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


Over the past several months I’ve invested a fair amount of time exploring ultrasonic cleaning because I’ve fallen way too far behind in my record cleaning. With over 6000 LPs, I needed a faster way to clean than my trusted multi-step manual wet/vac cleaning process. That manual process got the best results I’ve ever found, but I was not keeping up with my collection and it is just painful to me to play a record that I’ve not cleaned.

In exploring ultrasonic cleaning, my hope was to find that I could complete multiple LPs in a single US cleaning cycle and greatly speed up my rate of cleaning records. My goals were to FIRST do no harm and then SECOND see how close I could get to the results of my manual cleaning regimen.

My past experiences with ultrasonic cleaning demonstrations were completely underwhelming. What I heard did not approach the excellence I was achieving with my multi-step wet/vac cleaning regimen.

What I’ve learned, and now apply in my new ultrasonic cleaning regimen, are multiple elements to the cleaning process that must be used in combination to achieve the best possible results. And these results have far exceeded my expectations.

I’d thought of posting here on Audiogon the summary of what I’ve learned and am now applying as my new record cleaning regimen, but the inability to post images and to apply formatting here caused me to send my summary to David Robinson at Positive Feedback who has graciously published my comments as a guest essay. Please read that essay, and then come back here to Audiogon with comments and to share your experiences:

http://positive-feedback.com/audio-discourse/rushton-paul-diy-approach-ultrasonic-cleaning-lps/


I look forward to some further discussion and sharing of experiences.

.


128x128rushton
For 3-4 K, I do not think we should accept the breakdown rate of these machines. Manufacturer should take up some of the cost.  My VPI is still going strong for 26yrs. German Engineering? Maybe the word should get out a bit more.
Believe me, I feel the pain very personally!.. Having said this the VPI is not an Audio Desk.

Many internal/moving parts. Electronics, pumps and the like. This is why it just makes sense in EVERY way to go forward with the rushton approach.

Cheers!
The advantages of Rush’s approach are manifold: you can control heat, degas, filter using an external reservoir (which the newish KL does), use a surfactant and change the frequency if you opt for models offering such features. (Elma, for example). You are still in under the cost of most of the commercial US designed for LPs (save, perhaps, the V-8, which is a commercialized DIY type set up).
My best results come from pre-cleaning using AIVS No. 15, vacuuming using a point nozzle (Monks, but the Loricraft is essentially the same concept), rinsing using reagent grade 1 water and then running the record through the US. I had the AD, currently have a KL and when that goes, will go DIY-- I can use a surfactant, and do a reagent water rinse and vac dry on the Monks. My experience with these things tells me that the added step of vacuuming using point nozzle gets more of the contaminants out of the grooves than air drying, forced or passive.

I don’t go to these lengths on every record, but some of the older obscure/rare records aren’t always pristine, even at higher prices. Those really benefit from the pre-cleaning, and the post US vacuum on the point nozzle. There is no static or contamination issue using the Monks. (I have multiple mats, a wet and ’dry’ one). I’ve managed to get many records with wispy tracing distortion, and some which sound like the grooves have been damaged, to a very high state of play using these combined methods.
My work flow, while it sounds time consuming, is fairly efficient with both types of machines running simultaneously.
If a record looks pristine, I’ll give it a milder pre-clean on the Monks using the Hannl fluid (which @Syntax turned me on to a few years ago), a pure water rinse and then into the KL.
I’ve also changed inner sleeves to the MA, which is some sort of woven material. It’s less prone to scratching, doesn’t seem to leave any inner sleeve ’lint’ and, unlike putting it an HDPE sleeve, allows some air flow.
whart,

Thanks for the update.

It makes perfect sense that your "point nozzle" would aid in getting into the grooves better. In order to save money, I'm fine with my pre-clean method of steaming, I don't mind the extra time/effort.

Never heard of the MA inner sleeves. They sound interesting?
My Vinyl Stack arrives today. I think I'm going to start with using distilled water with the Audio Desk additive first. This will give me a way to hear the difference between what I was using vs. what I'm now have. Very excited!