Thumbs up for ultrasonic record cleaning
With persistent clicks and pops, I don’t find that the 80khz setting on my Elmasonic P improves on a 38kHz cycle. Try 20 minutes at 40-45C and 100% power, with a 1:30 concentration of Fisher Versaclean instead of Iso. Some records with stubborn clicks and pops just won’t clean up. Sometimes the pops seem reduced in amplitude. |
gbanderhoos I replaced it with a KLAudio KD-CLN-LP200 with (IMO) much better build quality, but still unimpressive results ...That’s interesting. I’ve had outstanding results with the Klaudio. It may not be the best device for extremely dirty LPs such as you might find at a yard sale. For them, I think the right fluid and a vacuum machine might be the best first step. But for everything else it works very well, imo. What could be more impressive than a pristine clean disc? ... how does one know what they are really doing to the record surface (not only whether it is effectively being cleaned, but whether it is being damaged in the process)?If the record looks clean, and the phono cartridge stylus is clean after playing the LP, I’m satisfied that the US cleaner was effective. Because LPs almost always sound better after a cycle through the Klaudio, I can’t imagine how the cleaner could have caused damage in any way. The few LPs I’ve heard that may not sound better after being cleaned in the Klaudio were clean to start with. They sound about the same after a pass through the Klaudio. |
@bydlo After many cleanings, I’ve set aside a few problem records for continuing experiments. Some of these were improved after transitioning from ISO to Versaclean. The 80kHz cycle didn’t seem to make a difference, though I like that its reduced power doesn’t increase the bath temperature as fast as the 38kHz action. As long as you don’t allow the LP to sit still in the bath, don’t be afraid of cleaning at 45C. I’ve had some luck spinning problem LPs in the hot tub for an hour or so at 45C prior to engaging the pulse cycle. It’s likely that the vinyl expands and contracts repeatedly as it spins in and out of a hot bath, loosening debris over time that is then pounded out during the subsequent pulse cycle. However, after all is said and done, some clicks and pops are deemed record defects. As a general rule I give every new record a cleaning, on the theory that it is better not to grind in debris with even a single pass of the stylus. However, I’ll usually pass on the pre-cleaning with MoFi and Analog Productions-- and with impeccable pressings like Rhino’s recent Donald Fagen Cheap Xmas box set. |
@gbanderhoos-you raise some interesting points, starting with the actual operating frequency of your KL. I wonder how much variability there is among units in the field? We are told that 40Khz doesn’t cause damage, at least for relatively short duration at fairly high rotational speeds (AD, KL); most of the DIY set ups seem to rotate at a lower speed, and for longer cleaning times, no? (I have only owned the AD and KL, but am aiming for a DIY when the KL goes, mainly for operational flexibility rather than low cost). I prefer point nozzle vac drying to forced air or passive air drying since I think it does a better job of removing the vestiges of contamination and fluid. I learned pretty quickly that the commercial US machines intended for LP did not clean challenged records that could get clean using AIVS No. 15, some vigorous agitation, pure water rinse, sometimes repeating the process, and then employing the US, with a final rinse and vacuum using high purity water. I pre-clean any used record (and a few new ones that are obvious dirty) before going into the ultrasonic, using a Monks, and high purity rinse. I only find a deposit of very fine grit in the KL tank from new records that have not been pre-cleaned. As for damage, I suppose you could test using a blank LP, examine for pitting, etc.-a point raised by a vendor of new cleaning service who opted for 80khz transducers run at low power (Perfect Vinyl Forever, who has recently been posting about his equipment and methods on various fora). I’ve certainly heard no evidence of damage, which would be one good way to discern--most revealing to me are the results I get from a record cleaned both by conventional (fluid/vacuum/rinse/vacuum) and US, sometimes repeated conventional cleanings using AIVS No. 15 and reagent grade 1 rinse--where the record initially exhibits low level noise, raspiness, tracing distortion-often associated with groove damaged records. These can in many cases, not all, clean up to be quiet players. Once I clean a record using combined methods and it plays well, I don’t re-clean or do follow up re-cleans. I’ve also had records that I cleaned decades ago using a VPI and who knows what fluid at the time (I tried several including some home brews) that play beautifully today. I’ve also been reliably informed that using a surfactant in the US enhances the cavitation effect dramatically. Perhaps using a surfactant reduces the need for lower frequency, higher power and reduces the potential risk of damage, I don’t know. I found the earlier AD to be kludgey in operation, the KL of course doesn’t permit the use of additives as far as I know, thus my aim for a DIY which permits use of a surfactant. |
