear out a record? It is plausible, but not under normal conditions. If your tracking force is excessive and your cartridge is out of alignment, then yes, you are doing damage on first play, but that scenario is unlistenable, so you aren’t going to play a record that way anyway. Another way is if you were to play a record on the same side over and over without let up for 8 hours or so, you could potentially wear it down enough to change the sound and you would know it was worn. However, the catch here is that you will wear out hearing the record long before you wear it out physically. If you play a record twice within even a half hour, you are not wearing it down anymore than the normal microscopic level. It takes decades to wear out a record under normal conditions. I’ve got records that are 60 years old plus, and who knows how many times and on what they were played and they still sound good.

The SEM photo is fantastic. Would the mold release agent layer show up in a SEM photograph? Does Last cut through it, or stay on top of it? Or is there no mold release layer?

Mold release agent will not show in a SEM photo. If you read the information of LAST they claim their product to penetrate the record to a measure and mix with thus changing the molecular structure of certain materials in the record to preserve it. So it can be assumed that LAST cuts through the release agent.
However, there are flaws in that. Mr, Kirmuss's paranoia on release agent is a bit over the top. Yes, release agent does exist and one should be concerned with removing what there is of it on the surface. Where Mr. Kirmuss gets dramatic is in the claim that only his machine can remove it. It is not that hard to remove the agent. First of all, it is not a uniform consistent layer on the record. Note as well that used records won't have much release agent near the surface, if any in some cases. It seeps from the overall mix of the PVC formula, so it is splotchy on the surface, but does need to be removed all the same. The real matter of the release agent is that it can act like a product that leaves a residue such as Gruv-Glide, LAST, dish soap, etc. that can attract dust and contaminates to the stylus and wick up the cantilever and into the cart. Just as with finger oils, which is why we are told to handle records in a certain way. This "removal" can be done on a vacuum RCM and the right fluids easily.
*Plain distilled water will not do anything, so you can't just rinse it off. I use AVIS fluids personally which have no problem removing any release agent in one pass. That said, any good, safe, properly formulated fluid for cleaning records will have little trouble with the "release agent".

Mind you, I approach this from a physics slant. Ultrasonic cleaning can remove some plasticizers that are closer to the surface. It is mechanical mainly. Higher frequencies can actually increase the chance because the bubbles or waves are smaller and hitting at a greater rate of speed. On top of that, you also generate more heat, so you have extra weakening of the materials with the heat, making it more possible to remove plasticizers. In other words, a greater chance of erosion. The trick is that you don’t want too big a bubble or wave because then it won’t fit nicely in the grooves. On the other hand, too small a bubble or wave and you increase the sonic frequency too far as well as the heat to get those waves or bubbles and that can weaken the material you are trying to clean. That is partly why you see far greater transducer frequency on ultrasonic cleaners that are for medical equipment or industrial parts, such as aircraft parts. Those need to be clear of all contaminates (adhesives, sealants, grease, etc.), the higher the frequency the more intense the cleaning or erosion, if you will. Things like medical tools are designed to take 120 kHz with no problem. Records on the other hand are far and away more delicate. (This is partly why one should never put a very dirty record in any ultrasonic machine. The dirt becomes projectiles effectively sand blasting your record).
The crucial thing is that you also do not want to remove any of the plasticizers from your records. If you do, they become brittle.

I have read complaints from owners of other machines that are 40kHz or more state that immediately, they enjoyed records with incredibly reduced noise and great sonic clarity. However, another 10-minute cycle or two and a year later or so when they go to play the record again, the noise is back double or triple fold from what it was, and the record is hard to listen to if not impossible. This is at least in part, because too much of the plasticizer has been leeched from the record by improper ultrasonic cleaning. I think if one put a record in a 40kHz machine for one or two minutes one time, without too much heat, you likely would not do much in the way of damage, if any and end up with a clean record that is fine. But repeat that a few times and the odds start to stack against you.

It should be noted though that one can leech plasticizers and other critical components from records even with a 35kHz machine! How? Too long a time in the bath combined with heat as mentioned earlier. So, if you put a record in a cavitation machine like the Kirmuss unit for say 20 minutes and let the temperature get over 94 to 95 degrees you exponentially increase the chances of leeching the plasticizers just as you would in shorter time with higher frequencies.

Ultrasonic cleaning of records can be positively effective and safe if done right, with the right methods and machines. I’ve been using the Kirmuss machine for a good 5 months with modified methodology different from Mr. Kirmuss’s suggestions with good results. I have checked records I cleaned with it several times at 4 and even some 5-minute sessions five months ago and everything is fine.

It should be noted that many of the folks complaining of noisy records a year later after cleaning them with 40kHz or higher machines also report black bits (from black records of course), that are not hard but more like furry at the bottom of their tanks. The jury is still out as to whether this is definitively plasticizer and other soft crucial parts of formula of the PVC or dirt, could be a bit of both. Since both would look identical to the naked eye and even a microscope unless the scope was molecular, the leap can be made that it could be plasticizer or other crucial components leeched out.

The release agent is kind of like skin oil, you could say only a bit more anti-adhesive quality. It can also be likened to Gruv-glide and similar. Release agent can take up to a couple of cleanings with a good fluid to remove or one or two passes through an ultrasonic, such as the Kirmuss unit (Just as fingerprints can be removed with alcohol or the like). Products like PAM or dish soap and such are harder to remove taking several cleanings or for faster result, a stripping agent.
The takeaway is that release agents are designed for a specific job, releasing substances with adhesive properties. This requires a layer much thinner than 11 microns.

So happy there are sites like this avoiding mass putt-on.
This kind of marketing is what we hate in high end and everywhere else.

I agree with your comment bubbles with less energy are beneficial. They are less powerful, create less force and heat. And reduce the total risk involved with ultrasonic cleaning.

Not sure if by mechanical removing dirt it's possible to leech the plasticizers alone. Most probably they come together with the vinyl loose from the surface. Not good if you see it at the bottom of the tank. As you write, maybe the duration of cleaning is too long.

Would be great if by ultrasonic cleaning you can also remove adhesives, sealants and grease. All attract and hold a lot of dirt in the groove. When this is possible at a 120kHz ultrasonic frequency, it would be perfect.

At 120 kHz the bubble is much smaller and cleaning is more gentle. The energy released is much less compared to a bubble created at 35 kHz. Although you seem to say the opposite.

I use a Nitty gritty two sided wet/vacuum cleaner, then go to an Auto Desk System unit, and then....I never do it again and simply use my Ursa Major carbon fiber brush for playback.

I don't think I add anything to my LPs when I play them that would require repeated wet cleaning.

Do people wet clean each time, at specific play-intervals?

It's fun learning how other people approach this!

Interesting that it seems that there is a possibility that US cleaning can damage your vinyl.
With that caveat in mind, I am personally not going to invest in a US machine at this time, better to let those folks who love them tell us what they think of the process and whether they have irreversibly damaged their records first....after a few years have gone by. I still am quite pleased with the results from my vacuum machine...and it has been tested over decades. All IMHO.

…Charles, the Owner of KirmussAudio, here… I usually do not respond to a forum of this nature and unlike the homeland security technology arena that I operate in for 4 decades it has come to light where in the audio world everyone has their own views and opinions and in some of these postings individuals even attack each other. Not saying this is the situation here but where I, as a tenderfoot in this industry, recall where a year or so ago I read in one of these forums where some record enthusiasts were making their own cleaning solutions. Mentioned was 30% Tergitol mixed in with other chemicals including an anti-water agent Photoflow to clean records. In reading this and in seeing the danger I responded based on scientific proof referencing the Dow Chemical Company MSD sheet as to California Proposition 62 where Tergitol with Ethelene Oxide is both a cancer causing agent and is not very favorable to PVC per the PVC Chemical Compatibility Chart. To my surprise, out of the woodwork came dozens of arm chair experts stating the contrary. I then let the arm chair experts fight it out amongst themselves. Some journalists dissuaded me from doing so in the future after seeing the barrage created. It was my first and last effort to assist as an Educator and to provide generic information in such an unfamiliar medium to me to an Audiophile market.
I do appreciate where a well moderated blog sees merit. Hence this post and many points of concern were raised. As a precursor, in our investigation of vinyl as well as wax cylinders I have published a technical paper presented at the ARSC this past spring that was also submitted to the Record Academy regarding record restoration. Obviously this also covers surface cleaning. This is an industry first. Why, because of our scientific method.
Overview: All of our statements are backed by measurement of various kinds as to the effectiveness of our restoration process. …And also the results of using other cleaning topologies, I might add. Measurements, hmmmm. For cleaning???? We discuss gain over floor in decibels, groove size, needle dyne, pop count (using SC-1 Sugar Cube from Sweet Vinyl), and the like. Surprisingly my contemporaries in the cleaning arena do not do this. Further, as I work with lithium ion batteries which have restrictions, we disclose fully the composition of our ionizing surfactant and needle cleaner, this for safety, compatibility to PVC, as well as to meet shipping regulations. So we are uniquely different, certainly Disruptive of the establishment perhaps, but working with scientific information that is openly shared. In all this there must be some method to the madness as where our end results in record restoration have been globally validated by industry veterans such as Mr. Fremer, Mr. Rigby, Lynette Smith, and Custodians such a Lowell Graham, UofTEP, among others. To further receive consideration from companies that are in the high end sector that also use our process to aid their demonstrations of their own developments surrounding vinyl as the audio source is very heart warming. I doubt they would drink our Kool-Aid if not real. So some information to share, and in no particular order.
1) Venturi: Not a term that we have invented. If you recall your high school automotive and physics classes or have worked within a lab or in a technical or aerospace environment, “Venturi” or “Venturi Termed vacuum generators” both categorized, create vacuums using a venturi chamber that is designed to move gases or fluids out of a region of space. (to another). Venturi or fluid jet vacuum generators rely on the flow of compressed air, gas, or liquid or rapidly moving air or water (with pressure differential) as the "motive" fluid or power to pull or create a vacuum at a desired port. If we relate to a wet and/or a dry vacuum as used in vacuum based record cleaning machines , water with soap first, then dust particles are drawn into a plastic tube and are pulled. Areas of high and low pressure exist. Liquids first, then air and dust follow in these processes. It is the latter I also comment as a known result of result of Venturi on plastic where air and these moving particles cause the build up of static electricity and “charges” the record with the air moving across the record. In reviewing images taken of records, (before and after process) they acknowledge the fact where the pressure differential in operation of these systems then sees dust brought back ultimately onto the record and into the grooves. Also with air and non mechanical drying the addition of a film or residue resides on the record which we can easily measure, both mechanically and audibly, depending the solution used as a cleaning agent. The mention of the Venturi effect thus relates to records and record cleaning processes using a vacuum. Coincidently, many audiophiles have commented as to their witnessing of added static on the record using such a cleaning method even if water and soap were mediums brushed onto the record, and added dust. I cannot say more but where we have seen as a result anti static guns as well as anti static turntable pads and brushes advertised and sold.

2) Coatings: I personally am not concerned about whether or not LAST is a cleaner, preservative, coating, or anything else. Or any other product sold as a cleaner that leaves residues on records. Mr. Fremer always has an eye out for a good story. At the RMAF a potential customer came in with a record. While our system was being operated he asked us why in the demonstration we all saw after our first cycle of 5 minutes with our ionizing agent applied where there was left on the record tremendous amounts (sheets) of water, as well as hundreds of water droplets collecting on the record’s surface. Known: Clean records should totally repel water. In one of the posts of a former agent of ours the person failed to note in the post where both he and I had seen this phenomenon emerge at the Washington DC Capital Audio Show, and where this also was witnessed at the Toronto Audio Fest. (At these shows we accommodate visitors and restore their records at no charge). In Toronto we were told where records showing this were cleaned originally using L’Art du Son, this by record reseller selling the used record. In DC the record owners stated to both of us where they used LAST. (Also validated later by finding the LAST sticker on the record’s outer sleeve). My colleague and I in DC reverted to 2 minute cycles and were able to restore these used records in 12 minutes versus trying to restore the record with 5 minute cycles that we originally prescribed in our manual . The latter saw us taking over an hour to no avail. … So back to RMAF: We then further explained to our audience where if they encountered this phenomenon, (sheeting etc..), one must revert to 2 minute cycles. This as there is a “coating on the record”. Using more than 2 minutes in our machine in such a case sees our ionizing surfactant being washed off too quickly by the water used. Thus not seeing the attacking plasma wave touch the groove. Back at the lab to it was necessary to do a scientific study, not just an ad hoc change to the 5 minute process as in DC and even if at these two shows the modification to our process worked and resulted in dry records coming out of our machine after restoration.

So in the lab: Records from the same pressing were purchased. Records were measured. Records were cleaned following manufacturer guidelines. Some had a 2 step process prescribed with 2 product SKU’s. Then they were cured in a thermal chamber for one month at 95 deg F, and 42% humidity. (accelerated ageing). Records were then also subject to our restoration process. Before and after pictures were taken using the Keyscience VHX 7000 series 2D/3D microscope. The visual end result was very well noted with a 9 to 11 micron average increase in record height seen (indicating a coating), depending on the product applied. Records do not grow by themselves. Pre and Post audio signals were also measured. In all this also discovered was a piece of dust captured in the groove of one cleaned record , with also air bubbles caught on the surface of the record in the coating measured. (With this visual inspection any reasonable lay person would assume if something changes the molecular structure of a record, one should not see contaminants “glued” into a groove, or see added height or change in size.). Our process is to remove films, contaminants and release agent. Correctly noted in the post: When you are using a 2000 X magnification it is very hard to see the exact same spot. Especially where I personally did not MARK in a permanent fashion by way of a scratch and paint the area. I could see where someone would think this is not accurate. While this mistake is acknowledged, the coating of the measurement of the record throughout stands. The before and after process images are true. To not confuse the effort made at RMAF it should be restated: we were trying to explain to potential users of our system to know when users need to change to 2 minute cycles from 5 minutes. That was the intent. Not a rabbit boxing match! If the record’s owner stated and confirmed to us where LAST was on the record as their own. Our observation was then totally validated by the owner of the record. The video captured by Mr. Fremer is just a portion of the demonstration, one of several videos now presented. To note where our restoration process allows us to identify many of the past cleaning processes used on records. My former colleague can attest to this: vacuum cleaning, manual cleaning, cavitation systems by manufacturer.

3) To the machine: I have been using cavitation systems of many different types at various companies that I was either owner of, or chief executive of, since my work on the Canadarm of the space shuttle, this in 1978. Appreciating in our now 6 years of study of record cleaning processes of all kinds where a proper cavitation system with special processes appreciating the plasma wave resulted in our patents received and pending. I use in my own factory the base ultrasonic manufactured one of the word’s leading sonic manufacturer for my own products. A different model was taken and modified by my own staff. Anyone dealing with overseas manufacturers knows never to diveluge the changes one is making to an existing design. (Refer to my IP protection sessions that I present at the Global Sources HK Shows since 2007 on the web). Indeed, there is nothing hidden. That is where the similarities of sonics stop. Mr. Fremer was provided with pictures as to the difference of my product as it relates to control and function and MCU of an off the shelf product. Further, displays are totally different. Anyone with design and manufacturing experience knows full well where it is very reasonable for one to develop a products for a boutique, small volume industry, to first use at times strategic partners for base elements. With a base engine identified, in our case we developed a product and a solution and by creating a new product with engineered changes. Not just a cover assembly, the process and the embellishments based on SWR studies resulted in a designed and patented product and process. Not only validated by Mr. Fremer, but also seen by others now a year ago where Andre Jennings, Enjoy The Music, Steve Hoffman, and a host of others that all realized the genius of the development and gave us the momentum starting at AXPONA 2018.

4) To chemical mix and pricing to the audiophile. There are only three global manufacturers of my base mix. They are not located in the United States. To imply perhaps where my Company is perhaps gouging users cannot be further than the truth. We could have even sold our restoration machine for $2,000 or more, which we did not, as we believe everyone is a custodian of music and should have access to great original sound. Any reasonable businessman understands what costs are in manufacturing. In our business model, one cannot ship by sea our chemical base due to the high temperatures involved in a container that may be out on the open waters for 7 weeks or more. Internal container temperatures depending on where the containers are placed on the cargo ship can rise to over 150 deg F.. This adversely affects the structure of the chemical. Neither via Air Cargo can we ship without the agent being diluted. So, a shipment of five hundred 300 mL bottles premixed comes out to $9,800 by FEDEX, landed in Denver. That amounts to $19.60 per bottle. Final packaging, customs handling costs and duties, MDS Certification by a third party lab with annual renewals, all not included. To see a Full Retail Unit Price of $90 with shipping with both a distributor and dealer as well as a factory agent making their percentage sees I believe the product to be very reasonably priced. The offering is very honest and fair, would you not think? I nor my Company are cheating anyone. This comes out to an average cost to the audiophile of between 0.18- 0.28 cents a record. My contemporaries in the sonic side have time limited product usage of their mix and as such are significantly more expensive.
Indeed, I respect the comments made by everyone. I have taken the time to respond in kind unlike my peers to provide full details as to the links of MDS as well as referring to the PVC Chemical Compatibility Chart. Images taken from the Keyscience 2D/3D microscope and their measurements may be provocative, but the scientific method was followed.
Some have commented to my taking the lead at the forum that was moderated by Mr. Fremer at RMAF. I was invited, I came prepared with scientific documentation. I did not present myself with any equipment or solutions for sale. As an Educator, it is important for any panelist to see a baseline standard set, for all lovers of music to “see the forest between the trees”, and to do so, to first understand how records are made, what is in the PVC mix, and then to relate to the PVC Chemical Compatibility Chart and to see what if any cleaning agents are PVC friendly. Hence my setting the stage for my Peers. We are all custodian of records, records cannot be replaced once the artists, studios, sound board mixers and original pressing plants have left this earth. I take personal pride in seeing records owned by others being restored and to hear their brilliance as best we can to reflect on the original lacquer.
Please keep those records spinning, we are all custodians of records As a part time education, knowledge is power. The above responds to some of the points raised in two of the subject posts.
Sorry for bending your ear. I decided to make one concise reply.

Thank you for your question. I do not see your name in any emails that I have received. Those requesting details have seen us share our information openly. Our manuals are clear. We use a diol-1-2, 178, propan-diol. A 1-2% mix in 98-99% distilled water. This information accompanies every machine, every export shipment, as well as is listed with FedEx and UPS in our TSCA statement required for shipping. This data and full compliance safety statements mandated by the regulators was supplied to both Mr. Rigby as well as Mr. Fremer including but not limited to the product transport, safety and toxicology details, staying where it is safe to use. It is not etelene glycol as some journalists have written.

To assist further: This said, in using any chemical, water soluble or not, work must be performed in a well ventilated area. More so as you are removing or handling records with fungus on them or see fungus in the record covers and sleeves. Disturbing the fungal spores while handling records will see some people start to sneeze or have a nose irritation. Severe fungus coated records should see one wear gloves and a mask.

I do wish to take the opportunity to warn those that have ultrasonics that are 40 KHz and higher and where applying our ionizing agent to the record will see damage occur to the record as the plasma wave created of the imploding/exploding 40 KHz and higher frequency systems are now finally attracted to the record that our spray has been applied to. This as where the known 40 KHz systems known to be sold do not ionize the record and rely on distilled water with or without a soap in the basin to only surface clean the record. I say this to caution those not familiar with sonic technology.

I do urge anyone to not apply anything on a record without receiving full details as to the solution's composition and then to check the PVC Chemical Compatibility and Resistance Chart. Summation: The Propane family we use is PVC and plasticizer friendly.

The mentioned reasoning why 35 kHz is less harmful than 40 kHz in the case of vinyl cleaning is definitely not correct. Generally, the lower the frequency of an ultrasonic longitudinal wave, the larger the volume of a bubble that results from the cavitation will be. A larger imploding bubble involves a higher amount energy that is finally converted into kinetic energy (=higher local fluid velocity).

Or in other words: the energy affecting the vinyl is higher at 35 kHz than 40 kHz. 40 kHz is less harmful, IF damage takes place.

However, Mr. Kirmus cleaning machine could benefit from this fact as the cleaning effect should be theoretically higher compared to the usual cleaners if his machine works at 35 kHz. But any way, the reasoning for using 35 kHz is wrong.

Regards
David

I just bought the Kirmuss machine (received this past weekend) and it seems to have done a hell of a job. About the db I don't know, but I found that my Depeche Mode Violator album sounded more detailed after cleaning it with the K machine. I also cleaned some old and not very well taken care of records that were made in Mexico and some pops still remained, but after inspecting one of the records at different angles/light, I noticed damage but I believe this was not due to the machine but from the age and use/abuse of the record. I am currently very pleased with the K machine.

I use both the Last stylus cleaner and treatment before and after playing a record (don't use the record preservative; why add a layer of some material when I just want the stylus to bounce properly in the grooves,) but, since I use a Soundsmith Otello cartridge, I have read and watched Mr. Ledermann's articles. He advises not to use Last (wet) on the stylus, to use Tac (dry.)

I wonder what Mr. Ledermann would say.

I've been using it since the mid-eighties, and I have heard nothing but quiet surfaces. Friends have played their new copies of many random new releases vs. mine treated with LAST and cleaned with a Record Doctor, and mine always sound quieter than theirs. At the very least, there was certainly no audible detritus from LAST.

If MF's system isn't revealing of any audible issues from LAST, then that's good enough for me. The average respondent in here won't come close to what Michael's system portrays musically and sonically. There a very few that possess a turntable rig, let alone a complete stereo system, like his.

I'm sure the Kirmuss is excellent, but easy on the cleaning already! Put on a record and relax...

I have slogged through this discussion and concluded a few things:
1. Kirmuss could use a decent editor (maybe one with a degree in chemistry).
2. The Top of his device would be far better if it fit three 12" records or make the top in different size accommodations.
3. IMO no one should finish a cleaned record off by applying more surfactant. Although applying "Last" seems the better Final option.
4. Did this device and PROCESS actually make it as a product of the year?

I just tripped over this thread and am truly stupefied. Last is certainly not a coating. It is nothing but a chlorofluorocarbon solvent. It is wonderful for cleaning non polar substances like finger prints from surfaces. If you take a microscope slide and repeatedly place a drop in the center allowing it to dry between drops you will notice there is absolutely nothing remaining on the slide. Zip, Ziltch, Nadda.
PVS is remarkably inert stuff. You are not going to make any chemical changes in it by rubbing a little Freon on it at room temperature.

The plasticizers are part of the PVC pellet mix. They are there to soften the PVC to make it easier to press. Removing them from the surface is actually an advantage as this will harden the surface making it more durable. If Last does anything this is it. You can do EXACTLY the same thing by cleaning the record once with brake cleaning fluid just make sure it is the chlorofluorocarbon stuff as this won't damage the PVC.

As for cleaning records, I don't. Well, occasionally a new record will come complete with finger prints. I remove these with a cotton cloth and Freon. That is it. I do not have to clean my records because they never get dirty. I also do not buy used records and never will. I can appreciate and respect people like Mike Fremer that do it is just not my thing.
My records never get dirty because they are never allowed to collect static electricity and they are always under cover. Nobody is allowed to smoke anything inside my house. I use a conductive sweep arm and a dust cover during play. It is also interesting to note that I rarely have to clean my stylus. I'll do it out of tradition maybe twice a year.
If I were to buy used records I would use an ultrasonic bath with distilled water and a little Triton X-100 thrown in followed by a vacuum drying method of some sort.
Kirmuss? He is going to give everyone blisters.

Hello, all. I don't know if commenting on this thread will cause it to rise up to the surface, like so much "toothpaste" after a 5-minute cycle and manipulation of the goat's hair brush, but I wanted to see if I could get some feedback about surfactant(s). I don’t think I’m beating a dead horse, just expanding upon the sleuthing I’ve done.

I began using a Kirmuss unit last week. In a nutshell: I love what it's accomplished on the dozen or so LPs I've cleaned, er, restored. For example, my first U.S. pressing of "Julie Is Her Name" (1955) and my cherished pressing of Donald Fagen's 1993 "Kamakiriad" LP have been, well unleashed. And my first U.S. pressing of AC/DC’s “Let There Be Rock” (1977), which I cleaned with all manner of solutions during my teens, is something else.

My comment/question: I've already burned through the lion's share of the little bottle of surfactant that was included with the machine. I can get a 300 ml bottle for $85, which is fine, but I'm intrigued by the idea of making my own home brew. I've done all the research, read all the articles, watched videos, familiarized myself with the schools of thought, etc., etc., etc.

Naturally, I'd want to duplicate, or at minimum emulate, the Kirmuss formula. In a comment above, Mr. Kirmuss wrote, "Our manuals are clear. We use a diol-1-2, 178, propan-diol. A 1-2% mix in 98-99% distilled water."

However, in the YouTube video "KirmussAudio System Demo" (Aug. 20, 2018), in which Mr. Kirmuss demonstrates his system in Mr. Fremer's home, around the 6:40 mark he describes the surfactant as "1 percent ethyl glycol (my emphasis) and 99 percent uh ... uh ... uh ... distilled water." When he says this, a box appears on the screen saying, "Next, apply the safe, water soluble surfactant supplied with the system."

As someone referenced above, in his January 15, 2019, write-up, “The Audiophile Man” described a bad reaction to the Kirmuss surfactant: “ … I had a reaction because of that unknown part of the liquid, the perfumed surfactant I mentioned above.” That review also gives a recipe for an alternate surfactant — a bottle of Audio Desk Cleaning Fluid, 5 liters of distilled water, and “half a pipette” of propylene glycol.

If you Google "Is propanol 1-2 diol 178 the same as propylene glycol?" you’ll find a short exchange on ChemistryStackExchange.com in response to a question that was obviously submitted by someone with a Kirmuss system: "I clean vinyl records in an ultrasonic vinyl record cleaning machine the manual states it uses propanol 1-2 diol 178 as a surfactant. I think this is the same chemical as propylene glycol. Is it?"

The last of the few comments on the question reads, "Yes, 'propanol 1-2 diol 178' is the same compound as propylene glycol and appears to be a fabricated name used in a manual for a proprietary cleaning system by Kirmuss Audio" (my emphasis). The comment quotes and links to Mr. Fremer's July 2019 article "The Seven “M”s of the Charles Kirmuss Vinyl Restoration System."

I’ll stop here because that’s all the germane information. If there are any Kirmuss users out there with surfactant formulas and/or process tweaks they’d like to share, please do.

I took delivery of my Kirmuss machine a week ago. (Getting it to my door was a saga that I won’t relate here, except to say don’t try and buy one on eBay.) In the last few days I’ve been getting used to it. As Mikey has stated elsewhere, the documentation, while thorough, needs some work.

Anyway … the first album I went after was my Nitty Gritty Dirt Band “Will the Circle be Unbroken” 3 disc set. I bought it soon after the album was released. It’s likely a very early pressing but I haven’t checked or interpreted the matrix. I had treated the discs with last and while it was not particularly dirty (yes, the sonics did seem to improve after my regimen of cleaning) it took by FAR more cleaning to get it to a near-pristine state. It probably took 8-10 sessions in the machine, including the 2 minute cycles.

Was that due to the Last treatment? I really don’t know, and I don’t have an electron microscope. What I think MAY happen, and this is pure conjecture, is that sometimes (maybe often) Last may be applied incorrectly and too thickly and actually trap gunk before evaporating or cleaned off. Not being a chemist or having access to testing data, of course I’m just spit balling, as I stated.

Subsequently I have cleaned non-Last records and haven’t seen the same issue with cleaning. I’m not sure if I have any more records that I treated with Last.

I haven't used LAST on my LP's for decades. I do still use and think highly of Stylast.
I have a Kirmuss on loan and I am wondering if anyone has done away with the long and drawn out process that Kirmuss suggests with his dry/clean/ dry use surfactant/ clean/ dry method...and simply run the record through a single cycle in the machine with nothing more than Distilled water ( no alcohol etc.). I am going to do this and see if I can hear and see the benefit of a simple one step ultra sonic pass. ( I'm sure Mr. Kirmuss won't like the the idea, as we won't be using his ancillary tonics and other potions and we won't be buying these either!) I am NOT going to experiment on a very dirty or older/heavily used LP. Simply on an LP that was cleaned before on my VPI and could benefit from a US cleaning...we shall see what there results are. ( if any?)

NOT there results...but the results.