If Charles Kirmuss's Record Cleaning Machine and Regimen Are Correct, Are Everyone Else's Wrong? *

* Mr. Kirmuss insists that the vinyl residue seen in his cavitation tank in this video is not damage caused by his device. Rather, he insists, it is vinyl residue "locked" into the grooves by soapy residue from other machines that his process has removed.)

We first encountered at AXPONA 2018 Mr. Charles Kirmuss and his "In The Groove" Ultrasonic Vinyl Record Restoration System. The system is based upon an ultrasonic bath-type cleaning machine from China, another of which that looked identical was being sold but a few feet away.

The biggest difference appeared to be in how the records were placed in the vat. The other machine, like all of the others that adapt an existing ultrasonic bath device, uses a rotary spit-like mechanism to spin the records. Kirmuss's is a far more sophisticated adaptation that covers entirely the water vat with a slotted device that spins the records the way the Audio Desk (the originator of ultrasonic record cleaning, I believe) and KLAUDIO machines spin them.

But Mr. Kirmuss claims there are bigger differences than how the records spin and that his machine while visually identical to the one at the other booth, is far different. Not only that, he claims it's different from the Audio Desk, KLAUDIO and the others in ways that are critical to how records can and should be ultrasonically cleaned.

Mr. Kirmuss claims that he worked with the ultrasonic machine's manufacturer to change the angle at which the cavitation bubble generator produces its waves (from aiming them broadside at the records to an unspecified angle) and he's set the frequency to 35kHz, which he claims is significantly lower than most of the others.

Kirmuss says the "direct hit" and higher frequency of the other machines damages record grooves and "shaves off" high frequency information. This of course is alarming to many of us who have used the Audio Desk and KLAUDIO machines to clean hundreds of our most valuable records and who have found the results to be both sonically stunning and far superior to vacuum and thread type machines.

At this point we have no choice but to take his word that his machine is not the same as the one in the adjacent AXPONA booth but we're hoping for more certainty as we face the prospect of having damaged many records. I don't mean to disparage him or call his credibility into question. It's simply a matter of proceeding cautiously.

Kirmuss's presentation is convincing and his ideas credible. He takes ultrasonic record cleaning several steps beyond anyone else's regimen and makes a strong case for why he does so. His claim that the Audio Desk system, which uses a detergent/surfactant, leaves a soapy residue on the record makes sense: the record spins in the solution, the solution drops to the bottom of the tank and fans dry the record. Nothing removes the "soapy" film from the record. It's dried on—something I'm embarrassed to admit I never considered.

At the very least, the just cleaned record should receive a plain water rinse to remove the soap/surfactant before drying. In the case of the KLAUDIO, which uses no surfactant/detergent or alcohol, Kirmuss claims that cavitation alone cannot possibly remove oily and/or smoky residues from records.

What's more, he claims that fan-drying is not good for records, that vacuum and string-type machines too, are not good for records, nor is "air" drying in a dish rack.

His position is that wet records must be hand-dried using optical-grade cleaning cloths and that "soapy" and fungused records must be treated with an ethyl-glycol (anti-freeze) spritz and wiped with a camel hair brush that brings up from the grooves residual soap and breaks down the mold and fungus that grows on records because, he says, PVC is a 'sugar'-like compound. I'm no chemist (nor is he as far as I can tell) so I have to take his word for that with a healthy dollop of skepticism.

Kirmuss also claims that there is a mold release agent baked in to the PVC compound that the pressing heat brings to the new record surface and that this should be removed using his system before you play a new record.

His system uses a very small percent of isopropyl alcohol in the cavitation water—just enough to break down oil and other deposits on the record surface. The large percentage of alcohol used in some formulations, he says, damage the vinyl by breaking down the plasticizers that are there to keep the record supple. That part I knew about, which is why I recommend against alcohol-based fluids. If he's correct, then a small percent of alcohol in water should work and not damage the vinyl.

Kirmuss also says the distance between records in a vat is critical and that if the records are too closely spaced, you don't get the right result. Ditto if they are too far apart. He claims for his system the ideal spacing based upon scientific research (that I've not yet seen).

Finally, he claims that much of what he offers (aside from ultrasonics) is based on record cleaning advice and research produced by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. However, when I did a web search I found this from 1996 on the website of the National Library of Canada:

"Grooved discs are best cleaned using a record cleaning machine such as the Keith Monks, VPI, Nitty Gritty using 0.25 part of Tergitol 15-S-3 and 0.25 parts of Tergitol 15-S-9 per 100 parts of distilled water. These machines allow for an even dispersion of fluid and can then vacuum the liquid leaving a clean, dry surface. The discs must then be rinsed thoroughly with distilled water and vacuumed dry to eliminate any trace of detergent residue. Records should be cleaned before each playback."

I bring all of this up not to disparage or doubt Mr. Kirmuss, but to ask everyone to consider with healthy skepticism what's in this video and in the one in the AXPONA video coverage. Nor is it my intention to disparage the manufacturers of the Audio Desk, or KLAUDIO machines, both of which are claimed to have been carefully researched, designed and manufactured to avoid damaging records—I know both designers are vinyl lovers! As you'll see in the video below, I maintained skeptical throughout the demonstration. However, if you go back to the KLAUDIO review you will see there was black residue left in the empty reservoir that I assumed just looked like "shaved vinyl" but couldn't possibly be.

Interestingly, in the video embedded below, you will see vinyl remnants at the bottom of the reservoir! Mr. Kirmuss claims it's from "shaved vinyl" produced by other machines that gets "trapped" in the grooves that's removed only by his machine and follow up manual process.

If I've misstated or mischaracterized any of his claims I hope he will respond here. This is very tricky territory! So please watch the video with a degree of healthy skepticism. AnalogPlanet hopes to soon have an "In the Groove" system to try at home, which will provide a much better indication of its efficacy and we will endeavor to research and try to verify (or debunk, if need be) the many claims for Kirmuss's system and of equal importance, the veracity of the negative assertions he makes about other ultrasonic cleaning machines and systems. P.S.: if you Google Mr. Kirmuss, it seems apparent that he doesn't need this business to earn a living and that he's doing this because of his love for vinyl records. Stay tuned!

J.D.'s picture

making scones & tea for the conflagration to come!

Anton D's picture

Well done.

Anton D's picture

"Records should be cleaned before each playback."

Why is this?

I am in control of my record. I clean it, then play it, then put it away. What am I washing off before each playback?

I use a Nitty gritty and Audio desk when I first get a record, then only use a carbon fiber (the amazing Ursa major) brush for replays.

If an audiophile handles his '12 inch treasure' with care, do we really think something is happening that requires a wet wash each time we play it back?

abelb1's picture

This was from the National Library of Canada's guidelines relating to how records in their archive should be handled (by library staff presumably). I don't think Michael was suggesting everyone else should perform a full cleaning process between each play.

WesHeadley's picture

You should wet clean and resleeve the record before putting it on the turntable the first time. Then brush it before playing, and then brush it again afterwards before putting it away. Common sense.

If you put a record away before brushing it then you are accumulating dust on the record and in the sleeve.

How much effort you want to put into the initial cleaning depends upon you and the record. Some records clean just fine with one cycle and rinse (rinsing with distilled water is necessary if you use detergent or enzyme cleaners in step one).

Some records will require several more cleaning cycles to get the gunk out. Some records simply won't clean up well at all. So there is no one size fits all approach.

I have no idea if the science behind this guys claims is real. My guess is they arrived at their recommendations via trial and error and have no science with which to back up their claims.

If someone is demonstrating cleaning equipment and they touch the surface of the record repeatedly during the process that tells me they lack the consciousness that underlies any cleaning process. Never touch the record surface period. That said, most people don't seem to care much if there's some surface noise on their vinyl.

If I care about the record I make the effort to clean it well. Sometimes I can tell it's not going to cleanup very well and if possible, try to replace the record with another copy then try again.

There's "clean" and then there's "clean enough". It's a personal thing.

Michael Fremer's picture
He is referring to dust removal not that you go through this process every time you play a record!
roban241028's picture

It's been a year is there any update yet??

Lazer's picture

It is completely unnecessary to clean properly handled records before each playback. Doing that borders on obsessive compulsive behavior.

McFaden's picture

Give it one wash on which ever system you have then enjoy the music. Take good care of it, if it gets played a lot then maybe a touch up cleaning if it looks/sounds like it needs it. I would bet this dude spends more time cleaning records than listening to them. I'm sure it's a fine machine that works well but damn, the scrubbing and recleaning and more scrubbing and more cleaning. no thanks.

WesHeadley's picture

If you wait to clean a record until you think it looks or sounds dirty enough is not a great idea. Far better to clean it once and well, and then keep it clean by brushing it before AND after each play. Keeping a record in its original sleeve will all but guarantee that it won't stay clean (and may also scratch it each time it removed/reinserted). In almost all cases a newly cleaned record MUST be resleeved.

McFaden's picture

I agree. And this is what i was saying above, more or less, without getting into the details of my own cleaning routine. But yes a trip on the VPI wether new or used, new QRP rice paper sleeve even for a brand new AP pressing, outer sleeve to finish off. A carbon fiber brush before each plays is all it needs after that. My point above that you seem to miss is that cleaning before each play is insane, but if one felt that it seemed dirty for some reason after years of heavy rotation, give it another clean, fine. I’ve done it very few times but have done it. You’ll never catch me cleaning for each play. Thanks.

WesHeadley's picture

My point was more about-- after a proper clean, brushing before AND after each play is IMO a best practice-- and or course, reclean on your RCM if you feel it's needed. I have a few LP's that I've recleaned many times with a small improvement each time-- but this is because there was already excessive noise. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Michael Fremer's picture
previous comment
McFaden's picture

Thanks for the clarification. I'm still skeptical of all the scrubbing and the recleaning and the scrubbing to "bring soap out" but whatever, to each their own. Just enjoy the music.

lcater1's picture

I have been using one for a while however when following the instructions I would get a lot of "white" build up on my stylus! Taking the record and rinsing it on my trusty old VPI Machine solved the problem!

The cleaning ritual has now become longer and more tedious, I must admit I have quieter records.

Rockphotographer's picture

Typical hocus pocus. No doubt it cleans the records just fine, but he's full of it on "release compound" and "plasma waves" and "sugars." Please.

Daniel Emerson's picture

Was that spray bottle actually filled with... soap?

stretch35's picture

thinking the same thing

Wimbo's picture

new records on my Nitty Gritty back in the 80's and 90's with the "First" and "Second" cleaning solutions.Yes, even brand new records sounded clearer. No MRA left. I sold my system and wasnt involved for around 15 years and now I playback these same records (and well played ones)and they are mint. One clean and then looking after your records works.

Michael Fremer's picture
Think as you do until I tried a cavitation cleaner (Audio Desk). That instantly changed my mind ....
Elubow's picture

I love vinyl but watching this makes me want to go digital! Are you kidding? Nothing in life is perfect and I’m OK with the fact that after using the VPI and disc doctor fluid, my records will be PRETTY clean. Whether or not some or all of what he says about mold release and “soap” has merit is besides the point. The real issue is whether this rather arduous method results in an audibly better sound compared to other traditional methods. For those who love the PROCESS demonstrated here, I wish you well and sincerely hope that when you finally emerge after cleaning your records, you will still have some semblance of sanity left.

stretch35's picture


MichaelTrei's picture

Always be skeptical of anyone who wears a lab coat for no apparent reason.

MichaelTrei's picture

The lab coat also has a name patch that says "Dr Charles" when his website refers to him as Mr (not Doctor) Kirmuss.

Michael Fremer's picture
In the video, the "Dr." is in jest.
stugazz's picture

he's no Dr. just a ripp off artist. he got a manufacturer friend to give him a bunch of stock promising him the world saying he was going to distribute his products never paid him a dime for the stock, knocked the product off and cleared all my friends stock at cost, well actually no cost to him just a piece of s---

AnalogJ's picture

Harry has been toying with ultrasonic cleaners. He thinks it's a superior cleaning to RCMs, but also hears the high end roll off as a drawback. He has been trying to figure out a way to avoid that.

You can read the discussion on VPI's own online forum, or, Michael, you can drop him a line.

Michael Fremer's picture
I have seen HW's set-up. It's an off the shelf cavitation vat. I'm not sure if he's paying attention to that vat's frequency or intensity. NO doubt too high a frequency and too intense a cavitation wave can damage vinyl. This is something to which Rainer Glass paid a great deal of attention before releasing the Audio Desk machine. It's too bad his pump suppliers in the early days let him down.
AnalogJ's picture

He's been playing with DIY cavitation solutions, pun intended. He recently suggested a specific series of items to me to make my own. On the other hand, at $850, I like the design of the one in your post, Michael.

Aronson's picture

The curve that represents the Law of Diminshing Returns has finally reached the point of being perfectly flat. Spacing of the records, sugars, angle of the dangle. What this hobby really needs is a formula to remove snake oil.

gbougard's picture

is it advisable to clean acetates with an ultrasonic cleaning machine???

Anton D's picture

Oh, man. I like to control the cleaner timing on my Audio Desk with a manual override and turn off the process when I think the record is looking good. I fell asleep while cleaning a record last night....it's gone!

It's like a tooth left in a Coke!


Michael Fremer's picture
Like to see that record!
liguorid42's picture

..if he's not yanking our chain.

I always like to say the tooth dissolved in Coke is an example of a molar solution.

AnalogJ's picture

Wow. Did you take photos of it? I guess too much of anything can be a bad thing.

Anton D's picture

Then, there was the time that I cleaned Ornette Coleman's "Song X" for too long of a cycle and got back John Cage's "4' 33"."

I never complained because it was an improvement, but now I think I can relate to that physician in the white lab coat and his cleaning machine.

liguorid42's picture

That's 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence, correct?

Anton D's picture

Most times, I'm just talking to myself.

Thanks for the reply!

foxhall's picture

It seems like the best way to determine post-pressing states of LPs is to hire a material science/surface chemistry firm to provide true data.

Inspections and trials at audio shows, claims by PVC vendors and pressing plants have too much ambiguity.

Why keep guessing. Get some real science and then everyone will know exactly what needs to be cleaned and the optimal process.

WesHeadley's picture

There really isn't an optimal process as the contamients on records vary-- so you'll often need to try several processes depending upon the LP. For example-- enzyme or detergent based fluids? They each do some things better than other things. I think we can all agree that there are many excellent options for cleaning records today-- more than ever.

Michael Fremer's picture
Trying to do that...
hiwattnick's picture

For today at least (and probably tomorrow), I’ll be enjoying listening to my records which have been cleaned on my Nitty Gritty. I’ve used it for many years, and owned most of my records for many, many more years. I will continue to enjoy listening to my records. In the end, it would be nice to know the real facts behind all of these conflicting opinions and ideas, as I’m pretty sure most of them seem to have good intentions behind them, but will nonetheless still be listening to my records as I always have.

Sgood@verizon.net's picture

...drive one to drink, or, worse, download a file.

Rodan's picture


I enjoyed your video and appreciated your taking the time to interview this guy, but geeze! I believe you said it yourself: after the cleaning process, is there time to listen? Even I, a retired ne'er-do-well, have a life beyond my hobby, which, let be clear is listening to music. I buy a lot of used records and if, as it seems from the video, that it can take a minimum of 7-8 minutes per record to use the "Kirmuss method"--and probably a lot longer, judging from the video of cleaning your TV Jazz disc--then count me out. No matter how effective the cleaning process might be, it would clearly take away FAR too much of my listening time!

Best regards,


Read more at https://www.analogplanet.com/comment/reply/121775#EtihSfTB4zTUBMQH.99

Michael Fremer's picture
If he is correct about soapy residues (etc.) left in the grooves by other machines, it may well be worth going through this process. If it's a new record, probably less so...
Elubow's picture

“If he is correct.....it may be well worth going through this process.”

For whom? Michael. I can guarantee you will not perform this arduous regimen with more than a few records, if that. Let’s be honest. At what point is “good enough” good enough? How many of us really have the time, inclination or obsessiveness to indulge in this craziness? IMO, this is where the hobby borders dangerously on the edge of excessively neurotic behavior. Of course, I’m actually spending time following this, so I’m likely well on my way to a similar diagnosis.

AnalogJ's picture

What if cleaning a record in this manner turned out to double the impact of the performance?

I mean, if you're not into exploring tweaks which makea very good music playback method even better, then we might all just buy a Rega P2 or P3 and be done with it. Nothing wrong with that.

But the proof of the pudding is in the tasting, meaning you have to judge for yourself in person before you determine its worth.

All personal, of course. Some of us are more interested in exploring this hobby than others. But "ignorance is bliss"?

k9gromit's picture

Mr. Kirmuss reminds me of the ever present guy who sells space age polish by setting a car hood on fire. Sugar? Can an *actual* chemist weigh in on this?

His record cleaning/drying technique is not far off mine, it's just all the hokum that grinds my gears.

KenB's picture

Sibling to a PhD Organic Chemist. So I asked her. She gave me a quiet chuckle and called the claim ridiculous. Here's why. "By sugar-like substance he can only mean a carbohydrate. From the name a carbohydrate has carbon and "hydrate" namely water (H2O). So there are always oxygens. PVC has no oxygens so at the most basic level it's not even close."

I hope this helps.

ctbarker32's picture

Hi Michael,

I have watched both your videos concerning this new device. I observe that he spends quite a bit of time polishing each record with the microfiber towel. I wonder if this last polishing with microfiber is more important than we realize? I currently use a VPI Cyclone using my own fluid of Turgitol and a little bit of isopropol in distilled water. I am getting good results but I am now adding a last buff with a very high grade microfiber cloth. I think I am hearing a reduction in surface noise and ticks with this last step? I would be interested what your testing uncovers?


Michael Fremer's picture
One of his main points was that physical action (brushing) is necessary and that "blow drying" simply locks stuff in the grooves.
Drew57's picture

....plenty of issues to add to our vinyl nervosa from that video!

The microfibre cloth as well as the wet vinyl is surely picking up airborne dust which gets rubbed into the vinyl using his method (....although I only use a humble RCM, most new or well looked after LPs seem to play virtually silent in spite of his claims of dust getting sucked onto the record during vacuuming).

Presumably Michael will follow his advice & take that Last LP home to keep cleaning/scrubbing/soaping/cleaning ad infinitum until the last semblance of 'soap' is gone & just a husk is left - No doubt the product itself works well but his never ending verbal stream (+wiping the makeup brush on his jacket!) destroys all credibility for me.

Chemguy's picture

PVC is not sugary. Vinyls are not sugar polymers. They can be addition or condensation polymers made from double bonded carbons or carboxylic acid and alcohol group monomers. Not sugars.

Isopropyl alcohol is a polar solvent. It does a bad job of removing nonpolar residue, ie. grease and fat.
Soaps will remove grease, not short chained alcohols.

Chemguy's picture

When spelling chemistry...

Rodan's picture

Even as a non-chemist, I was skeptical of the "sugar" claim. Kirmuss's cleaning method seems to be removing something . . . but the question is: is it something that needs to be removed?

stretch35's picture

dollars from wallets

eugeneharrington's picture

This is an interesting article and it raises a number of concerns, if Mr. Kirmuss’ claims are established to be true.

I have used the KLAUDIO machine since December 2014. Before I ultrasonically clean any record, it is cleaned on my VPI HW-17F RCM using a suitable mixture of an enzyme cleaner (Vinyl-Zyme) and De-ionized water. After that, the record is rinsed in De-ionized water, dried and placed in the KLAUDIO. I totally get it and have from the very beginning that 'cavitation' cannot remove fingerprints or finger oils from the surface of a record. That is why I always insist that a record is wet cleaned first on the VPI to remove fingerprints, mould and other contamination, before it goes near the Klaudio. If you do not do that, you are going to have an issue with the filter on the KLAUDIO machine which will get 'gunked' up very quickly.

One thing I will say about the KLAUDIO and maybe this also applies to the AUDIODESKE (which I am considering purchasing) is that it does not or cannot deal with dirt or mould build up in the dead wax. In order to protect the label area there is a point on the record surface beyond which the 'cavitation' process will not work and that is the run out groove or dead wax. This makes pre-cleaning even more necessary for a thoroughly clean record. If you try a dirty, contaminated record which has mould on it that extends into the dead wax you can see this for yourself if you clean on the KLAUDIO only.

The 'residue' particles in the tank of the KIRMUSS machine is what I would regard as 'lint' which becomes blackened, presumably because it is removed with dirt from the record? I have seen particles like this in the water that I have drained from my KLAUDIO machine and they are not sharp or anything like that? In fact it is soft lint. If these were particles of vinyl, then I would expect the particles to be hard or sharp? By the same token, I see the same dark particles when I drain the tank on my VPI to a collection jar. I am convinced, that in both instances, the black particles are nothing more than 'lint'. I had occasion to clean the filter on my KLAUDIO machine last week and yes those same black pieces of lint were loosened from the grille on the filter and came away from it using a soft brush. These were not hard, sharp or brittle to touch so I do not think these are vinyl particles. Trouble is, I am going to have to remove the filter from my KLAUDIO machine shortly for cleaning because the tank is not emptying quickly enough causing the LED light to come on, which shuts off the cleaning project. That is another story however, and after nearly four years of use, I would expect that there may be a build-up of lint/dirt somewhere in the filter that mere cleaning with a light brush externally, cannot totally resolve.

I have often heard it said by dealers and users of the Audiodeske that a rinse, post ultrasonic cleaning, is necessary to clear the record of the additives that Audiodeske recommends for use in its system. This makes sense to me. Such a rinse is not required with the KLAUDIO due to the fact that no additive, cleaning agent or surfactant is added to the distilled or de-ionized water in the machine's tank. The ‘soapy’ material on the demonstration discs may have something to do with these additives, assuming the discs had not been rinsed after cleaning on the Audiodeske unit?

While I found the article very interesting and thank you Michael for posting it in your usual erudite manner, I am sceptical of much of what Mr. Kirmuss has to say. I would never, under any circumstances, use any alcohol to clean a vinyl record. I found out to my cost in the late 1970s and early 1980s that alcohol can cause 'leeching' on vinyl records and as such, in my opinion at least, is not good for vinyl records. And without being disparaging, does any one of us have the time to dedicate to cleaning records, according to Mr. Kirmuss' method? We want to hear some music too, you know! I don't like the 'rubbing' actions either with the camel hair brush or the lint free cloth that Mr. Kirmuss recommends. I think this could cause scuffing and impair the surface gloss and generally degrade the record surface, not to mention static build-up? That is just my opinion of course.

I provide a cleaning service to vinyl collectors and audiophiles in the southern part of Ireland, County Cork to be exact. I get some very dirty and soiled records to clean from customers and it is essential to deal with that contamination first, by way of wet cleaning, before a record ever goes near the Ultrasonic machine. My record cleaning service can be found at www.vinyllpcare.com. I have had an interest in vinyl record cleaning since the late 1970s and once owned a Keith Monks Audio RCM.

I look forward to a forthcoming ‘investigation’ of the Kirmuss RCM and Mr. Kirmuss’ claims in a future Analog Planet/Stereophile article.

Michael Fremer's picture
For one of the most enlightening and useful comments ever posted on this site. Yes, much remains to be discovered and verified (or not) about Mr. Kirmuss's claims. I too found that "black lint' in the reservoir of the KLAUDIO machine when I reviewed it (on this site). I too chalked it up to black lint that looked like vinyl but probably wasn't. However, now I wish I'd sent it out to a lab to be sure...
TexasJeff's picture

You say in your comment [If these were particles of vinyl, then I would expect the particles to be hard or sharp]

As someone who is intimately familiar with the machining of metal, I can tell you that whenever a steel shaft is OD ground on a cylindrical grinding machine with a fine grit vitrified stone using a water based coolant you will create very fine shavings and the finest, softest steel wool you can imagine. Not sharp, not hard... all from high grade alloy steel. This steel wool is will be grey in color, same as steel.

So you get my point... just because your black lint is not hard or sharp has nothing to do with determining whether it is vinyl or not. Vinyl, like all things, will become infinitely more flexible as its size decreases, surely more flexible than steel of a similar size shaving. Many of the softest fabrics are made out of fine strands of "plastic like" materials that otherwise would crack a skull it they were an inch in diameter.

The color of the "lint" would be a much more revealing property to consider. How many contaminates that one would get on a record are pitch black? I cant think of too many.

rfro's picture

and that is to clean a colored vinyl record or several if possible of the same color family. Starting with a perfectly clean tank, of course, would be necessary. One wouldn't expect black lint or vinyl strands or whatever from, say, a bunch of red records. I'd take on that challenge for science as I have at least 5 red LPs (yeah, yeah, I know, colored records are for kids and hipsters). If the lint is magically red afterwards, well let's reasonably say we have a conclusion. Have Kirmuss send me a free machine and I'll get back to you.

rfro's picture

it looks like someone mentioned in the many lengthy replies that a test was done with a yellow record. So much for my original thought.

Record Genie's picture

I share the concerns about excessive record handling voiced by Eugene Harrington in his excellent comment above. Eugene is an articulate and professional gentleman, I know he cares about records and music, we were in touch back in 2014 when he contacted me to ask about my experiences with Audio Desk and Klaudio, before buying his own equipment..

I've been using ultrasonic machines from Audio Desk and Klaudio since 2013, when I started Record Genie cleaning service, and have happy customers all over the USA (and beyond) who have sent me records for cleaning. I also use a Loricraft PRC4 "point nozzle" cleaner for pre-cleaning when needed, and it is very effective on heavily soiled records..

My best cleaning results have been cleaning with an Audio Desk first, then doing a second cleaning in a Klaudio machine filled with RODI water. Drying is done in a second Klaudio. This "double-cleaning" combines the benefits of both machines: The surfactant or cleaning agent added to the Audio Desk helps its microfiber rollers clean more effectively, aided by an (unpublished) lower wattage of ultrasonic power, and the RODI water in the Klaudio is a perfect second cleaning/rinse, with that machine's higher wattage ultrasonic power, a claimed 200 watts. To get consistent results, careful attention needs to be paid to how dirty cleaning solutions are, especially any final wash/rinse step which should be as close to 0ppm as possible, to leave no residue. I use a TDS meter to measure water quality often, so I know exactly when to change the water, rather than just relying on the number of records cleaned in each batch. You can buy a budget TDS meter for as little as $15, but the one I use resolves to 0.1ppm and costs $60, which is still affordable for such a valuable tool..

I am currently testing a multi-step cleaning workflow using Elma P60H tank cleaners that can run at 37khz or 80khz, and I chose them for their 80khz capability. 40khz tanks are cheaper than 60khz or 80khz tanks, and the Kirmuss cleaner is based on a 35khz iSonic P4875 tank. I do have concerns about frequencies lower than 40khz causing damage to vinyl records, simply because the lower the frequency, the harsher the cavitation effect since the bubbles are larger and implode (not explode, as Kirmuss said) with greater energy. The shockwave of each collapsing bubble is what actually cleans the record surface, on a microscopic level. Conversely, the higher the frequency, the finer and gentler the cavitation effect, when the bubbles are smaller, each one implodes with less energy, and a smaller shockwave. 80khz is perfect for cleaning into the tiniest cracks and crevices (think record grooves) while still providing enough power to clean effectively, it just needs to be paired with the right cleaning chemistry..

Life is full of comprises, and time is important, but I do believe that a multiple step cleaning process is the most effective, with a gentle cleaning agent and physical agitation followed by at least one pure water clean/rinse step. Of course it's going to take longer to do multiple steps, but anything else is going to be a compromise. Please note that I do not use any isopropyl alcohol in any of my cleaning steps, Audio Desk, Klaudio, or Loricraft, as I share the concerns of others about plasticizers being stripped from the PVC, making records brittle over time.

I also share some of the other concerns mentioned by others above, while Mr Kirmuss obviously has a big personality, I get the feeling he may be guilty of selling "more sizzle than sausage" with his (admittedly clever) record rotating insert in an iSonic P4875 tank cleaner. Is it really a modified unit, manufactured by iSonic with a different "ultrasonic angle" specially for Kirmuss Audio? I have to question that point, and the flood of other assertions from Mr Kirmuss, simply because "records contain sugar" is utter nonsense! I also find it puzzling that Kirmuss (and apparently his entire staff) are all wearing white coats. I'm looking forward to seeing actual scientific proof to back up what he's saying, but also worry that perhaps "the men in white coats" will come and take him away.. Quite soon perhaps..

Anyway, this is certainly an interesting time for those who love listening to really clean records - I'm trying to keep an open mind, and following this whole Kirmuss development with interest!

volvic's picture

You said everything I wanted to say far more eloquently than I could have.

RH's picture

Michael's article and video are excellent on this machine and there have been some really informative replies. I've been looking at getting my first record cleaning machine so all this is great.
As I'm not looking to turn record playing and owning into any more of a chore than necessary (I'm lazy that way) I'm looking for as hands off and easy a solution as possible. Hence I've been looking at the upcoming Degritter RCM, which seems to get mentioned as competition when the Kirmuss is discussed. Interesting contrasting the claims of the Degritter's 120kHz operation suggesting more and smaller bubbles (and which somehow allows for lower water temperature) are more likely to not damage records, whereas it seems Kirmuss would argue the opposite, for lower kHz operation.

Proof's in the pudding, but no one has a Kirmuss and beta testers of the Degritter seem to be raving. I'd certainly be interested if Michael takes a look at the Degritter at some point. It strikes me as the most polished in looks and operation of any RCM I've seen.

yuckysamson's picture

Regarding what was in the video along with what's been said above, I had some odd questions after watching Dr. Kirmuss' process. If it would be possible to address them individually (if you have the time, I know how busy you are), I'd greatly appreciate it.

1) As far as I can tell the process of camel-hair-isopropyl/Cavitation (i.e. back n' forth) can go as many times as required until no "residue" seems to "come up" when brushed with the camel hair brush. Doesn't this mean you're putting the record back in dirty water repeatedly for cavitation?

2) Doesn't it matter if the camel hair bush itself is dirty on repeated uses? I saw Kirmuss brushing it off his coat. What's the point of scientifically cleaning records if the brush which is being pushed against and into grooves is being slapped around dirty surfaces?

3) Are we certain that the film that comes up with the brushing process is actually what Kirmuss claims it to be? "Soap"? other things? Could it be a reaction to something else?

4) Michael you often address not putting side A down after cleaning to address side B if onto a dirty surface. Isn't that effectively what Kirmuss does over and over again? The velvet/flat/felt white disk he was sitting records on to brush was way bigger than a label....???

5) After cleaning he recommended using these two brushes to do a final 'shmere' with some isopropyl and then carbon fibre brush. Wouldn't this simply push more dirt or available dust into the grooves after cleaning?

6) Regarding the mechanical requirement to dry, I'd like an explanation as to how pushing with a micro-fibre brush wouldn't push wet residue back into the grooves (and whatever dirt sits on the water along with it) and how we can reasonably recommend wiping with a cloth that was "rinsed under water" and then let to air dry. I clean my eyeglasses with such a cloth. They get dirty and shmutzik as F***. We just spent time cavitation and brush cleaning a record then dry it off with a non-sterile cloth???


AudioClassic's picture

. . . that need substantive answers!

atomlow's picture

idk, maybe I should have "upgraded" from my Spin Clean. Uh... I'm glad I haven't, and won't.

Elubow's picture

Despite Kirmuss’ assertion that polyvinyl chloride contains sugar, this is all I could find on the subject:

“Petroleum is the least of our problems with PVC
Like most polymers today, PVC is derived largely from fossil fuels. PVC uses fossil-fuel-derived ethylene to produce naphtha, which is one component of PVC. PVC also uses industrial-grade salt to produce the vinyl chloride monomer that is the other main component. In addition to these basic building blocks, a variety of additives, including plasticizers, are added for specific performance properties.

But lets talk about the base polymer first. Solvay's use of sugarcane-derived ethylene in PVC would, according to Doug Smock at Plastics Today, "make PVC a 100% natural material from a polymer point of view." One could go so far as to argue that this "all natural" PVC is made of salt and sugar, which makes it sounds like something you'd find in your kitchen--rather than a substance of concern on a wide range of red lists. The vinyl industry has long used the words "table salt" to explain why no one should be concerned with PVC, so this is an easy next step in public relations.”

isaacrivera's picture

That would make PVC another industrial competitor, along with bio fuels and recyclable plastic from starch, for food resources against humans. Agricultural products and/or land need to be allocated to growing the stuff that will make sugar that will make PVC in a planet that is racing towards 7 billion living humans. Add to this the necessary toxic chemistry that goes along with GMO monocultures and their devastating effect on land, ecosystems and the humans that are exposed to it.

kinmun's picture

Like to try this one. Had an Audiodesk but it died after 2 years and the manufacturer made it difficult for repair. Avoid it like the plague. In fact in Malaysia, there's a graveyard of a dozen Audiodesks. Paid good money for it but don't expect it to be a one use machine.

kinmun's picture

Typo: should be "didn't expect" instead of "don't expect".
A thousand apologies.

map856's picture

I wonder what Roy Gandy would have to say about Mr. Kirmuss' intensive record cleaning regime!!! :-)

atomlow's picture

Just like map856 says about Roy, this video is absurd. Makes Roy seem even more relevant. Clean your records so they play and forget about it. Seriously, if I watch one more record cleaning video. I do clean my records but I don't obsess over it. I even buy used records and don't clean them before I play them OMG! haha

AudioClassic's picture

I'm Michael Baskin. After founding Nitty Gritty (with partner Ken Erickson) and spending 10 years studying and endlessly testing the methods and effects of cleaning LP's, I'm constantly curious about newfangled cleaners. At T.H.E. Show I was confronted by the recently introduced Kirmuss RCM with its lab-coated representatives.
My criticism of the Kirmuss is three-fold:
1. They advise the user to prepare the bath water by adding a cup of 70% isopropyl aka 'rubbing alcohol'. While one might assume the other 30% to be H2O, it's not. The U.S. Fed's mandate the addition of all kinds of compounds to the isopropyl to make it undrinkable. Some of these compounds will leave a residue. It's not at all hard or expensive to procure 99.9% labratory grade isopropyl - using that will eliminate this issue.
2. Wiping the dripping LP with ANY cloth isn't just counterproductive, it's stupid. The ONLY acceptable method of drying the LP is to vacuum it dry. Some enthusiasts will want to buy a cheap Nitty Gritty for the drying step in the procedure.
3. If wiping a wet LP with a cloth is stupid, applying a surfactant (read: detergent) to the LP's dry grooves is insane. If you want to leave residue in your LP's grooves, I recommend you save your money and just play uncleaned LP's.
I designed Nitty Gritty's PURE 2 fluid after consulting with 3 PHD chemists: Jack Shively (U of Illinois), Roger Barr (Caltech) and Warren Weingrad (U of N.Carolina). NG's P2 has 2 drops of surfactant per one gallon of H2O. It is a necessary ingredient needed to break down the surface tension of the H2O - without it, the fluid mixture (90% distilled H20, 10% isopropyl) will not make contact with the bottoms of the grooves. Even this tiny amount could leave a bit of residue if not vacuumed off. Of course, vacuuming the LP dry was the last step with a Nitty Gritty.
All things considered, the Kirmuss might be a good way to clean and preserve LP's, as long as the 2nd step is amended to incorporate vacuuming the record dry and the 3rd step is completely abandoned.
I have to ad, all my LP's have only been cleaned using the Nitty Gritty RCM and its procedure and after 37 years, they look and sound wonderful.
I always used a 50X microscope to demonstrate the effectiveness of the Nitty Gritty at tradeshows - the filthy before & pristine after views demonstrate the results one gets with any NG RCM. Every time.
Epilogue: I find it very odd that no ultrasonic LP cleaner utilizes a microscope in their live demonstrations. Just sayin'. Michael Baskin aka AudioClassic

Anton D's picture

I am a happy Nitty Gritty owner!

One item: no form of isopropyl alcohol is 'drinkable.'

I think you confused ethanol/denatured ethanol with isopropyl.

Not meant as a nit pick, just my nerdism.

I've experimented with my Nitty Gritty and Audiodesk machines and I admit to using them in combination with great results...but likely over-kill!

Thanks again for your machine and for posting here!

AudioClassic's picture

To prevent against alcohol abuse in the United States, all preparations classified as Rubbing Alcohols (defined as those containing ethanol) must have poisonous additives to limit human consumption in accordance with the requirements of the US Treasury Department, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, using Formula 23-H (8 parts by volume of acetone, 1.5 parts by volume of methyl isobutyl ketone, and 100 parts by volume of ethyl alcohol). It contains 87.5–91% by volume of absolute ethyl alcohol. The rest consists of water and the denaturants, with or without color additives, and perfume oils. Rubbing alcohol contains in each 100 ml more than 355 mg of sucrose octaacetate or more than 1.40 mg of denatonium benzoate. The preparation may be colored with one or more color additives. A suitable stabilizer may also be added.

OldschoolE's picture

Thank you Mr. Baskin
Well done.

I do have the Kirmuss machine and have run a dozen records through it so far. It is a good and safe machine and the results prove it. That said, I could not agree more with what you said. I actually made a long study of record care and while no expert and no letters after my name, my goal was to do it correctly so my records sound good and last a long time.
I have experimented with fluids and even gathered together my own RCM type set up incorporating a hand-held vacuum (a 1 gallon shop-vac with which I modified the crevice tools). Even fashioned my own record turner). About 230 records later and a repetitive motion injury, I saved up for almost a year and got a VPI 16.5 and was introduced to AIVS fluids. I have been using that for 4 years now and always get good results. Yes, there is the occasional stubborn record that won’t budge after 4 cleanings with everything in bag, but it is expected. I don’t look for perfect or miracles, after all it is vinyl records. Almost all my records are used, however, I have some cleaned on my VPI that are near CD quiet (but sound better than CD….duh). Cavitation cleaning done properly and safely take things to a new level.

So yes, I use both my VPI and AVIS fluids and the Kirmuss machine. Freshly purchased used records get cleaned vis the VPI and my fail-safe methods and then put away (always in fresh poly-lined/rice paper sleeves and notes of what was used in the cleaning written down) or played. When played I evaluate the sound and decide if it needs more cleaning, etc. I do have some records I don’t feel I need to run through the cavitation machine.

I have seen the Kirmuss regimen and have modified it for my own use precisely because some of it makes no sense and borders on opposite results of what is wanted. Despite of 1.4 oz of 70% isopropyl in 1.6 gallons of water not likely to be harmful in any way (except on shellacs of which I have none), I opt not to use it. I tried with and without and note no difference. While it is theoretically true that water alone won’t breakdown oils and such, I just don’t see why I need it, at least other than the fact that my records don’t have finger prints and such at least anymore. (I occasionally use the AIVS Super Cleaner version of the 3-step, which contains a minute amount of lab grade isopropyl for that very thing. For me the concern is that most contaminants on records are protein based and too much alcohol can actually harden them to the grooves.

Ah, yes cloth wiping. I have no issue with doing that initially after remove from the bath or even drying in that fashion provided there are fresh cloths at the ready. It is more convenience than anything. I am a big believer in vacuum drying, which makes perfect sense when using such an RCM because it is a big part of how the records get cleaned (removing the fluid and taking the dirt with it). Since it is water used in the Kirmuss machine (again, I do not add anything) and it is cumbersome to try to put a wet record both sides on my VPI, I do cloth dry in that situation only. That said, you are spot on about cloth drying in what you said. If I had a Nitty Gritty or similar style vacuum RCM, then I would indeed use it to dry since it vacuums from the bottom. However, I have no disposable income to invest another few hundred just for that.

Another thing I really differ from Mr. Kirmuss on is the application of any fluid onto a record after cleaned and dry! That is more stupid than cloth drying! The only thing that touches my records after cleaned and dried is a carbon fiber brush and the stylus.

I also differ with Mr. Kirmuss on a few other things.

The Kirmuss machine is solid, safe and worry free, no issue there for me and it indeed works very well. However, I greatly modify the regimen. I clean freshly purchased records on the VPI first then if needed, the Kirmuss machine with just water. I do use the “surfactant” he provides with it and have found no harm and it does help a bit without adding too much to the water. (I change the water every 20 to 25 records). Basically I never put a very dirty record in the Kirmuss or any USRCM, bad idea. (I am also looking into changing the surfactant possibly to AIVS #6 or something. In research mode).

Ironically, Mr. Kirmuss does use a microscope, the problem is they are only images on the billboard things and could have been gotten anywhere. For me the proof is in results and the results are there and good in my experience with it. So that is what counts for me.
Like I said, toss out some of the steps and modify others in his regimen as needed, use the machine properly and you will get close to vinyl nirvana. That is the secret. I think the machine has enough merit to help sell itself without gimmicks. It works, works well and is safe. I do like and enjoy the machine, working really great for me. I have no hesitation recommending it as long as some regimen modifications are done.

Ryskie's picture

I would love to see that microscope demonstration. Does it exist anywhere online?
thank you!

M Material's picture

Under NO circumstances should anyone attempt to clean their Redd Foxx records.

stretch35's picture

good one

mmaterial1's picture


McDonalds or Steak's picture

Spin the records in a cavitation tank.

Vac the water or solution off on a VPI or other traditional vac.

No need for extra baths, you're pulling off the liquid and whatever may be suspended in it (hopefully not much if your solution is clean).

Shellac just air dry. They don't do well on the vac, and the wide stylus, higher tracking force, higher noise floor and lack of vinyl's static property make the light ticky dust that plagues LPs a non-issue.

Fans seem like a terrible idea. They bombard the record with dust. No one would ever fan dry film.

audiotom's picture

Some great comments here, thanks

KLaudio ran tests with yellow colored vinyl where they ran records through the system for very extended periods of time with no yellow colored residue in the tank. You are looking at the record residue gunk taken out.

I've had the Klaudio ultrasonic since 2013. Previously a Loricraft which I use only for extremely soiled records.

The KLaudio sound quality is incredible with lower noise floor, nearly all pops and ticks gone, enhanced low level details, better separation of instruments and more refined tonality.

Many used "first pressings etc" that I buy typically are brought up a "play grade" or two and the cleaning of new records makes a big difference too.

I know my records well and have never heard any degridation in sound or high frequencies from The ultrasonic.

My cleaning area gets late afternoon sunlight where you can clearly see dust on what looks like a good record going in and a perfect record with no dust going out.

Also with the KLaudio there is almost never any static associated with records

The best thing?
Load an lp, go about your business, sleeve it, load next lp
It's not labor intensive.

Spend your time listening

Anton D's picture

Yellow vinyl, genius.

Although, I did take a Classics pressing of "Kind of Blue" and run it through my Audio Desk 6 times and ended up with what now appears to be a Clarity vinyl pressing.

audiotom's picture

we have a winner - Anton

I took my Mofi KoB and with one spin almost made a Classic out of it. Somehow the remnant chunks of 6 eye bonded in the tank.

MonetsChemist's picture

I have in mind that I'll build an ultrasonic cleaner one day...

I recalled reading various DIY articles about doing so a few years back and there seems to be a number of builders advocating HIGHER, not LOWER, ultrasonic frequency. For example this article from the San Francisco Audio Society



Most ultrasonic LP record cleaning systems use a 40 kHz transducer. Cost rises as transducer frequency rises. If you want safer, go higher in frequency and in cost. For instance, the individual bubble cavitation energy from a 40 kHz transducer is about 3x greater than that of a 60 kHz transducer and 10x greater than that of an 80 kHz transducer.

This does seem the complete opposite advocated by Charles Kirmuss. I wonder who is correct?

Record Genie's picture

You can find the Kirmuss user manual on Morrow Audio's product page for the KA-RC-1, and with none of Charles Kirmuss' research published, it's worth a look if you want to know more:


I tried to post a direct link to the manual, but it was too long to post correctly..

Please note there are some important disclaimers in BOLD TYPE:

On page 2 in BLUE:


On the back cover page in RED:


Trevor_Bartram's picture

Before leaving the U.K. in 1985 I took twenty favorites from my 200 LP collection to the posh Hi-Fi shop in Southampton high street. When I picked them up they looked clean but when played were the same or worse than before, an important lesson. After arriving in the States, there were very few CDs available but I was able to replace many of my favorite LPs for $4-5, after having been burned that was a much better proposition. My only advice from this exercise is make sure you listen to your LPs before and after cleaning to ensure everything is going in the right direction!

dmormerod's picture

...I was looking for a reasonably priced US machine and after seeing the AXPONA video purchased a KA-RC-1. I'd tried the DIY route but they ended up being clunky and extremely noisy, this seemed to be a decent option vs the $4k for other US machines. My regime is to use the RC-1 to clean, followed by a SpinClean containing just distilled water as a rinse before using a VinylVac to dry. Every album I've done so far (approx 40) sounds noticeably better than previously cleaned using either just the SpinClean & ViunylVac or the DIY US, SpinClean, VinylVac approach. After seeing this video I'm going to try the approach outlined, i.e. using the supplied surfactant spray, re-wash, rinse and then dry using the microfibre cloth to do an A/B comparison of this method vs my current method. At worst I can always then re-clean using my method. But the bottom line for me is that so far my records are definitely cleaner with a noticeable improvement in how they sound. This applies to both brand new & older vinyl.

audiotom's picture

Here is the positive feedback review of the KLaudio where the ran an extended 9 hour test on colored vinyl

also of note Kirmiss says lower frequencies and offset angle.
Wouldn't higher frequencies - small enough to get further in the groove and 90 degree angle to hit both sides of the groove evenly be the ideal method for ultrasonic cleaning?


"Top among Peter's design considerations was ensuring that the ultrasound machine didn't while going through the cleaning process also damage the record. To ensure his machine didn't damage the record, Peter employed an accelerated aging process using a colored record and modified record cleaning machine replete with a specially designed circuit board and temperature controlled water bath. He then proceeded to continuously clean the colored for nine straight hours (the equivalent of roughly 108 cleanings) at 40oC. Following the continuous nine hour cleaning, Peter failed to detect any evidence of vinyl particles in the stainless steel water reservoir. Nor did I find anything in the water reservoir after cleaning around 75 records or so."

moonstar's picture

Just saw this link on another website:


You can buy this RCM on Alibaba for $200, why waste your money with this clown?

He makes some really wild claims in the video:

Claim: Blowing air are using a vacuum is bad for your records.
Translation: My RCM doesn't have either capability, therefore both are bad.

Claim: 35kHz is the optimum frequency for RCMs.
Translation: We repackage this cheap Chinese RCM and it is only available in 35kHz.

Claim: If the record foams when I brush it, it's still dirty.
Translation: If I brush with the grooves, the record appears "clean"; if I brush across the grooves, I can make a new record appear contaminated.

McDonalds or Steak's picture

Minimum order quantity 120 pieces.

Go crazy man.

moonstar's picture

Ever heard of a group buy?

Might be worth becoming a dealer and reselling them. Standard dealer margin is 40%, so you could sell them for $340 and clean up. A $25K investment could gross $16K. Since the competition is $625 (ISonic) or $800 (Kirmuss), you could mark them up substantially more.

Ryskie's picture

great thread. Got me wondering about microfiber cloths. Can anyone recommend their favorites. I've had several and each has left trace fibers behind, to varying degree. I would love a truly lint-free cloth to use to remove the trace water droplets I often have after cleaning my records on the Audio Desk.

thoughts? Thanks!

sandyu's picture

Yes, I have a thought/comment. Contact Griot's Garage GriotsGarage.com . And what you'll discover there is a place that sells ultra-specialized supplies to clean automobiles. So, first off, you'll think I'm crazy, right? Because what does cleaning cars have to do with cleaning records? However, keep in mind, these aren't your everyday ordinary cars, these are $50,000,000 (and up!!) specialized concours d'elegance contenders at Pebble Beach; second, those "cars" aren't considered "clean" at the eyseight level; no, they're inspected, inch by inch, through jeweler's loupes -- at the same resolution you used to set up your cartridge in the tonearm -- to check for tiny, near-invisible swirl marks, watermarks, and so on, in the paint. (They're more like jewels than cars, really, and that's how they're treated. In some cases, the cars are especially flown to the US at thousands of dollars from their European or Asian museum and private collection homes just for the few days at a concours, and then flown black -- more thousands of dollars! -- but never are driven.) Griot manufactures the specialized products required by those specialized professional detailers/restorers who are in charge of preparing the specialized vehicles -- and one thing that those guys are is extra-careful of watermarks, visible only at the jeweler's loupe level, from dried impure water, on the delicate painted or polished surfaces of the cars. Griot sells several purifying methods for water so that no marks are left on the surface, even at the microscopic level. Good luck!!

rl1856's picture

A few observations.

LPs contain sugar ? Maybe that is why LPs/Vinyl sounds sweet !

I use a DIY US cleaner. My process is:

Spin Clean to remove surface debris, Blot Dry.
US Cavitation bath using "Rushton's" formula
Distilled water rise.
Nitty Gritty Vac dry.

My results are repeatable. Contrary to claims that US cleaning shaves off HF response, I hear more extended treble, much better transient response, and more ambiance cues in the background. And the noise floor is much much lower, often lower then the noise floor of my system. My theory is over time debris accumulates in LP grooves and becomes bonded to the surface walls. This layer of debris may be only a micron or 2 deep, but may be enough to blunt the sharper edges of the groove containing extreme treble, leading edges of transients and low level ambiance cues. This layer remains impervious to short duration cleaning methods- VPI, Spin Clean etc. A US bath for several minutes in heated water is what is needed to dissolve this layer of debris once and for all. I note that I see a significant amount of debris in the tank of my Spin Clean. This is expected. I was surprised to find debris in the bottom of the US tank after cleaning 20 LPs. I did not expect this, and I think this represents debris NOT removed by the Spin Clean, including the layer of debris referred to earlier.

Regarding the Kirmuss machine, I note use of a very low frequency. This is contrary to all other cavitation machines, and contrary to established theory. However if the US waves are directed to the LP at an oblique angle (which is implied by Kirmuss) perhaps the intensity of the larger bubbles is reduced ?

Kirmuss recommends a dedicated cleaning solution, and using a cloth to dry the LP surfaces. Ok....what removes residue from the cleaning solution ? Does he also recommend use of new cloth with each LP ? Both steps would seem to offset some of the positive effects of the US cleaning process. I feel both rinse and positive drying steps are necessary to optimize results.

Alibaba seems to have the same basic machine available for about $200....if one purchases in quantities of 100+ But it does not include an LP spinner. I admit that Kirmuss's solution to LP support and spinning seems well thought out. In his favor, his machine comes in a price point not too far above DIY, and significantly below other self contained machines.

pessoist's picture

to records, regardless of the pops. focus on the pops, instead of the music and you need a dr. in white to show you soap. Listening to music a frequent carb brush keeps them ok. buying used records might require a clear (outsourced) and then I start listening. No - I have no huge collection, in fact I do not collect, but listen to many albums, since child-hood (my first: hänsel & gretel, rumpelstilzchen and Louis Armstrong). ;-) the taste is the same still, weird. ;-)

Bskeane's picture

I just received this machine. Cleaned approximately 6 or 7 brand new never been opened albums out of which 1 showed the material referred to as "soap" Cleaned some older records, 2 in particular shocked me. My original Dark Side of the Moon that I purchased in 1976 and was probably never cleaned until 10 years ago when I started using a VPI 16.5 machine. The other was a Days of Future Past that was my wifes and never cleaned before to my knowledge. The amount of "soap" or sludge that came off both of these albums was startling to say the least. (I tried to take a photo but it didn't come out good). I cannot say if Mr Kirmuss's claims are true or not but I can vouch for the fact that I seem to be removing some form of goo from the surface. Just as a side note the Moody Blues album was still showing signs of goo after 4 washings and mechanical scrubbing, although it was less each time. I got bored and gave up after the 5 washing.

tsmith727's picture

Here a link to a article on Last's website discussing release agents left during the vinyl pressing process. Seems to back up the claim in the video. https://thelastfactory.com/vinyl-questions/explanation-of-how-vinyl-reco...

tsmith727's picture

Here a link to a article on Last's website discussing release agents left during the vinyl pressing process. Seems to back up the claim in the video. https://thelastfactory.com/vinyl-questions/explanation-of-how-vinyl-reco...

Arno's picture

In my dutch dialect Kirmuss means something like "village fair" and hearing about sugar on LP's does not convince me a lot wrt the actual scientific knowledge on the subject of cleaning. If somebody starts to wear a white coat, the least I expect are process significant parameters that quantify the intended effect of the process and provide a before/after data reporting. (number of particles counted on the same area by a vision inspection tool? Number of clicks/pops while playing a full side? A-B comparison of the grooves at the exact location? etc etc. Now, for the cleaning, US cleaning does work and vacuum cleaning works...but it's data that is missing to provide the evidence of the actual process...

JHouse4's picture

I have no expert knowledge about the vinyl record manufacturing process, but I may have an answer to your question to the apparent conflict between claims that mold release compounds can be found on the surface of new records while manufacturers have told you that they are put into the vinyl in the manufacturing process. If you were to highly magnify the groove of a record that has never been played (this will apply to old records too; I specify that condition for emphasis), you would see that the surface is not completely solid but has many holes or pores. My understanding is that MRC's are oily in nature. That means they would be liquid in form. If the diameter of some of these pores is greater than the diameter of the MRC molecule, the MCG's mixed into the vinyl during the manufacturing process could escape from within and rise to the surface. This is just a hypothesis. A chemist who works in the production of PVC and similar products should be able to provide a definitive answer.

Tangram's picture

Excellent discussion on the subject. I have recently abandoned the use of isopropyl alcohol in my ultrasonic recipe and now just use distilled water and ilfotrol, followed by a vacuum RCM rinse. Most of my LPs aren’t to fingerprint-covered but when I do need to remove, a little scrub wth a MoFi-style record cleaning brush (paddle) seems to do the trick.

What continues to frustrate me is records that would be considered VG grade which play fine but with numerous pops and crackles that don’t seem to benefit from a single ultrasonic clean. Anyone have a method that is effective in removing these pops and crackles (which I assume are due to particulate matter in the grooves, not a damaged stylus)?

WhatDoIKnow's picture

The one common denominator through all those demonstrations is the round brush which, after the 3-spot spray, is used to spread the spray around and get into the grooves. The question that bugged me from the first time I saw it REused is, what cleans the brush? I still wonder... how is that camel/goat/whatever brush cleaned? If it isn't, could IT be the source of the "soap"?

That brought up another possibility, however strange and improbable. This is an observation, not an accusation. I have no reason to suspect, much less assume, any of what I am about to say has is occurring.
A charlatan with a magician's hands could, conceivably, be swapping brushes depending on what effect he was trying to show. A while lab coat with pockets could be a hand way to swap them around... put it in the pocket, take it (or another one) out again.
This could not happen when reviewing a sample at home of course.

maxDaxe's picture

Mr. Fremer, please, tell the truth about Kirmuss Audio Ultrasonic Machine. We saw Mr Kirmuss in your home and now you just know the quality of the machine. What do you say?

Boomer's picture

I was on the Stereophile website this morning and saw an update from Mr. Fremer about the Kirmuss machine. It's on Analog Corner #287, dated November 3, 2020.

Old Audiophile's picture

WOW! I love this energy! It's refreshing to see how many music lovers out there continue the quest for the holy grail of achieving the best audio quality possible from their records! It kind of restores my faith in humanity. With that in mind, let me add this grist to the mill in the hopes of getting, at least, one step closer.

Like all of you, I've loved music for a very long time and have always treasured my vinyl collection. Several months ago, in anticipation of the homecoming of my new TT (Mofi Ultradeck + M), which replaced my old stalwart of 45 years, a Philips 212, I purchased a Cleaner Vinyl One after doing a considerable amount of research on record cleaning. I also purchased a couple of Cleaner Vinyl's adaptors (Cleaner Vinyl Two), which allows you to clean 3 records simultaneously. Of course, I also purchased the recommended 3rd party ultrasonic machine this system requires. For those of you possibly unfamiliar with Cleaner Vinyl, please visit their website for more information (cleanervinyl.com).

Here’s how I use this system: I start by cleaning 3 records simultaneously in the ultrasonic cleaning machine filled with Mofi’s Super Record Wash solution, which is nothing more than distilled water and a mild surfactant (no alcohol). I do not use any heat and run the recommended 15 minute cleaning cycle. The ultrasonic action generates a small amount of heat, anyway.

Next, I rinse the records in a Knosti (same as a Spin Clean, only German) filled with distilled water.

Next, I lay the rinsed records on high quality, lint-free microfiber cloths and let the cloths absorb the rinse water.

Next, I very gently take one of those high quality microfiber cloths and rotate it around the records, like brushing them before play with a carbon fiber brush, to get them as dry as possible.

Next, I set the records in the Knosti's rack to air-dry until I'm certain they are completely and thoroughly dry.

Lastly, I treat the cleaned records with Last Record Preservative.

My record collection is in good shape. I’ve always stored my babies properly, used anti-static poly sleeves, a Watts Disc Preener in the old days before every play (because that's all there was back then), Discwasher D4 later on, hand-washed them in distilled water & mild dishwashing detergent (no alcohol) occasionally over the years and, basically, did everything I knew or was given to understand to preserve them, short of rocking them to sleep in my arms. The records were never played on anything other than the Philips with carts like modestly-priced Shures, Empires, Stantons, Audio Technicas and others I can't remember. The styli were brushed & cleaned occasionally but, admittedly, probably not as often as they should have been. The records were never played at more than 1.75 grams VTF on the Phillips (Baerwald geometry) and the TT & carts were always lovingly cared for. No one ever went near that TT or handled my records but me!

My results: the records come out shiny clean and looking new … not like new but NEW! Then again, as I said earlier, my records are in good shape. So, they went into the cleaner looking pretty new to begin with. All … and I mean ALL … traces of surface noise is completely eliminated, even at 55% and 60% gain on a McIntosh MA5200 through Paradigm Studio Monitors. Truly wonderful on the new Mofi & Mastertracker! Some clicks & pops remain, unfortunately. However, these records have had lots on plays over the years and, of course, without the benefit of the technology we have now. So, I fear those remaining clicks & pops have probably taken up permanent residence. If not, I would love to hear how I could possibly improve my methodology to vanquish or further mitigate them (maybe a better cleaning solution?).

May the music be with you, always! Enjoy!

anaBlog's picture

At 9:20 in the video, Mr./Dr. Kirmuss brushes a record and says "it's soap" and then a little later "this is fungus."

At 14:56, he brushes a different record and says there is "nothing" on it.

I notice that in the former brushing the motion used is small circles going across the record's grooves, while in the latter brushing the motion used is instead large arcs, going along the record's grooves.

I think the difference between these two motions could be what caused the apparently different results.

atomlow's picture

Still the C H A M P! Eat your heart out! :)

TexasJeff's picture


I was drawn to compose this comment due to the sheer level of BS that was spewing from Kirmuss’ mouth in that video. You’ll find more at his website.

Here’s a gem:
“We then rely on our mechanical process of using an optician’s cloth to dry the surface and then use the parastatic felt brush to polish the grooves.”

Since when do we want to POLISH the GROOVES of our records. To polish means to make the rough smooth through a mechanical, abrasive action. We all know that a record has audio information stored in those grooves. Does that really need to be polished? And you can't excuse this as just semantics; he is supposed to be providing a technical explanation of the process.

Another gem:
“Due to the fact that PVC has a sugar content mold will grow on vinyl”

In the video:
(4:42) he says “PVC has upwards of 20% sugar”
(9:41) “a record is made out of sugar”

This is patently absurd. There is no sugar in PVC. As stated previously in this thread, sugar does indeed require an oxygen molecule which definitely is not present in PVC.

While I'm no chemist, I do possess an engineering degree and in my profession life I oversee a lot of cleaning: Media blasting, aqueous based cleaning, solvent based cleaning, US cleaning, mechanical cleaning, etc.

Why so many different methods?

The most basic truth about cleaning is that unfortunately there is no ONE best method because different soils, contaminates, and substrates require different cleaning methods, mechanisms, solvents, surfactants, etc.

All-in-one machines will inevitably have compromises built into them. While the convenience factor may outweigh those compromises in some cases, rarely will you get the most optimal result from a “jack of all trades” machine. I think this idea is bolstered by several of the previous comments where individuals are employing multiple machines and processes because they are unable to get satisfactory results from their all-in-one.

And you really do need a surfactant to remove oils if your not going to use a high concentration of alcohol. Which will then necessitate a clean water rinse of some sort.

As for US frequency, this is what I understand: The higher the frequency, the more evenly spread out the power and the more even cleaning of the part. The higher the frequency the smaller the cavitating bubbles which facilitates the removal of smaller particles from smaller spaces. The higher the frequency the more gentle the process which is why delicate parts are typically cleaned in higher frequency tanks, 70-200 kHz.

This does not bode well for Kirmuss’ 35 kHz machine.

At (6:18) in the video he says that in his process “the cleaning action is a plasma wave that hits the record at 500 mph”

At (7:00) he says “we need to have power that’s not strong enough to create that 900 kph or 500 mph wave that will actually destroy your record”

This guy is so full of s..t he can’t even keep his story straight for 60 seconds. How can you believe any of his fantastical claims. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

It sounds like some individuals are getting acceptable results from his machine but at what long term cost to the all important grooves. I also believe those results are likely due simply to the US cleaning method rather than Kirmuss’ snake oil.

I love your stuff Michael and I look forward to a follow up article with the plain talk and intellectual honesty we count on from you.

rogeliolara16's picture

Recently discovered this new vinyl record cleaning machine online that is capable of cleaning up to 10 records at a time. I don't know about you all but i'm a huge music enthusiasts and hold a fat collection of old records. Yes perhaps you don't have to clean off your records all the time but for collectors like me these things can become damaged or worn out due to erosion over time. These products seem to be new to the market as not much feedback is available about the company. Do any of you have knowledge about the Isonic products?

You can see the much much lower prices, please let me know cause this seems quite a good deal

Drew57's picture

Machine cleaning vinyl surely exists for 3 main reasons...

- improve sound quality
- minimise vinyl wear
- reduce stylus wear & increase life

In each case, playing & enjoying music has to be the objective....

Cleaning isn't just about silent & perfect listening - I'm sceptical of anyone claiming that any vinyl can be played without the slightest fleck of dust or pop & when music reproduction is engaging we shouldn't notice that anyway. If such a lengthy cleaning process is required followed by anxiety that there might still be some residual 'soap' or whatever then I suggest digital playback would be more appropriate for that listener.

Vinyl is a wonderful medium for playing music, especially when we focus on the result and not the means so time spent on cleaning needs to be proportionate.

Formerly YB-2's picture

Have been 'on the fence' for some time about a US-RCM machine while folks gain some 'run-time' with them and report their results (is 5+ years enough?). Plan has been to purchase a US-RCM and then sell my CA Smart Matrix Pro. But, the good info in this thread has me rethinking........... Plan now is to purchase a US-RCM for the 'standard' cleaning and follow that with a cycle thru the CA-SMP using only DI water to remove any residue surfactants and dry the LP. Should any record need a "good scrubbing", will have a dedicated 'soap' wand for the CA-SMP, then thru the US-RCM and back to the CA-SMP with the dedicated DI-H20 wand for rinse/dry. Of course, will use only my in-house (basement?) developed $400/ml magic elixir for the actual cleaning process. ;-)
Thanks for the many informed comments above. Now can we discuss $2500 power cords?

allvinyl's picture

I have established a regimen for using the Kirmuss system after reading his website, watching a demo at Axpona 2019, reading this feedback and Michael's review in Stereophile. I also have spoken to him recently and he gave a suggestion that will allow me to shorten cleaning time.

As noted in reviews and in his instructions, I believe it's very important to clean the surfactant applicator brush frequently and remove excess water on something. I use microfiber towels that I purchased at Costco or Sams Club. I use both sides and change them out frequently. I might go through 6 - 10 of them in one cleaning session.

When I spoke with him I told him I found records varied a lot in the amount of 'white toothpaste' that comes out and that with one RCA LSP lp I had to use 11 surfactant cycles to remove all the gunk before going to the final water rinse/polish.

He told me they have found that LPs treated with LAST preservative or cleaned with L'ArtduSon fluid are the toughest to restore. He said to go to 2 minute cleaning cycles because all of the surfactant cleaner is removed in 2 minutes.

I clean 2 records at a time. I find 2 manageable but 3 at a time to be too much.

I empty and clean the tank after each session but I put the fluid back in the gallon jugs and use it twice without issue. During those 2 sessions I usually clean 15 - 20 records. I dump the fluid after the 2nd session and start with fresh fluid.

The previous steps, save for re-using the fluid a 2nd time, are in line with his suggested process. Where I change is at the end. After the water only rinse and drying with the supplied cloth and polishing with the brush, I stop. I have been unsuccessful in being able to find the technique for applying the last bit of surfactant fluid and drying/polishing without leaving a film. For both the water rinse and last application of the small amount of surfactant I use my VPI 17F's turntable. Based on what I've heard from listening to cleaned records I'm not so sure that last surfactant application step is 100% necessary.

I have gotten consistently excellent results. As Michael eluded to in his SP review, I find the system and process restores high end response and takes out noise almost completely. Of course, no one can 'fix' a damaged LP so you have to have realistic expectations.

I don't find that the top end is rolled off or that air and dynamic subtlety is diminished. If anything, there is improvement in every area of vinyl playback.

ckirmuss's picture

Over the course of the last 2 years we have seen known coatings such as LAST, or residues left from L'Art du Son and Spin Clean cleaning solutions see us perform sometimes too many 5 minute cycles THAT WERE NOT NEEDED... . We have now learned how to speed up the process. If a record comes out of our machine after the first 5 minute cycle with surfactant brushed in and where the record when placed horizontally on the pad sees "sheets of water", or "hundreds of small droplets of water" on the record's surface: this indicates a coating or a film is left over on the surface from a prior washing. We see some new records have this as well. As we mentioned, the charge of the record is the same as the charge of the water. Our surfactant spray changes this. These coatings affect the capability of our ionizing surfactant spray in changing the charge of the record and where the applied spray is washed off in about a minute..providing no help in the restoration process...in fact extending it. IF WE SEE these sheets of water or water droplets: we change to 2 minute cycles. Each time when the record is removed and before the ionizing surfactant spray is applied, we also wipe off with the "rabbit" microfiber cloth the excess water. In about three or four, 2 minute cycles, we will now see the whitish talked about material appear. This as the ultrasonic action and the plasma wave attracted to the record has now removed first and foremost the surface coating irrespective of type, and where finally with this removed, we are now cleaning the grooves, and then removing the release agent. Oddly enough, with these coatings or residues left from prior processes on the record, our restoration time ends up to be less...

One may use our process with a single 2 minute cycle to clean a record's surface. This for 4 records processed at a time.

We may RESTORE grooves with 4 records processed at a time between 20 and 25 minutes on average for all 4.

..your choice.

As many have commented on, our RESTORATION process provides more than just a surface cleaning.. and with the release agent now removed we in fact for the first time see the needle touch the grooves as closely replicated to the Master used. The microwelded dust particles burned in by the heat of the dyne of the needle bonded to the release agent are now removed as well, removing clicks and pops inadvertently caused by playing the record.

AT LESS THAN A $1,000 , IT IS THE BEST "Best bang for the buck" over upgrading a cartridge, tone arm, phono interconnect cable, etc..

It is a process scientifically validated.

The Stereophile July 2019 issue and the year long test with our process is very clear as to the result.

Thanks to all those devotees understanding and validating our process.
Charles Kirmuss

russe41's picture

If he's not telling the truth he falls in with all the cable thief's
who claim outrageous statements!

ckirmuss's picture

Sorry for our Company to be disruptive to the status quo. Appreciate many of the comments posted.

As a Homeland Security equipment manufacturer who by way of a hobby entered into the record cleaning ( restoration ) business 8 years ago, in our arsenal and unlike our peers we have a thermal vacuum chamber as well as a 3D Keyence measuring microscope. Typical test equipment for developing RF and GPS solutions. In using this equipment, we have shared our views as to how to clean (restore) records. Industry chemists consulted have also aided in our discovery. To this and coincidently, we have discovered where many home made or commercial cleaning solutions are not PVC safe for vinyl records, or to be used with many of the polystyrene 45's pressed. Many purported to be used by the Library of Congress only to be found detrimental to plastics and one's health. In any event, using science, we have presented papers on record cleaning and restoration to professional societies involved in record preservation such as the ARSC as well as sharing these with the Recording Academy. Also on our web site. The crust of the matter in reviewing our process versus others is easily expressed. Understanding elementary school science, like charges repel, opposite charges attract. That is our discovery presented. In this, discovered where in an ultrasonic's bath, (tank), with or without a soap, even in a vacuum system using a soap solution, both water and the record have the same slightly positive charge. Any commercial or aerospace manufacturer or operating technician using an ultrasonic appreciates this and for a long time prior to our arrival in this industry have all used an ionizing agent sprayed or brushed onto what needs to be cleaned to aid in improving the effectiveness of cavitation. As a young junior technician in 1978 I used this technique on various materials needing fine precise cleaning while at Spar Aerospace in Montreal and working on the Space Shuttle's Canadarm, Anik E and TDRSS satellites. Reflecting on what I was taught by Spar and Hughes 40 years ago we used this knowledge to be adapted to record groove cleaning. Yes the lab coat brings attention, but our process is very scientific and cannot be refuted. We spray a bipolar ionizing surfactant onto the record's surface, both sides. Strategically separated in distance between records to maintain a low standing wave ratio taking advantage of the plasma wave created by way of cavitation, multiple records are spun in a 35Kz sonic with a 70KHz resonance. Attracting now the plasma wave generated by cavitation (nothing to do with microbubbles), we can then attract and accelerate the action of the generated "plasma" wave "hitting" the record, and now reach the inner grooves where the "music lies". Indeed we need, with our process, multiple cycles are needed as we see the record lose the charge differential as the ionizing agent sprayed on to promote the action is washed off over time. In any event, actions speak louder than words. Seeing is believing. As such, to assist everyone as to appreciating this discovery, we will be posting a video on the Kirmuss Audio web site in December 2020. Using aluminum foil we will allow you to review the cleaning and restoration actions of various ultrasonics or cleaning processes and where you may replicate the same tests at home and make up your own mind as to the science we always refer to.

Boomer's picture

My regimen of cleaning my vinyl records may be overkill but it works for me. I purchased a Kirmuss machine a few months ago and have had good results. But before I had this machine, I had my own way of cleaning my vinyls.

My way of cleaning is that I use two 4 1/2" suction cups, which cover the record label great and a mixture of 1 part 90% alcohol, I've read where 70% isopropyl alcohol has lanolin, which is oil, in it, to 12 parts distilled water and one drop of antimicrobial dish soap in a spray bottle and another spray bottle of distilled water only. A goats hair brush and my kitchen sink.

I run warm tap water over both sides of the record to loosen the dirt and crud, then I spray the alcohol solution over one side of the record and use the goats hair brush to clean the grooves, going both forward and backwards a minimum of three times each way. I then wash away the residue under the tap water, then spray the record with distilled water to wash away the tap water impurities. I then remove the suction cups and lay the record on some lint free microfiber cloths and wipe the excess water off the record.

I then put the record in my spin clean type record washer, which is filled with the correct amount of groovenater/water ratio. I then lay the record on the microfiber cloths and wipe the excess water off the record then put in it my record stand to dry. I got this process down to eleven minuets before I now use the Kirmuss machine.

I do about ten records this way before I start with my Kirmuss record cleaning machine. This way, I get a great deal of dirt and muck off of my records before I even use the Kirmuss. I have to admit, I don't get a lot of the white soapy residue that I've seen others complain about. I only have to go through the Kirmuss process about two cycles to get my records clean. It works for me.

Boomer's picture

After I go through this process, I use Mofi archival inner sleeves to protect my newly cleaned record and then I put the album into an outer sleeve to protect it from any damage going forward. If the old inner sleeve is one that should be kept, I put it inside the outer sleeve also. I have to admit, a lot of my records are used that I purchased at various places, i.e. record stores, pawn shops and someones private collection.

Boomer's picture

My regimen of cleaning my vinyl records may be overkill but it works for me. I purchased a Kirmuss machine a few months ago and have had good results. But before I had this machine, I had my own way of cleaning my vinyls.

My way of cleaning is that I use two 4 1/2" suction cups, which cover the record label great and a mixture of 1 part 90% alcohol, I've read where 70% isopropyl alcohol has lanolin, which is oil, in it, to 12 parts distilled water and one drop of antimicrobial dish soap in a spray bottle and another spray bottle of distilled water only. A goats hair brush and my kitchen sink.

I run warm tap water over both sides of the record to loosen the dirt and crud, then I spray the alcohol solution over one side of the record and use the goats hair brush to clean the grooves, going both forward and backwards a minimum of three times each way. I then wash away the residue under the tap water, then spray the record with distilled water to wash away the tap water impurities. I then remove the suction cups and lay the record on some lint free microfiber cloths and wipe the excess water off the record.

I then put the record in my spin clean type record washer, which is filled with the correct amount of groovenater/water ratio. I then lay the record on the microfiber cloths and wipe the excess water off the record then put in it my record stand to dry. I got this process down to eleven minuets before I now use the Kirmuss machine.

I do about ten records this way before I start with my Kirmuss record cleaning machine. This way, I get a great deal of dirt and muck off of my records before I even use the Kirmuss. I have to admit, I don't get a lot of the white soapy residue that I've seen others complain about. I only have to go through the Kirmuss process about two cycles to get my records clean. It works for me.

39goose's picture

Mentioned earlier of dry brush cleaning after already machine-cleaned. The surface dust that you see will seldom be heard, most if not all will be pushed aside by the stylus. What you ARE doing is pushing very fine hard to see dust particles into the groove. You are also accumulating dust on these brushes and then transferring to more records. Guess what might happen after the stylus makes a pass over these fine particles.....RECORD DAMAGE. Don't believe it ? Take a JVC pressed record that is clean and dry-brush/cloth it, then play/listen. I am OCD and learned the foolishness in dry-brushing the dust that is visible. You can hear the shit the dry brush deposited. If you MUST, wet-clean again and ZEROSTAT after every drying cycle.

ivansbacon's picture

Repeated attempts to contact the seller have been ignored.

I can find no retailers, the makers website and email will not respond to my requests for information.

I can not purchase the machine if i do not know where or how.

King Of Dirk's picture

If in the US, may I ask if you've tried Google? Just last week I found Upscale Audio there, and ordered a Kirmuss cleaning machine from them without much drama.

DaveyF's picture

Has anyone done a comparison between the full 'Kirmess' (pun)method and simply dipping the record into the machine and doing just one pass with only distilled water ( and nothing else!)
This is what I have in mind, as I have a Kirmuss on loan and will try exactly this. Certainly the difference in time and effort will be considerable...:0) As to the sonic difference, we shall see.