I guess... but I would suggest a better conclusion is that running a record through a dozen straight cycles on a Humminguru is a bad idea, full stop. If someone wanted to demonstrate a single cycle (or two or three) caused damage, a better way would be to do some needle drops and waveform analysis, or to break out the microscope and show pictures of the same section of groove before and after. (This also gets into my skepticism about the claims that get made by some about US cleaners - somehow the sound changes, but not in a way that sounds like the various types of groove damage we all know and hate. No one has ever been able to come up with a good mechanism for this happening, at least that I've seen yet.) Apologies if this comes off as too pointed - it's not intended that way, but I have a very hard time giving any credence to this guy when he went so far out of his way to ignore the instructions and then claimed to be able to draw meaningful conclusions from that.
That was my point that you can use almost anything to the point of damage. Arsenic occurs naturally in our body. Too much can be deadly. I can attest that one time through the HG results in quieter surfaces and more vivid images.
I pre-clean with water and gentle dish washing soap and then US. Works great so far. I've cleaned over 200 Lps this way and am very happy with the results.
Dishwashing liquid often has additives such as color, fragrance, and skin softeners. Not sure I'd use it, but perhaps the US process removes any remnants.
But surely that is the way industry tests many products - to destruction to see how durability exceeds normal use. The point of the test was this and the HummingGuru failed while the much more expensive Degritter did not. It doesn't prove the HumminGuru is dangerous in normal use but would reinforce the superior quality of the Degritter and inspire more confidence in using it repeated times. Maybe it points to the use of 120KHz cavitation being safer than 40KHz when used for records.
We talked about this to death when that guy first put out that video. I would expect a super pricey degritter to outperform a $400 machine. I feel comfortable after cleaning 500+ LPs in the HG the last few years, using it weekly, that normal usage, even 2-3 cycles for a super stubborn record, is just fine.
But I don't come to the same conclusion. The one you come to is a faulty one for the purposes of the job. An ultrasonic cleaning machine is not supposed to be used with one record 25 times in a row. The Degritter may be OVERbuilt. That's not bad. But it may be unnecessary. Take a pair of home loudspeakers designed to withstand peaks of 700dB. That's great. But that ain't gonna be tested in someone's home. So if another one will reproduce peaks of 150dB, isn't that sufficient?
You may be conflating different types of testing. I work for a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory. Many, if not most, of the product safety tests required for certification are non-destructive. While testing to failure is very useful for certain R&D activities, it is not cost effective as a design standard for consumer products. Most product certification test standards establish a reasonable stress limit to ascertain safety under typical conditions of use and test to that limit. Let’s say you order a sauna for personal use. That sauna had been certified to a national or international standard designed to ensure the safety of persons of property. That certification doesn’t mean that you can stay in the sauna for an excessive period of time. However, if you use the product according to the manufacturer’s instructions, you are unlikely to experience a negative outcome.
I think I had asked about known limits way back when. I buy some pretty beat up records. If I recall, after about 5 consecutive long cycles the records started to look a little "etched" to me - as if the ridges were cleaner than the grooves - something messing with light refraction. I didn't conclude the HG was defective. I just satisfied my curiosity that 1) some records are unrecoverable, 2) I should start with chemical processes for Fair or Good graded records, 3) I should probably stop with 4 passes. But, I do me as the kids would say....
This matches my understanding. HG has larger bubbles than DG, releasing more energy with each bubble to better clean heavy stuff, at the expense of not penetrating grooves as deeply. This increased energy/bubble is the reason HG causes damage after overuse (ie dozens of cycles) but DG does not.
He does say that 2 to 3 cycles improved the record. I think irrespective if a large number of cycles are done at once or over a number of years one should be wary of using this machine many times on a single record. Of course I think in practice it would be used once and the record put away and only brush cleaned to remove any dust accumulated when playing. Same as using an RCM. Also the point is not expense or build with these machines but that 40KHz cavitation is likely the factor in any long term damage v 120KHz. In practice and for most people this is not likely to be a factor so I'm not saying don't buy a HummingGuru. It has been made down to a price which is lower than most vacuum RCMs but does 40KHz cavitation add much to a thorough RCM clean with chemicals? It does appear expensive cavitation machines dedicated to records do add an extra layer of cleaning but few will think they are worth the expenditure or be able to afford them.
But I haven't seen evidence of that, have you? I've done a number of cleaning regimes over my lifetime. What I get from the HG is quite remarkable. Not to say that it doesn't sometimes need to be partnered with a preclean. I've also had records cleaned with a Degritter. Also excellent results. But I haven't seen anyone even take a 2LP set or a two copies of the same pressing, and do one in a Humminguru and the other a Degritter and compare. A comparison would be where the stylus hits the vinyl.
The Hummingguru does what it’s supposed to. Like anything else you have to use it properly. That guy was abusing the machine to get clicks.
I had a squeaky clean vacuum clean thing. All of my records up to the point I got the humminguru had been cleaned with tergikleen, vacuumed, then rinsed and vacuumed using that vacuum RCM. when I got the HG I ran some older things through it, and on some it made a noticeable difference. I had a copy of Marty Robbins Gunfighter Songs that I thought had groove damage, the vocals were distorted. Running it through the HG cleaned it where most of it was gone, running it through twice more completely removed that distortion which must have been caused by some stubborn years of grime. obviously not everything will be that dramatic but if I have something old with some noise, I’ll give it another spin to see if it improves. honestly the automated cleaning was as much of a selling point for me. Vacuuming manually was a pain in the ass. HG is at least the equal of that, and for some records gets them even cleaner
Just ordered a HumminGuru together with the "Small Bottle". I have some records with some pops and clicks and some with distortion, which I don't really expect to go away since I don't think they are caused by dirt, but we'll see. I will report
Let me pose a question, is doing many sequential cleanings in a very short period of time the same as doing the same number cleanings in smaller groups spread across weeks, months or years? How a material reacts to many repeated impacts/shocks (from cavitation implosion energy) in short period of time is different than when a small of group of repeated impacts/shocks applied over a much wider period. It has to do with the impact/fatigue resistance properties of the material. So, it's premature to extrapolate that what happened in this one 'test' is predictive of the record's total allowable number of impacts/shocks (from cavitation implosion energy) that may be accumulated over its life such as cleaning the record 3 to 4-times over many months or years. Based on the experience of users who have performed repeated cleaning over time with 37-kHz UT machines (Elmasonic P-series dual frequency 37-kHz and 80-kHz) and 40-kHz UT machines is that no damage is experienced. Note that many uses have modified their cleaning processes which cause them to reclean their record and have accumulated ultrasonic exposure to the record far exceeding 60-min. Additionally, note that there are some flies in the ointment to say and that is the variability in the record material that could affect its impact/fatigue resistance properties, and the initial condition of the record. If the particular record surface is deficient in a manner that alters its impact/fatigue resistance properties, then the results of doing many sequential cleanings in a very short period of time can vary. In which case, there can be no conclusion drawn as whether the HG test results will occur with every record, nor that the DG test will occur every record. Note that two of the same records, can have different material properties; it's the nature of the record composition and the additives added. Variations in the proportions and in the pressing time, temperature and pressure can all lead to variations in the record's final properties. 40-kHz or 120-kHz excel at removing the very small particles in the groove that vacuum-RCM can miss because of the allowable chemicals just how aggressive you can work the brush Very small particles are very difficult to remove because the energy to remove them from surfaces increases exponentially as the particle size decreases. When I manual-sink clean a record, after cleaning with a full-range detergent (Alconox Liquinox), I then clean with an acid-detergent (Alconox Citranox). The acid can dissolve or breakdown mineral based particles, but an acid with a vacuum-RCM risks damage to the unit. So, the acid can do with chemistry what the UT does with energy (cavitation-implosions). Theoretically, the 120-kHz can clean particles smaller than those that a 40-kHz can. But the catch-22 is the particles are so small to be of little or no consequence to the record and the DG filter is nowhere small enough to filter from the bath the very small particles it can remove. Ergo, to get the most from the HG or DG, the record needs to essentially be visibly clean, ergo the pre-clean step, and here vacuum-RCM excels. So, for used records, many people who had vacuum-RCM and then added UT, will pre-clean with vacuum-RCM and final clean with UT. Is 120-kHz better than 40-kHz? I would consider the Elmasonic P-series with dual frequency 37/80-kHz along with how it operates as optimum. It has an auto frequency cycling mode that automatically cycles between 37 & 80-kHz, and also has a high energy pulse mode. The 37-kHz is good for the big-stuff (including fingerprints), while the 80-kHz is good for the very small stuff. In DIY circles, people using the Elmasonic P-series have records spinning at ~0.5-rpm with 10-min auto-cycling 37/80-kHz and then 10-min pulse 80-kHz with a filter system rated at 0.2-micron absolute. But this process is for people whose goal is best achievable cleanliness but is nowhere near as convenient as an HG or a DG. But, as I have said many times, the best cleaning process is the one that you will use and therefore best for you. Peace
I've noticed a popping/ clicking sound during the dry-cycle on mine. It only happens once but I don't recall it happening before. I don't seem to have any other problems but I am wondering if something is going wrong. Anybody encounter something similar?
I’m considering upgrading from a Pro-Ject vc-s to the Humminguru so need to read through this thread. Two quick questions: 1) how much clean water do you add per wash? 2) has anyone use the London Jazz Collector’s recipe (isopropyl, distilled water and wetting agent)?
You use distlled or reverse osmosis water, about 4oz maybe (There are fill lines marking 12', 10" and 7" records)? But you can use that same water for up to five or six records before disposing.
Thanks, I will read this thread this evening (that's a couple hours gone!) but do you recommend buyingthe "small bottle" cleaner or just adding your own wetting agent?
Got my HumminGuru today. First quick impressions: - I can also hear this awful irregular high pitched sound. Probably have to put it in another room when cleaning records. - I might have scratched a record with one of these rotation wheels, probably when taking it out. I'm not sure though, it's a record I basically never listen to. So, it might have been there before. It's definitely something to look out for. - I have one record (https://www.discogs.com/de/release/8403786-Amy-Winehouse-Back-To-Black) that always had terrible distortion and I am pretty sure that it improved after using the HumminGuru. I listened to it a week ago and couldn't handle it, today after cleaning, it was ok. The record still sounds awful though. In general I don't expect too much. But it gives me a peace of mind that the records are now more or less as clean as possible. And I definitely will not get any more expensive alternatives.
It's more than 4 oz - the normal fill for an LP seems to be around 400 ml (about 13.5 oz). I usually get eight or nine changes of water out of a gallon. But it's certainly not as much as many of the DIY systems that use a six liter/quart tank. As for the LJC fluid, Neil Antin (@pacvr) addresses the formula in his book on the topic of cleaning - link to the latest version in a forum thread. (VIII.15.1 is the specific section.) The most important note on the cleaner: Using the LJC formula - 20% IPA - in a US cleaner is dangerous, due to the potential for the alcohol vapors to build up in the surrounding atmosphere and the possibility of igniting those vapors. I use a formula with 2.5% IPA, which is a low enough concentration that vapor buildup in my office is not a concern.
