"tubes have nothing to do with gain in some circuits." Those would be solid state circuits, because otherwise, even if you use a SUT, most of the gain, even though the phono stage is in MM mode and making, say, only 40db of gain, the SUT is typically supplying another 20db or maybe 30db if cartridge output is really low. So even in that case, most of the gain comes from an active tube based gain stage. As for surface noise, in my experience that varies wildly from one LP to the next. But most of the time, surface noise is not intrusive, in either of my two systems. It's there for sure, but only becomes evident when you change from a quiet LP to a very quiet LP. And that's where surface cleaning can help. I listen "loud" by the way. My impression is that surface noise is more evident in between bands, and that may be related to how LPs are cut. So I don't really care about surface noise until there is also music, when it typically recedes to below some mental limit that would make it annoying. If it IS annoying, the LP goes into the bin.
Vacuum Record Cleaner Rreplacement
I get most of my records from from garage sales and such, and they are typically pretty dirty. My record cleaning protocol is to run them through the vacuum record cleaner then the ultrasonic cleaner. If they have fingerprints or mold I’ll put them through the Neil Antin’s method. I’ve done it this way for years with good results.
Unfortunately, my venerable Music Hall WCS-2 needs a new cleaning wand and I’ve been told from numerous sources that the parts are no longer available. I started the hunt for a new vacuum cleaner and found a suitable replacement. Before I pull the trigger, I wanted to determine if I really need a vacuum cleaner if I’m using the ultrasonic. I’ve used both cleaners in succession more from habit than any practical reason, though I’ve convinced myself that the vacuum cleaner gets the big chunks off first and the ultrasonic does the fine, deep cleaning. I don’t know if this is true or not.
I’d like to know the thoughts of the group. I’m more than happy to buy another vacuum cleaner, but could always put that money toward something else if it is not needed.
Thanks in advance for your help.
- ...
- 85 posts total
Like you, I am trying to make sense of the "no surface noise" debate. Most audiophiles will agree that every component adds noise to some extent or other. Some other factors to consider include the type of music being played. Surface noise hardly bothers me on most jazz tracks I have played, because the average volume is so high. I imagine the same applies to other genres like heavy metal. And DJs are known to 'scratch' records by performing unnatural acts on turntables Records seem to achieve a signal to noise ratio of about 60 to 70-dB. But big orchestral music has dynamic ranges of 70 to 90-dB. That's probably why I am so sensitive to imperfections in the quiet bits! Then there is the difference between solid state and valve amplification. Valves, as I understand it, have substantially more thermionic noise than solid state, because they run hotter. So there is the potential for valve noise to mask surface noise. As you say. if the volume is not cranked up, a lot of noise will be inaudible. LOMC is inherently noisier than optical because far more gain has to be used. I was so surprised by the residual hiss when I auditioned a Holbo system with a LOMC cartridge when it was not playing that I went back to see what the cause was. It was somewhere in the amplification chain. The records I took in sounded very clean and have improved significantly with the DS Audio optical cartridge. |
@richardbrand you nailed it. However…surface noise between tracks varies based upon the quality and condition of vinyl pressing. I have a few really quiet vinyl pressings where you barely hear anything between tracks at a normal volume level but it’s never completely silent. How much of that noise you hear also depends on a phono stage. In example of the tubed Melto2 that produces zero tube rush and is dead silent when Idle, it reproduces a good degree more of the surface noise than the Whest, using the same Hana Umami Blue cartridge. The surface noise is more audible with the Melto2 when playing an actual track, not just on dead wax. It’s not terrible and doesn’t bother me much on VG+ and higher grade vinyl. As to the overall noise floor of a system at idle, if you have very efficient speakers and somewhat “noisy” electronics you will hear hiss at idle. In my system it’s nonexistent with my DAC selected as input on my integrated and there’s only a slight hiss with the phono stage when volume on the amp is set to 82 and above. My typical listening is done with volume between 55 and 75 on the amp. OP…I didn’t mean to high jack this thread…sorry |
When I mentioned localized heat, I am referring to the heat generated by the collapsing bubbles on a micro scale. The energy released during the collapse of a single cavitation bubble can be quite substantial (several thousand degrees C), and when numerous bubbles collapse simultaneously, it can lead to a significant increase in the local (micro scale) temperature. Just do an online search and you can find many articles discussing this. Here is a good review article: "A correlation between cavitation bubble temperature, sonoluminescence and interfacial chemistry – A minireview" published in the journal Ultrasonics Sonochemistry (Volume 85, May 2022) by Nor Saadah M. Yusof, Muthupandian Ashokkumar, and colleagues
This effect is common knowledge in the scientific community. This effect is often used in industrial applications to minimize the amount of surfactant required. The degree of change in the CMC as a function of temperature is dependent on the particular surfactant and the difference can be as large as a factor of 2. Many references only have an abstract unless you have a subscription. Here is one reference where you can read the whole article without a subscription. Chen, Li-Jen. “Temperature Dependence of Critical Micelle Concentration of Polyoxyethylenated Non-Ionic Surfactants.” Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects, Elsevier BV, 1998.
|
To provide info regarding some of this discussion: Here is a very basic handout on the science of soap - ScienceofSoap.pdf. CMC is the surfactant concentration when the surface tension of the water decreases no further and the surfactant begins to produce micelles - geometric structures and it's the micelles that provide the detergency. Each type of surfactant, such as anionic and nonionic has different functions. Nonionic is known for its ability to solubilize oils which is why you will see these in cosmetics, they are used to blend the essential oils. Anionics are the backbone of the dish detergents such a Dawn but their CMC is much higher than nonionic and use requires much high concentrations. The rule of thumb for using surfactants for detergency is to use at least 2-3X the CMC. While UT cleaning can easily exceed that of vacuum-RCM using standard record cleaning products, consider that vacuum-RCM is nothing more than machine assisted (drying) manual cleaning. Pre-clean with a good brush, good technique with a neutral-pH anionic detergent such as Alconox Liquinox used at 1.0%, rinsed, final clean with 0.5% nonionic surfactant only, rinse, dry will achieve very close to UT. As far a decrease in CMC with temperature - this article shows it for the Polysorbate family Effect of Temperature on the Critical Micelle Concentration and Micellization Thermodynamic of Nonionic Surfactants: Polyoxyethylene Sorbitan Fatty Acid Esters and between room temperature 25C and 35C is not that much. The benefit for UT cleaning is that at the operating temp 35C a CMC concentration at 25C heated to 35C may add some detergency depending on the specific micelle development, but its marginal at best. High powered tabletop UT tanks like the Elmasonic P-series will heat the water in use. A common small tank is the Elmasonic P60H P-series-P60H-brochure.pdf. I have worked with people using the P60H (and larger P120H) and for those doing serial type cleaning we install a recirculated pump filter-radiator to cool the tank. The reason you do not see it with the inexpensive Chinese units is that they are not very powerful. Although they may be advertised at 160-180W (three 60W transducers) that is very optimistic. People have measured the power draw (UT only) with a watt meter and measure about 110W. The Elmasonic P-series can damage a record - I have seen visible evidence; but it was at >40C, very slow (<0.4-rpm) and duration about 20-min. As far as the "theoretical" temperatures developed during the cavitation-implosion event - that is shown in this computer simulation video - Inertial collapse of a single bubble near a solid surface - Bing video. However, the implosion energy is dependent on the UT frequency and the tank power. These are some of the basic design rules for UT tanks. Hope this adds to the conversation. |
.- 85 posts total