Acoustic Sounds



By: Michael Fremer

April 3rd, 2023


Record Cleaning

The KLAUDIO KD-CLN-LP200T Cavitation-Based Record Cleaning Machine

costly, but reliable, reasonably quiet and efficacious

This is probably the most costly cavitation based machine you can buy and it's also most likely the most ruggedly built and if not the most effective, among the most effective and easy to use. When you read "the most" or "the best" and the reviewer writing or saying that hasn't sampled every possible contender, whether it's a cleaning machine, or an amplifier or a turntable, or whatever, it's pure clickbait and nothing more. And it's so tiresome, though unintentionally funny. Like reviews from newbie reviewers that conclude "If there's a better (fill in the blank) I haven't heard it!" (and he's heard 3 in his year long reviewing career). I haven't used every cavitation based machine, so no "global" pronouncements!

Because the pump and water tank on this machine are on the outside, should the pump fail, it's user-replaceable and it can be done in minutes. These are extremely reliable machines with a long running track record for working heavy duty hours under extreme conditions. This sample has been 100% reliable over a long time period.

It's the machine Acousticsounds uses to clean used records it sells and according to Chad Kassem it sometimes has the ability to turn VG and VG+ records into M- records. That's been my experience as well, which is why I bought the review sample shortly after purchase. I still use the Kirmuss machine for record restoration, as discussed in this video and the Audio Deske remains a good, if less than fully reliable machine, though it is not a true cavitation-based cleaning machine.

The KLAUDIO machine costs $6499 and in America is available only from The manufacturer stopped making these machines because he found it too costly to build and he wasn't making any money on it. Acoustic Sounds convinced him to build some, but they had to buy then entire run at what was the retail price. That accounts in part for why it's so expensive—along with the fact that the build quality is unsurpassed.

Before the video review itself, I go into a long, detailed description of cavitation because I don't think it's been critically addressed in the online and written reviews I've watched and read. And even here, after a great deal of research and consultation I'm not 100% certain everything presented is totally accurate, however I think it is. Finding cavitation experts is not easy!

This machine does its job without the addition of any surfactants, additives, detergents, miracle ingredients, wood glue, maple syrup or whatever other nonsense some online "authorities" claim improve performance. I've used it for months using just reverse osmosis water, though I've found distilled from the supermarket also works fine. The instructions say "tap water" but mine is so heavily chlorinated that we use a soft water system here and I'm not sure the soft water salt is good for either the machine or the records so only R.O. or store bought distilled for me. I don't understand why KLAUDIO recommends tap water.

This machine has a few options I didn't try like a direct to your plumbing connection, which adds convenience as it does for espresso machines that offer that, but again I'd only do it directly off the R.O. output (for both records and coffee!). There's also a cooling system option for heavy users. It's important to remember that cavitation generates heat so it's important to take the water's temperature if you do clean a lot of records in a single session, which I don't.

Though the filter is supposed to allow you to clean up to 500 records before changing the water, I'd rather be safe so I change the water every 50 or so records.

There are references to Charles Kirmuss and his machine and his restoration process, which takes record cleaning to another level. It's time consuming and not everyone wants to go to such lengths to achieve cleaning perfection but it's nonetheless an interesting and useful methodology that I have been skeptical about from "day one". Over time, Kirmuss has bought the tools and done the research to demonstrate the efficacy of what he does.

One point I want to make about the Kirmuss system, which is that while it doesn't fan dry records and you need to use a microfiber cloth for drying, his process produces a record that's almost dry when I remove it from the water bath so drying is a quick few passes of the cloth.

At the end of this review there's a demo of Kirmuss's "tin foil test", which he says separates the real cavitation machines from the ones in name only. Watch for it!

There will be future review of the iSonic machine, a reconsideration of the Audio Deske and perhaps a review of the HumminGuru if we can get a review sample, or if someone wants to lend one for review.

I remain 100 open to corrections and additions to what's included in this video review, but for now, based on experience with this machine, I do not understand why anyone would use any sort of additive to a machine that genuinely cavitates records. Just plain water cleans records extremely well and absolutely removes many pops and clicks, some of which have been all too familiar "friends" for decades!


owner's manual

Manufacturer Information

manufacturer's information


  • 2023-04-03 02:17:23 PM

    Fred Morris wrote:

    Thanks Michael. I believe you favorably reviewed the more reasonably priced Degritter awhile back. Could you let us know where you believe it now stands in this field.

    • 2023-04-03 10:00:03 PM

      Michael Fremer wrote:

      I’d like to get a sample of the new Degritter but it’s not likely as explained in the video…

      • 2023-04-04 10:50:09 AM

        bwb wrote:

        About surfactant residue on the record and the new rinse tank.: First question is how much residue if any will affect the sound? While it is indisputable that some amount will remain, does it really matter and if it does how much does it take to affect the sound? Maybe the first playing wipes it away? Secondly, even if you rinse in the finite amount of water from a second tank you can't get it all off since the rinse water immediately contains some, and unless you change the rinse water each time, it gets more and more with every rinse. Is the rinse tank looking to solve a problem that doesn't exist just to appease the OCD users?

        • 2023-04-04 11:21:52 AM

          Charles Kirmuss wrote:

          Just my 2 cents. If a record needs extensive air blowing or vacuum drying as a record comes out wet (before the drying process), you are correct in your assumption where drying will do something, one would think.

        • 2023-04-09 08:46:26 AM

          Mark Harding wrote:

          Different surfactants have different audible residue risks. I’ve cleaned, recorded and blind tested a bunch to find those I can use without risk of residue. A clean water rinse tank is usually sufficient to remove residue, although some chemicals are “stickier” than others.

          • 2023-04-09 11:24:50 AM

            bwb wrote:

            care to share ?

  • 2023-04-03 02:30:27 PM

    Brenro wrote:

    RO water may be perfect for RCM's but it's not especially healthful for drinking. You're not being hydrated sufficiently due to the water having had its essential minerals stripped along with the potentially harmful contaminants. You want water that contains magnesium, calcium, dissolved salts, and bicarbonate ion. Almost all bottled water is RO water that has then been re-mineralized. Your coffee will taste a helluva lot better too. As for RCM's, my budget only currently allows for a Record Doctor VI but a cavitation machine is most certainly on my wish list.

    • 2023-04-03 10:12:56 PM

      Michael Fremer wrote:

      I’ve done my research on this and I have to disagree starting with the fact that my local water has some nasty carcinogens in it the R.O. removes. In addition: “The removal of minerals from water is far less of a health concern in a developed country like the United States than it is in other parts of the world. In the United States, most people get the required minerals from their diet alone.” Plus we regularly drink bottled carbonated water. I’m very particular about my coffee. I roast my own beans. The R.O. water produces great tasting coffee!

      • 2023-04-04 10:53:40 AM

        Brenro wrote:

        Agree to disagree. I also roast my own beans and am quite fanatical about my coffee. Reverse osmosis water removes the minerals from the water, the coffee’s soluble solids imparted from the brewing process and its aromatic coffee flavors cannot attach itself to the mineral ions thus resulting in a flat-tasting cup of coffee.

        • 2023-04-09 11:54:33 AM

          Michael Fremer wrote:

          how dare you charge my coffee with tasting flat! :-). it doesn't, you can be sure....

      • 2023-04-05 01:43:16 AM

        freejazz00 wrote:

        Quick note: not all RO water is equal, much like other things in life. RO systems vary in the pressure applied and the membrane used. That said Mr. Kinney is correct that drinking RO water is a problem if minerals are not dissolved back into the water before consumption. The reason for this is water's ability to remove minerals from your body. Water is so efficient at taking minerals into solution that very pure water can actually deplete minerals from the body of the consumer. Drinking RO, or lab grade water, water can be harmful.

        • 2023-04-09 11:56:11 AM

          Michael Fremer wrote:

          I've read conflicting things about this. However, we drink bottled carbonated water as well and the carcinogens reported to be in the local water supply is not something I wish to ingest!

          • 2023-04-09 12:03:57 PM

            Michael Fremer wrote:

            "The Ridgewood City Water Department alerting them their water system exceeds state levels of a class of chemicals called PFAS and PFOAS". So, I'd rather remove those with R.O. and be sure to get the other minerals "elsewhere".

            • 2023-04-10 12:13:45 AM

              freejazz00 wrote:

              I've no opinion about your local water supply. I believe you when you say there are problems with it. My point is that drinking pure RO water without mineral additives can cause health problems because, when the water has been treated down the level of removing salts, consuming that water will deplete you body of minerals. Water treatment organizations need to put salts back into the water before they put the water back into the local supply system because RO water will take minerals out of the concrete and metal pipes. Imagine what it would do to your body?! I should specify here that not all RO water is the same: it is not all treated to the same level. RO is a process whereby water is forced through a membrane under incredibly high pressure to remove impurities. When you drink RO water from the supermarket it has been buffered after treatment so that it can be ingested. Lab-grade water from systems like Millipore can't be consumed without causing problems.,nav

              • 2023-04-10 12:34:10 AM

                freejazz00 wrote:

                Buffered isn't the correct term here, so apologies to anyone who caught me. What I meant to write is minerals dissolved into solution.

                • 2023-07-04 02:31:27 AM

                  freejazz00 wrote:

                  A quick correction and an apology: I was working on a local treatment system an was discussing the effluent from the treatment system with a non-engineer. I was trying to explain to the non-engineer the resultant water quality and I realized that explanations weren't helpful to the individual so I changed my explanation strategy. This discussion made me think about my post above and I want to apologize for its unclarity. In the lab we generally work with four grades of water: type 1, type 2, type 3 and type 4. Type 1 is the most pure and type 4 is the least pure. The standards organization that developed this particular specification is called ASTM. Type 3 is roughly equivalent in concentrations of sodium and chloride of approximately 10 ug per liter of water and most folks think of this as RO water. That is, it is similar to what you get at the grocery store and what your local water agency might have as the product of their treatment when using RO for water treatment. It is also approximately the same is what the navy gives to sailors and submariners on long voyages, as it is produced ship side. When I note that all RO water isn't the same, in my comment above, I'm referring to type 1 water, which we use in the lab, and has concentrations of sodium and chloride of 1 ug per liter. Someone can safely drink type 3 water with no ill effects. Someone likely can drink a glass or so of type 1 water. Generally, however, don't drink more than 1 glass of it - it isn't good for you. Again, apologies for the poorly worded comment.

  • 2023-04-03 03:04:02 PM

    bwb wrote:

    very interesting. I have a question about heat. . You said that heat was to be avoided. How did you determine this? This is a very serious question. Although it is logical to assume that heat is bad for a record especially after seeing one warped beyond repair after leaving it sitting in the sun in the back of my car, I have used both steam and very hot water on a record and did not find any detrimental after effects. Using the HifiGem system where you spray copious amounts of water to rinse the record I've done it with water almost too hot to hold you hand under. The hot water even warps very thin records but they go back to flat as soon as you let them cool down a few seconds. The records I've done like this sound wonderful. Maybe they would be more wonderful using cold water?

    • 2023-04-04 11:41:56 AM

      Charles Kirmuss wrote:

      Just as the size of the Ultrasonic's tank is vital to succesful cleaning and not overloading it with too many records, reference:, heated water is needed for any ultrasonic to increase cleaning efficiency. ref: just one of many manufacturers:; "QUOTE: Heat is very important in ultrasonic cleaning. It helps a lot in removing contaminants, thus making the cleaning faster and more effective. Also, many cleaning solutions clean best when the temperature is high." END QUOTE.

      Cavitation in itself generates heat. When dealing with records, cool fresh water (usually room temperature, depending on season, 68 deg F,), with or without a surfactant added, needs to be heated. Then, cavitation will handle the rest.

      Ultrasonics used in record cleaning should allow one to be alerted to when the temperature of an ultrasonic's bath is too high for the safety of the record.

      As you discovered: The "plasticizer" in the record allows for records to return to their "rest" (Pressed position) after cleaning or play. You have noted this. Records that have been cleaned prior using cleaning solutions made up of ethers, ethylene oxide, large concentrations of alcohol will have issues as to returning to this rest position. This has been associated and viewed in studies of structures relating to "Creep deflection in beams" (metal) and can be inferred.

  • 2023-04-03 04:00:13 PM

    Ondrej wrote:

    I have also always wondered why you'd want to add a surfactant to a cavitation-based cleaning machine and the only reason that comes to my mind (and I may be totally wrong) is to lower the tension of the water surface, where some of the dirt might be flowing. As the surface of the water gets pumped out and its surface lowers (or when you remove the record), the flowing dirt might stick back to the surface of the record. Put a spoon in a cup with water and sprinkle some finely ground coffee on top. Now try to take the spoon out of the cup and I bet there's going to be quite some of that coffee stuck to the spoon. If you find a way of making the coffee sink to the bottom (usually by stirring the liquid or perhaps by adding some agent to lower the surface tension---surfactant), you get your spoon out nice and clean---well maybe with a little surfactant residue on it...

  • 2023-04-03 04:10:03 PM

    Eugene Harrington wrote:

    I have been using the KLAUDIO KD-CLN-LP200 Rev.4 unit since December 2014. This is the previous iteration of Klaudio's Ultrasonic RCM with internal reservoir. Frankly, the machine is a revelation and what it does for vinyl records is mesmerising. It is a complete game changer in terms of vinyl maintenance. You can now have vinyl performance that matches the quietness of CD, provided your records have been well cared for and in M- condition. The cost is prohibitive though for most enthusiasts. It costs €7,500 here in Europe. It is however solidly built to industrial standards. The cost can be justified if you are heavily invested in the vinyl format. Its direct competitors look rather 'plastiky' in comparison even if they perform very well. I offer a professional vinyl cleaning service here in Cork, Ireland for those enthusiasts who would like to see what this machine can do without incurring the cost of actual purchase ( I am not sure if I am allowed to say that Michael, and if not feel free to remove it. But the Klaudio is an amazing machine and if you are lucky enough to be able to afford one, go right ahead and buy one. Your vinyl playback will sound out of this world!

  • 2023-04-03 06:37:55 PM

    bwb wrote:

    You have piqued my interest in this machine so dug in a little... From the manual: "Distilled water is not recommended, because the electrical conductivity may be too low for the cleaner to begin the wash cycle." .... FYI the RO water from a home system is not pure water. It is different than distilled because that water is run through a "filter" after the RO process designed to add minerals back into the water. Otherwise RO is not very pleasant to drink. ... The FAQs on the website says 4 x 50W transducers so there is your 200W.

    • 2023-04-03 09:59:05 PM

      Michael Fremer wrote:

      The manual’s suggestion regarding electrical conductivity never panned out. The machine always starts and runs normally with R.O. water. Distilled water does not have minerals added back. There are two commercially available R.O. water brands: Aquafina and Dasani. Dasani has minerals added back. Aquafina does not.

    • 2023-04-04 11:48:45 AM

      Charles Kirmuss wrote:

      An ultrasonic's rating as to cleaning power is usually rated in Cavins or Watts per square centimeter.

      Transducers are like speakers, and have a wattage rating. So, using a 50 W transducer: It is the ultrasonic generator that when connected to the transducer mounted in an ultrasonic is where the output power (cleaning power) comes into effect. Just like a speaker and amplifier. So the rating of ultrasonic cavitation is not in Watts. It should be in Cavins or Watts per square centimeter as driven by the sonic generator. Then measured in the tank. Just as also a dB meter would.

  • 2023-04-04 06:31:12 AM

    Anthony J Russo wrote:

    Here is a question for the group ? Will ultra sonic cleaning cause groove damage ?

    • 2023-04-04 10:56:12 AM

      Charles Kirmuss wrote:

      If an ionizing agent has been applied to a record changing the charge of a record to be opposite to that of water in an attempt to replicate the Kirmuss process, and where the sonic action has not been modulated or seen the standing waves tampered, models of ultrasonics that see holes punched into various areas of a test aluminum foil (validated by the measurements taken using a cavitation meter), will see those areas with high energy levels created possibly affect the record if kept in the machine.

      To this, take a look at Mr. Fremer's video taken at the Florida International Audio Expo 2023 which covered the generic sessions presented by WAM and Kirmuss. There is a slide that shows areas that are circled in blue on the aluminum foil that have been affected. Imagine if the effect of cavitation causing these severe holes in those spots on the record was now attracted to the record. Much has to do with the power rating of the ultrasonic, measured in Cavins or watts per square centimeter as well, and the record material itself, a poly vinyl, a K TEL flimsy or a 180 plus gram. Frequency also has much to do about this subject.

  • 2023-04-04 11:18:23 AM

    Charles Kirmuss wrote:

    As Mr. Fremer has expressed, the two processes are different. Two options are available with the Kirmuss. Clarifying: with the Kirmuss, a 2 to 3 minute session in the KA-RC-1 surface cleans the record. As the record comes out wet, one then mechanically dries the record. "shines the record". Vacuum drying should not be used as it indices static via the venturi effect.

    As to restoration, the goal of the Kirmuss process: By applying the Kirmuss ionizing spray to the record over several cycles, 4 records are processed in 18 to 25 minutes simultaneously. Records come out dry, very little water. Just a wipe of the few remaining droplets of water are needed using a supplied optician's cloth. This as where the pressing oil discovered by the Shure Brothers in 1977 has been removed. (Release agent as called by Kirmuss). The tribelectric table of charges indicates where PVC and water have the same like charge. They repel. That is why no extensive or supplemental drying is needed. Yes some extra work. Never again to be processed in this fashion.

    FYI: Over time one handles records and no matter how careful we are, fingerprint oils, other contaminants, at times further outgassing of the plasticizer while the record is in the sleeve, all will make contact with the record. Just another 2 to 3 minute cycle may be used when the record owner deems a cleaning is appropriate.

    • 2023-04-05 02:00:04 AM

      freejazz00 wrote:

      The static buildup in air moving systems can be dissipated with the application of proper grounding techniques. There is an ANSI standard for this, which I believe was developed for removing gases from confined spaces work areas where static builds up on the conduit. I have no idea if any of the ultrasonic machine manufacturers address the issue through grounding schemes, but using a blower should not be a deal breaker for drying records with respect to static buildup on the machine or record.

  • 2023-04-04 01:59:58 PM

    BSK wrote:

    Thanks Michael. I was just reading the owners manual for the Degritter after watching this video. In on section it states, "Use only purified water to clean records as the limescale in tap water can have an adverse effect on cleaning, and it can leave residue on the inner surfaces of the machine over time" If this is true then why do they include a bottle of cleaning fluid? Later in the manual it states you may want to add the fluid for particularly dirty or stubborn debris that regular cleaning does not take care of. I think MoFi should get over themselves and send you a machine to review. I cannot justify spending $6.5k on a cleaning machine, at least the Degritter is priced at about half that (more reasonable for my budget). I would like to know your take on its functionality.

  • 2023-04-04 02:58:24 PM

    Tim wrote:

    As someone who has been using their own DIY Ultrasonic process for a few years now, I can understand the appeal of a more 'purpose built' / all-in-one solution. My process isn't the quickest, nor space friendly..

    However, I can say that I haven't spent more than $300 on what I use, and I get results that I consider to be perfect. Everything has a price.

    Funny enough, my approach is (completely coincidentally) rather similar to what Kirmuss provides/promotes... And like the Kirmuss solution, my vinyls do actually come out of my ultrasonic tank very dry afterwards (no water residue)...

    There is something to be said about the 'charge' of items in an ultrasonic bath and repellent forces.

    • 2023-04-05 12:26:57 AM

      Jim Tutsock wrote:

      Tim, do you have any links or ways to find out what you have put together? I don't want to hi-jack the thread here but the owner of Ginkgo Audio just sold me a used broken Audio System Deske cleaner that he said was in good condition and I'm out over $1800 bucks so I like your budget.

      • 2023-04-05 07:17:59 AM

        Tim wrote:

        Hi Jim,

        My solution is completely self designed, I didnt follow any specific instructions... its essentially years worth of trial and error.

        However, I did read a study that a very intelligent man wrote into vinyl cleaning... I'll see if I can find that and link it to you here. Its about 150 pages long, but the general summary is that ultrasonic cleaning is good, but not on its own.

        For my solution, the largest expense is simply the ultrasonic cleaner bath. You need one large enough from a reputable brand. Mine has transducers at the bottom, set to 40khz. I find this to be more than sufficient, although some might argue that 80khz or 120khz is also beneficial (noting these machines are quite a bit more expensive)..

        I built a small motor and mouting system that allows me to rotate the vinyl about once every 30 seconds in the bath.

        I can describe in detail what I do if you're interested.


    • 2023-04-07 04:05:40 PM

      Charles Kirmuss wrote:

      That is wonderful! Dry = properly processed. Nothing that is being coated by air or vacuum drying. I am sure just a few droplets of water to remove, which by the war are 100-110 microns in diameter, much larger than the groove!

  • 2023-04-04 04:11:39 PM

    Ronan O’Gorman wrote:

    Thank you Michael, I watched with great interest the "Florida Video" featuring Mr. Kirmuss. His presentation really peaked my interest, he restored a Roulette Lp that looked terribly worn. My records are not remotely like that. I have used a VPI cleaner for 30 years. I am not technically very savvy, and must ask a basic question. If my records are in excellent condition, is this process goingg to improve the sound of my records. Again my apologies for this very "entry level" question!

  • 2023-04-04 06:32:09 PM

    Frank Mena wrote:

    Nice video! , that's a fair bit of work and time to get it all presented in a digestible manner. I suppose many people wonder if less expensive options can come close to the results one can get with the KLAUDIO. Would a string machine (i.e. Loricraft ) come close? I suppose it depends on how dirty the record is but if you were strapped for money would a Loricraft come close?

    Thanks FM

  • 2023-04-05 02:36:16 AM

    freejazz00 wrote:

    Quick response -

    Michael is right on with his description of cavitation cleaning, at least in lay terms:

    As to why surfactant matters in cavitation cleaning: as surface tension decreases cavitation becomes more efficient. The role of surfactant is to reduce surface tension.!

    As to why enzyme matters in cavitation cleaning: Enzymes break down and lift protein-based (organic) contaminants reducing the energy needed remove the contaminants as well as aiding in contaminant removal when mechanical methods are not applicable (i.e. record grooves are too small). Additionally, the breakdown of organics using enzymes can be enhanced in ultrasonic applications.

    As to the removal of surfactant and enzyme after ultrasonic cleaning: rinse! The referenced standard is admittedly for medical equipment sterilization, and I don't imagine that anyone wants to use their vinyl for endoscopy, but of the ultrasonic cleaning standards I'm aware they all include a rinse cycle to remove the last bits of contaminant and any trace cleaning solutions. AAMI Standards TIR34

    As to why simple measurements of cavitation aren't so simple: The ideal sensor for making measurements doesn't exist at the temporal and spatial resolution needed for accurate and precise measurements.

    Hope that helps.

    • 2023-04-05 04:02:29 PM

      Jeffrey C. Robbins wrote:

      Michael — nice review, thank you. I do have a Humminguru so if you want to review and the company won’t send you one, please send me an email note and I can arrange to lend you mine. JCR

  • 2023-04-05 07:55:00 PM

    freejazz00 wrote:

    A few other quick thoughts: Frequency: Most cavitation machines operate in the 40kHz range, which is considered middle-of-the-road for cavitation cleaners, and most industrial (non-LP) manufacturers have a discussion about this on their web pages. Lower frequencies are typically for applications where more power is needed, like removal of rust from metal parts. Higher frequencies are typically applied where more gentle cleaning action is needed (i.e., soft materials, circuit boards, optics, medical devices) or where very small spaces need to be cleaned (sounds like records!!!). This is because higher frequencies produce smaller "bubbles" that can get in smaller spaces, and higher frequencies impart less energy. So if you need to get in a record groove and you need the cleaning to be relatively gentle, then a higher frequency, lower energy transducer may be of benefit. Also, most of the industrial manufacturers I'm familiar with apply a power standard of watts per gallon, where watts refers to the power from the transducers. I have no idea what it means for lp cleaning devices. There is another element to frequency selection that should be considered: the higher the frequency the greater the number of cycles per unit time and the greater the number of active cleaning and inactive dead spaces you'll have in the tank. (Think nodes where you listen to music in your room. ) Low frequencies will have larger, but more disperse active and inactive zones in the tank. This is why some ultrasonic devices "sweep" the frequency - so that the locations of the active and dead spaces in the tank move slightly to result in more complete coverage of the item being cleaned. The selection of frequency, then, will also alter where in the tank you place the item(s) to be cleaned in order to optimize the cleaning surface. Assuming that the part is moving (i.e., the record is spinning) and the part isn't placed in an antinode (dead space) then the rotation of the part should resolve some or all of the issues associated with dead space in the tank.

  • 2023-04-06 09:27:13 AM

    Neil K wrote:

    It seems grime isn’t the only thing affecting the quality of playback of vinyl.

    • 2023-04-07 04:02:37 PM

      Charles Kirmuss wrote:

      Also where the needle is riding on the pressing oil (Shure Brothers circa 1977) / Release Agent (Kirmuss 2017).

      Microscopy on the Kirmuss web site.

  • 2023-04-06 05:35:41 PM

    Paul wrote:

    Is this the best hobby or what.


  • 2023-04-06 06:55:52 PM

    kevin l westerbeck wrote:

    Maybe I missed this in the video...Is the Blue Light on exit slot of this machine a UV light to kill any groove mildew? If so, no isopropyl alcohol may be needed then for this machine?

  • 2023-04-08 02:41:04 PM

    John Vourtsis wrote:

    Michael, regarding your Degritter/Music Direct comments in the video, Degritter has set up a modest dealer network here in the States. Two in NJ, 2 in Manhattan and 1 in Brooklyn. I traded in my original Degritter for a Mark II and have loved both units. I hope to see a review by you of a Mark II.

  • 2023-04-09 10:05:19 AM

    bwb wrote:

    anybody tried the 7 inch adapter from Humminguru in this machine that sells for $34? The KLaudio version is $262 which seems like an extraordinary amount of money for what basically amounts to a plastic disc.

  • 2023-04-10 09:39:57 PM

    The walrus wrote:

    Informative as always - thanks Michael (and Charles) for the work you do on this subject.

    Question regarding the Klaudio - is the newer version a worthwhile improvement over the original? I have the opportunity to buy a brand new in box version of the older one at a very reasonable price where I am (stuff like this doesn't come to my part of the world all the time)..

  • 2023-04-13 11:09:59 AM

    bwb wrote:

    I picked up the previous version with internal tank. I tried the aluminum foil test and it does hammer the foil so it is working. I then smeared a tiny bit of peanut butter oil on an old record because I've heard these ultrasonic machines are not good at cleaning off oils. After one cycle I could still see where I had applied the oil so I ran it again. Could still see it. I then wiped with a cloth and it came off. SO... is it really true this machine gets them clean without some sort of surfactant or other additive? My test says it does not.. not sure how to proceed

    • 2023-04-20 06:54:44 PM

      Charles Kirmuss wrote:

      Ultrasonic machines are perfect to clean off FILMS OF OILS. Not peanut butter smeared onto a record.

      • 2023-04-20 11:50:09 PM

        bwb wrote:

        Please re-read what I posted... I did not say "peanut butter smeared on a record".......... I said "a tiny bit of peanut butter oil" as in a tiny bit, a very small amount, a very thin film of oil, like the greasy fingerprints you find on used records... not "peanut butter smeared on a record"

  • 2023-04-17 01:27:51 PM

    Zeotrope wrote:

    This machine is no longer in production! Is it wise to spend $6500 on a machine that you likely won’t be able to get parts for? This should have been mentioned.

    • 2023-04-23 09:58:12 PM

      bwb wrote:

      Klaudio is in business. They list parts on their web site. ,, I just bought some belts and spare pumps for my 200 (non T) just in case... Are you sure it isn't being produced?

  • 2023-04-23 11:04:59 AM

    OTOT wrote:

    I reviewed the HG machine here:

  • 2023-06-03 09:24:38 PM

    JACK L wrote:


    "The instructions say "tap water" qtd M.F.

    I never drink any raw tape water, being so polluted with dirt/chemicals let alone cleaning my records. My whole family of 3 have been drinking cool-off boiled water from our undersink reverse osmosis filter system for decades now (sold for $800 back then !!) So far so healthy, thank goodness.

    I measured with my water tester (recommended by water filter professionals): raw city tape water: 145 particles per million (ppm) !!!!! undersink reverse osmosis: 12 ppm 'natural' bottled water: 140ppm !!!!! ozonated distilled water in 4-litre plastic bottom from only available from a certain large local grocery chain: 0ppm !!!!!!!!!!!! Believe or not, it is sold only for 70 cents a 4-litre bottle. BTW, not all distilled waters are made equal in purity.

    Needless to say, I use only that brandname 0ppm distilled water to clean ALL my LPs since day one some 6 years back when I switched back to vinyl as my main music source from digital from scrape.

    Be vinyl smart !

    JACK L

  • 2023-06-23 03:16:50 PM

    Tom bergeon wrote:

    I bought my KLaudio LP200 in late 2013 at $4000 and have cleaned probably 4,000 records. It has been stellar adding body, microdynamics, separation and air to music. I can testify to vg+ to nm- status and it also removes or greatly remove pops and removes static. It is significant on new records too which have bonding components, etc. The KLaudio is like a significant cartridge upgrade. The best thing is insert the record and 8 minutes later you have a shiny lp ready to be sleeved or played. My unit is the original design and is much bigger and self contained. I like the design of much better and you can easily go 100 lps with only the slightest water discoloration. I had to replace the pump after 8 years and KLaudio immediately turned that around at a reasonable fee.

    The 1 lp silencer is well worth the $$ money to clean records with minimal noise when doing so in another room near your listening room. Or for your family’s sanity.

    • 2023-06-23 03:19:31 PM

      Tom bergeon wrote:

      Sorry for the poor wording. No edit function at the TA comments board

  • 2023-06-23 03:28:25 PM

    Tom bergeon wrote:

    Never ever had grey dust when cleaning out my original KLaudio machine. You would get a very small amount of green residue (bacteria from the records) on the walls of the chamber and the water was a slightly darker color.

  • 2023-08-24 03:30:24 PM

    Charles Kirmuss wrote:

    1. As to frequency in general. To state that “most cavitation machines operate at 40 KHz” is not truly indicative of the industry. There are many frequencies available from many manufacturers, and as to records or cleaning of any material, one needs to first analyze and study the materials that need cleaning. Ultrasonic cleaning was developed in the 60’s and is used in cleaning applications ranging from metals, microelectronics, hard-disk drives, medical devices, optics, silicon subsrates, jelwery, aerospace and automotive components, etc.. Our interest of course is initially in the cleaning of vinyl records. Frequency needs to be tied into what we are trying to clean. The comment of 40 KHz is overly generalized by many. We have available frequencies ranging from 20 KHz, 25 KHz, 35 KHz, 37 KHz, 40 KHz, 46 KHz, 60 KHz, 120 KHz, 150 KHz, and 1 MHz plus. (called Megasonics). Each frequency has its own attributes. I am not looking at 40 KHz per say, or referring yet to any frequency, rather, suggesting one review the basics below to see what would seem as the best frequency to clean records. I will not discuss the fact where both water with or without a soap solution has the same electrical change and where we need to ionize a record to truly remove it from all contaminants such as the pressing oil and films. Each frequency develops cavitation with varying imploding bubble size as well as velocity of the wave or vacuum created. The velocity and size of the implosion is directly related to what we need to clean.
    • 2023-08-24 03:32:06 PM

      Charles Kirmuss wrote:

      1. First and foremost: a. Ultrasonic cleaning: i. Cleaning depends on parameters such as the relative size between the bubble created by cavitation at its maximum volume and the particle size we need to remove, the bubble standoff distance from the particle and from the material wall, and the excitation pressure field driving the bubble dynamics, added the volumetric coefficient and loading of the liquid medium in the cleaning tank and the surface area of the item itself.

      ii. Ultrasonic energy is applied to a cleaning liquid or solution causing cavitation, which, in turn, “scrubs” if you wish, the surface free from contaminants by way of a vacuum created as the bubble implodes.

      iii. Indeed as frequency is increased, the size of the cavitation bubbles becomes smaller which means that each bubble implosion will have relatively less energy. The difference in energy levels is compensated for by the fact that more cavitation bubbles are produced as the frequency is increased. In the same breath, the materials hiding the detail of the stamper are large, oils, films, record plasticizer outgassing and dirt, dust, fungus, dandruff of 3 to 5 microns (quite large over the detail of the pressing!).

      b. Frequency alone needs to be studied in detail. Considerations: What are the items and item structure that that one wants to clean and also what are the contaminants that is one interested in removing, and as such, a generalized statement as 40 KHz as being the predominant frequency is not entirely true. i. Indeed, 25 KHz and 40 KHz transducers due to volume of sales and market demand for low price points are the most affordable, but are they the best for a record? More analysis is needed.

      1. In any design by any manufactujerr, resulting in an effective cleaning process and in order to achieve the high level of cleanliness, we need to consider first: The item being cleaned....
      • 2023-08-24 03:34:16 PM

        Charles Kirmuss wrote:

        As to cleaning of records and how sonics are implicated:

        1. We have pressing oils, as well as at times films from prior cleaning agents that have been air or vacuum dried onto the record’s surface
        2. We have oily or dried on surface films that have come out of the plasticizer as it evaporates in the sleeve, mixed with the outgassing of the inner sleeve, sometimes a polyurethane sleeve, creating more issues, that when trapped in a record sleeve for a year or 70 years, coats the record with a film that the needle rides on, just as the outgassing of the plasticizer does in an new car. (new car smell = plasticizer = that horrible hard to remove film found on the inside of the windshield). (new car smell, record smell). ii. We see dirt, dust, fungus, dandruff whether fused into the cooling pressing with pressing oil at the plant as the record is cooling or where these contaminants are sitting on, or in, a groove of size between between 3 and 5 micons.
        3. Groove size per RIA is 6 microns at the bottom of the “U” not as “V”, with a top groove size that varies between 35 and 45 micons. iii. Most LP’s are made of plastic (PVC).
        4. The published density of PVC is 1.38 g/cm3.
        5. The published Tensile Strength of Flexible PVC: 6.9 - 25 MPa iv. PVC is:
        6. Pliable
        7. Can be scuffed, nicked, easily damaged.
  • 2023-08-24 03:41:57 PM

    Charles Kirmuss wrote:

    As to the power of sonics and ultrasonic frequency. From Tovatech, Science Direct, etc.. Eluding to what we need for record care and preservation: Frequency determines the size of the imploding bubble. The lower frequencies in ultrasonic cleaning (20-25 kHz) are best for bigger parts, parts with little detail, and where these frequencies are favored to remove oils usually from CNC machining or in automotive part cleanings, in milling. Removes coarse, tenacious adhesive contaminants; used as pre-cleaning of robust surfaces. Creates large bubbles up to diameters of 150 microns and creating high cavitation energy when they collapse. Too inefficient for sitting contaminants such as dirt, dust and fungus on records.

    b. 35 and 37 KHz.(Kirmuss uses 35 KHz with a 70 KHz resonance to even out the uneven effects of cavitation. Results in bubble size control and bubble recycling, which strongly enhances cavitation activity and eveness of the cavitational field from the bottom of the tank to the top. Known as a very common ultrasonic frequency for common cleaning jobs. Records need to see oils and dirt dust fungus to be removed.. Particles of 3 to 5 microns in size. Many of which are fixed in the pressing oils or in dried left over cleaning films. A suggested frequency that can remove the all problematic pressing oil and easily the embedded or fused contaminants in the oil and on grooves.

    c. 40 KHz Known for Ultrasonic cleaning jobs in the lab and in the sanitary sector. 4 to 7 micron bubble size. More difficult to remove films.

    d. 45/46 KHz For fine cleaning and for sensitive surfaces such as light metal alloys. 4 to 6 micron bubble. Bubble too small for removal of pressing oils and films or contaminants fused into the pressing oil. OK for surface dust removal.

    e. Higher frequencies are used for delicate cleaning applications as in medical instruments and substrates, where 120 KHz is favored, where the generated waves through cavitation implosions sees waves and the vacuum effect that are able to penetrate through small holes and crevices more easily. For micro-electronics, precision optics, endoscopic cameras and cables, and similar also highly sensitive surfaces such as silicon wafers. 1.2 to 2 micron bubble size. Difficulty in removing films and 3-5 micron dust particles efficiently and oils. Used in removal of bacterial and sub micron particles.

    • 2023-08-24 03:43:51 PM

      Charles Kirmuss wrote:

      Finally, considering the ltrasonics’ power a. This with frequency allows us to determine what the resulting bubble size and velocity (pressure) will be able to remove from the item being cleaned. b. In terms of cleaning power it is calculated as the power delivered to the transducers and expressed as watts per square centimeter in a cleaning solution. Also quoted in CAVINS. Many cleaners operate at 50 to 100 watts per gallon. c. As power increases so do the number of bubbles, so increased power yields faster cleaning action but only up to a point. Beyond that you are not only wasting energy you also risk damaging parts being cleaned. Reflected power thus sees a decrease in bubbles created if we exceed the number of items placed in a fixed size bath. (ultrasonic loading) i. Another MISUSED definition is total power listed in Watts, or the amount of power needed to drive everything in the unit including generators and heaters (if supplied). Incorrect rating. It should not be confused with ultrasonic cleaning power. iv. Obviously, the compatible cleaning chemistry, whether aqueous or solvent v. Parts or materials handling, placement, etc.. Parts number not to exceed the capability of the sonic.

      Sorry to be wordy, the matter of ultrasonics is more complicated than frequency. All of the above are essential to be included in the design and use of a cleaning process.