HumminGuru Ultrasonic Cleaner Owners & Discussion Thread

[GregWormald]

IMO drying is really important, and I wouldn't be happy to have water left on the surface to be evaporated by a fan. I use a wet/dry vacuum cleaner with a special nozzle that pulls the water off in 30-40 seconds and leaves the record dry.

[awayward]

18 minutes ago, GregWormald said:

IMO drying is really important, and I wouldn't be happy to have water left on the surface to be evaporated by a fan. I use a wet/dry vacuum cleaner with a special nozzle that pulls the water off in 30-40 seconds and leaves the record dry.

My experience with the HG so far is there is no evidence of detrimental SQ or additional noise from the method of fan drying, the usual brush clean before playing and all is good.

[metal beat]

37 minutes ago, GregWormald said:

IMO drying is really important, and I wouldn't be happy to have water left on the surface to be evaporated by a fan. I use a wet/dry vacuum cleaner with a special nozzle that pulls the water off in 30-40 seconds and leaves the record dry.

 

Really?

 

The best ultrasonic record cleaner ever made KL Audio uses a fans to dry the vinyl record.

  There are no downsides to this approach .

  I would like you to explain what the downsides are?

 

  When using a vacuum to dry you have the felt lips or string touching the vinyl all through the process.    This is not ideal.

Edited April 8, 2022 by metal beat

[GregWormald]

Put some of the used washing solution on a polished mirror and let it dry. If you see nothing where the water was then a fan should be OK as long as it doesn't drag in dust with the air.

 

The nozzle I use on the vacuum is microfibre and can easily be rinsed/washed in distilled water. Here's a pic (stolen from frankn)—same unit as mine.

Edited April 8, 2022 by GregWormald
added photo

[frankn]

1 hour ago, metal beat said:

 

  When using a vacuum to dry you have the felt lips or string touching the vinyl all through the process.    This is not ideal.

Felt, string(following the track) or velvet isn’t going to damage vinyl. If it did then playing the record with a stylus would make it unplayable after the 1st pass. Vinyl is very resistance to damage when a soft media is running in the track or parallel to the track. 

[metal beat]

9 hours ago, frankn said:

Felt, string(following the track) or velvet isn’t going to damage vinyl. If it did then playing the record with a stylus would make it unplayable after the 1st pass. Vinyl is very resistance to damage when a soft media is running in the track or parallel to the track. 

 

True.  I have used vacuum rcm's for 20 years.    

  No contact is better thou.

Edited April 8, 2022 by metal beat

[metal beat]

10 hours ago, GregWormald said:

Put some of the used washing solution on a polished mirror and let it dry. If you see nothing where the water was then a fan should be OK as long as it doesn't drag in dust with the air.

 

The nozzle I use on the vacuum is microfibre and can easily be rinsed/washed in distilled water. Here's a pic (stolen from frankn)—same unit as mine.

 

Who uses used washing solution to clean records in an ultrasonic cleaner?    

   If you did,  using vacuum lips is going to have similar issue. 

 

 I use distilled water in my ultrasonic cleaner.  The vinyl drys perfectly and clean.

Edited April 8, 2022 by metal beat

[JorgeGVB]

I bought into the Kickstarter, so I was one of the first to have one. I have cleaned 100+ records by now. I have found it to be very effective and easy to use.  I had a VPI 16.5 RCM for a good 15 years and it was a bit of an effort, especially if you have a number of records to clean. The HG is a breeze to use. I always use the air dry cycle and have no issues with static anymore.  

 

I have found it helpful to use a drop of GrooveWasher GSonic solution. It really helps ensure the record is totally dry when the cycle is over. I put the drop in and run one short cycle with no record to mix it in. Then clean a record afterwards.

 

HG instructions say to discard the water after each cleaning, but I found that to be wasteful. With supply chain issues in the states, distilled water has been hard to come by at times. If they records are new or fairly clean, I just strain the water between record cleanings and reuse it for several records before dumping the water out.  

[AnalogJ]

On 30/11/2021 at 4:15 PM, Bcdesign said:

 

Have you tried soda water?

Really puts the sparkle back in the highs.

 

So would tap water help make the music dance?

[April Snow]

23 hours ago, AnalogJ said:

 

So would tap water help make the music dance?

That would be better than dirty water as that can make the music sound muddy 

[AnalogJ]

6 hours ago, April Snow said:

That would be better than dirty water as that can make the music sound muddy 

And muddy water can bring the danger of a rolling stone. 

[andyr]

On 03/07/2022 at 2:54 PM, JorgeGVB said:

HG instructions say to discard the water after each cleaning, but I found that to be wasteful. With supply chain issues in the states, distilled water has been hard to come by at times. If they records are new or fairly clean, I just strain the water between record cleanings and reuse it for several records before dumping the water out.  

 

How do you "strain the water"?

 

With my own US cleaning process, I have an out-and-in loop going through a 1 micron filter back into the tank ... but I suspect your HG is not able to do this?

 

[JorgeGVB]

13 hours ago, andyr said:

 

How do you "strain the water"?

 

With my own US cleaning process, I have an out-and-in loop going through a 1 micron filter back into the tank ... but I suspect your HG is not able to do this?

 

 

Nothing that sophisticated. I am just taking the water from the basin and running it through a 200 mesh filter food strainer.   I was surprised how much stuff it captures after cleaning just a few records.  

[Candyflip]

1 hour ago, JorgeGVB said:

Nothing that sophisticated. I am just taking the water from the basin and running it through a 200 mesh filter food strainer.   I was surprised how much stuff it captures after cleaning just a few records.  

I use coffee filter paper liners, but don't see much residue, probably because of the colour of them.

However I use a digital TDS water quality tester so I can keep an eye on levels, and just replace the filters & the distilled water when the result creeps too high (around 5ppm - far less than filtered jug water which hovers around 14ppm)

Edited September 19, 2022 by Candyflip

[AnalogJ]

So I'm coming off sort of a failed experiment by buying a basic Monks Prodigy. It worked quite erratically for me. When it worked, it worked really well. I heard better image focus and blacker backgrounds from which the music could arise. Some of that, I think, had to do with the Monks DisCovery fluid, which bested L'Art Du Son fluid. 

 

Unfortunately, the machine just wasn't up to the build quality of the top of the line Monks machines, and the machine occasionally had issues with suction, and especially with consistent armwand movement. Sometimes it would get stuck in one place, and sometimes the armwand would reach the end of the record and start moving backwards a few inches. It was weird. We couldn't figure out what was wrong. And Jonathan Monks and factory, being across the pond with no U.S. service center, couldn't come to a distinct conclusion (Monks has written that too much suction or too little fluid on the record could cause that, but it wasn't the case in my situation).

 

In any event, I'm now looking for a new machine. Prior to this I had a manual Nitty Gritty (vacuum style). I wanted something somewhat automated. And I had always been impressed with Monks machines from afar. The Monks was essentially about 3 minutes per side total. Spread the fluid around and put the armwand nozzle in the deadwax, and about 2:30 later, the side is done. 

 

The Degritter seems impressive. I've seen it in action, as a dealer nearby will clean your records for $2.50, and I've done that. But I can't afford $3200.

 

On the other hand, I would like something that would get me the quality of cleaning I get when the Monks works as designed. 

 

I may end up using the Nitty Gritty in conjunction with a HumminGuru, but I'm seeing a potential big production involved in doing so,  which is something I was trying to avoid.

 

So all of what I've read about kHz and transducer size, etc., has left me confused as to whether I'd be truly happy with the HG results. And I believe that all sales are final, so I would not have the chance to try it before buying it. 

 

Thoughts? 

[AnalogJ]

Anyone with an opinion on this?

[a.dent]

51 minutes ago, AnalogJ said:

Anyone with an opinion on this?

The Degritter will do a better job but at a significantly bigger investment.

 

I tend to do 3 cleaning/drying cycles to get the best results with a tiny bit of surfactant in the first two cycles and pure water in the last cycle.

 

The HG isn't very expensive and if you weren't happy I'm sure you'd be able to onsell I fairly easily.

 

I have no intention of moving mine on though.

[AnalogJ]

3 hours ago, a.dent said:

The Degritter will do a better job but at a significantly bigger investment.

 

I tend to do 3 cleaning/drying cycles to get the best results with a tiny bit of surfactant in the first two cycles and pure water in the last cycle.

 

The HG isn't very expensive and if you weren't happy I'm sure you'd be able to onsell I fairly easily.

 

I have no intention of moving mine on though.

 

How much better? Has anyone actually compared their result, or is it mere speculation that the Degritter would be better? 

 

I think I understand the theory, but in practice? 

[Candyflip]

7 minutes ago, AnalogJ said:

 

How much better? Has anyone actually compared their result, or is it mere speculation that the Degritter would be better? 

 

And how, objectively, would you do that comparison?

[AnalogJ]

6 hours ago, Candyflip said:

And how, objectively, would you do that comparison?

 

Tricky, right? 

 

But I'd get two LPs with the same vinyl formulation, with similar levels of surface noise (and it could be none, because cleaning not only cleans surface noise, but, with better cleaning, results in a deeper, blacker background with more vivid images). And then clean each using the same surfactant. 

 

If you could do that with several sets of LPs, you'd start to get a picture of each machine's ability. 

Edited September 25, 2022 by AnalogJ
Mispelling

[TheBlackDisc]

6 hours ago, Candyflip said:

And how, objectively, would you do that comparison?

 

Do each side of multiple records with different machines.

[AnalogJ]

1 minute ago, TheBlackDisc said:

 

Do each side of multiple records with different machines.

 

Doing that with US machines is impossible, isn't it? They clean both sides simultaneously. 

 

And eliminate as many variables, use similar albums, like a couple of Tone Poets, which you know use the same vinyl and pressing plant. 

[TheBlackDisc]

1 minute ago, AnalogJ said:

 

Doing that with US machines is impossible, isn't it? They clean both sides simultaneously. 

 

And eliminate as many variables, use similar albums, like a couple of Tone Poets, which you know use the same vinyl and pressing plant. 

 

Good point.

 

You'd need to dirty up multiple new records yourself and then use different processes.

 

[AnalogJ]

6 minutes ago, TheBlackDisc said:

 

Good point.

 

You'd need to dirty up multiple new records yourself and then use different processes.

 

 

Well, as I mentioned, RCMs not only are supposed to get off superficial surface matter, but get a deeper clean as well. 

[TheBlackDisc]

2 hours ago, AnalogJ said:

 

Well, as I mentioned, RCMs not only are supposed to get off superficial surface matter, but get a deeper clean as well. 

 

You'd have to find a way of acheiving it yourself - or conduct a microscopic analysis of already dirty records to ensure they are dirty in the same way.

Edited September 25, 2022 by TheBlackDisc