Acoustic Sounds
By: Michael Fremer

March 7th, 2023


Hi-Fi Shows

Two Must See Seminars at Florida International Audio Expo 2023

Finally! cavitation explained clearly and concisely and the 7 targets of proper cartridge alignment

What exactly is "cavitation" as applied to record cleaning? None of the novelty videos on YouTube explain what it is and most of them make recommendations that clearly indicate the advocates have no idea what they are talking about!  In fact, many of the "cavitation" machines do not actually cavitate.

What are the 7 alignment targets necessary to hit in order to properly align a cartridge? And what are the benefits of proper alignment in addition to better sonic performance?

These two seminars are not advertorials though of course products are involved. I've spent years mercilessly playing the skeptic to Charles Kirmuss's claims about cavitation-based record cleaning and preservation/restoration and his methodology. I once published a story and video provocatively titled "If Kirmuss is Right About Record Cleaning, is Everyone Else Wrong?"

I've also watched his seminars evolve from Ron Popeil-like sales pitch to one that makes complete sense, beginning with an explanation of what cavitation is that I've confirmed elsewhere and why some other machines do not qualify as true cavitation devices. My skepticism has forced Mr. Kirmuss to invest heavily in microscopes and measurement devices to prove his claims and I'm glad I pushed him and that he accepted the challenge.

The timing could not be better because shortly I'll post a video here that will review and demonstrate four vat-type record cleaning machines and put to the test Kirmuss's claims about his and others. One thing I've learned is that people advocating the use of surfactants and fluids like Turgicleen with cavitation, do not know what they are talking about. Such products do nothing to aid true cavitation. They may or may not be useful in other record cleaning methodology.

WAM Engineering's J.R. Boisclair, who manufactures and distributes WallyTool turntable set up tools does a fact-pact seminar explain the 7 set up target points and why they are important for proper turntable set up. I've been using and recommending WallyTools for decades and watched J.R. improve the products after he took over for the late Wally Malewicz.

His seminar is not product-based, but rather fact and information based. He's examined hundreds of costly cartridges and found shockingly poor quality control in many samples. His inspection service, which costs approximately $500 is money well spent if you've invested 10X that much on a cartridge. If it's only slightly "off" he can provide a fix that will produce top performance. if it's way off, he can offer proof to justify your returning your purchase for a properly manufactured sample.

After editing this video and watching it a second time, I feel fully confident in claiming that this video is among, if not the most important and useful video you will find on YouTube— if you are serious about vinyl playback and proper record care.


  • 2023-03-07 08:15:33 PM

    freejazz00 wrote:

    As a physicist (BA, MS) and engineer (MS, PhD) I find so many things wrong with Kirmuss's presentation. Some of his explanation uses incorrect terms to describe what's going on, while other parts use the correct terms and confuse concepts. For example, he doesn't seem, at least in this presentation, to understand how standing waves form and how they are a problem for cavitation systems. For someone who never had, or can't remember, college physics it is similar to the concept of bass suck-out and acoustic dead space when setting up loudspeakers. It is frustrating to watch as a university lecturer because proper use of terminology to explain concepts is something that is central to my courses. Another problematic explanation is the discussion of how a pump may alter the efficacy of cavitation. Kirmuss says water moving causes cavitation not to work without further clarification. If his explanation were correct his machine wouldn't work because the record spinning in the vat causes the water to move. We call this "no-slip" in fluid dynamics - the velocity of the fluid at the boundary (here, the surface of the record) is same as the moving boundary. He should be able to explain how a pump may impact cavitation efficacy, but the record spinning will not. There are a whole host of problems related to his testing methodology. For example, the foil test is very sensitive to parameters like placement of the foil, ultrasonic frequency, water temperature, etc. Likewise, Kirmuss never explains that using a hydrophone, or underwater sound sensor, doesn't easily sort out what portion of the measurement is from effective ultrasonic implosions (the bubbles bursting) and what part is simply the ultrasonic frequency. The last problems I'll raise are: 1) the issue of what cavitation is and 2) how additives may aid in the cleaning of ultrasonically-treated items. Cavitation cleaning works when expansion (actually rarefaction) portion of a sound wave creates temperature and pressure changes (bubbles). The collapse (implosion) of these bubbles in the compression part of the wave causes physical displacement of contaminants (physical removal). Implosion of bubbles also forces fluid into contaminant/record interface encouraging dissolution of soluble contaminants with a cleaning agent.

    • 2023-03-07 10:06:53 PM

      Michael Fremer wrote:

      I can't comment on the standing wave issue. However he did not say moving water impedes cavitation. Obviously he's well aware that water moved in the closed tank. He was referring to water constantly draining from the tank, circulating outside the tank through a filter and then returning to the tank during the cavitation process. I don't know if that affects cavitation but it is not the same as "water moving" in a sealed tank. That said, it's not critical to whether or not his system works. Perhaps if he's incorrect it means a system that drains as cavitation occurs also works. I have such a machine here under review. I believe his definition of cavitation is the same as yours and is the same as my understanding. However, using a cleaning agent and then fan drying the record leaves a residue on the record that his system works to remove. I'd rather avoid any kind of residue unless it can be proven to be more effective than water alone. As long as we are talking about "testing methodologies", it seems to me you'd have to prove that using a "cleaning agent" would improve cavitation. If he sticks the same hydrophone in all of the machines and gets no results from one machine and strong results from another, it would seem to me that's useful information. He was correct that the AudioDeske is not a cavitation machine but rather a "bubbler". Thank you for your input.

      • 2023-03-10 12:25:07 AM

        freejazz00 wrote:

        I'd like to hear/read a scientific discussion of how the pump/filer system impacts the cavitation. What kinds of pumps? What kinds of filters? What circulation schemes? Does the pump need to be on during the cavitation? etc.? As for residue, unless you are using lab-grade water without additives then you risk leaving residue on the record. Salt, surfactant, anything. Water's bipolarity is what makes it such a great solvent (also makes life on earth possible). Bipolarity also allows for the residue. Unless there is a truly unique property here at play then this applies to the surfactant used in the Kirmuss system. Many industrial and medical surfactants, detergents and enzymatic solutions are labeled as no-rinse. Does that mean cleaned items come out of the tank free of residue? No, it means there concentrations are relatively low. In this case the Kirmuss surfactant is likely the same as other, similar products in industry. It is why when cleaning of glassware in labs the glassware is rinsed multiple times with lab-grade water. Why? Because it is the nature of water. This raises another question: adding surfactant for cleaning 100-150 records must increase the concentration of the surfactant in the cleaning water, as well as whatever the surfactant has helped remove from the record surface. The increase MUST leave a residue, if from nothing else, the removed material. The more records you clean, the more removed material goes into cleaning water, and the more is available to end up on the record. An obvious analog (pun intended) is a salt pond. If you want to prevent a residue then rinse cycle with the cleanest water available is the way to go. This is not my opinion - this is essentially a rephrasing of the cleaning standards for laboratories and medical facilities using cavitation and other cleaning methods. Lastly, I think it would be very difficult to prove that cleaning agents (enzyme, surfactant, etc.) always improve the cleaning records. That would really depend on what is on the record. Enzymes, for example, wont help clean anything but organics and surfactants will only help remove dirt where a reduction of surface tension (what a surfactant does) improves cleaning efficiency.

        • 2023-03-10 12:33:14 AM

          freejazz00 wrote:

          There is an interesting industry white paper on the web describing the problematic lack of a testing standard for cavitation systems (i.e., there is not ASTM or similar standard for testing cavitation cleaning efficacy). This is important because how the cavitation meter is employed will impact the results of the test, and without a standard the test of one device can't be compared to another except anecdotally.

          • 2023-03-10 05:02:44 PM

            Charles Kirmuss wrote:

            Very familiar with Fuchs, personal opinion expressed in the doc. Read the manual for the PB-500. The 4 patents out there on ultrasonics and also ultrasonic testing (patent for aluminum foil test).

            For validation of the above: Using the same tester, we then repeat the same tests in other machines. Two testers used. The CM-1, PB-500 and the aluminum foil record to observe effects of cavitation.

            Also: the daily aluminum foil test and record keeping mandated by many health agencies and the published regulations are self explanatory and prove there are standards. Chick out the NIH in the UK. Good source. All tests using the same processes sees the same observations and conclusions. (Scientific method if you may recall from elementary school science).

            • 2023-03-10 09:05:50 PM

              freejazz00 wrote:

              Charles, First, I really do want you to succeed with this. I'm constantly frustrated by the snake oil in the audio industry. I wish you nothing but success. My problem biggest problem with what you've presented is with the lack of rigorous and consistent scientific description of the process. I happen to also be bothered by the fact that you are testing others products and reporting it - you are not an unbiased observer and the conflict of interest in your testing of other's products is overwhelming. Second, the NIH library doesn't' include a standard. It includes lots of peer-reviewed articles. There are several in there (it would take a PhD student to sift through it all) that disagree with you assertion that there is an obvious testing procedure: Dular et al. "It was concluded that the physics behind erosion depends significantly on the means of generating cavitation... and the specimen characteristics (thin foil, massive specimen), which makes comparison of results of materials resistance to cavitation from different experimental set-ups questionable." Others describe the problems with consistent measurement set-up because the transducer differences in placement, power, and treatment frequency, tank dimension differences, the application of frequency sweep techniques, etc. impact the results of the a given test. Unless you have a method to account for all of these variations in equipment then any test you perform is only anecdotal. If you have developed a procedure that you believe can be standardized then I encourage you to submit it for peer review or to an organization like ASTM.

        • 2023-03-16 03:06:08 AM

          Michael Fremer wrote:

          Kirmuss’s liquid is not a surfactant. It’s a propane based liquid that changes the record’s polarity. It’s not a detergent.

        • 2023-03-16 03:08:57 AM

          Michael Fremer wrote:

          Kirmuss says he changes the water every 10 records. I don’t think you watched his presentation. I grilled him throughout.

  • 2023-03-07 08:15:39 PM

    freejazz00 wrote:

    To work the cavitation bubbles need to implode - their presence alone doesn't promote contaminate removal (cleaning). There is much more, but I'll stop here to keep this comment from becoming a rant. Kirmuss's record cleaning machine generally gets raves, including from Mike, whose opinion I trust. I also want to get something from listening to Kirmuss, partially because I want to buy a better record cleaning machine. Kirmuss's presentation shown here is, at best, very weak scientifically. If this were his final exam he'd fail the class.

    • 2023-03-07 10:10:11 PM

      Michael Fremer wrote:

      Kirmuss says exactly that. Bubbles do not do anything. I don't see where his explanation is weak. He describes the cavitation process clearly and correctly. Unless I edited it out, which I do not think I did.

  • 2023-03-08 07:46:07 AM

    Ivan Bacon wrote:

    This is an excellent and interesting discussion here in the comments and i would like to see it continue. I purchased the Kirmuss upon reading Mr Fremers review , no small investment for me as it was much more than any cartridge i have purchased.

    • 2023-03-08 07:51:41 AM

      Ivan Bacon wrote:

      I will say i was a bit pissed off that after buy the machine i find the "restoration" fluid is 80 freaking dollars for a small bottle of fluid. Maybe someday i will be able to get the wally tools, out my budget now.

      • 2023-03-08 04:28:04 PM

        Charles Kirmuss wrote:

        The 300 ml large bottle is $95 all in. The special liquid mix flies from Germany to Hong Kong, then to the US. Depending on the number of cycles, 3 to 5, it comes out to 0.41 to 0.46 cents a record.

        Suggestions per the updates: Do use only four 2 minute cycles followed by a final 5 minute cycle on new records (16 years or younger), as they have many additives and will "Leach" forever. Revert also to this "fixed time" on records that see pooled water or hundreds of droplets on the record's surface after the first five minute cycle. This indicates that the record has a severe coating or has been in its package for many decades where the outgassing of the plasticizer had made a major impact as a coating when outgassing in the plastic sleeve. This will reduce the amount of cycles. Also, use the bunny cloth to wipe off this "pooled water" so as not to dilute the ionizing agent. Enjoy your records!

        • 2023-03-08 06:30:26 PM

          Ivan Bacon wrote:

          Germany to HK to US? Damn that a huge carbon footprint. There should be a way to get it directly without it having to travel 10,000+ miles. "special liquid mix" Please tell me that you are not shipping mostly distilled water all that way. Can you tell us how much propanediol 1-2-178 is in the 300ml bottle and what is costs per ml ? I.E. aside from the high millage shipping costs and low cost of distilled water what else contributes to $95.00 for 300 ml.

          Updates? When were updates issued and how. Shouldn't there be a way for someone who has invested in the machine to be informed of these updates if they happened post purchase. I have looked at your technical support and documentation page and i see nothing that indicates UPDATE Also the felt pad in the 10" record slot is the same size as the ones in the 12" slot and it over laps onto the label and gets the labels on 10" records wet. I love the rabbit towel but i find it gets to wet for the length of my cleaning session. Is the new record platform affordable?

          • 2023-03-08 10:52:31 PM

            Charles Kirmuss wrote:

            Glad to explain.

            1. The airfare from Germany to HK per bottle is $12.26 per bottle, then from HK to USA is $18.30 per bottle taking into account insurance. $30.56 just in shipping. Finished solutions with the colorant additive added.

            2. Taxes (VAT import duty) are then added to both shipments. the US tax rate is 3.8% plus the trump Tax of 25% added.

            3. The liquid is not made in North America. The retail also includes the customary profit margin for the reseller. Added: You will notice where on our web site we have no store, directing users first to the closest brick and mortar store. Old school business principle held.

            4. Our manual, first page, top section, after one's agreeing to use the machine and having read the entire manual, refers users to our web site to receive the latest updates. The updated manuals and details are in the updated manuals section. The outer box also on the label instructs users to check for any updates and videos on our web site.

            5. Our YouTube Channel has the latest videos. A 10 part live restoration video is available.

            • 2023-03-08 10:59:45 PM

              Charles Kirmuss wrote:

              The 3 LP cover is available only to current users of the 2LP system. Contact us directly with your serial number of your current machine.

              • 2023-03-09 07:16:23 AM

                Ivan Bacon wrote:

                Thank you for you time. I will send my serial number when i get home to Anchorage from work. Why does a bottle need to go to HK before it goes to the US? There has to be a more economical way. 30.00 to ship 280 ml of distilled water is just not smart imo. How about a concentrate, add your own water. Of coarse i understand profit if part of it. None of the constituent parts are expensive in the quantities that are in a 300 ml bottle. propanediol 1,2, ( i can get 99% for $70.00 a liter) cationic ionizing surfactant, etc. The shipping around the globe just befuddles me. I support brick and mortar and i appreciate that philosophy, and i love my local record store where i bought your machine. Obsession records.

                • 2023-03-09 06:00:57 PM

                  Charles Kirmuss wrote:

                  I respect very much your comment. We have tried to reduce costs. If you are familiar with global chemical industry, the chemical is made in Germany for a Company in Asia. I do not use 50,000 gallons of this chemical and cannot meet the minimum order so I have to buy it from one of their clients.

                  Then we do not simply see the materials mixed as you state.

                  In my case with the colorant, they need to undergo heat processing and blending at the same time. The German Manufacturer will supply me direct at 100,000 gallons sold every 6 months. Our industry and hobby is boutique. No other client of theirs wants to sell to me and also do the blending of 1,000 gallons at a time, with bottling and packaging using my own bottle.

                  It is not wise to be a home chemist.

                  Also the secret is the -178 additive which is the special colorant and my magic elixer. This allows you to see what the ultrasonic softened and disturbed in the previous cycle. Just using 1-2 does not work.

                  I also have to allow my resellers to make their expected profit as we respect our brick and mortar stores. Thus, we only cover our handling costs. Dealer makes the profit. Hope you appreciate this.

                  • 2023-03-09 06:17:09 PM

                    Charles Kirmuss wrote:

                    May I also add we are using the solution as an ionizing agent, not a cleaning solution. SAFE FOR OUR PLASTICS AND RUBBER ELEMENTS.

                    By law as a cost I have to assume and renew our license to see our liquid be placed on board an aircraft, thus we have to test in a lab our solution by an outside laboratory, then have it certified as SAFE FOR FLIGHT for several aviation authorities, all at extra cost.

                    Making your own chemicals void our warranty. Moreover: we have refused to repair at no charge our rubber rollers when a UK end user listened to a YouTube journalist in the UK and added Tergitol to alcohol and a thinner, all detrimental to the health of neoprene, as a cleaning solution.... let alone the detrimental to the health of the record being processed.

                    I do not know how much you have invested in equipment but to see a processing cost of 0.45 cents per record is very fair for the dB gain that we offer.

  • 2023-03-08 01:02:57 PM

    Gary Saluti wrote:

    Thank you for this very informative video Michael. As an happy owner of both the Kirmuss system and a set of Wally Tools I found it comforting to know I made the right decisions.

  • 2023-03-08 06:20:30 PM

    Charles Kirmuss wrote:

    As to standing waves that most ultrasonic record cleaning machines have not solved, from a manufacturer:

    QUOTE: “Standing waves are created when vibrations are created in opposite directions at the same frequency and amplitude. In the case of an ultrasonic cleaner, the sound wave is emitted from the tank bottom, and is reflected back downwards from the surface of the bath thereby creating the standing waves. This is a very technical way of saying that ultrasonic cleaners only provide the most effective cleaning results at particular locations in the tank. When transducers are mounted onto the bottom of the tank emitting upwards, these points of aggressive scrubbing action are equally-spaced, and the distance between the standing waves is determined by the ultrasonic frequency. The higher the frequency, the closer the standing waves will be to each other. “END QUOTE. Due to time, I skipped describing some slides showing 4 and 12 records placed in a 6 liter bath. Sorry. Demonstrated where we inadvertently see more standing waves generated by the number of records inserted in a tank to the detriment of cavitation. Discovered, 4 LP’s in a 6 liter basin using a 35KHz ultrasonic rated at 810 Cavins can be processed. Even dimpling recorded of the aluminum foil records from record’s edge to the dead wax area if we correct the inherent issues of cavitation & SW. The Model CM 786 Cavitation Tester by APEC was used to demonstrate the results in our slides, live. We also use the PPB Megasonics Model PB-500 Ultrasonic Energy Meter, a CPU based “hydrophone”, can measure in x-y-z multiple points, the energy and frequency, generating a 3D view of what is happening in the tank. Validates the foil test results and controlled SW. Displays, and logs frequency and sonic energy, registered in watts per square inch. (Manual free on-line, good read). For the audience, all this results in where one can benefit from even and gentle contact using cavitation in a 6 liter tank configuration with 4 records with gentle and even cavitation covering/cleaning/ "restoring" (with our IP) all areas of interest where the music lies from the record’s edge to the dead wax area, all records, all sides. Keep those records spinning!

  • 2023-03-08 07:56:21 PM

    Dual wrote:

    I cannot read any text on this page because the text extends far beyond its needed horizontal limits.

    • 2023-03-08 07:58:32 PM

      Dual wrote:

      Firefox Macintosh 110.0.1

      • 2023-03-08 10:40:33 PM

        Charles Kirmuss wrote:

        This is a link to the Zenith ultrasonic manufacturers web site. This so no one sees that I have "doctored" any description in my composition as some may question the quoted text. I did cut and paste the entire text for one to read instead of using this link.

        • 2023-03-08 10:58:21 PM

          Charles Kirmuss wrote:

 Above another good link if you feel so inclined.

          TITLE" Optimization of Ultrasonic Acoustic Standing Wave Systems


          1. Paul Dunst 1, and ORCID,Tobias Hemsel, Peter Bornmann 2,Walter Littmann 2 and Walter Sextro 1

          1 Chair of Dynamics and Mechatronics, Paderborn University, Warburger Str. 100, 33098 Paderborn, Germany

          2 ATHENA Technologie Beratung GmbH, Technologiepark 13, 33100 Paderborn, Germany

      • 2023-03-12 03:52:25 AM

        David L wrote:

        Should be fixed now Dual.

    • 2023-03-09 04:47:48 PM

      Michael Fremer wrote:

      I have changed the link on Mr. Kirmuss's reply above to a "tinyURL" link that will take you to the same site.

      • 2023-03-09 07:49:45 PM

        Charles Kirmuss wrote:

        Greatly appreciated, Mr. Fremer!

  • 2023-03-09 10:40:47 PM

    Ivan Bacon wrote:

    My final thoughts. Part 1 I love the Kirmuss machine, I purchased it on Mr Fremers recommendation. It is what Dr Kirmuss says it is and does what he claims it does. Learning the cost of the fluid post purchase made me realize i did not do enough homework. I did not do thorough enough research before buying it, had i known that after my initial significant investment i would then be locked to buying an expensive (to me) solution on a regular basis i would have had to reconsider. I have only purchased one bottle at the time i got the machine. I have not purchased another because of the feeling of paying for distilled water. A $100.00 bottle of concentrate that would make a liter, or more, would be palatable and reasonable. The machine is by far the most expensive thing i have purchased in my music reproduction system. It cost more than any one of my amps, turntables, speakers etc cost me. I can not afford to buy new equipment. Perhaps to someone who can afford a $10,000+ system is in position to continue to buy $100.00 bottles. I do not always have an extra $100.00. 0.41c to 0.46c per record, i have decades worth (thousands) of records.

    After purchasing I felt like someone who had bought a printer only to be tied to a continuing cycle of buying over priced proprietary ink cartridges. (I understand that “overpriced” is my perception, that does not change the validity of my feelings) I FEEL that paying $100.00 dollars for mostly distilled water is unreasonable. A concentrate would be the intelligent thing to do, and more respectful to the people who invest in the machine.

    Dr K says Shipping a bottle (mostly distilled water (he did not refute this) from GER>HK,(5600 miles WHY?) then HK>USA (7200 miles HK>LA) is responsible for 30% of the cost. I just find this a non-sensical business decision, (necessary? unlikely) not to mention more carbon emissions then necessary. Ship the concentrate and if you still think its OK to charge people for distilled water add it in the US or wherever the solution is being sold. Why cant just the chemicals be combined in Germany and sent to the point of sale. WHY Hong Kong? All though this conversation has shed some light on ONE of the reasons for the cost, it does not answer ALL of them and raises others. (some i asked and did not get answers for)

    • 2023-03-09 11:03:42 PM

      Charles Kirmuss wrote:

      The Kirmuss machine KA-RC-1 is $1,280 List Price. It is the least in price of any "working" ultrasonic. I replied above: I respect very much your comment. We have tried to reduce costs. If you are familiar with global chemical industry, the chemical is made in Germany for a Company in Asia. I do not use 50,000 gallons of this chemical and cannot meet the minimum order so I have to buy it from one of their clients.

      Then we do not simply see the materials mixed as you state.

      In my case with the colorant, they need to undergo heat processing and blending at the same time. The German Manufacturer will supply me direct at 100,000 gallons sold every 6 months. Our industry and hobby is boutique. No other client of theirs wants to sell to me and also do the blending of 1,000 gallons at a time, with bottling and packaging using my own bottle.

      It is not wise to be a home chemist.

      Also the secret is the -178 additive which is the special colorant and my magic elixer. This allows you to see what the ultrasonic softened and disturbed in the previous cycle. Just using 1-2 does not work.

      I also have to allow my resellers to make their expected profit as we respect our brick and mortar stores. Thus, we only cover our handling costs. Dealer makes the profit. Added: By law as a cost I have to assume and renew our license to see our liquid be placed on board an aircraft, thus we have to test in a lab our solution by an outside laboratory, then have it certified as SAFE FOR FLIGHT for several aviation authorities, all at extra cost.

      Making your own chemicals void our warranty. Moreover: we have refused to repair at no charge our rubber rollers when a UK end user listened to a YouTube journalist in the UK and added Tergitol to alcohol and a thinner, all detrimental to the health of neoprene, as a cleaning solution.... let alone the detrimental to the health of the record being processed.

      I do not know how much you have invested in equipment but to see a processing cost of 0.45 cents per record is very fair for the dB gain that we offer.

  • 2023-03-09 10:41:50 PM

    Ivan Bacon wrote:

    My final thoughts Part 2 I thought, lets see how much a bottle cost in Germany, I went to the dealer listed on the Kirmuss site. It lists a bottle for 139.00 euro’s ($147.00) and the country of origin as US. ? Does this mean GER>HK HK>USA USA>GER ??

    Thank you to Dr Kirmuss for communicating with us here i have learned some things, not all. I believe what he says about his machine, I love the machine. I have doubts about the need for the cost of the solution. (The validity of the price and the need to include and to ship distilled water 12,000 miles) I still have unanswered questions. I also still have a feeling of having made a decision that was not right for me. I would ask Dr K to Please reconsider the business decisions regarding the cleaning solution.

    I am sure you can find a way to still make a profit and show respect to those who invest in your products.

    • 2023-03-09 11:37:05 PM

      Charles Kirmuss wrote:

      Yes, we ship the liquid from Hong Kong to the UK. Our office in the UK then sends the liquid to dealers in the EU, and other areas that they support.

      There is no one in the US that is interested in doing the blending, packaging for the boutique amounts that we use in a year. So, I located someone in Asia that can do this for me. You should know this as you seem keen to look at the supply chain. Just making the mix at home is not just pouring chemicals and mixing them together. The colorant itself needs to be extracted.

      No matter: Are you aware of the import duty and VAT into Germany to be in excess of 38%, as well as their provincial/state/local taxes added both to the import and then to the sale? And the carbon tax offset fee also charged? And the disposal fee charged the reseller? And where the GDP has tanked?

      I am not going to go down this path.

      This forum is to provide education to record lovers and share the passion that we have for our hobby.

      MY Company supports our global dealers and where as stated am selling the solution at cost to my resellers plus 4%. REASONABLE PROFIT. Dealers make the profit as they should as with any other product they sell. They stock and service. The manufacturer of the base product is sole source. Others add their label, increasing raw good costs.

      I have been honest and exposed to you details in our family business. Someone else would have not been so polite as i have been.

      This is not buying just distilled water, as you imply. Wrong rabbit hole... ...mixing the diol, adding our colorant, having the "cookers", yes perhaps simple. The mix will not happen either at your home or my office.. There is a heating process involved.

      The amount of product that I have to buy to qualify as a direct buyer is well beyond our reach. We do not sell 50,000 gallons to become a direct buyer. Already we take a 4% gross margin on our product to our reseller.

      Our resellers I am sure will not move away from the margins that they are accustomed to.

      The crust of the matter is where the 25% TRUMP tax added to the 3.8 % duty in itself forced us to have the price set as is. Our price to you before the Trump Tax saw the 300 ml bottle with shipping to you listed at $65 a bottle. Or .23 cents a record.

      Thank you for reminding me and the audience of government interference.

      We are lucky where Covid did not impede our supply channel as it did other manufacturers. Thanks for your ear!

  • 2023-03-10 09:15:32 PM

    George white wrote:

    I saw the video on your YouTube channel! Fantastic, and very informative! Thank you! 😊

  • 2023-03-11 02:18:36 AM

    Eric Lubow wrote:

    Frankly, all this scientific jargon gives me a headache. What I desire in a record cleaner is a machine that will clean the record thoroughly and either reduce or eliminate the noise on the lp, if it, in fact, is possible to eliminate. Some are obviously not. For those of you who are naturally curious or into the esoterics of cavitation—good for you. Always good to understand how things work. But I would bet that the vast majority of us are uninterested in this scientific jargon. We just want clean records. I don’t demand that my lps be free of any dust. I don’t care that I have not gotten every bit of debris out of those grooves. If the record sounds quieter to me, that’s all I ask.

    The Degritter does that and more. Kirmuss’s method takes time, quite a bit of time and involves an individual active participation. The Degritter does not. Just place the record in the slot, press a button and come back 8-10 minutes later. It does the work for me without any assistance on my part. And the results are fabulous. My records sound much quieter. That’s all I want! The less time involved, the better. For those who love to clean lps, perhaps the Kirmuss is for you. And even if the Kirmuss was shown superior in cleaning debris from the record (which I highly doubt), I still wouldn’t buy it. If price is permitting, get the Degritter!

    • 2023-03-11 07:20:01 PM

      SME12A wrote:

      I totally agree with you Eric - it is mind blowing to see, to what extent people are willing to argue over record clean up. I have $150k system with extensive high end record collection - I also use Degritter, cleaned 1200 records, and NEVER had ANY issues! 1100 hours on my cartridge and recent high magnified images show perfect - like new condition. I also use DS Audio's stylus cleaner each record's side its played. Next week I will be getting my mk2 update from Degritter. No fuss and no issues.....and a $100 a bottle snake oil :)

  • 2023-03-11 02:18:36 PM

    Gary Saluti wrote:

    I have never seen someone put through the ringer as much as Charles Kirmuss on this site. The fact that he even responds to some of these comments is testament to his integrity. The man truly seeks to make a difference in the world of audio and has in fact done so with his Record Restoration System. As I said in an earlier comment, I found this seminar to offer conclusive scientific evidence of the efficacy of his product. I use it and can clearly hear a difference. Michael noted this as well in his initial review but had some reservations about the science. (Pardon me Michael if I'm putting words in your mouth). Charles purchased the necessary hardware for further testing and then successfully addressed these concerns in the subject seminar. Those who nitpick the man and his product and not serving the cause of audio reproduction. I'm would guess that J.R. Bosclair is also not necessarily viewed with favor by many cartridge manufacturers. It's tough to be the pioneer but I for one wish them both much success.

    • 2023-03-11 11:16:25 PM

      Eric Lubow wrote:

      Gary Saluti- Not every criticism of the Kirmuss System is an indictment of Charles Kirmuss. I’m sure he believes in the process he advocates. I did not criticize him directly, I did not say his system doesn’t work. I merely said it is too long and too complicated and that the Degritter is a much easier method of cleaning records, quicker, more autonomous and one that does an excellent job as many owners attest to.

      You’re entitled to your opinion about the Kirmuss method and certainly free to spend your time cleaning records in any way you see fit. I think I’m entitled to criticize his cleaning method; he’s been criticized before and I’m sure it won’t ruin his day. The only derogatory remark I ever made about him personally was that he could be a little long winded in his explanations. Many of us have been called much worse.

      • 2023-03-12 01:41:32 AM

        Charles Kirmuss wrote:

        FYI: I do not advertise our process as a cleaning system, with a green light that sees the record pop out. Rather a groove restoration system using 810 Cavins of ultrasonic pressure and a process that requires one to see what is being removed from the record. That needs explaining, as this is a new technique and thus requires the educational programs describing the science. Much more complex than DG etc..

        • 2023-03-12 04:46:09 PM

          Eric Lubow wrote:

          “ Much more complex than DG”… That’s the problem. It’s TOO complex. I really feel you’re ignoring human nature here. Yes, some of us love to clean records and will endeavor to remove every bit of detritus in the groove. But, let’s face it- the vast majority of us are lazy, at least as far as record cleaning goes. We don’t want to spend valuable minutes of our lives “restoring” records; we want to listen to them! And we want to do it in the easiest way possible. And for me and lots of others, the Degritter fulfills this purpose. Once you fill it with water and a surfactant, you’re set; the machine is basically autonomous. It washes and dries the record. Yours involves several scrubbing cycles and a lot more time. It is not autonomous and doesn’t dry the record.

          I guess the real question here is when is enough ENOUGH? I love the results I get from the Degritter; the record is quieter. And for me that’s enough. It might not be for everyone.

          I guess one has to determine for themselves where to draw the line. I’ve found mine. I’m old and refuse to hear the remaking minutes of my life tick away while I scrub records. There are infinite possibilities out there to enrich one’s life and record cleaning or “restoration” is far from the top of the list.

          • 2023-03-12 06:33:10 PM

            Charles Kirmuss wrote:

            Your response comparing DG to our process shows where you did not look at the any videos explaining the science as to record groove restoration and the difference to surface cleaning. The extra work is needed for this. Both are not the same. Not trying to be argumentative, based on science, using our process, we want to uncover the detail hidden by the pressing oil that as far as we know, only our process can remove. .. "pressing oil "discovered first by the Shure Brothers in 1977. We need to ionize the record before placing a record in our machine. This "charge" wears off as the record spins. Several 2 or 5 minute cycles in and out of the machine needed. Some questions: Why do records once processed with Kirmuss come out virtually dry, not wet (if you interrupt the DG before the fan starts, pools of water on the record. (same as with others). HINT: Tribelectric Table of Charges.; What is the dB gain published in the DG product data sheet (or others) after use in a machine and frequency response? (Hint: see a dB gain over floor s/n, not a loss (indicating a coating has been applied inadvertently by air drying). Our videos show the science. A quiet record with the needle riding now on a film is not what we promote. Both JR Boisclair of Wally Tools and we at Kirmuss are keen on seeing the needle make the best possible contact with the details found in the record as pressed by the stamper. Replicating as much the ACTIVITY cut the lathe. We both do not want to see the needle fight with films left over by prior cleaning processes and the release agent. The Kirmuss process by brush over several cycles allows one to what was removed each cycle. No green idiot light and the manual stating to redo the process if not satisfied. How many times? We cycle 4 records at a time for ab total of 18 to 15/20/25 minutes. Never needed to be repeated, release agent is removed. Respect your satisfaction with surface cleaning. As Mr. Fremer states, restoration is not the same.

          • 2023-03-16 03:34:39 AM

            Michael Fremer wrote:

            One can use the Kirmuss machine as a 2 minute cavitation cleaner and not go through the restoration process. Were I to take one of your cleaned older records and go through the Kirmuss full process I’m pretty sure you’d hear what it does and be amazed. I don’t do it for every record. I don’t have time. 2 minutes will get It clean and microfiber drying takes a few seconds. The machine costs considers less. There are many good record cleaning machines and solutions (not as in liquid).

            • 2023-03-21 03:34:58 AM

              Jim Tutsock wrote:

              Finally something I want to know more about. What solution are you using ( "as in liquid") (see above) for the 2 minute cavitation? Also check out the Ragg Co (no affiliation) for the Korean made micro-fiber cloths immensely superior. Also I believe your brain asked you to type "considerably" in your reply above.

  • 2023-03-11 05:57:14 PM

    Charles Kirmuss wrote:

    Thank you Mr. Saluti. Does the audiophile want a shiny records or see the needle discovering what was hidden by the pressing oil. No cleaning system manufacturer provides measurements as to signal gain, or ultrasonic pressure in Cavins or watts per square inch in their advertising. Why I ask? Why do users of my system see "gunk still coming out of records" after they have just been processed prior by all the different processes, and hear the difference? The generic seminars explain this.

    Records are precious, many, one of a kind. None of the industry peers show the ingredients as required by law to the consumer to see if the chemical supplied or sold used on records are safe for records, cleaning machines and what to do if the grandchildren have ingested by accident some of the cleaning solutions. Am I wrong in pushing for this?

    No one has focused more on education and revealing the many myths as either JR of Wally Tools or myself have done. Forums such as this should be educational. YES: We are all allowed to have our opinions. I promote the generics as does JR Boisclair. Applicable TO ALL.

    To the post: the Tribolectric table of charges implies where we need no extensive drying of PVC, not Kirmuss. Some records that seem "quieter" are as a result of a film on the record. To reach into the grooves, we need several cycles in any ultrasonic.

    I hope that Mr. Fremer by his influence can push for more detailed process specifications of peers. Divulge the ingredients of what chemicals to see if they are PVC friendly, safe to handle, as well as will not damage the workings of peer machines and their parts. A testament to our science", our generic testing proved where one very famous ultrasonic sold for decades never used 40 KHz cavitation! Originally a $9,000 piece of equipment, now confirmed by third parties. And also another. A bubbler.

    Thank you for your post. Refreshing. Hope to see Mr. Fremer's discussions do exactly that, provide information to record lovers. Not attacking fellow audiophiles and hobbyists or manufacturers that are truly interested in the best possible sound reproduction, the health of the record, and the pure joy in hearing what a needle is picking up as close as possible to the stamping made.

    To the audience, sorry to be wordy. My thanks for someone that understands the discoveries that both JR and I have provided as "food for thought".

    • 2023-03-12 06:40:00 PM

      Charles Kirmuss wrote:

      Clarification: After Kirmuss processing. records comes out virtually dry. No need for forced air or vacuum drying.

      No need for a circulating pump and filter as the record comes out virtually dry, per the Tribolectric table of charges. Water repelled by the record.

      Proven where most filters are 120 plus microns in diameter, noted where dirt, dust and fungus are 3 to 5 microns in diameter. As our processed records come out virtually dry, no need for any UNAFORDABLE water cleaning processes.

      Thank you Ray for the phone call to clarify the first point.

  • 2023-03-16 03:26:48 AM

    Steve Ericson wrote:

    Thank you for putting these videos where I would notice them. They are everything you said they would be. I am curious now about your own procedure regarding zenith angle.