Good choice! I completely agree with your conclusions. May I make the following suggestions, based on my experience?
1. Make sure that there is enough space for the ultrasonic wave to develop. That means spacing between the tank and the record, and record to record, must exceed 1.5 inches at all points, even when records are warped (assumes a 40KHz machine operating at full frequency spec).
2. Keep your cleaning chemistry between 40 and 50 C.
3. Finish by rinsing off the cleaning chemistry.
When I failed to do one or more of the above, records came out looking clean, but further cleaning revealed that much more gunk had been left behind. Had to re-clean 2000 records, which I do not recommend.
Enjoy! |
Perhaps referring to the Rushton thread?
|
I note that lwal questioned wavelength. The calculation is easy, from the physics formula V=fl (velocity = frequency x wavelength). Since the speed of sound is 5000 feet / second in water (60,000 inches per second), the equation is
60,000 = 40,000 x l
from which it is trivial to solve for l.
l = wavelength = 60,000 inches per second / 40,000 cycles per second
= 1.5 inches / cycle
Note that the units match what we want to calculate, as they must if the formula has been used correctly.
For surfactant I use a lab grade detergent, Versaclean from Fisher Scientific.
|
@slaw
Thanks for your gentlemanly note. No offence taken. |
@whart
You are too modest, whart.
As far as alcohols are concerned, the issue is 'flash point', the temperature at which a vapour ignites. Since the US machine operates on electricity, there is always the chance of a spark, hence a constant hazard. That can easily be managed in an industrial environment, in a laundry room, not so much.
The issues vary from mathematical to the idiosyncrasies of the equipment. Calculations are a little opaque because of our antique measuring system. For example, ounce and fluid ounce are quite different. Concentrations can be measured by mass or by volume; chemists are very careful about this, they even have their own vocabulary.
Remember too that US cleaners work best when filled to 2/3 full. That means a 6 litre tank contains 4 litres of fluid. Temperature can vary quite dramatically in the fluid column, so the position as well as accuracy of the sensor matter. Then too, the machine might be left on longer than intended, causing an unexpected rise in temperature. These are all sources of potential error, and hazard.
Botom line: I would only use an alcohol if I had a good reason to do so. IMO, records do not demand it.
About soap - don't use it. It can form a soap scum, especially in hard water. Detergent does not. I use a lab grade detergent, VersaClean, from Fisher Scientific. First, it doesn't have crap like perfume mixed in. Second, it is said to be formulated for plastics. Third, it is recommended for US, based on their experiments, so I don't have to experiment.
Fourth, it is sold by a lab supply company - their stuff has to work as specified, or there is hell to pay, because zillion dollar facilities rely on it. And zillion dollar facilities have the expertise to analyze their supplies and reagents. And they punch above their weight. So I align my interests with theirs.
About rinsing - I do. First is highly purified running water, second is a distilled bath.
Just my opinions. YMMV
|
Pleasure to help, Phil. We're all in this together!
I use VersaClean at 40:1 for clean records, the minimum recommended. For garage sale records, 20:1. A gallon goes a loooong way! (guilty secret here - also works brilliantly for good wine glasses)
I cleaned about 2000 records at insufficient heat, spacing, and rinsing. Then I upgraded methodology to 45C, 1.75", and heroic rinsing, changed the chemistry and re-cleaned 30 records as an experiment. I found almost as much debris at the bottom of the US tank as the first time (which was US cleaning of previously VPI cleaned records). I observed no discoloration the second time. Listening tests confirmed the improvement. Machine was an Elmasonic running at 80KHz. |
Phil, I should have mentioned that when you clean hotter, you should cool the records as uniformly as possible. That's easy by spinning in a distilled water bath.
|
I think that an examination of this thread will show you a better way. IMO, US is the best way.
I have a record of 60's folk music that looks terrible, grade about 'Good', but that plays NM. That said, I also have a sealed Chopin which is unlistenable, and no US treatment, 40KHz or 80KHz, improves it. US or not? I would say, definitely. But don't expect miracles, and be sure that the machine will meet its specifications: frequency and power. |
@pryso @slaw
Damned if I don't feel like Samson ... |
Worried? What, me worried? Arrggghhhhhh ..... |
What @slaw said. Except I use 5 minutes per rotation. I even did the same experiment.
|
Rinsing - I just implemented a 3 stage water filter: 25 microns, 1 micron, 0.5 micron carbon block.
I clean using a conventional Vinyl Stack spinner. Then I transfer the stack to a high speed Vinyl Stack spinner, located in a sink. Then I rinse the stack in running water, first with 1 micron water, then 0.5 micron water.
Finally, I remove the stack from the high speed spinner and attach a VS handle, and rotate the stack in a bath of distilled water.
My tap water is very, very pure, and so this works a treat for me. YMMV, especially if your tap water isn't Wet Coast pristine. |
@slaw
As you say, this is fun. But no, I didn't put it together - got too much on my plate with my air bearing turntable (working close to the limit, but a quadrature power supply should improve it further) and pre/phono (Version 2.0 with air-gap and vacuum caps ONLY in the signal path).
I asked the good folks at Vinyl Stack to put a special motor on their spinner, and they found something that works brilliantly. I run the unit at about 60 RPM to do a fast rinse and uniform cool-down under running water (about 10C). If you have pure tap water, it's fast and convenient. Recommended. |
No - municipal tap water comes from a river only 20 (yup, 20) miles long. So it's close to distilled specification. Absent that, I would use RO. |
Headroom? Would have thought 'soul'. |
@phil0618
Thanks for the warning. That would never have occurred to me. |
@slaw
I began with a two stage rinse, spinning the cleaned records in a bath of Brita-purified water, then a bath of distilled water. But I could see bubbles forming in the rinse after only a few records, so changed the rinses more often. Then I tried pouring purified water over the records first, and things improved. Including the sound. I tried pouring purified water over the records both before and after the first bath. More improvement.
At the same time, I was increasing temperature from 35C to 45C (80KHz commercial machine). Cumulative of all of the above refinements was a further improvement of at least as much as US over VPI. I re-cleaned everything already done, 2000 records.
As you can see, labour intensive. But I dislike the noise of the VPI 16.5, so I sold mine as soon as I confirmed the superiority of US, and have never used the two methods in combination. My current method of filtered running water is just so much more convenient, that convenience alone makes it worthwhile. But I also note that after 50 records cleaned, the distilled water bath is still bubble-free at all times, so there is probably a further improvement in cleanliness, stylus friction, and sound.
That said, I've now got about 2500 records cleaned to 4-rinse standards, and don't think I'll start again. There are limits to madness, even mine.
I am giving you all of this information so that you can judge for yourself how reliable my impressions are (or are not!).
My impression, which is very crude, is that you would hear a clear difference between my method and yours, perhaps as much as half the difference between VPI and US. Bear in mind that this is more of a guess than an estimate.
If you try it, please let us know if I'm right. Or not. I hate persisting in error. |
@slaw
You are most welcome. Do let us know about your next experiment.
|
@slaw
You ask, "Ever tried a carbon impregnated filter? Is this a possibility in our application?"
Yes and yes. I go one step further to carbon block filters (0.5 micron particle filtration) for the next-to-last rinse. |
@slaw
RE rinsing, I should add that it is important to start with good water. It's not too hard to get rid of the suspended solids, but the dissolved minerals are hell. RO is about the only way to reduce them, and even then you have to worry about the spec. One key spec is conductivity (high is bad).
If you don't have good tap water, I would suggest successive baths in distilled. |
Hello Nolo. Welcome!
I have done such an experiment - it was my first act of US ownership. Methodology:
1. Wash both sides with VPI 16.5.
2. US clean both sides for 5 minutes.
3. Turn off the motor, so that one sector of the record remained in the US bath.
4. Cooked the record in US for an hour.
5. Removed the record from the bath, and rinse.
6. Play on a high end system, expecting a change every second or so.
7. Observed no change or difference of any kind.
8. Concluded that US does not damage vinyl.
Of course, after cooking in the hot bath for an hour, the record was warped - but that is a function of heat unevenly applied, not US energy.
My US cleaning process:
1. Rotate at 12 RPH.
2. Clean at 80 KHz with Elmasonic machine (German, lab grade).
3. Chemistry is 2.5% VersaClean from Fisher Scientific.
4. Temperature is 45C.
5. Rinse heroically.
My system is based on 6 Quad 2905 ESL's, a DIY air bearing TT and DIY electronics.
|
Hello Audiom.
I use a 6 litre tank. Well made, good features, no regrets. Since it's a lab machine, I trust its specs - and the results are quite surprisingly good, even for my high expectations. |
Re-reading my post of March 6, I should have written
7. Observed no AUDIBLE change or difference of any kind.
|
@slaw
Good idea about the RO systems. Think that's absolutely right. I like to finish with distilled water.
Chemistry - I like to use 40:1, measured with lab glassware. But a measuring cup would work fine, if you are careful.
Glad to see that it's working for you. All the best.
|
@slaw
Thanks for posting your experiences. Glad it's working for you! I am sure that it will help others to achieve better results.
As for your RO question, I think it is a good one. I used distilled because it has very low concentrations of dissolved minerals, which could conceivably deposit on the record while drying. Dissolved minerals can be measured by conductivity, which is very low for distilled. Specs for RO are harder to come by, and depend on system maintenance, etc. |
@slaw
It depends. First on the quality of distilled water (which is standard), and the sample of RO water (which is not).
If I were doing that measurement, I would try an instrument called a 'megger', which typically reads resistance with the help of a high voltage supply. Since I don't need one, I don't have one, and just bite the bullet and buy pharmacy distilled at $1.50 a gallon. Lazy? Yeah - but that's just me. |
@slaw
I don't know. But I trust them to meet spec.
|
|
@slaw
How does the 1:120 work (vs 1:40)? I have not tried it at lower than Fisher's 1:40 recommendation.
I do not use photo-flo. My goal is to leave nothing whatsoever on the surface of the record. |
@fleschler
You say, "I think your method of US is using 10 C degree too hot water and 100% too high a cavitation frequency. Maybe that’s why you can’t hear the difference on 3-6 posting; however you state you did see and hear the difference using this method on 2-6 post."
The one posting was about a routine involving 2 records at inadequate spacing, temperature, and rinsing. Improving these helped. The other posting was an experiment to explicitly test the hypothesis that one record would be damaged (it wasn't).
The differences were: more energy per record and very high temperature on one sector of the record in the test, higher temperature on the bulk of the record and better rinsing for the routine cleaning. Don't quite see how you conclude that 45C is too hot and US frequency is 100% too high. Also, don't quite see how this explains the results.
Cleaning efficiency vs frequency is graphed on the DIYAUDIO thread, if you are interested. |
@dgarretson
I prefer the 80KHz setting because of the graph of cleaning efficiency vs frequency on DIYAUDIO, although I cannot say that I’ve found a reliably detectable difference. Just a theoretical one!
The big thing is that the wavelength is much smaller, so that there is plenty of room for the wave to develop on all sides, so no disappointing surprises when you play that record in 6 months time. Also, 80KHz is quieter. And as you note, it doesn’t heat the chemistry up as much. Me lazy. |
I too have bought many records which appear NM, but play poorly. Just to note, most records look NM after a US cleaning (scratches excepted, obviously). Nevertheless, a well used record plays that way, no matter how it looks.
My experiments, 80KHz and 45C with an Elmasonic, would appear to contradict those claims. And in my view, experiment is the ultimate arbiter.
|
@bydlo
Just spent an hour trying to find it, but could not. If you want to, look for the ultrasonic record cleaning thread, and start where I left off, at page 80.
Sorry to fail. |
@bydlo
No trouble. Read again much that I had forgotten!
The graph, IIRC, showed that 40KHz was marginally better with large particles, but that 80 KHZ was much better with small particles. Hence 80KHz.
|
@bdp24
The DIYAUDIO thread, "My Version of an Ultrasonic Record Cleaner." |
@bydlo
Just some friendly suggestions to help out, I'm not playing any games here.
Your rotation is too fast (try a fifth of that speed), your rinsing is only one stage (try 4), and your temperature is only 33C (try 40-45C).
Also, make sure that there is enough space between the records and between the records and the sides of the tank (4 cm for 40KHz, 2 cm for 80KHz). More space is better, as it allows for records that aren't mathematically perfect planes, e.g. warped or temporarily warping in the bath. Makes sure that there is enough energy (50W per record).
Good luck! |
@bdp24
On the DIY thread there is a link to Kirmuss at Axpona by Fremer. Most instructive on several counts.
|
I use running water, twice filtered down to 1 micron, mounted on a special order high speed Vinyl Stack. Then thrice filtered running water, filtered down to 0.5 microns. Then a bath in distilled water. It takes 50 or 75 records to show any hint of detergent contamination, which is when I change it (use the discarded rinse for cleaning).
This would not work, except that my tap water is almost indistinguishable from distilled. |
@fleschler
I would be cautious about any US machine which is not intended for a laboratory. The reason is, that lab machines must meet spec. Spec for power, spec for frequency, stability, features, etc.
It's not worth my time or trouble to deal with alternatives - YMMV. |
Yeah, sometimes it feels like that - but not always, not even most of the time. We'll miss you. |
@phil0618
You're welcome. Happy listening!
|
The higher the frequency, the smaller the bubbles, hence the better to clean small spaces and crevasses.
One of our big problems with vinyl is grease (fingerprints, etc.). It's hard to see plain water being very effective at removing that, irrespective of frequency. I use a lab grade detergent (Versaclean from Fisher Scientific) for surfactant, and chemistry at 45C.
But this requires a rinse or three.
|
@slaw
Yes, unfortunately I have experienced this too. What I have done is this:
1. reduce temperature to 45C (as you have done)
2. keep o-rings out of the bath
3. remove records promptly
4. pry records loose from the o-rings by holding at the edge of the record, twisting slightly to hook the spacer on the metal rod, and pushing (while praying)
5. and eventually replace the o-rings. The good folks at Vinyl Stack will supply.
You have stimulated me to reconsider this, though. I wonder if an isopropanol wipe would help? Or, as you suggest, chemical resistant o-rings?
I expect to be doing more US cleaning next weekend - let's share results on this. |
@slaw
Further to the sticky o-ring problem:
Washed until the rings were sticky, about 3 or 4 cycles of 20 minutes at 45C. Then
1. Wiped rings with isopropanol - worse.
2. Dusted and rubbed rings with charcoal powder - better. But it made a heck of a mess, looked as if I had been fingerprinted.
Thing about charcoal is that it’s pretty inert, and a superb dry lubricant. I used medical charcoal from a capsule, maybe a quarter of a capsule for the 4 spacers of the vinyl stack. No obvious charcoal residue on records or labels.
Would not use talc. |
@antinn , Thanks for that Tiger-Cloth recommendation. I'll try some as soon as I can get it. Do you cut it into strips? Or patches?
Also, thanks for that note on cleaning with alcohols. I was preaching that 5 years ago, but got tired - anyway, you give it more weight. |
Jtim, I have set out to damage a record with excessive exposure and temperature. Other than warping the record, I failed. The record was undamaged after more than an hour's exposure to a lab grade machine.
I tested by first cleaning the record by rotating it in an US bath. Then I turned off rotation and let it cook for more than an hour, then rinsed. Any damage would have been clearly detectable upon playing. The damage would have cycled in and out every second or so. No damage was detected.
Therefore, your statement is not accurate. Not only is there no evidence of damage, there is positive evidence of no damage. |
|
@jtimothya
Hello JT. What I was trying to say is, not only is there no evidence of damage from US, there is evidence of no damage from US. Since the latter is a stronger statement, perhaps it is more accurate in some sense. That’s all. Both Slaw and I have done such tests.
From my post of March 6:
Methodology:
1. Wash both sides with VPI 16.5.
2. US clean both sides for 5 minutes.
3. Turn off the motor, so that one sector of the record remained in the US bath.
4. Cooked the record in US for an hour.
5. Removed the record from the bath, and rinse.
6. Play on a high end system, expecting a change every second or so.
7. Observed no change or difference of any kind.
8. Concluded that US does not damage vinyl.
Of course, after cooking in the hot bath for an hour, the record was warped - but that is a function of heat unevenly applied, not US energy.
My US cleaning process:
1. Rotate at 12 RPH.
2. Clean at 80 KHz with Elmasonic machine (German, lab grade).
3. Chemistry is 2.5% VersaClean from Fisher Scientific.
4. Temperature is 45C.
5. Rinse heroically.
I applied my usual US cleaning process for the test, except that the temperature began at 45C and rose considerably, and ceased rotation as noted.
Thanks for your interest. |
Yes, my Elma is a dual frequency device, but I rarely use 37 KHz. 45C is warm, all right - but I find that, with my machine and its temperature sensor, nothing goes wrong until 52C. The test mentioned above, finished at considerably more than that. Hence the warp. |
@slaw
Didn't see your July posting until now.
The Elma has the drain on the right hand side. Since it is very finely controlled (down to drop by drop), I clean my solution by (1) arrange a clear plastic drain line with a dip in the middle (2) let the chemistry rest for a few hours (3) begin the drip into a clean jug (4) wait overnight (5) remove the jug of clean chemistry (6) rinse everything.
The chemistry is pretty clean, no noticeable fibre. I love letting Mr. Newton do the work! |
