Ultrasonic record cleaners

I’ll throw one more log on the fire--using surfactants in an ultrasonic should also involve some method to rinse and remove the fluid/contaminants once the cleaning is done. Some of the made for LP ultrasonics use forced air. When I had an Audio Desk (older model), I had, at the suggestion of some early adopters, reduced the amount of AD fluid from a bottle to just a capful. I could still see what I believed was a function of fluid residue when the same record was recleaned later on the KL--- the way the water behaved on the record surface in the KL.

I think Neil addresses this as well in the book- it’s been a while since I read it. And @antinn, I know you and @jtimothya went back and forth on the value of a rinse step- he was at the time using a formula he had adapted from the London Jazz Collector site. Don’t know where that left things which is why I flagged him here as well.

Glad Dr. Bond got the book. It would cost to produce a decent print copy and I’m not sure people want to bear that cost. And then Neil would have to autograph them for deluxe editions, etc. :)

 

Bill (@whart)

Tim was first using a no-rinse formula of ~2.5%i-IPA and ILFOTOL and filtered.  ILFOTOL is not bad, but it does foam a lot and the delivered concentration can vary, and they did reformulate making what exactly you are working with that much worse.  He did add a rinse step.

However, late last year after continued prodding he switched to Tergitol 15-S-9 at about 150 ppm and the first four posts pretty much sum it up - tima's DIY RCM | What's Best Audio and Video Forum. The Best High End Audio Forum on the planet! (whatsbestforum.com)

Take care,

Neil

 

Thanks, Neil (@antinn) -that does sum it up nicely.

 

I'm another Degritter user.  I wanted my records to be clean, but hate cleaning records.  Some people turn it in to a second hobby, but I didn't want that. I was willing to pay for the combination of great cleaning and as easy a process as possible.  The Degritter was created to hit that goal precisely.  It's a joy to use.

That said, I have been particularly cursed in having more problems than most with the Degritter.  I've had one replaced, had to send that replacement back.  But...when it's working, it's great.   (Again, it seems most owners wash thousands of records with no issues).

I have only tracked the results being reported on for the @antinn PACVR Text Book on the 'gon'.

It was good to be able to link to another forum and see the results being made known from another. Who has obviously taken their LP Cleaning very seriously and developed a method not to commonly seen.

The report on a small change being made to a regularly used Solution, brought a notable change, that was perceived to be a betterment to the cleaning process and is desirable to be maintained, is one further reason to give Niel a 'Hats Off' 🤠 Salute. 

Something that might be off interest to a wider group could be, if the comparison cleaning method I was referring to previously in the thread was carried out. As the control available through using forum members to participate is better than my previous thought for the planning. The reason being, is that there are common solutions/mixtures being used for cleaning, as a result of the PAVCR Textbook.

These mixtures are being used in conjunction with different ancillaries in use to support cleaning methods.

The rethink on the methodology is as follows:

New Albums of the same Band/Title could be purchased between a selection of cleaning enthusiast who are using Different Cleaning Methods, but where all individuals are using Neils Suggested Solutions/Mixtures.

It does seem feasible this could be created, as the advisories from Neil seem to be adopted by quite a few enthusiasts.

Once LPs are Cleaned, the Albums will be Posted to each Participant, who in receipt will then be able to replay all the Cleaned LPs in short duration between replays and assesses the impact of the cleaning methods used, on their own systems.

For the few $$'s it would cost to set something up like this comparison trial, which could easily be funded as a Group Buy from an extended group within the forum, with an interest in the Outcome.

As a Guestimate:

4x Albums @ $100.

3 x postages to send all Cleaned Albums to One Address, approx', $30.

3 x Postages to send the Batch of Cleaned Albums for the additional assessments to other Addresses, approx', $30.

3 x Postages to return the Albums to their original cleaned address, approx', $30

Approx', $200 to put a valuable comparison information into the mainstream, for a group of experienced LP Cleaners to make their assessment known on the impact of a variety of LP Cleaning methods compared side by side. There does seem a lot to like, especially when the costs are accounted for, to acquire a device to assist with LP Cleaning. When others with an interest are looking into this as a practice, a machine is usually to be considered, and a Mid-Priced Model with a Brand Name can easily ask for a $1000ish to be paid.    

From experience, I have cleaned New Purchased Vinyl, and have heard improvement (Surface Noise Decreased) as a result of the Cleaning Method, especially, when using the PAVCR Textbook Manual Cleaning Method.

It is to prove quite impossible to presume a purchase of used LPs will share a similar deterioration or contamination level.

I would suggest a purchase from Amazon of LPs to be selected for the comparisons, as there are quality issues that can be discovered with a purchase of New Vinyl and with Amazon the option to return and receive a replacement is very useful. I have returned particular Modern Bands Albums on at least three occasions, and on one particular Album returned it twice, to receive what I would class as an acceptable condition LP.   

An undertaking of this type, if a few participants can be found to take part, will certainly be a good use of a connection between interested enthusiasts within a forum.

It would certainly assist with extending on advice being made known for others, 'if a common selection of cleaning ancillaries were to be used', whether a Manual Cleaning Method, RCM Method, Cheap range of US Tank Method or Expensive US Tank Method would be the most worthwhile to consider as a set up for cleaning. 

The assessment would be quite straight forward, as recording quality is not being scrutinised, the assessment will be solely if a Particular LP has offered an impression that it is clean/quiet, and whether this impression is different depending on the cleaning method used.

I would be more than happy to donate a percentage of the overall cost to see this materialise, I'm sure a few others would be willing as well.

Working on the basis that a US Tank offered to be sued, is one with the most desirable design and build, is used as a cleaning method for the Trial, along with the monetary value attached, might be considered the one that will produce the best results.

If one such Tank is offered to be used, this could be the last Address to receive the Batch of LPs for an overall assessment. Once the assessment is done the US Tank could be used to clean the Three LPs not cleaned using the US tank and then returned to the original cleaners, they could then assess through recollection if the returned LP was presenting an impression of cleanliness that differed from their own recollection of their cleaned LP.