WHEN MY RECORD COLLECTION got big enough I started to spend a lot of time considering how to best take care of it - and for me, just like for most people, that comes down to keeping our records clean. But - as discussed in Part One of this rant - that's no easy task. In fact, it's an enormous pain in the ass. The results, however, are worth it. My VPI 16.5 - which I've had for about 30 years - has done a reasonably decent job cleaning my vinyl, but there are times when I think it doesn't do enough. I'm hearing things I don't think I should be hearing post-cleaning: little ticks, scratchy surface noises … It's always kind of annoyed me, so I did a bit of research and learned there have been concerns about how most vacuum systems (like my VPI) actually spread dirt across records instead of lifting it off them. The problem lies with the felt on the vacuum tube: it's hard to keep clean and dirt adheres to it as a record gets vacuumed. Then it gets spread across the next record. I think it's a real problem, and the more I looked into it the more I became convinced that's what I was hearing. The felt is, after all, pressed hard up against the surface of the record during the vacuuming process. Even changing the felt every time I cleaned a record probably wouldn't help, seeing as how the dirt I just sucked out of the grooves of that record would come into contact with the felt of the suction arm as it dragged itself across the record. It would get put back in the groove, so to speak.
Listening is believing, and I have to say that some records sound almost the same after the VPI treatment as they did before it. I did even more digging and stumbled across something called cavitation - otherwise known as ultrasonic cleaning. It's something that has recently been discussed on various audiophile websites and in various publications, and there are now several machines out there that are capable of cleaning records this way.
The one I first learned about was developed by Charles Kirmuss, of Kirmuss Audio, and is called the KA-RC-1 (pictured above). Michael Fremer posted a video of Kirmuss cleaning a record with his machine and it intrigued me enough to dig even deeper. What I learned is this: ultrasonic record cleaning is definitely not snake oil, even though Charles Kirmuss comes across like a snake oil salesman. Why he feels he needs to dress like a doctor I can't begin to imagine, and I caught myself cringing at certain points during his presentation. Seriously, this guy could use a decent PR person. There's just something about the way he presents himself that seems a bit off-putting, a bit Barnum and Bailey. I'm certain he means well, but over time - as I talked to various Canadian Kirmuss dealers (many who turned out to be ex-Kirmuss dealers) - they pretty much all said the same thing: Kirmuss was somewhat of an eccentric character and could be a difficult personality to deal with. That aside, there's also the cost of the KA-RC-1 - about $1,300 CAD - although most serious record collectors, myself included, don't consider that prohibitive given the value of a decent-sized record collection (and also when compared to, say, the Degritter (another ultrasonic cleaner), which costs almost four times as much).
I continued digging and learned about the iSonic P4875 II. It's an alternative to the KA-RC-1, and is basically the exact same machine minus the custom Kirmuss top and the software algorithm. I also heard that Kirmuss adjusted the position of the transducer on the KA-RC-1, although I'm not convinced that really matters. Both machines operate at the same frequency (35 kHz)
The iSonic is quite a bit cheaper than the KA-RC-1, by as much as $200 or more depending where you buy it. So I took the plunge and bought one. Read on for my review.
THE iSONIC
The iSonic is very easy to put together and also feels very sturdy. The arm that holds the records can be hung on either side of the unit, so it doesn't matter if you're right or left-handed. There is a "max" line to which you need to fill the tub with distilled water, which takes about one-and-a-half jugs of the stuff. You actually have to fill it slightly above the max line to ensure all the grooves on the record are adequately submerged. This is also mentioned in the instruction booklet, which makes me wonder why they don't just raise the max line a little bit.
Some people use reverse osmosis water, but I have been using distilled water. I'm not sure there's a difference, and the consensus seems to be there isn't.
It is possible to clean five LPs at once on my iSonic, something the Kirmuss doesn't allow. You can actually do 10 LPs on the iSonic with the addition of an optional arm accessory, but trust me - that's more than you'll want to do all at once. Cleaning 10 records will easily eat up an evening. Below is the iSonic P4875. You can easily see how similar it is to the Kirmuss.
SURFACTANT
I added a capful of a surfactant to the water. Surfactant is an additive that lowers the surface tension of the water and allows the ultrasonic scrubbing bubbles to do their job. Without it, you will not get the full benefit of ultrasonic cleaning because it helps dislodge the grunge in the bottom of the groove. Some people apply surfactant to the record before and between ultrasonic bath cycles, and part of this review will be to test if doing so actually makes a difference. The surfactant itself doesn't actually clean anything, but it really is necessary to the process. It loosens things up. There are all kinds of surfactants out there - you can even make your own - but you do need to use something. To be clear: your records won't be as clean as ultrasonic cleaning can get them if you don't use a surfactant.
Degassing is also an essential step after you add the surfactant to the bath. The degass button has to be pressed twice to activate the process, and doing so initiates a 96-second process that gets rid of all the bubbles in the water, most of which were created when the surfactant was added to the tank. I am convinced degassing is an essential step and I do it twice, even though the iSonic instruction booklet lists degassing as an optional step. It really isn't. If you skip the degassing step the cavitation process is compromised as the bubbles become a barrier to the cavitation action. And running the degassing process twice seems to be what the pros in the "ultrasonic know" are recommending. I did notice there were still a few bubbles in the water after only one degassing. After two, they were all gone. Or … you can just run the machine for a few minutes before using it.
The water should be heated, and the iSonic has a built-in heater that keeps the temp at about 35 degrees, which is the recommended temperature.
Although Charles Kirmuss insists on spraying a final application of surfactant onto the record after the cleaning process is complete, which he says guards against fungus and static, I don't agree with him. Why put more "stuff" on the record after you put it through the ultrasonic process to get rid of all the stuff that was put on the record previously, including soaps, surfactant and whatever else? When I'm done cleaning a record in the iSonic I rinse it with more distilled water (I use a squirt bottle) and dry it with my old VPI 16.5. That's all I use the VPI for these days - drying my ultrasonically-cleaned records. I then store the record in a new sleeve (I use the ones made by Mobile Fidelity). In all the decades I've been collecting records I've never had one sprout fungus and I know how to handle static, so I'm not too concerned about those things and I'd rather not have anything on the record in the groove between the music and me. I dunno - maybe Kirmuss just wants to sell more surfactant.
Right now I have two different surfactant solutions: the iSonic brand (a concentrate) that came in the box with the machine and, according to the label on the bottle is supposedly terrific for cleaning eyewear and jewellery, too. I also have something called Professional Formulation Record Cleaning Solution (PFRCS), which was provided to me by the dealer from whom I bought the iSonic. It's not a concentrate and is made by a company called Tri-Art Audio, but I can't tell you much about them because the website printed on the label on the bottle doesn't exist. And it was not cheap - $44 for a 2-litre bottle that is probably just distilled water with a bit of isopropyl alcohol added in. But, as no ingredients are listed on the label I'm not sure about that. Anyway … I don't use it.
UPDATE
NEW FORMULA
After considerable experimentation I have decided on the following formula: 1.5 gallons of distilled water, mixed with 20 drops of Turgikeen. Rinse with water and dry.
How does one use an ultrasonic record cleaning machine? After putting the machine together, which was easy using the supplied instructions and did not take long at all, I filled the tub with the correct amount of distilled water and added the surfactant, as instructed. I ran the degassing step and heated the water. After the water temperature was achieved I placed a record on the arm of the unit between two of the supplied label protectors and secured it into place. I then pushed the arm forward so that the bottom half of the record was immersed in the water. I pushed the button on the back of the arm and the record started to rotate at 5 rpm.
NO ADDED SURFACTANT
Although I did add the surfactant to the bath, I did not apply any to the record itself beforehand. The record in question is a copy of Alan Parsons' iRobot, a Mobile Fidelity UHQR pressing, that is a little noisy in the quiet spots and has one big TICK! about 30 seconds into the second track on side one. Ultrasonic cleaning can not fix physical damage such as scratches, and that's what I've always assumed that tick was. But what if it isn't? I only hear it once when I play the record. Wouldn't a scratch - especially one that can cause such a loud pop - last more than just one rotation? What if it's just a stubborn bit of gunk that no other process has so far been able to get rid of? What if the iSonic is able to dislodge it? That would be impressive, especially since the reason I got a really good deal on the record when I bought it was because of that loud tick.
I selected a cycle time of five minutes and pushed the start button on the side of the tub. The water in the tub started to vibrate slightly. There was a buzzing noise but nothing as loud as the Hoover-like noise my VPI generates that always upsets my dog. When the five minutes was up I lifted the record out of the bath and let it air dry. Included in the box was a little plastic brick that, when wedged under the record arm, positions the records on a 45-degree angle that is supposed to be ideally suited to air drying them. So that's what I did.
I sprayed on some distilled water and wiped it off with a couple of the supplied KwikWipes before drying it with the VP 16.5. Then I played the record and the results were, in a word, astonishing. Except for the one loud tick that has always been there, the record was completely quiet. And the tick wasn't as loud as it had been previously, although I did catch myself wondering if I was imagining that. Was this just a case of an audiophile (me) hearing what he wanted to hear? We're always being accused of that, but this time there also seemed to be a lot more depth to the music that wasn't as obvious before and it was something that was easy to hear. It was very apparent, and everyone in the room could hear it. So I decided the tick really was quieter than it had been. It wasn't a case of "audiophile ears".
And it got me to thinking … if I put the record through another cleaning cycle - this time applying surfactant beforehand - might I actually be able to get rid of the tick completely? Was that noise something other than physical damage to the record?
SURFACTANT ADDED
Feeling somewhat giddy with expectation I took the record back to the iSonic. I degassed the water and applied a light spray of surfactant (three misty squirts of PFRCS from a spray bottle) directly onto the surface of the record and used the brush that came with my VPI 16.5 to get it into the grooves.
I tilted the iSonic's arm forward and submerged the record into the tank for another five-minute cycle. When the cycle completed, I raised the record out of the water and let it air dry on the recommended 45-degree angle before rinsing it and wiping it dry with a microfibre cloth (which I thought I'd use instead of the KwikWipes this time 'round, although not for any particular reason). Then I vacuum-dried the record again, took it upstairs and dropped the needle onto the outer edge of record. I sat down in the sweet spot in front of the speakers. I turned the volume way up and listened. The turntable's arm slowly made its way across the surface of the record. Track two started to play. I braced myself for the usual loud CRACK!, which has been there on every listen for more than thirty years. But this time - drum roll, please - it didn't happen! The loud tick was gone and not even a trace of it remained! Nothing! It was completely not there, as though it had never existed. I was hoping for but not really expecting this result, so I was very much impressed by what I heard - or rather, didn't hear. That tick was obviously caused by debris of some kind - dust or dirt or whatever it was - that had adhered to the wall or floor of the groove. But the ultrasonic cleaning process got rid of it entirely and restored the LP to the best state it can possibly be in. No other cleaning process I have ever used over the years - and I have tried just about everything out there - has been able to do this. I could go on and on and fling every superlative I can think of at you, but there really isn't any need. The bottom line is ultrasonic record restoration just works. It's worth the cost of admission, which doesn't have to be an arm or a leg.
To summarize: ultrasonic "cleaning" …
∙ doesn't have to be expensive
∙ really does work
∙ takes time and effort
∙ won't fix scratches or other physical damage
∙ requires patience
UPDATE
THE IMPORTANCE OF FILTERING
When you start ultrasonically restoring your records, you'll start to notice all kinds a debris accumulating in the solution. For a while I didn't pay it much mind and just changed the water. But that starts to get a bit expensive and also takes more time than I want to spend doing it. After a bunch of research I bought a 1-micron filter unit specially designed for the iSonic (pictured below). I could have built my own filtration system, but I wouldn't have saved much money and it would have taken time and probably wouldn't have been very elegant.
WHAT'S A MICRON
Many people are adding filters to their ultrasonic cleaners, with fish tank filters being particularly popular. Others have created home-made filtration systems using coffee filters. But be careful. Your cleaning solution requires the removal of very minute particles, and a 1-micron filter is able to do this. A micron equals one-millionth of a meter, or one-thousandth of a millimetre. Fish tank filters tend to be 20 or 30-microns, which I don't think is fine enough. Coffee filters are no better, even when doubled-up. There are lots of DIY ideas on the Internet, but I would suggest purchasing a filter made by the people who made your unit as it will work efficiently and has been tested to ensure it does. You'll also be able to get replaceable filters. iSonic sells those for the P-4875 II, so I bought a 2-pack. They weren't expensive, and each filter will clean between 300-500 LPs, depending on how much club is in the grooves of your records. You'll save a lot of money on distilled water!
Listening is believing, and I have to say that some records sound almost the same after the VPI treatment as they did before it. I did even more digging and stumbled across something called cavitation - otherwise known as ultrasonic cleaning. It's something that has recently been discussed on various audiophile websites and in various publications, and there are now several machines out there that are capable of cleaning records this way.
The one I first learned about was developed by Charles Kirmuss, of Kirmuss Audio, and is called the KA-RC-1 (pictured above). Michael Fremer posted a video of Kirmuss cleaning a record with his machine and it intrigued me enough to dig even deeper. What I learned is this: ultrasonic record cleaning is definitely not snake oil, even though Charles Kirmuss comes across like a snake oil salesman. Why he feels he needs to dress like a doctor I can't begin to imagine, and I caught myself cringing at certain points during his presentation. Seriously, this guy could use a decent PR person. There's just something about the way he presents himself that seems a bit off-putting, a bit Barnum and Bailey. I'm certain he means well, but over time - as I talked to various Canadian Kirmuss dealers (many who turned out to be ex-Kirmuss dealers) - they pretty much all said the same thing: Kirmuss was somewhat of an eccentric character and could be a difficult personality to deal with. That aside, there's also the cost of the KA-RC-1 - about $1,300 CAD - although most serious record collectors, myself included, don't consider that prohibitive given the value of a decent-sized record collection (and also when compared to, say, the Degritter (another ultrasonic cleaner), which costs almost four times as much).
I continued digging and learned about the iSonic P4875 II. It's an alternative to the KA-RC-1, and is basically the exact same machine minus the custom Kirmuss top and the software algorithm. I also heard that Kirmuss adjusted the position of the transducer on the KA-RC-1, although I'm not convinced that really matters. Both machines operate at the same frequency (35 kHz)
The iSonic is quite a bit cheaper than the KA-RC-1, by as much as $200 or more depending where you buy it. So I took the plunge and bought one. Read on for my review.
THE iSONIC
The iSonic is very easy to put together and also feels very sturdy. The arm that holds the records can be hung on either side of the unit, so it doesn't matter if you're right or left-handed. There is a "max" line to which you need to fill the tub with distilled water, which takes about one-and-a-half jugs of the stuff. You actually have to fill it slightly above the max line to ensure all the grooves on the record are adequately submerged. This is also mentioned in the instruction booklet, which makes me wonder why they don't just raise the max line a little bit.
Some people use reverse osmosis water, but I have been using distilled water. I'm not sure there's a difference, and the consensus seems to be there isn't.
It is possible to clean five LPs at once on my iSonic, something the Kirmuss doesn't allow. You can actually do 10 LPs on the iSonic with the addition of an optional arm accessory, but trust me - that's more than you'll want to do all at once. Cleaning 10 records will easily eat up an evening. Below is the iSonic P4875. You can easily see how similar it is to the Kirmuss.
SURFACTANT
I added a capful of a surfactant to the water. Surfactant is an additive that lowers the surface tension of the water and allows the ultrasonic scrubbing bubbles to do their job. Without it, you will not get the full benefit of ultrasonic cleaning because it helps dislodge the grunge in the bottom of the groove. Some people apply surfactant to the record before and between ultrasonic bath cycles, and part of this review will be to test if doing so actually makes a difference. The surfactant itself doesn't actually clean anything, but it really is necessary to the process. It loosens things up. There are all kinds of surfactants out there - you can even make your own - but you do need to use something. To be clear: your records won't be as clean as ultrasonic cleaning can get them if you don't use a surfactant.
Degassing is also an essential step after you add the surfactant to the bath. The degass button has to be pressed twice to activate the process, and doing so initiates a 96-second process that gets rid of all the bubbles in the water, most of which were created when the surfactant was added to the tank. I am convinced degassing is an essential step and I do it twice, even though the iSonic instruction booklet lists degassing as an optional step. It really isn't. If you skip the degassing step the cavitation process is compromised as the bubbles become a barrier to the cavitation action. And running the degassing process twice seems to be what the pros in the "ultrasonic know" are recommending. I did notice there were still a few bubbles in the water after only one degassing. After two, they were all gone. Or … you can just run the machine for a few minutes before using it.
The water should be heated, and the iSonic has a built-in heater that keeps the temp at about 35 degrees, which is the recommended temperature.
Although Charles Kirmuss insists on spraying a final application of surfactant onto the record after the cleaning process is complete, which he says guards against fungus and static, I don't agree with him. Why put more "stuff" on the record after you put it through the ultrasonic process to get rid of all the stuff that was put on the record previously, including soaps, surfactant and whatever else? When I'm done cleaning a record in the iSonic I rinse it with more distilled water (I use a squirt bottle) and dry it with my old VPI 16.5. That's all I use the VPI for these days - drying my ultrasonically-cleaned records. I then store the record in a new sleeve (I use the ones made by Mobile Fidelity). In all the decades I've been collecting records I've never had one sprout fungus and I know how to handle static, so I'm not too concerned about those things and I'd rather not have anything on the record in the groove between the music and me. I dunno - maybe Kirmuss just wants to sell more surfactant.
Right now I have two different surfactant solutions: the iSonic brand (a concentrate) that came in the box with the machine and, according to the label on the bottle is supposedly terrific for cleaning eyewear and jewellery, too. I also have something called Professional Formulation Record Cleaning Solution (PFRCS), which was provided to me by the dealer from whom I bought the iSonic. It's not a concentrate and is made by a company called Tri-Art Audio, but I can't tell you much about them because the website printed on the label on the bottle doesn't exist. And it was not cheap - $44 for a 2-litre bottle that is probably just distilled water with a bit of isopropyl alcohol added in. But, as no ingredients are listed on the label I'm not sure about that. Anyway … I don't use it.
UPDATE
NEW FORMULA
After considerable experimentation I have decided on the following formula: 1.5 gallons of distilled water, mixed with 20 drops of Turgikeen. Rinse with water and dry.
How does one use an ultrasonic record cleaning machine? After putting the machine together, which was easy using the supplied instructions and did not take long at all, I filled the tub with the correct amount of distilled water and added the surfactant, as instructed. I ran the degassing step and heated the water. After the water temperature was achieved I placed a record on the arm of the unit between two of the supplied label protectors and secured it into place. I then pushed the arm forward so that the bottom half of the record was immersed in the water. I pushed the button on the back of the arm and the record started to rotate at 5 rpm.
NO ADDED SURFACTANT
Although I did add the surfactant to the bath, I did not apply any to the record itself beforehand. The record in question is a copy of Alan Parsons' iRobot, a Mobile Fidelity UHQR pressing, that is a little noisy in the quiet spots and has one big TICK! about 30 seconds into the second track on side one. Ultrasonic cleaning can not fix physical damage such as scratches, and that's what I've always assumed that tick was. But what if it isn't? I only hear it once when I play the record. Wouldn't a scratch - especially one that can cause such a loud pop - last more than just one rotation? What if it's just a stubborn bit of gunk that no other process has so far been able to get rid of? What if the iSonic is able to dislodge it? That would be impressive, especially since the reason I got a really good deal on the record when I bought it was because of that loud tick.
I selected a cycle time of five minutes and pushed the start button on the side of the tub. The water in the tub started to vibrate slightly. There was a buzzing noise but nothing as loud as the Hoover-like noise my VPI generates that always upsets my dog. When the five minutes was up I lifted the record out of the bath and let it air dry. Included in the box was a little plastic brick that, when wedged under the record arm, positions the records on a 45-degree angle that is supposed to be ideally suited to air drying them. So that's what I did.
I sprayed on some distilled water and wiped it off with a couple of the supplied KwikWipes before drying it with the VP 16.5. Then I played the record and the results were, in a word, astonishing. Except for the one loud tick that has always been there, the record was completely quiet. And the tick wasn't as loud as it had been previously, although I did catch myself wondering if I was imagining that. Was this just a case of an audiophile (me) hearing what he wanted to hear? We're always being accused of that, but this time there also seemed to be a lot more depth to the music that wasn't as obvious before and it was something that was easy to hear. It was very apparent, and everyone in the room could hear it. So I decided the tick really was quieter than it had been. It wasn't a case of "audiophile ears".
And it got me to thinking … if I put the record through another cleaning cycle - this time applying surfactant beforehand - might I actually be able to get rid of the tick completely? Was that noise something other than physical damage to the record?
SURFACTANT ADDED
Feeling somewhat giddy with expectation I took the record back to the iSonic. I degassed the water and applied a light spray of surfactant (three misty squirts of PFRCS from a spray bottle) directly onto the surface of the record and used the brush that came with my VPI 16.5 to get it into the grooves.
I tilted the iSonic's arm forward and submerged the record into the tank for another five-minute cycle. When the cycle completed, I raised the record out of the water and let it air dry on the recommended 45-degree angle before rinsing it and wiping it dry with a microfibre cloth (which I thought I'd use instead of the KwikWipes this time 'round, although not for any particular reason). Then I vacuum-dried the record again, took it upstairs and dropped the needle onto the outer edge of record. I sat down in the sweet spot in front of the speakers. I turned the volume way up and listened. The turntable's arm slowly made its way across the surface of the record. Track two started to play. I braced myself for the usual loud CRACK!, which has been there on every listen for more than thirty years. But this time - drum roll, please - it didn't happen! The loud tick was gone and not even a trace of it remained! Nothing! It was completely not there, as though it had never existed. I was hoping for but not really expecting this result, so I was very much impressed by what I heard - or rather, didn't hear. That tick was obviously caused by debris of some kind - dust or dirt or whatever it was - that had adhered to the wall or floor of the groove. But the ultrasonic cleaning process got rid of it entirely and restored the LP to the best state it can possibly be in. No other cleaning process I have ever used over the years - and I have tried just about everything out there - has been able to do this. I could go on and on and fling every superlative I can think of at you, but there really isn't any need. The bottom line is ultrasonic record restoration just works. It's worth the cost of admission, which doesn't have to be an arm or a leg.
To summarize: ultrasonic "cleaning" …
∙ doesn't have to be expensive
∙ really does work
∙ takes time and effort
∙ won't fix scratches or other physical damage
∙ requires patience
UPDATE
THE IMPORTANCE OF FILTERING
When you start ultrasonically restoring your records, you'll start to notice all kinds a debris accumulating in the solution. For a while I didn't pay it much mind and just changed the water. But that starts to get a bit expensive and also takes more time than I want to spend doing it. After a bunch of research I bought a 1-micron filter unit specially designed for the iSonic (pictured below). I could have built my own filtration system, but I wouldn't have saved much money and it would have taken time and probably wouldn't have been very elegant.
WHAT'S A MICRON
Many people are adding filters to their ultrasonic cleaners, with fish tank filters being particularly popular. Others have created home-made filtration systems using coffee filters. But be careful. Your cleaning solution requires the removal of very minute particles, and a 1-micron filter is able to do this. A micron equals one-millionth of a meter, or one-thousandth of a millimetre. Fish tank filters tend to be 20 or 30-microns, which I don't think is fine enough. Coffee filters are no better, even when doubled-up. There are lots of DIY ideas on the Internet, but I would suggest purchasing a filter made by the people who made your unit as it will work efficiently and has been tested to ensure it does. You'll also be able to get replaceable filters. iSonic sells those for the P-4875 II, so I bought a 2-pack. They weren't expensive, and each filter will clean between 300-500 LPs, depending on how much club is in the grooves of your records. You'll save a lot of money on distilled water!
WHEN MY RECORD COLLECTION got big enough I started to spend a lot of time considering how to best take care of it - and for me, just like for most people, that comes down to keeping our records clean. But - as discussed in Part One of this rant - that's no easy task. In fact, it's an enormous pain in the ass. The results, however, are worth it. My VPI 16.5 - which I've had for about 30 years - has done a reasonably decent job cleaning my vinyl, but there are times when I think it doesn't do enough. I'm hearing things I don't think I should be hearing post-cleaning: little ticks, scratchy surface noises … It's always kind of annoyed me, so I did a bit of research and learned there have been concerns about how most vacuum systems (like my VPI) actually spread dirt across records instead of lifting it off them. The problem lies with the felt on the vacuum tube: it's hard to keep clean and dirt adheres to it as a record gets vacuumed. Then it gets spread across the next record. I think it's a real problem, and the more I looked into it the more I became convinced that's what I was hearing. The felt is, after all, pressed hard up against the surface of the record during the vacuuming process. Even changing the felt every time I cleaned a record probably wouldn't help, seeing as how the dirt I just sucked out of the grooves of that record would come into contact with the felt of the suction arm as it dragged itself across the record. It would get put back in the groove, so to speak.
Listening is believing, and I have to say that some records sound almost the same after the VPI treatment as they did before it. I did even more digging and stumbled across something called cavitation - otherwise known as ultrasonic cleaning. It's something that has recently been discussed on various audiophile websites and in various publications, and there are now several machines out there that are capable of cleaning records this way.
The one I first learned about was developed by Charles Kirmuss, of Kirmuss Audio, and is called the KA-RC-1 (pictured above). Michael Fremer posted a video of Kirmuss cleaning a record with his machine and it intrigued me enough to dig even deeper. What I learned is this: ultrasonic record cleaning is definitely not snake oil, even though Charles Kirmuss comes across like a snake oil salesman. Why he feels he needs to dress like a doctor I can't begin to imagine, and I caught myself cringing at certain points during his presentation. Seriously, this guy could use a decent PR person. There's just something about the way he presents himself that seems a bit off-putting, a bit Barnum and Bailey. I'm certain he means well, but over time - as I talked to various Canadian Kirmuss dealers (many who turned out to be ex-Kirmuss dealers) - they pretty much all said the same thing: Kirmuss was somewhat of an eccentric character and could be a difficult personality to deal with. That aside, there's also the cost of the KA-RC-1 - about $1,300 CAD - although most serious record collectors, myself included, don't consider that prohibitive given the value of a decent-sized record collection (and also when compared to, say, the Degritter (another ultrasonic cleaner), which costs almost four times as much).
I continued digging and learned about the iSonic P4875 II. It's an alternative to the KA-RC-1, and is basically the exact same machine minus the custom Kirmuss top and the software algorithm. I also heard that Kirmuss adjusted the position of the transducer on the KA-RC-1, although I'm not convinced that really matters. Both machines operate at the same frequency (35 kHz)
The iSonic is quite a bit cheaper than the KA-RC-1, by as much as $200 or more depending where you buy it. So I took the plunge and bought one. Read on for my review.
THE iSONIC
The iSonic is very easy to put together and also feels very sturdy. The arm that holds the records can be hung on either side of the unit, so it doesn't matter if you're right or left-handed. There is a "max" line to which you need to fill the tub with distilled water, which takes about one-and-a-half jugs of the stuff. You actually have to fill it slightly above the max line to ensure all the grooves on the record are adequately submerged. This is also mentioned in the instruction booklet, which makes me wonder why they don't just raise the max line a little bit.
Some people use reverse osmosis water, but I have been using distilled water. I'm not sure there's a difference, and the consensus seems to be there isn't.
It is possible to clean five LPs at once on my iSonic, something the Kirmuss doesn't allow. You can actually do 10 LPs on the iSonic with the addition of an optional arm accessory, but trust me - that's more than you'll want to do all at once. Cleaning 10 records will easily eat up an evening. Below is the iSonic P4875. You can easily see how similar it is to the Kirmuss.
SURFACTANT
I added a capful of a surfactant to the water. Surfactant is an additive that lowers the surface tension of the water and allows the ultrasonic scrubbing bubbles to do their job. Without it, you will not get the full benefit of ultrasonic cleaning because it helps dislodge the grunge in the bottom of the groove. Some people apply surfactant to the record before and between ultrasonic bath cycles, and part of this review will be to test if doing so actually makes a difference. The surfactant itself doesn't actually clean anything, but it really is necessary to the process. It loosens things up. There are all kinds of surfactants out there - you can even make your own - but you do need to use something. To be clear: your records won't be as clean as ultrasonic cleaning can get them if you don't use a surfactant.
Degassing is also an essential step after you add the surfactant to the bath. The degass button has to be pressed twice to activate the process, and doing so initiates a 96-second process that gets rid of all the bubbles in the water, most of which were created when the surfactant was added to the tank. I am convinced degassing is an essential step and I do it twice, even though the iSonic instruction booklet lists degassing as an optional step. It really isn't. If you skip the degassing step the cavitation process is compromised as the bubbles become a barrier to the cavitation action. And running the degassing process twice seems to be what the pros in the "ultrasonic know" are recommending. I did notice there were still a few bubbles in the water after only one degassing. After two, they were all gone. Or … you can just run the machine for a few minutes before using it.
The water should be heated, and the iSonic has a built-in heater that keeps the temp at about 35 degrees, which is the recommended temperature.
Although Charles Kirmuss insists on spraying a final application of surfactant onto the record after the cleaning process is complete, which he says guards against fungus and static, I don't agree with him. Why put more "stuff" on the record after you put it through the ultrasonic process to get rid of all the stuff that was put on the record previously, including soaps, surfactant and whatever else? When I'm done cleaning a record in the iSonic I rinse it with more distilled water (I use a squirt bottle) and dry it with my old VPI 16.5. That's all I use the VPI for these days - drying my ultrasonically-cleaned records. I then store the record in a new sleeve (I use the ones made by Mobile Fidelity). In all the decades I've been collecting records I've never had one sprout fungus and I know how to handle static, so I'm not too concerned about those things and I'd rather not have anything on the record in the groove between the music and me. I dunno - maybe Kirmuss just wants to sell more surfactant.
Right now I have two different surfactant solutions: the iSonic brand (a concentrate) that came in the box with the machine and, according to the label on the bottle is supposedly terrific for cleaning eyewear and jewellery, too. I also have something called Professional Formulation Record Cleaning Solution (PFRCS), which was provided to me by the dealer from whom I bought the iSonic. It's not a concentrate and is made by a company called Tri-Art Audio, but I can't tell you much about them because the website printed on the label on the bottle doesn't exist. And it was not cheap - $44 for a 2-litre bottle that is probably just distilled water with a bit of isopropyl alcohol added in. But, as no ingredients are listed on the label I'm not sure about that. Anyway … I don't use it.
UPDATE
NEW FORMULA
After considerable experimentation I have decided on the following formula: 1.5 gallons of distilled water, mixed with 20 drops of Turgikeen. Rinse with water and dry.
How does one use an ultrasonic record cleaning machine? After putting the machine together, which was easy using the supplied instructions and did not take long at all, I filled the tub with the correct amount of distilled water and added the surfactant, as instructed. I ran the degassing step and heated the water. After the water temperature was achieved I placed a record on the arm of the unit between two of the supplied label protectors and secured it into place. I then pushed the arm forward so that the bottom half of the record was immersed in the water. I pushed the button on the back of the arm and the record started to rotate at 5 rpm.
NO ADDED SURFACTANT
Although I did add the surfactant to the bath, I did not apply any to the record itself beforehand. The record in question is a copy of Alan Parsons' iRobot, a Mobile Fidelity UHQR pressing, that is a little noisy in the quiet spots and has one big TICK! about 30 seconds into the second track on side one. Ultrasonic cleaning can not fix physical damage such as scratches, and that's what I've always assumed that tick was. But what if it isn't? I only hear it once when I play the record. Wouldn't a scratch - especially one that can cause such a loud pop - last more than just one rotation? What if it's just a stubborn bit of gunk that no other process has so far been able to get rid of? What if the iSonic is able to dislodge it? That would be impressive, especially since the reason I got a really good deal on the record when I bought it was because of that loud tick.
I selected a cycle time of five minutes and pushed the start button on the side of the tub. The water in the tub started to vibrate slightly. There was a buzzing noise but nothing as loud as the Hoover-like noise my VPI generates that always upsets my dog. When the five minutes was up I lifted the record out of the bath and let it air dry. Included in the box was a little plastic brick that, when wedged under the record arm, positions the records on a 45-degree angle that is supposed to be ideally suited to air drying them. So that's what I did.
I sprayed on some distilled water and wiped it off with a couple of the supplied KwikWipes before drying it with the VP 16.5. Then I played the record and the results were, in a word, astonishing. Except for the one loud tick that has always been there, the record was completely quiet. And the tick wasn't as loud as it had been previously, although I did catch myself wondering if I was imagining that. Was this just a case of an audiophile (me) hearing what he wanted to hear? We're always being accused of that, but this time there also seemed to be a lot more depth to the music that wasn't as obvious before and it was something that was easy to hear. It was very apparent, and everyone in the room could hear it. So I decided the tick really was quieter than it had been. It wasn't a case of "audiophile ears".
And it got me to thinking … if I put the record through another cleaning cycle - this time applying surfactant beforehand - might I actually be able to get rid of the tick completely? Was that noise something other than physical damage to the record?
SURFACTANT ADDED
Feeling somewhat giddy with expectation I took the record back to the iSonic. I degassed the water and applied a light spray of surfactant (three misty squirts of PFRCS from a spray bottle) directly onto the surface of the record and used the brush that came with my VPI 16.5 to get it into the grooves.
I tilted the iSonic's arm forward and submerged the record into the tank for another five-minute cycle. When the cycle completed, I raised the record out of the water and let it air dry on the recommended 45-degree angle before rinsing it and wiping it dry with a microfibre cloth (which I thought I'd use instead of the KwikWipes this time 'round, although not for any particular reason). Then I vacuum-dried the record again, took it upstairs and dropped the needle onto the outer edge of record. I sat down in the sweet spot in front of the speakers. I turned the volume way up and listened. The turntable's arm slowly made its way across the surface of the record. Track two started to play. I braced myself for the usual loud CRACK!, which has been there on every listen for more than thirty years. But this time - drum roll, please - it didn't happen! The loud tick was gone and not even a trace of it remained! Nothing! It was completely not there, as though it had never existed. I was hoping for but not really expecting this result, so I was very much impressed by what I heard - or rather, didn't hear. That tick was obviously caused by debris of some kind - dust or dirt or whatever it was - that had adhered to the wall or floor of the groove. But the ultrasonic cleaning process got rid of it entirely and restored the LP to the best state it can possibly be in. No other cleaning process I have ever used over the years - and I have tried just about everything out there - has been able to do this. I could go on and on and fling every superlative I can think of at you, but there really isn't any need. The bottom line is ultrasonic record restoration just works. It's worth the cost of admission, which doesn't have to be an arm or a leg.
To summarize: ultrasonic "cleaning" …
∙ doesn't have to be expensive
∙ really does work
∙ takes time and effort
∙ won't fix scratches or other physical damage
∙ requires patience
UPDATE
THE IMPORTANCE OF FILTERING
When you start ultrasonically restoring your records, you'll start to notice all kinds a debris accumulating in the solution. For a while I didn't pay it much mind and just changed the water. But that starts to get a bit expensive and also takes more time than I want to spend doing it. After a bunch of research I bought a 1-micron filter unit specially designed for the iSonic (pictured below). I could have built my own filtration system, but I wouldn't have saved much money and it would have taken time and probably wouldn't have been very elegant.
WHAT'S A MICRON
Many people are adding filters to their ultrasonic cleaners, with fish tank filters being particularly popular. Others have created home-made filtration systems using coffee filters. But be careful. Your cleaning solution requires the removal of very minute particles, and a 1-micron filter is able to do this. A micron equals one-millionth of a meter, or one-thousandth of a millimetre. Fish tank filters tend to be 20 or 30-microns, which I don't think is fine enough. Coffee filters are no better, even when doubled-up. There are lots of DIY ideas on the Internet, but I would suggest purchasing a filter made by the people who made your unit as it will work efficiently and has been tested to ensure it does. You'll also be able to get replaceable filters. iSonic sells those for the P-4875 II, so I bought a 2-pack. They weren't expensive, and each filter will clean between 300-500 LPs, depending on how much club is in the grooves of your records. You'll save a lot of money on distilled water!
Listening is believing, and I have to say that some records sound almost the same after the VPI treatment as they did before it. I did even more digging and stumbled across something called cavitation - otherwise known as ultrasonic cleaning. It's something that has recently been discussed on various audiophile websites and in various publications, and there are now several machines out there that are capable of cleaning records this way.
The one I first learned about was developed by Charles Kirmuss, of Kirmuss Audio, and is called the KA-RC-1 (pictured above). Michael Fremer posted a video of Kirmuss cleaning a record with his machine and it intrigued me enough to dig even deeper. What I learned is this: ultrasonic record cleaning is definitely not snake oil, even though Charles Kirmuss comes across like a snake oil salesman. Why he feels he needs to dress like a doctor I can't begin to imagine, and I caught myself cringing at certain points during his presentation. Seriously, this guy could use a decent PR person. There's just something about the way he presents himself that seems a bit off-putting, a bit Barnum and Bailey. I'm certain he means well, but over time - as I talked to various Canadian Kirmuss dealers (many who turned out to be ex-Kirmuss dealers) - they pretty much all said the same thing: Kirmuss was somewhat of an eccentric character and could be a difficult personality to deal with. That aside, there's also the cost of the KA-RC-1 - about $1,300 CAD - although most serious record collectors, myself included, don't consider that prohibitive given the value of a decent-sized record collection (and also when compared to, say, the Degritter (another ultrasonic cleaner), which costs almost four times as much).
I continued digging and learned about the iSonic P4875 II. It's an alternative to the KA-RC-1, and is basically the exact same machine minus the custom Kirmuss top and the software algorithm. I also heard that Kirmuss adjusted the position of the transducer on the KA-RC-1, although I'm not convinced that really matters. Both machines operate at the same frequency (35 kHz)
The iSonic is quite a bit cheaper than the KA-RC-1, by as much as $200 or more depending where you buy it. So I took the plunge and bought one. Read on for my review.
THE iSONIC
The iSonic is very easy to put together and also feels very sturdy. The arm that holds the records can be hung on either side of the unit, so it doesn't matter if you're right or left-handed. There is a "max" line to which you need to fill the tub with distilled water, which takes about one-and-a-half jugs of the stuff. You actually have to fill it slightly above the max line to ensure all the grooves on the record are adequately submerged. This is also mentioned in the instruction booklet, which makes me wonder why they don't just raise the max line a little bit.
Some people use reverse osmosis water, but I have been using distilled water. I'm not sure there's a difference, and the consensus seems to be there isn't.
It is possible to clean five LPs at once on my iSonic, something the Kirmuss doesn't allow. You can actually do 10 LPs on the iSonic with the addition of an optional arm accessory, but trust me - that's more than you'll want to do all at once. Cleaning 10 records will easily eat up an evening. Below is the iSonic P4875. You can easily see how similar it is to the Kirmuss.
SURFACTANT
I added a capful of a surfactant to the water. Surfactant is an additive that lowers the surface tension of the water and allows the ultrasonic scrubbing bubbles to do their job. Without it, you will not get the full benefit of ultrasonic cleaning because it helps dislodge the grunge in the bottom of the groove. Some people apply surfactant to the record before and between ultrasonic bath cycles, and part of this review will be to test if doing so actually makes a difference. The surfactant itself doesn't actually clean anything, but it really is necessary to the process. It loosens things up. There are all kinds of surfactants out there - you can even make your own - but you do need to use something. To be clear: your records won't be as clean as ultrasonic cleaning can get them if you don't use a surfactant.
Degassing is also an essential step after you add the surfactant to the bath. The degass button has to be pressed twice to activate the process, and doing so initiates a 96-second process that gets rid of all the bubbles in the water, most of which were created when the surfactant was added to the tank. I am convinced degassing is an essential step and I do it twice, even though the iSonic instruction booklet lists degassing as an optional step. It really isn't. If you skip the degassing step the cavitation process is compromised as the bubbles become a barrier to the cavitation action. And running the degassing process twice seems to be what the pros in the "ultrasonic know" are recommending. I did notice there were still a few bubbles in the water after only one degassing. After two, they were all gone. Or … you can just run the machine for a few minutes before using it.
The water should be heated, and the iSonic has a built-in heater that keeps the temp at about 35 degrees, which is the recommended temperature.
Although Charles Kirmuss insists on spraying a final application of surfactant onto the record after the cleaning process is complete, which he says guards against fungus and static, I don't agree with him. Why put more "stuff" on the record after you put it through the ultrasonic process to get rid of all the stuff that was put on the record previously, including soaps, surfactant and whatever else? When I'm done cleaning a record in the iSonic I rinse it with more distilled water (I use a squirt bottle) and dry it with my old VPI 16.5. That's all I use the VPI for these days - drying my ultrasonically-cleaned records. I then store the record in a new sleeve (I use the ones made by Mobile Fidelity). In all the decades I've been collecting records I've never had one sprout fungus and I know how to handle static, so I'm not too concerned about those things and I'd rather not have anything on the record in the groove between the music and me. I dunno - maybe Kirmuss just wants to sell more surfactant.
Right now I have two different surfactant solutions: the iSonic brand (a concentrate) that came in the box with the machine and, according to the label on the bottle is supposedly terrific for cleaning eyewear and jewellery, too. I also have something called Professional Formulation Record Cleaning Solution (PFRCS), which was provided to me by the dealer from whom I bought the iSonic. It's not a concentrate and is made by a company called Tri-Art Audio, but I can't tell you much about them because the website printed on the label on the bottle doesn't exist. And it was not cheap - $44 for a 2-litre bottle that is probably just distilled water with a bit of isopropyl alcohol added in. But, as no ingredients are listed on the label I'm not sure about that. Anyway … I don't use it.
UPDATE
NEW FORMULA
After considerable experimentation I have decided on the following formula: 1.5 gallons of distilled water, mixed with 20 drops of Turgikeen. Rinse with water and dry.
How does one use an ultrasonic record cleaning machine? After putting the machine together, which was easy using the supplied instructions and did not take long at all, I filled the tub with the correct amount of distilled water and added the surfactant, as instructed. I ran the degassing step and heated the water. After the water temperature was achieved I placed a record on the arm of the unit between two of the supplied label protectors and secured it into place. I then pushed the arm forward so that the bottom half of the record was immersed in the water. I pushed the button on the back of the arm and the record started to rotate at 5 rpm.
NO ADDED SURFACTANT
Although I did add the surfactant to the bath, I did not apply any to the record itself beforehand. The record in question is a copy of Alan Parsons' iRobot, a Mobile Fidelity UHQR pressing, that is a little noisy in the quiet spots and has one big TICK! about 30 seconds into the second track on side one. Ultrasonic cleaning can not fix physical damage such as scratches, and that's what I've always assumed that tick was. But what if it isn't? I only hear it once when I play the record. Wouldn't a scratch - especially one that can cause such a loud pop - last more than just one rotation? What if it's just a stubborn bit of gunk that no other process has so far been able to get rid of? What if the iSonic is able to dislodge it? That would be impressive, especially since the reason I got a really good deal on the record when I bought it was because of that loud tick.
I selected a cycle time of five minutes and pushed the start button on the side of the tub. The water in the tub started to vibrate slightly. There was a buzzing noise but nothing as loud as the Hoover-like noise my VPI generates that always upsets my dog. When the five minutes was up I lifted the record out of the bath and let it air dry. Included in the box was a little plastic brick that, when wedged under the record arm, positions the records on a 45-degree angle that is supposed to be ideally suited to air drying them. So that's what I did.
I sprayed on some distilled water and wiped it off with a couple of the supplied KwikWipes before drying it with the VP 16.5. Then I played the record and the results were, in a word, astonishing. Except for the one loud tick that has always been there, the record was completely quiet. And the tick wasn't as loud as it had been previously, although I did catch myself wondering if I was imagining that. Was this just a case of an audiophile (me) hearing what he wanted to hear? We're always being accused of that, but this time there also seemed to be a lot more depth to the music that wasn't as obvious before and it was something that was easy to hear. It was very apparent, and everyone in the room could hear it. So I decided the tick really was quieter than it had been. It wasn't a case of "audiophile ears".
And it got me to thinking … if I put the record through another cleaning cycle - this time applying surfactant beforehand - might I actually be able to get rid of the tick completely? Was that noise something other than physical damage to the record?
SURFACTANT ADDED
Feeling somewhat giddy with expectation I took the record back to the iSonic. I degassed the water and applied a light spray of surfactant (three misty squirts of PFRCS from a spray bottle) directly onto the surface of the record and used the brush that came with my VPI 16.5 to get it into the grooves.
I tilted the iSonic's arm forward and submerged the record into the tank for another five-minute cycle. When the cycle completed, I raised the record out of the water and let it air dry on the recommended 45-degree angle before rinsing it and wiping it dry with a microfibre cloth (which I thought I'd use instead of the KwikWipes this time 'round, although not for any particular reason). Then I vacuum-dried the record again, took it upstairs and dropped the needle onto the outer edge of record. I sat down in the sweet spot in front of the speakers. I turned the volume way up and listened. The turntable's arm slowly made its way across the surface of the record. Track two started to play. I braced myself for the usual loud CRACK!, which has been there on every listen for more than thirty years. But this time - drum roll, please - it didn't happen! The loud tick was gone and not even a trace of it remained! Nothing! It was completely not there, as though it had never existed. I was hoping for but not really expecting this result, so I was very much impressed by what I heard - or rather, didn't hear. That tick was obviously caused by debris of some kind - dust or dirt or whatever it was - that had adhered to the wall or floor of the groove. But the ultrasonic cleaning process got rid of it entirely and restored the LP to the best state it can possibly be in. No other cleaning process I have ever used over the years - and I have tried just about everything out there - has been able to do this. I could go on and on and fling every superlative I can think of at you, but there really isn't any need. The bottom line is ultrasonic record restoration just works. It's worth the cost of admission, which doesn't have to be an arm or a leg.
To summarize: ultrasonic "cleaning" …
∙ doesn't have to be expensive
∙ really does work
∙ takes time and effort
∙ won't fix scratches or other physical damage
∙ requires patience
UPDATE
THE IMPORTANCE OF FILTERING
When you start ultrasonically restoring your records, you'll start to notice all kinds a debris accumulating in the solution. For a while I didn't pay it much mind and just changed the water. But that starts to get a bit expensive and also takes more time than I want to spend doing it. After a bunch of research I bought a 1-micron filter unit specially designed for the iSonic (pictured below). I could have built my own filtration system, but I wouldn't have saved much money and it would have taken time and probably wouldn't have been very elegant.
WHAT'S A MICRON
Many people are adding filters to their ultrasonic cleaners, with fish tank filters being particularly popular. Others have created home-made filtration systems using coffee filters. But be careful. Your cleaning solution requires the removal of very minute particles, and a 1-micron filter is able to do this. A micron equals one-millionth of a meter, or one-thousandth of a millimetre. Fish tank filters tend to be 20 or 30-microns, which I don't think is fine enough. Coffee filters are no better, even when doubled-up. There are lots of DIY ideas on the Internet, but I would suggest purchasing a filter made by the people who made your unit as it will work efficiently and has been tested to ensure it does. You'll also be able to get replaceable filters. iSonic sells those for the P-4875 II, so I bought a 2-pack. They weren't expensive, and each filter will clean between 300-500 LPs, depending on how much club is in the grooves of your records. You'll save a lot of money on distilled water!
BONUS TRACK
THE COST OF ULTRASONIC CLEANING …
There are all kinds of ultrasonic record cleaning options out there for the discerning audiophile, ranging from relatively cheap DIY setups to the fully automatic and much more expensive Audio Desk and Degritter.
Somewhere in the middle is my machine - the iSonic - and most other machine's too, such as Charles Kirmuss' RC-1.
They exist because records are very dirty things.
And all ultrasonic machines do the same thing, more-or-less, which is get your records as clean as possible. In fact, ultrasonic record cleaning should probably be referred to as a record restoration process as opposed to record cleaning because that's really what these machines do: they don't clean your records. They restore them to the best possible state.
Maybe someday in the future there will be some magical process that bests this method and will be able to utilize an as yet impossible to imagine algorithm to fill in scratch gaps, but until then this is going to be as good as it gets.
If you have a large record collection and/or some valuable records, investing in an ultrasonic machine is an expense you really owe it to yourself to consider. Other types of record cleaning systems (vacuums, brushes, rollers, whatever) will help keep your records clean - sort of, anyway - but only ultrasonic agitation can restore them to their best possible state.
t's almost like getting your virginity back.
Purchasing an ultrasonic cleaner does not have to be an expensive proposition. While a good audiophile will always first consult with his or her partner before delving into the ultrasonic universe (this isn't just sneaking a couple of records into the house), there are - in addition to the really expensive and fully automatic machines - several DIY options available that will make that conversation easier.
I think the iSonic is a reasonable middle ground, but I could have spent even less.
Aside from the iSonic (which I have reviewed on this page), these are some of your other ultrasonic record restoration options …
THE COST OF ULTRASONIC CLEANING …
There are all kinds of ultrasonic record cleaning options out there for the discerning audiophile, ranging from relatively cheap DIY setups to the fully automatic and much more expensive Audio Desk and Degritter.
Somewhere in the middle is my machine - the iSonic - and most other machine's too, such as Charles Kirmuss' RC-1.
They exist because records are very dirty things.
And all ultrasonic machines do the same thing, more-or-less, which is get your records as clean as possible. In fact, ultrasonic record cleaning should probably be referred to as a record restoration process as opposed to record cleaning because that's really what these machines do: they don't clean your records. They restore them to the best possible state.
Maybe someday in the future there will be some magical process that bests this method and will be able to utilize an as yet impossible to imagine algorithm to fill in scratch gaps, but until then this is going to be as good as it gets.
If you have a large record collection and/or some valuable records, investing in an ultrasonic machine is an expense you really owe it to yourself to consider. Other types of record cleaning systems (vacuums, brushes, rollers, whatever) will help keep your records clean - sort of, anyway - but only ultrasonic agitation can restore them to their best possible state.
t's almost like getting your virginity back.
Purchasing an ultrasonic cleaner does not have to be an expensive proposition. While a good audiophile will always first consult with his or her partner before delving into the ultrasonic universe (this isn't just sneaking a couple of records into the house), there are - in addition to the really expensive and fully automatic machines - several DIY options available that will make that conversation easier.
I think the iSonic is a reasonable middle ground, but I could have spent even less.
Aside from the iSonic (which I have reviewed on this page), these are some of your other ultrasonic record restoration options …
THE DEGRITTER
COST: $4,600
www.degritter.com
PROS
Fully automatic
Small footprint
Dries records automatically
Looks awesome!
CONS
Friggin' expensive!
Can't believe how expensive it is
Can only do one record at a time
Holy CRAP it's expensive!
KIRMUSS AUDIO KA-RC-1
COST: $1,350
Kirmuss Audio
PROS
Does a really good job
Affordable
Attractive
CONS
Not fully automatic
Accessories are expensive
AUDIO DESK
COST: $4,500
PROS
Does a really good job
Small footprint
CONS
REALLY expensive!
Accessories are expensive
HUMMINGURU
COST: $500
DesignBoom
PROS
Affordable
Small footprint
Fully automatic
CONS
Mixed reviews
