Vacuum Record Cleaner Rreplacement

@jrcotner Re microscope, light microscope has a theoretical resolution limit of around 250 nm = 0.25 µm under ideal condition, which never obtains due to various aberrations. Taking numerical aperture into account, it becomes (1.22 x lambda)/2 NA. And then you need to assume your microscope slide and coverslip are REALLY clean. Good luck with that at home!

For smaller particles, you need to go to electron microscopes. Scanning has resolution limit of ~2–5 nm, a good transmission can go to Angstrom level. Starter desktop SEM can be had for about $100K, decent about $250–500K, top of the line SEM/TEM $XM. And you also need some other gear to make the preps, plus serious vibration isolation (oil pan, bungie cord suspension).

One more thing to consider is that we play our records in our homes, not in an ISO cleanroom. So colorimetric approach is sufficient to show that there is some stuff coming off. What it is specifically is idle musing.

@lewm maybe there is something else going on in your set-up, possibly with static charge? I don't hear a thing after needle drop. Adding steps to get to less than nothing is pointless. 

Oberon, You apparently use a US machine.  I use only a VPI HW17 vacuum machine.  My wash fluid is a combination of alcohol, nonionic detergent, and water.  Most likely you use plain or distilled water in your US machine.  Or if you don't, what do you use?  In any case, in my experience with my wash fluid and my machine, the extra rinse with clean water followed by a second vacuuming makes an audible difference and adds about 30 seconds per side to the cleaning ritual.  Well worth it. But because you don't hear a benefit in your very different method, does not mean that there is no difference using my methods. If you do use plain water in your US machine, there is no wonder that a rinse with plain water would not make much if any audible difference.

I had a Nessie-two different machines actually, but both had problems which was a shame because, when working, the Nessie is effective. So, I bit the bullet and bought a Degritter II-too much money but a great machine. I think The Audiophile Man is a very reliable reviewer and touts the sonic benefits of thorough cleaning, particularly with this machine. I was doubtful, but he was right-I certainly hear an improvement-maybe its real, maybe its expectation bias, which is also real, but I perceive an improvement.

I have a repeatable process-I first apply a Tergikleen solution with a Kubuki brush and then do two cleaning cycles. I have an extra tank that I use for a rinse cycle with distilled water only. It works and the machine is really easy to use. I like it.

I try not to buy used records that are in dodgy shape. I want M- in most cases, unless its something I really am interested in. When I got my Huminguru Nova I cleaned what remained of my collection, which has been through an Okki Nokki, or a CleanVinyl 132 kHz tank, or both. So with those records I use straight distilled water and a longer clean time. 

If I buy vinyl that is used and not cleaned. I will run it through the Nova with a drop of their cleaning solution. If necessary, I run it through a second time. Finally, if a stubborn issue remains I clean it one last time on the Okki Nokki. This process has given me quiet sounding vinyl, and excellent sound. The process works well enough for me. I will cycle distilled water through the Nova from time to time to rinse the pump and lines. 

I used my ultrasonic record cleaner for over 30 years with excellent results and never had the need for any additional cleaning methods. Most of my records were purchased new and I only purchased used records that were visibly in excellent condition with no visible defects or contamination. So for records that are visibly dirty, perhaps a precleaning step would be beneficial.

When I assembled my first ultrasonic cleaner I used several surface analytical techniques in my laboratory to evaluate the effectiveness of my ultrasonic cleaner. My initial experiments to evaluate several ultrasonic bath variables were done on a sacrificial record that was cut into ~1 cm squares. Controlled amounts of various known contaminants (oils, greases, lubricants, fingerprints and hard water) were applied to these samples. These samples were then heated in an oven to drive off any volatile species and to induce interdiffusion and/or any chemical interaction, which would simulate aging and make them more difficult to remove. These samples were then analyzed before and after various ultrasonic cleaning variables, one of which was exposure time in the bath. The results for exposure time indicate ≥ 95% removal of all contaminants after 1 min exposure and ≥ 97% removal of all contaminants after 2 min exposure and ≥ 98% removal of all contaminants after 3 min exposure. There was some variation in the rate of removal depending on the particular contaminant.

These 1 cm square samples were suspended vertically in the ultrasonic bath and were static and not rotating on a spindle as in a typical record cleaner. To compare these static exposure times to a rotating spindle, the time has to be multiplied by 3 because 1/3 of the record is in the bath solution at any given time. 

We also used the same analytical techniques to compare manual cleaning with a brush using a surfactant in distilled water solution to several RCMs using their recommended cleaning solutions. We found that they all removed a significant amount of contaminants. The differences in contaminant removal were more similar than different. For these cleaning methods, the contaminant removal varied between 60 to 80%. Mineral deposits from hard water and fingerprint residue were typically more difficult to remove with these cleaning methods. None of these cleaning methods came close in contaminant removal to the ultrasonic cleaner which had a contaminant removal of ≥ 98% in these experiments.

Besides its superb cleaning capability, the speed of cleaning with an ultrasonic bath is hard to beat. I could clean, rinse and spin dry 10 records on my spindle assembly in less than 20 min. The total time includes mounting the records and removing the records from the spindle.