2023-06-28 01:44:14 PM

Gary Saluti wrote:

I'd rather listen to records than collect them. Makes me wonder how Ari's ideas are helping the industry.

2023-06-28 01:57:34 PM

Gary Saluti wrote:

Correction: Hobby not industry.

2023-06-28 05:37:18 PM

freejazz00 wrote:

I generally try not to comment negatively. In this case I find so many cringe-worthy moments in this video I need to voice my strongly negative reaction to the video: from the trash talking products, to the saying things like best copy in the world, to turning records into baseball card or coin collecting. This video isn't journalism or journalistic; it is fanboy flexing and hype machine schmaltz run amuck. Were any of these statements even fact-checked before posting? Very disappointing.

• 

  2023-06-30 02:43:08 PM

  Charles Kirmuss wrote:

  Mr. Fremer as well as others have discovered where the AD machine advertised for a decade plus never used cavitation. The testing using a cavitation meter supporting the results of the universal aluminum foil test are testament to the evidence. Do review the Florida International Audio Show 2023 review and video posted of the WAM/Kirmuss seminar sessions.

  As to chemicals, as well as other cleaning processes, why do not peers advertise their results: as to ingediemnts (as to also if safe for vinyl and the plasticizer and one's health), as well as dB gain (or loss) of signal and increase (loss) of frequency response? Also, if a true ultrasonic, using cavitation, pressure measured in Cavins or watts per square centimeter?

  This video was unscripted, live, where third parties opened up the Pandora's box.

  The importance of the video was focus on Ari's latest entry of how we see collections migrate to encapsulation of record and the value of a RESTORED and not coated record.

  If is has feathers and has a beak, has webbed feet, waddles on two legs, a duck is a duck.

  The video focused on record encapsulation by chance saw records commented on processed by the Kirmuss process yielding the measured before and after results as an A-B test in the booth (recorded realtime by Audiophile Junkie (Jason) on his channel. To fact checking, both the videographer (Michael) and Ari having no interest in Kirmuss both supported and witnessed first hand the result, of which they commented on in the positive, just as Mr. Fremer and others have over the last 6 years.

  We all enjoy music and there was no "trash talking", just proving the fact where records processed by prior systems have not removed the pressing oil and film from the outgassing and where these two individuals, as well as others, witnessed at this event A and B testing both audibly and using a spectrum analyzer. Why others do not do the same, and use science, I cannot comment on. Again, this was not a scripted video.

  Reply
• 

  2023-07-02 11:04:39 AM

  Michael Fremer wrote:

  to freejazz00: this video does not turn records into baseball card or coin collecting. It has been that for as long as there have been records. Before the Internet, Goldmine and other print publications published books on used record prices and values. I do not see the video as "trash talking" products. Nor is reviewing products "trash talking" them. This video documents an event and is therefore journalism. The people doing the talking are subject to "fact checking" by viewers. I'd need clarification of "fanboy flexing" (by whom?) and "hype machine schmaltz". Which statements need fact checking? I've cast a critical eye and pen at Charles Kirmuss for as long as he and his machine have been on the scene. I've gone after him on video and in print, asking for proof of his statements. Over the years he's gone to great lengths to clarify and amend his claims and statements and ultimately, I find his claims and statement about his machine and processes and others to be true. I suggest you watch the end of one of the AXPONA videos, in which a chemical engineer with no "skin" in this game discusses the science behind Kirmuss's record "charge" vs. water's "charge" and how his spray works. So yes, Kirmuss's statements over the years have been probed, disputed, and have been "fact checked" well before this video was posted.

  Reply
  • 

    2023-07-02 04:37:28 PM

    freejazz00 wrote:

    I previously attempted to post a response to Kirmuss but it is not here, so I'm not sure that's because the editors took it down or there was a technical glitch. In any case, I have problems with both the encapsulating and Kirmuss' approach. While I understand your point about Goldmine, encapsulation is, at least to me, Anton and John Marks, anathema to buying and listening to records. The process voids the listening in favor of pure commodification. So if you can't listen to your records because they are "encapsulated" then why not buy coins, which don't have the communicative aspect of records?

    Reply
    • 

      2023-07-02 04:38:20 PM

      freejazz00 wrote:

      I also see the guy from the auction house as "flexing" to assembled bystanders in the video. Effective advertising for a new product covers the five Ws and one doesn't need to show "rare" records, combined with descriptions of his personal collection, to market a product successfully. When Chad K. posts records from his personal collection on the AP channel he has the good humor to tease himself about it, and that self-awareness is missing from the posted video.

      Reply
      • 

        2023-07-02 04:38:32 PM

        freejazz00 wrote:

        As for Kirmuss, I have problems with both his marketing and his description of the technical aspects of his approach. Kirmuss likes to point out where other brand's products aren't good. Anyone with familiarity with record cleaning products quickly realized that Kirmuss is frequently dismissing the AD product (which I think is poor for its reliability/build quality issues regardless if it uses cavitation), and to a lesser degree the Degritter for their selection of a relatively high cavitation frequency. That behavior is unseemly. Can you imagine Nelson Pass or John Curl posting in website forums dismissals of another designer's product? Lastly, I'm a PhD that practices in a few ares of water. I have taught water chemistry at the University of California, where I presently lecture design and have been doing so for over a decade. I don't work in the audio or sound recording industries, so I have no "skin in the game." I think that my training and professional practice puts me in a position to evaluate scientific claims in a way that is not possible from a not-science-trained journalist. You used an analog of this argument when commenting on Mike's coverage of the MoFi debacle (e.g., journalists are trained to ask the follow-up questions to get at the heart of a matter). I have posted links to peer-reviewed journal articles previously in these comments where I think Kirmuss' description of his process doesn't align with the science so anyone with a little patience can read for themselves. For example, there are no ASTM (standards organization) or similar standards for an aluminum foil test or for the use of a cavitation meter. This is important if one is making scientific claims - you can't just put the meter in the tank and push the read button. The application of the test is dependent on the geometry of the tank, the frequency of the transducer and other parameters. I'm happy to discuss these criticisms off-line if you'd like. In any case I don't know if Kirmuss offers poor descriptions (from a scientific point of view) because he is hiding something, because he is trying to protect "trade secrets," or some other reason. As a scientist and engineer Kirmuss' approach raises more questions than it answers.

        Reply
        • 

          2023-07-03 11:35:59 AM

          Charles Kirmuss wrote:

          Ah, Freejazz, you again.

          Have responded to you in many of your posts prior.

          The dozens of interviews and white papers we have presented as to the table of charges, water molecular dipoles and configuration and the like seem not to mean anything to you.

          No worries.

          The proof is in the result that we guarantee. Also using spectrum analyzers, Keyence VHX-7000 imager, and of course, one's ears.

          Troll on!

          Reply
          • 

            2023-07-03 11:55:40 AM

            Charles Kirmuss wrote:

            By the way, do listen to a chemist interviewed by Mr. Fremer at the AXPONA 2023 show. As commented by Mr. Fremer, (see Mr. Fremer's response to another subscriber), he has no interest in Kirmuss and is both a chemist and patent attorney who without any script, live at the event, confirms the Kirmuss discoveries and answers the questions about the process and chemistry.

            If you have any questions, Mr. Freejazz, (your real name?) I suggested that you call us at our office. Would gladly respond to any questions that you may have after Iam sure your using our system..

            Have a Happy 4th of July!

            Reply
          • 

            2023-07-03 03:23:26 PM

            freejazz00 wrote:

            I haven't written anything about the table of charges or dipole moment. I have commented previously on published standards in various industries. So I will repeat: there is no standard of which I'm aware for the testing of ultrasonic energy. You have not, to the best of my knowledge, ever cited a standard approved by a standards or testing organization. Citing your own white papers and presentations is not the same as citing peer-reviewed publications. That's not how science works. In my previous posts I have provided links to peer-reviewed publications where I think you haven't described the science correctly, and this is the scientific method you note I should be using, below. You note in the comments above and below about ionizing, but I have yet to make a comment on this, so why defend a position I'm not questioning? There are many NASA handbooks on the current website, so which one you're referencing isn't clear, but there are not current documents on the site that date to 1978. Are you presenting here that the technology for ultrasonics hasn't changed in almost 50 years, and that something that was used for daily verification of test equipment at that time is a legitimate method to criticize your competitors? The reason I haven't commented on the testing of your competitors is because they haven't used incomplete and poorly represented science to attack your product. When they do, I'l come to your defense, too. Therefore, my comments aren't trolling; they are pointing out where your descriptions of your process, used to attack your competitors, sometimes by name, don't hold up to what's in the literature.

            Reply
          • 

            2023-12-22 04:45:59 PM

            Charles Kirmuss wrote:

            Added Proof:

            Before restoration: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/-L2gIqQ3nok

            After restoration:

            https://www.youtube.com/shorts/_6_fhGWMBjM

            Why do peers not disclose their results by a warranty as to increase in frequency response, signal to the phono stage input, as well as advertise (if an ultrasonic) their cavitational energy output in either Cavins or Watts per Square Centimeter. (Between all records from top to bottom of the tank).

            Reply
        • 

          2023-07-03 02:07:52 PM

          Charles Kirmuss wrote:

          Do study the patent on using foil to test cavitation.

          Do look at the two pieces of test equipment we use from Cavin and Megasonics.

          The above is what ultrasonic manufacturers use to design ultrasonics and test as well as repair them.

          The Megasonics manual talks in detail about cavitation and pressures in watts per square centimeter.

          The NASA NHB document I followed when I worked on the Canadarm in Montreal at Spar Aerospace in 1978 for the space shuttle program who took over from RCA used the foil test daily.

          Ionization is what I use to attract the benefits of cavitation. Bubbles do not hit the surface being cleaned, rather as they implode they create a vacuum.

          The size of a water droplet of 100 to 120 microns cannot touch a 6 x 35,40,45 u shaped groove.

          If you are who you say who you are, the above is elementary science especially when we consider the table of Tribelectric charges and how we apply it.

          If anything, you should respond in kind and in detail as to why ionizing of the record does not work and counter the results validated by thousands of record lovers have experienced and written about the Kirmuss process.

          I send this to you most respectfully.

          I have not seen any perrs warranty their processes against some standard.

          In any elementary school debate you should use the scientific method and yourself describe your theory. Not just toss vague statements in the air. ...just saying.

          If you have no skin in the game, a technical reply should come from you.

          This said, I as well as others have explained the process in detail. Results validated. No further comments co.ing from me.

          I apologize to the audience as this post was to deal with the trend of encapsulating records and how we all see record collecting move forward.

          I believe where Mr. Fremer indeed would have some interesting titles in his collection....

          Reply
        • 

          2023-07-15 07:36:14 PM

          Charles Kirmuss wrote:

          There is a patent based on using aluminum foil as a test for cavitation.

          Look at the UK, Canadian and Australian laws where companies in the UK sell aluminum foil test kits to document daily performance of ultrasonics BY LAW when used for medical or dental instruments.

          I have the links, published in other posts.

          Why do not you troll another channel.

          Reply

2023-06-28 08:19:50 PM

Anton wrote:

Wait, where's Chad?

NFTs.

Encapsulating.

Congrats! Our hobby is now keeping company with Pokemon and Topps/Upper Deck.

Middlemen finding ways to insinuate themselves into a hobby is and idea.

Freejazz00 is right, trash talking the competition is so Pacific Stereo.

I vote we call those "encapsules" Barnums.

• 

  2023-06-28 08:21:01 PM

  Anton wrote:

  Oops, typo..."is a bad idea."

  I am embarrassed by my typo, and more so by what's becoming of the hobby.

  Reply

2023-06-29 10:20:09 AM

John Marks wrote:

I take no position on the record-cleaner issue.

As far as encapsulation goes, I think it's a case either of "VOX POPULI VOX DEI," or, "The Customer Is Always Right." I myself would not go for it. But I would not, even if I had the money, spend $150,000 (that is not a typo!!!) on a Bob Dylan LP, which is what a Heritage Auction customer did. Really. $150,000. For a record-store LP. If that buyer wants his trophy Bob Dylan Collectable in a plastic vault--it's his choice.

However, turning a rare LP digital rip into an NFT is getting perilously close to "The Abomination of Desolation," which is the True Sign of the End Times, so therefore those who can must "Head for the Hills." Gee, three Apocalyptic Scripture allusions in one sentence. Way to go, JM!

(And, more seriously, I think there are real IP and copyright issues in selling such an NFT to a third party; but, what do I know? I went to law school more than 40 years ago.)

• 

  2023-06-29 11:37:24 PM

  Anton wrote:

  I am reminded of Marcellus as he follows Hamlet.

  Reply
• 

  2023-06-30 02:56:36 PM

  Charles Kirmuss wrote:

  As to encapsulation, and some background for some thought by all: discovered where a record pressed 30, 40, 50, 60 plus years ago sees outgassing of the plasticizer onto the record...just like that windshield in a new car with that new car smell and resulting in that pesky film on the inside windshield... so, in the same breath, seeing this happen with a record at times inserted in a polyvinyl sleeve, then sealed or not and still in its outer jacket. We all have seen at times as a result, discoloration of the vinyl. Reduced frequency response and signal.

  Indeed where a film and discoloration that the Kirmuss process can remove in most cases, along with the lower layer, the film of the release agent (Pressing oil Shure Brothers circa 1977-1978), thus my remark where I wonder if there would be any further affectation over time of a "non restored record" and its continued outgassing of the plasticizer now with it sealed or inserted in the plastic collector shell. I have no answers.

  To Ari's presentaion: I also have been tossing out the idea as to record grading. The Kirmuss process allows one to have a P+ or G- rated record (visually) with a VG- audio rating.

  Very interesting and have seen these encapsulated records sell for multiples of current values seen on record reseller sites. Already records sold on Discogs with mention of Kirmuss restoration sees added resale value over the same title/era pressing.

  Really fascinating as to what Ari had to say!

  Keep those records spinning!

  Will be watching Ari's auction site!

  Reply

2023-06-29 02:48:20 PM

Anton wrote:

We need a new video lead in:

“That’s right, go into your room. Sit on your fat butt and do nothing but look at records, encapsulated records.” At least nobody will complain about the noise or ask you to turn it down! :-D

• 

  2023-06-30 02:58:18 PM

  Charles Kirmuss wrote:

  Love your new intro. Interesting what non audiophiles are paying for these records in some of the closed auctions. Was of great interest in meeting Ari at the show.

  Reply

2023-06-30 03:02:25 PM

Charles Kirmuss wrote:

Really interesting as how records are being auctioned to a larger audience by Ari and the prices these records are being sold at. All good for vinyl!

Did hear where there is a hinged version of the case.

An auction site to watch!

Thanks Michael T for discovering what Ari is up to and passing it along to Mr. Fremer for his channel!

2023-07-01 02:42:57 PM

MrRom92 wrote:

Heritage Auctions numerous transgressions in the world of collectibles are well documented and near-universally despised. Looks like they want to ruin the world of record collecting next.

Don’t bring shame upon yourself and your publication by promoting/aligning with their business.

• 

  2023-07-02 03:12:01 PM

  Charles Kirmuss wrote:

  I believe as an investigative journalist Mr. Fremer has provided a very interesting report on what is happening to the world of collections. While we may have our personal views, the reality remains where we are seeing records now being encapsulated and sold at record prices to I am sure, non audiophiles. I wonder what some of our records are worth if encapsulated and auctioned?

  Indeed it is nice to play records and not look at them sealed.

  Keep those records spinning!

  Reply
• 

  2023-07-04 11:53:49 AM

  John Marks wrote:

  There's a difference between Internet Belly-ach-ing, and a Grand Jury's returning an Indictment. A YouTuber accused Heritage and one other party of creating a bubble in sealed video games. DUUH. What would one expect? What if I put up a YouTube video of myself bitching that NYC wine retailer Sherry-Lehman has conspired with named and un-named parties to "create a bubble" in the price of Pichon-Longueville La Tour 1982??? Gee, maybe that price has climbed through the ceiling because of scarcity and demand. With no help, legal or otherwise, from Sherry-Lehman. For those who are morbidly curious, wiki has a "Controversies" section on its Heritage page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritage_Auctions#Controversies It seems to me that except for the young person who needs to make the acquaintance of Adam Smith, all the controversies were resolved. The Government of Mongolia was happy with the outcome. The true owner of the stolen Margaret Keane painting thanked Heritage in writing. I practiced law for decades; in my retirement I sometimes help friends with estate-planning issues, and I can assure you that I consider Heritage to be a trusted resource. BTW, to correct Mr. Freejazz, I think it is an exaggeration to characterize my position on encapsulating LPs as "anathema." I only said that it was not for me. I reserved my scorn for turning rare LP audio content into an NFT. I think that everybody involved in an old LP would have to have died with no heirs, including the record label, for that to work. As far as I can figure out, an NFT made from a rare LP is nothing more than an unlicensed derivative work based on a copyrighted work. Like unto if I decided to record "Books on Tape" of all the Harry Potter books, with no permission from anybody.

  Reply

2023-07-05 04:46:35 PM

Jeffrey Puckett wrote:

He may not be a duck but Kirmuss is certainly a quack.

• 

  2023-07-07 11:18:39 AM

  Charles Kirmuss wrote:

  Your opinion... results prove otherwise.

  Am glad to have forced the issue left hanging out there since 1977 when the Shure Brothers discovered the presence of a pressing oil.

  As witnessed by many, using test equipment such as the $178,000 Keyence VHX-7000 imager, Agilent spectrum analyzer, Ortofon TC-3000, and ultrasonic test meters, all have proven my theories, backed by the accolades from system users.

  It was our testing that has forced some ultrasonic manufacturers to admit they are misters/bubblers, and do not use cavitation. If this is quackery, fine by me!

  Everyone may have their own opinions, my statements are backed by science and testing that any lay person can perform.

  For now going on 7 years, peers still do not advertise what they actually do to a record.

  No mention of dB gain over floor, etc..

  ...Respectfully stated: A shiny record is not indicative of your turntable's needle making contact with what was pressed.

  Reply

2023-07-06 06:55:35 PM

Anton wrote:

Where do people stand on LAST Record Treatment these days?

• 

  2023-07-07 11:25:45 AM

  Charles Kirmuss wrote:

  If I can measure it, use my process, then remeasure (decrease in record thickness and increase in gain over floor), then hear the increase in soundstage, it would logically indicate that it is a coating and not have changed the molecular structure of the PVC. Pre restoration: Inspection of the stylus sees materials being picked up.

  Added: instructions provided mention where it needs to be reapplied every 100 plays, so logically it would seem to coat the record.

  Just my 2 cents based also on user experiences.

  Others have written about the subject before our arrival 7 years ago.

  Our process removes this perceived coating.

  Reply
  • 

    2023-07-07 04:58:40 PM

    Jeff 'Glotz' Glotzer wrote:

    Charles did state that same thing to me at AXPONA 22 and while I disagree, as MF has stated (as well as the company's (LAST) white papers explicitly stated) their product is NO coating, as it the chemical compound is absorbed into the .5mm or so of the vinyl itself. Can't hear it after 40 years and 2000 records treated, and one never has to reapply. There may be more to this, but I have deep experience with the products and 90% of my vinyl surfaces are dead quiet. It keeps clean records in mint condition for years. I would like to hear from LAST's ownership speak to the subject. I recommend Michael pursue that for this and future discussions to set the record straight. Great minds think alike, Anton! Hope yr well!

    Reply
    • 

      2023-07-15 07:39:16 PM

      Charles Kirmuss wrote:

      If you play a so called cleaned or protected record, look first at the stylus after play.

      Also after repeated play the needle acting as a cleaning tool will allow the cartridge to pick up detail inadvertently hidden.

      Send us an email or check our web site as to seeing the microscopy of a coating removed.

      Reply