2. analog
  3. 183026-137343

Investigating if ultrasound is harming LPs

Description

Take a piece of a LP and US clean it.

With a precision weight scale. Taking the weight before and after the ultrasound cleaning. To determine IF any material is removed from the LP or not with the ultrasound usage.

 

Material 

The things that are needed for the test setup:

  • US DIY 6L cleaner. With 180 watt at 40 kHz.
  • Weight scale 2 decimals of a gram and max 5g capacity.
  • A piece of a real LP record 

 

Method

First I selected a LP and tried to cut out a piece that is as close to 5 grams. To get the maximum size as possible that the scale can support. Tried to get a piece that includes lead-in to lead-out. To especially get some of the "glossy" part of those.

 

I used the US cleaning to do an initial cleaning of the record ~5g piece.

 

When I was not interested in weight loss due to dirt coming off. I need to start with a clean piece that is just the LP material and nothing else. When the goal is to determine if the ultrasound is removing any material or not. 

 

For the US bath I used a little bit of heat 30°C and reverse osmosis RO water (more or less the same as distilled water). And some wetting agent.

When we want the scrubbing bubbles being able to work into the groove. The piece of the LP will hang in the water like a record is and not lay down in the bottom of the US bath tub. 

 

I will run the US machine timer set to 30 min. That in practice a LP is less than half of its area at any time in the bath. That means more than half of the LP area is not in the bath when the record is revolving during a normal cleaning session. So in practice by having this piece submerged and US cleaned effectively for 30 min is like someone is spinning and cleaning in the US bath for more than one hour ! So it is more correct to see this 30 min as over an hour of US cleaning if it were a whole spinning LP. 

 

For the weight scale I make sure that the LP piece is clean and dry. And I try several times to rule out deviation between measurements, if any. Method where I learned to put the piece of LP on the exact same place on the scale plus I for each measurement looked that it went back to 0.00 g when I picked up the piece. I also reseted by pressing tare and looking again so I got 0.00 before putting the piece on the scale to get a new reading. 

 

Calculation example if we have a 5 g piece and 1% of its material were removed. Then that 1% should weight 0.05 grams and 0.5% should be 0.025 gram. That is what I see no issues to detect on the weight scale when the repetition accuracy is greater than 0.025!

 

So this method should be able to detect if less than 0.5% of the LP were removed by the scrubbing bubbles by the ultrasound and it's usage of it. 

But I was not expecting what happened below..

 

1st try Results

The start weight of the cleaned LP piece:

  1. 5.01 gram
  2. 5.01 gram
  3. 5.01 gram
  4. 5.01 gram
  5. 5.00 gram
  6. 5.00 gram
  7. 5.01 gram
  8. 5.01 gram

Average: 5.0075 grams.


 

After US bath "cleaning" first weight session:

  1. 5.02 gram
  2. 5.02 gram
  3. 5.02 gram
  4. 5.01 gram
  5. 5.01 gram
  6. 5.01 gram
  7. 5.01 gram
  8. 5.01 gram

Average: 5.01375 grams.

 

Hmm here is something fishy business going on between the weight sessions..

 

After the first US bath "cleaning" second weight session:

  1. 5.02 gram
  2. 5.02 gram
  3. 5.02 gram
  4. 5.02 gram
  5. 5.02 gram
  6. 5.02 gram
  7. 5.02 gram
  8. 5.02 gram

Average: 5.02 grams.

 

So there is something going on between weighting sessions..

I have taken those two weighting sessions and the average of the 2 x 8 measurements is 5.016875 grams.

 

Second try cleaning 

Now I am repeating the 30 min (one hour see above) Ultrasound treatment/"cleaning" for a second time.

 

And will weigh it also in two sessions and see what we get.

After 2nd US bath "cleaning" first weight session:

  1. 5.02 gram
  2. 5.02 gram
  3. 5.02 gram
  4. 5.02 gram
  5. 5.01 gram
  6. 5.01 gram
  7. 5.01 gram
  8. 5.01 gram

Average: 5.015 gram

 

After 2nd US bath "cleaning" second weight session:

  1. 5.01 gram
  2. 5.01 gram
  3. 5.01 gram
  4. 5.01 gram
  5. 5.01 gram
  6. 5.01 gram
  7. 5.00 gram
  8. 5.01 gram

Average: 5.00875 gram

 

So after a second US cleaning round and having the 16 measurements from the first US cleaning round.

Average from the two measurement sessions is after the 2nd US "cleaning": 5.011875 grams.

 

Conclusion

Is that there might be some deviation between measurement sessions of some reason that I can't explain:

  • Maybe it would average out if I took more than 8 measurements.
  • I should take more than only 8 measurements before the first UC cleaning session, which is why I later doubled them.
  • And I felt that I got better and better in my measurements routine. So the later measurements are more stable and have higher repetition accuracy than the first ones had.

I could leave the first iteration out from this post, but I wanted you all to see the whole process and not manipulate the findings.

 

Of the conclusions above I feel and believe mathematically with more samples that the second round is the one to look at and dismiss the first round.

 

Before I did the second US "cleaning" the average weight of the 16 measurements were:

  • 5.016875

After the second US "cleaning" the average weight of those 16 measurements were:

  • 5.011875

5.011875/5.016875 = 0.999003363647

 

Almost 0.1% (0.0996636352%) less weight after the second US cleaning.

 

That can be one of two things or little bit of both also:

  1. Measurement deviation before and after measurements. And more repetitions and measurements could be done. But I will stop here.
  2. That actually a VERY tiny part is removed of the LP by US

 

It is up to you guys to decide what you believe the data means. 

 

But remember it is a rather powerful US with 180W and in practice a very long US cleaning session as explained above.

 

Another note in the method of what I observed was that the little LP part were moving around in the bath when it were only hanging in a string. Usually a record is more firm and stable when the scrubbing bubbles are acting on its surface. If that makes any difference for the outcome but worthy of a note.

​​​​​(I got images on all the things and measurements 40 (!) But this forum is making it hard for me to attach them here)

​​​​​

optimize
audioguy85's avatar
audioguy85
1,989 posts
 

I believe both Rega and Ortofon do not believe in cleaning records with any kind of solvent or liquid. Dry cleaning or surface dust removal is ok, same for stylus cleaning. I personally use the record DR as well as manually cleaning with vinyl revival product. Generally though, I just dry clean them with a record brush. If you think about it, adding a liquid could just be causing mud/sludge, which may or may not be fully removed. Maybe best to let alone and dry brush and enjoy the music. I gauge it by examining the stylus upon completion of play. If it is consistently gunked up with crud from a certain record, then I proceed to use liquid(s). A lot of the time, the stylus appears rather clean, even after playing a thrift store find. It just depends on the record. My ears are old, and I honestly cannot hear most of the surface noise present most of the time, maybe it’s s good thing!😁

Honestly, each time you play a record, there is some minute amount of material being removed...how can there not be? A hard diamond running through the grooves (softer material) creating friction and of course heat. It is inevitable degradation.....with thousands of records, I doubt I’ll wear any of them out during the rest of my time. I own so many now that I honestly Forget what I have! Not a bad problem really....wifey thinks otherwise...🤨. Now to sneak the new Accuphase into the house...🙄

ltmandella's avatar
ltmandella
113 posts
 

I commend your effort to try the experiment.  Given the tiny scale of weight we are interested in, I think this experiment is impossible to do reliably without very expensive lab equipment and carefully conducted in a controlled lab environment...

 

pindac's avatar
pindac
2,359 posts
 

Hypothetical: If there was evidence a UT Cleaning was a cause of a loss of recorded data, as a result of effecting the Modulation in the Groove.

Would not a Test LP be a better to use as a LP Sample, as a Few Samples could be acquired and used in a manner that could at some point enable for differences developing between the LP's to be distinguished. 

Say a particular Khz, Rotational Speed and Temperature were discovered to have detrimental effect, as a result of Comparisons of the Test LP's, would this then be one of the cleaning environments to be avoided.

Is there not a Computer Software today such as 'Analogmagik', that would help with substantiation of  differences being detected between the Test LP's, if something is also being suggested there is a audible difference occurring.

For the Record, I abandoned the UT Cleaning and use the PAVCR Manual Cleaning Method, with solutions available to be produced in the UK. This has proved most satisfactory and Purified LP's are certainly a end product.

 

mahler123
3,028 posts
 

How many times does one clean a given record this way?  I thought ultrasound was used once, and after only again if something catastrophic happened, like if the lp was buried in a mudslide in Turkey.  My gut feeling is the improvement made by deep blasting 50 years of crap out of the grooves would more than offset a loss of mass in the tenth decimal place, but what do I know?

Ag insider logo xs@2x
cleeds
5,642 posts
 
mahler123

How many times does one clean a given record this way?  I thought ultrasound was used once, and after only again if something catastrophic happened, like if the lp was buried in a mudslide in Turkey ...

I have found that one cleaning usually suffices. However, I have a handful of favorite LPs that I've cleaned a second time. That's because - no matter what some may claim - an LP will acquire some dust during play. (There is no way to prevent that in a home environment. Even the use of a conductive sweep arm on a turntable can only collect dust from the tiny patch beneath it, leaving all he rest of the LP surface exposed.)

My gut feeling is the improvement made by deep blasting 50 years of crap out of the grooves would more than offset a loss of mass in the tenth decimal place ...

I'll go one step further. Even brand new LPs have dust and contaminants on them from the manufacturing and packaging process and they, too, benefit from cleaning.

Many audiophiles have never heard a truly clean record. You're one of them if you're routinely seeing dust on your stylus.

More to discover