"Kirmuss Restoration Process" Easier to See on an Edison Cylinder

Readers skeptical of the Kirmuss Vinyl Restoration process should examine the above photo. Lately Mr. Kirmuss has been using it to restore Edison cylinders. The results are easier to see here than on a vinyl record.

Kirmuss plans on demonstrating this process at the next ARSC (Association For Recorded Sound Collections virtual gathering. He says 30,000 cylinders are in need of restoration.

I can't see the restoration on vinyl records, but I can definitely hear it. Yes it's time consuming but on your most prized records it's well worth the effort, IMO.

COMMENTS
WallyTools - WAM Engineering LTD's picture

It works as advertised! I sold my record vacuum the day after I got my system from Charles.

Glotz's picture

I do appreciate Wally chiming in too. If both of you say YEAH! It's a YEAH!!

Kudos to AP's honesty and transparency!

vince's picture

I'd love to see a local record store offer the process for hire. It would be nice to bring some vinyl to the store and have them do the work and charge me for it. Much better than buying another record cleaner for those records that need it. As a bonus, the record store gets two visits from a person with a demonstrated interest in purchasing records. Seems like a win-win.

Nathan Zeller's picture

I'd also be interested in a service like that. I'm the kind of person who keeps a smaller collection, so buying the entire kit may not make sense for me.

BobBobby's picture

Can it restore a damaged groove? Or is it a deep cleansing of the groove.

Russo7516's picture

Mike you haven't reviewed the I Sonic Cleaner. It can do 5 or Ten at a clip. The I Sonic has done wonders for my collection . The I Sonic body is the same as the Krimuss or UpScale Cleaner

bkinthebk's picture

between the Kirmuss system and the other brand name and/or DIY sonic cleaners? Is it the frequency difference? The special spray? The goat hair brush? The lab coat?

Speaking of which, the difference in frequencies among the popular cleaners is confusing to me. Why is one better than another and is there solid evidence that some frequencies do indeed damage the grooves? In my case, until I fully understand this I can’t imagine sticking my prized records in an ultra sonic cleaner when some say certain frequencies may damage the grooves and it’s not clear which frequencies those are. I’d hate to look back in 10 years and swear at myself for damaging my collection.

The claims and the price are very intriguing for the Kirmuss system (esp since MF is a big proponent) — the unknowns are not.

Also, does Kirmuss claim that my 3 step (enzyme, super cleaner, pure water) Audio Intelligent + VPI 16.5 process is either doing nothing or leaving deposits or doing damage?

Looking forward to seeing more extremely clear evidence from Kirmuss in the future. I don’t need science to convince me of every tweak, btw, but pricey cables don’t risk damage to my equipment or LPs.

weirdo12's picture

You should use Google or Bing or whatever internet search service you prefer - the answers to all of your questions are already readily available.

BobBobby's picture

Carlos Santana. The best.

akubacki's picture

Is it the multiple rubbing with the brush with Propylene Glycol or the multiple ultrasonic treatments? This is like the ED adds in magazines...until he gets an independent lab (Underwriters, Consumer Reports, RIAA)to confirm his assertions, I am a sceptic!
I do thing the USC machine with its transport is the only "real" thing that works.

X