Rushton's DIY approach to ultrasonic record cleaning published by Positive Feedback

Whart, I agree with you about the huge value of being able to share experiences via the various internet forums we have available. When the conversation can stay courteous and constructive, as is almost always the case here on Audiogon, its a great way to further share and enjoy our hobby!

Oilmanmojo, thanks for your excellent contributions here and in your comments to the Positive Feedback article. One thing I would add is that the Triton you use in your tank solution (another variant of Tergitol as you point out in your comment) is an important addition. When I've used only water and isopropyl, the results are not nearly as good as the Tergitol/Hepastat/Alcohol mix that I posted the formula for.

Sbank, thanks so much! Good to cross paths again.

Thank you, astro58go. The filtering process is very important to the results. Bbftx really came up with a nice solution that several people in addition to me have now adapted to use in our setups.

Hi Astro58go, I have not used the Audio Desk, but have read about it and talked with people who have. For me, the biggest issues are: it cleans only one record at a time; it air dries; it’s expensive. I presume you can elect to use some cleaning fluids with it.

The quats in the cleaning fluid plus the kinds of detergents are the keys to low static on the records. Neither vacuum drying nor ultrasonic impact the static, but dry brushing certainly can. Humidity is certainly the next. If you’ve not searched the AudioKharma thread on cleaning solutions for "static" and "antistats", I recommend it:
http://audiokarma.org/forums/index.php?threads/record-cleaning-youre-doing-it-wrong.689430/

I’ve always read good things about results from steam cleaning, but that amount of concentrated heat around my vinyl has always scared me, so I’ve never tried it.

Astro58go, good stuff! LOL, yes you’re certainly right about extended vacuuming. I concede your point. I never vacuum more than two revolutions on my VPI RCM. :-)

And, I’ve become convince that the cleaning agents we use can make static better and worse. The value of the neutral PH chemicals is to reduce the imbalance that creates static. The value of adding antistats (like quarts) to our solutions is to further help reduce static. They all work to our advantage. Just as higher acidity additives make matters worse. This is all why I’ve become convinced that selection of cleaning solutions is important.

I can definitely hear the differences with the rinse using higher purity water. And can hear the slight but consistently observed improvement when doing a final rinse with the Type 1 Reagent Grade water and a bit of ethanol as discussed in my essay about all of this.

Thanks for sharing your experiences and challenging shorthand comments!

tgb, thanks for the interesting contribution to this discussion! Clearly, we both share the belief that clean records really do sound better. I was listening this evening to some records I know well but have not had the time to clean. After cleaning, they sound SOOOO MUCH BETTER!

I’m very familiar with the Ultrasonic Records V-8. I’m just not convinced that eight records in that 10L tank is a good thing. But even halving the number of records still misses the key factor for even better results. Experimentation has completely convinced me of the need to use a detergent cleaning solution in the tank for best results. That then requires rinsing. And then vacuum drying further improves the results. So different strokes, and different outcomes. As you can imagine, I was seeking to get the best possible cleaning results, not just fast. Both were important to me.

Whart: Isn't there a math formula for calculating bath size, number and frequency of US transducers and surface area to be "cleaned"?

Whart, somewhere in this diyAudio thread on ultrasonic cleaning is a reference to the formula for tank size and surface area to be cleaned. I know this has been discussed in the thread.

Oilmanjojo, I also thank  you for your contributions. Very helpful! FWIW, here is a YouTube video showing the aluminum foil test presented by a U.S. manufacturer of ultrasonic tanks, Vibrato LLC. They manufacture high quality tanks in South Carolina.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhhTRPvLRFg

And, here is a picture of the results when I ran this test in my own tank. This was with heavy duty Reynolds Wrap brand aluminum foil, as was the test demoed by Vibrato. I just left my aluminum foil in the tank for longer and eventually the cavitation will make holes in the foil. As oilmanmojo says, the key result to look for is uniformity across the foil.

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/analogue-source/218276-my-version-ultrasonic-record-cleaner-147.html#...

whart:  Isn't the point of rotating the disc in the US cleaner to even out the effect of the standing waves?

Yes, precisely so. But the transducers in the ultrasonic tanks can gradually decline in function or fail, and the foil test clearly demonstrates why you need to position your records an inch or two from the sides of the tank that are parallel to the surface of the LP. 

As to which tank to buy, I would chime in that I've read very positive comments about the Sonix IV tanks and the Vibrato tanks. If I had the extra cash, a ~60hz tank from one of these manufacturers would probably be my go to choice. For less than half the cost, the Trusonik tank I have is working well and seems to have a good track record in the field. But, with any tank, we have no idea how long it will continue to work well. Thus the regular foil testing.

I do appreciate the time, research, evaluating, building, times 3 or 4 or more you both have put into this issue.

Astro58go, glad you’ve enjoyed perusing the thoughts we’ve been sharing and for contributing! For me, and I suspect for oilmanjojo also, this is all a part of the hobby and the investment of my time is just part of my enjoyment in exploring how I can get better results from my vinyl. Playing records that have been cleaned adds to my enjoyment. I just needed to find a cost effective way within my budget to clean faster with similar results. So, happy to share.

Nice story about the records from your father's collection, oilmanjojo. I enjoyed reading it.

For another point of interest, today I have 4 audio friends over to listen to music. One wanted a demonstration of the ultrasonic cleaning regimen. Two others both had ultrasonic cleaning systems and said they had no interest in a demo, but were polite enough to sit through it for the one. The one coming for a demonstration brought vinyl already well cleaned to his satisfaction using his multi-step enzyme cleaning process (similar to the one I've used for years before changing to my current regiment).

After listening selections from to his already cleaned LPs, I put them through my US regimen. Then we re-listened. And everyone agreed that all four records sounded better in very noticeable ways after the US cleaning: greater openness of the soundstage, more extended highs and harmonic overtones, deeper tighter bass. We also listened to some records not previously cleaned to see if we heard the same sonic results. The one who wanted the demonstration is now convinced he needs to shift his cleaning process to ultrasonic plus the cleaning solution in the tank, plus rinse. 

More interesting, the two who already used ultrasonic and didn't need a demo heard significant improvements they were not hearing from their own US processes and are now planning to make some changes based on what they heard here.

I share this story because there are many people using some variation on ultrasonic cleaning. For me, this was some validation that there is more to getting great results from US cleaning than just getting a US tank. As I learned in my own experiments, and as these existing US cleaner users heard for themselves, it is the combination of factors: the right cleaning solution in the tank, keeping the solution in the tank very clean by filtering between batches of records, heat in both the tank and the rinse, rinsing, and ultrapure water second rinse. It all adds up to improved results.

Cheers!

astrog58go: What I have found that kind of keeps me going... even when I think I have had something... some little piece of useful info to share...then, only to have one or even no response, can be deflating.

astrog58go and slaw, it is kind of you both to comment. All any of us can do is offer the information, whether on this current topic, our experiences with different turntables, our experiences with different configurations of gear, of tweaks, of room treatment, of household wiring, etc. etc. As you say, it is nice when others add to the discussion or at least acknowledge. But, when I look at the number of views a given post has obtained, that often will be very gratifying.

For example, a review I posted 12 years ago on the Walker Audio Proscenium turntable has received over 250,000 views but only 40 comments. Was this contribution useful or interesting to the community? My guess is "Yes", and so I will keep contributing where I have an interest in something.

Hopefully the information on diy solutions for ultrasonic cleaning will find some resonance among members of the community even though the discussion here is somewhat limited.

And I appreciate the support on this topic, astro58go! I think cleaning records well is one of the most important things we can do to enhance our enjoyment of vinyl.

My wife came into our listening room earlier this morning as I was playing something and asked "Has this record been cleaned with the new ultrasonic regimen?" When I said yes, she said "I thought so. It sounds wonderful. You need to keep going with your cleaning. It beats the pants off what you were doing before with your other RCM process. This is like having a new piece of equipment in the system."

Very nice, elegant and simple solution! Thanks, bcowen. I'd been looking for a quick disconnect and never was able to find one at a reasonable cost. This looks like the ticket.

Thanks for the additional information, Terry. Great to see more experiences shared.

I'd continue to encourage the use of a higher purity water second rinse with about 3% by volume of Ethanol added. I find it makes a further improvement. Type 1 Reagent grade water is a luxury if you have a FREE source for it. Otherwise, the RO/DI water I'm getting from my local Whole Foods bulk water dispenser is excellent at $0.39/gallon. 

terry9, how did you come to choose 50 degrees Celsius as you optimum temperature range?

I have to admit being concerned going beyond 36 degrees and generally clean in the 31-35 degree range with good results. I've never attempted to compare results at 50 degrees, but I gather you must believe you are getting better results than with a lower temperature.

Thanks, DG and Terry! Very helpful additional information. I see that I have some more experimentation ahead of me.

Which model(s) of the Elmasonic tanks are you using? 

Terry and Oilman, great contributions. Thanks to you both.

Right now, my results with my Chinese built USC are good, exceeding my expectations. But, I have over 6,000 LPs in my collection, so I wonder about durability. And I certainly DO NOT want to start over again after 2,000 as was Terry’s experience.

Are you both using 80Khz machines? I know the diyAudio thread has had a lot of debate over 40 vs. 60 vs. 80. My curiosity is: have you listened to the results with a 40Khz unit using the same regimen and found the high Khz units to give audibly better results? I ask because of one data point: Harry Weisfeld. Harry bought both a 60Khz and a 40Khz unit and reported that he could not hear any audible difference in results between the two tanks. See: http://vpiindustries.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=8850#p8850

As I recall, he ended up keeping the 60Khz tank long term, but I think it was more about build quality than any difference in results that he could hear.

Thanks, Terry. I don't know what sort of spacing Harry may have been using when he tried the two different frequency tanks. Good question to go ask him. 

I recall seeing the graphs and discussion of particle sizes. It was interesting and I need to revisit that portion of the diyAudio thread. 

For anyone else following this, the diyAudio thread to which we're referring was a primary education for me in my research. There is a tremendous amount of good information here. See:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/analogue-source/218276-my-version-ultrasonic-record-cleaner.html

terry9:  Moon, when I first started using US, I found that noise always diminished compared to VPI 16.5, so now I clean everything with US to protect my stylus. That said, some records are just intolerably noisy, although a mono cartridge can help with mono records.

I concur with this.

moonglum, if the surface noise is due to contaminants in the grooves (dust, dirt, oils, etc.), surface noise will definitely decrease. But this is not a magic bullet - if the grooves have been damaged, no cleaning will get rid of that; same if noisy vinyl compound was used in manufacturing the record. 

moonglum: When encountered, do you feel the damaged areas of e.g. 2nd hand LPs, are more audible, less audible or about the same nuisance value?

Moon, I'm looking to get my records as absolutely clean as I can. Sometimes cleaning, whether via USC or RCM will make badly damaged records sound even worse because you've removed a veil by allowing the stylus to actually track the groove. Accurate tracing of the groove delivers more information, for both good and bad. I don't find US cleaning any more like to do that than my previous RCM regimen. What I do find with my current US cleaning regimen is that I'm hearing much more of what is important to me on the record the vast majority of the time.

And, I keep reminding people, it's not just the US tank. It's the attention to the full regimen of detergent, rinse, temperature, time in the tank, not overloading the capacity of the tank, etc. etc. As I've said many times: I've been completely underwhelmed with MOST ultrasonic demonstrations I've heard. My manual cleaning was better. Only with the right cleaning solution in the tank and with pure water rinsing did I finally start hearing good results that got my attention.

@terry9

I followed up with Harry Weisfeld on your question about the records spacing he was using when he compared cleaning results in both a 40Khz and a 60Khz USC. He replied that he used 1" spacing. He has a Vinyl Stack Spin Kit, so I’m assuming he’s using the approximately 1" spacing their spindle stack provides. See their photo. If he tested with just a single record in the tank, he didn’t volunteer that information.

ochremoon : ...I may test the waters with a 40KHz machine, doing one record at a time and see how it compares with the vacuum machine I currently use.

@ochremoon - I believe you will find the experience rewarding and I hope you will come back and share what you discover. My 40Khz tank has about 100 hours on it and is performing well. It may not have the longevity of a U.S. or German built unit, but it is giving me excellent results. And, importantly, it is not doing any harm to the vinyl - it simply cleans.

As you move ahead, I highly encourage you to use a detergent formulation in your tank such as the formula I’ve shared. My earlier exposure to ultrasonic cleaning demonstrations using just water and alcohol with air drying were not at all compelling compared to my wet/vac manual cleaning process. With heat, a Tergitol/Triton solution in the tank, double rinsing and vacuum dry, my results with this current USC cleaning regimen are outstanding. I won’t be going back. (And, for the record, I’m using 1" spacing with 4 records at a time in this 9.5" wide 10L 40Khz tank. I’d have no hesitation doing 3 records at a time in a 6L tank with adequate width. As Terry says, it all depends on the energy distribution in the tank you're using. Do a foil test to check it out, then do follow-up tests from time to time to confirm it's still performing in the same way over time.) 

Thanks, Terry. I'll have to try opening up the spacing to 1.5" or more on my 40Khz tank and see what I hear with some experimentation on this topic. I can't try out a 60 or 80Khz tank, but I can play with the spacing for the tank I have.

terry9:  May I suggest cleaning 30 previously cleaned records in new chemistry, under the new regimen? Then you will be able to see how much extra grunge comes off, as well as hear it. You may find that it's not worth the trouble - but I sure did.

I may not reclean 30 records with a wider spacing, but I will do a few previously US cleaned LPs to find our what I hear. It's the only way to know and NOW is certainly the time to find out. :-)

Cedar, thanks for contributing to the conversation! The more we share experiences, the more we each learn. And I really appreciate your contribution.

It is helpful to get some reports of actual experience comparing results with the different frequency tanks. That's not something most of us get an opportunity to do.

When you made your comparison with 60 vs. 80Khz tanks, how did you go about it?

It is so difficult to control for all the variables. I'm getting ready to experiment with 2" spacing in my 40Khz tank to see if the results are better than my current 1" spacing, but if I use an existing LP that was cleaned with the closer spacing, I know the first challenge will be controlling for the simple fact that the LP will now have been cleaned TWICE.

The VibratoLLC tanks have an excellent reputation. Louis is doing great work with his build quality from everything I read. I got an email reply from him yesterday that he will be announcing a new 80Khz ultrasonic tank WITH A DRAIN sometime after the first of the year. No pricing available yet, he says. I am very interested in seeing what he is able to offer.

@cedar , thanks for the additional information. I like your approach of listening to the results and stopping when you don't hear further improvement. Trust your ears! I'll be interested to see how Louis prices his new 80KHz tank to see if I can convince my wife to make the additional investment in the new tank. It's hard to make the decision without actually hearing the additional benefit given the great results I'm getting now. So, it is VERY HELPFUL to learn of your actual experience with this.

@sbank , congratulations on diving into the pool (er, tank). For something to spin your records while using that vacuum wand, I like your idea of using a vintage turntable with 16rpm speed. But you can probably  change the ratios of any belt drive or puck drive junker turntable you find at Goodwill with a bit of ingenuity since you don't have to worry about rumble or speed accuracy. The trick is to find one with a spindle that can accommodate a friction fit or screw on clamp. Then place a 1 1/2"-3" diameter o-ring around the spindle so you're floating the record above the surface of the platter and you're good to go. 

I'm hesitant about the full surface cushion because you're transferring wetness from one side to the other of your just cleaned/dried vinyl. On my VPI RCM, I'm floating my LPs on o-rings so they don't rest on the mat and have been doing this for 10 years.

@nkonor - thank you! And thanks for sharing some of your experience with the AD and adding the VPI rinse step. I really enjoy getting data points from other people's experiences.

@sbank  - here's an option for a pump from Amazon that several people have reported good success with. Nice thing is that is it fully self-contained and already has 3/8" tubing barbs.

https://www.amazon.com/attwood-6126-7-Attwood-Potable-Water/dp/B0002F66WY/

Hi nkonor, glad to hear you're finding some bits of information in this thread that you can apply! Thanks for contributing.

I've not used a disc flattener and don't have an opinion about their effectiveness. I'm old school enough to remember discussions about plate glass and ovens, but I was never brave enough to experiment because with a mild warp my tonearms have been able to track the record pretty well. My biggest problems over the years have been the sharp pinch warps we occasionally encounter, and I've wondered if a device like the AFI could ameliorate those. I'll have to go read the thread. Thanks for the heads up about it.

Very innovative rinse and vacuum drying solution, Spencer! Great to hear of your success with the US cleaning process. Happy New Year!

@weedeewop ,  I've been away from the forum for some time but got a notice of your inquiry so I'm logging back on to give some replies to your question and a couple others that have come up since I've last visited. Glad to read of your interest in US cleaning for LPs!

First, a status update: I have now downsized due to retirement and preparing to move to apartment living. This has meant selling all of my LP collection and my analog system as I shift systems to a much smaller footprint: I'm now listening entirely to digital files and headphones. This means that I'm no longer actively pursuing advances in what is possible with ultrasonic cleaning of LPs, but I continue to be convinced that what I have used is the best LP cleaning regimen I've ever experienced. I've sold my US gear to a friend who continues to use all of it and is quite happy with it. Also, I stay in touch with a number of people who have adopted the cleaning fluid formula I suggested and use it with both ultrasonic cleaning and with manual cleaning (but in a stronger concentration for manual cleaning). Thus, I continue to get reports of others' experiences.

On to some replies to questions posed:

Ultrasonic Tank Options:  I've not kept up with what may or may not be available these days. The Trusonik tank I purchased is still going strong without any problems. I see no reason to "upgrade" and am not sure what would truly constitute an upgrade given how well this tank has worked for my purposes and continues to work for my friend who acquired it from me. I know three others who are using this same tank with similar positive experience. The 10L version of this tank is what I had and, for me, was the perfect capacity.

Hepastat256 and other quats:  The principal reason for using the Hepastat256 was static reduction that the quats in the formulation provides. The quats in the cleaning fluid truly do reduce static on the vinyl. Given this, any quat might work. Some people report success using quats sold for "beauty salon" use, but I can't give a recommendation nor can I suggest an amount to use. If you can find it, the Hepastat256 provided an additional benefit as a bactericide and fungus killing agent - very good for managing the moisture that alway remains in the US tubing, filters and valves! If the online retailer QUILL.COM is available to you, they sell Hepastat256 in 64 fl oz containers for about USD $25. Here is a link:
https://www.quill.com/brighton-professional-hepastat-256-restroom-cleaner-handy-mix-dilutable-64-oz/cbs/51805647.html  

@sauce82  I don't know about "Epquat" - you'd just have to try it it the ingredients seem similar. The challenge is that quats and other chemical formulations can be different. So, watch out for anything in the Epquat formulation that might be unkind to vinyl. A good resource would be to ask the chemist on the AudioKarma thread I referenced in my original article.

Time/Revolutions in the Tank:  @ketchup , sorry for not replying to your query about time and number of revolutions from so long ago. There is no magic to my suggestion of 3 revolutions over 10 minutes. My goal is to keep the surface of the record wet and allow for a goodly amount of cavitation time in the tank. If I were to go one direction or the other, it would be to increase rotation speed to keep the record surface from drying while exposed above the water in the tank, so I might go to 5 revolutions per minute but stay with the total 10 minute cycle time. My choice of 3 revolutions over 10 minutes was just a compromise based on some completely unscientific trial and error and that speed choice available to me with my variable voltage adapter.

Regards,
Rushton