RB, If you must know the ugly truth. This concerned (at least) one LP in a 5 record set of Miles Davis early quintet recordings, which were originally from Prestige. These all precede "Kind of Blue", chronologically. The set includes such classics as "Workin'", "Relaxin'", etc. As it turned out, I also have most of the original Prestige LPs as individual albums and so the set from Classic did not receive much play over the years until one day about 5 years ago when I decided to plow through them. I already knew that in the case of "Workin'", the original Prestige pressing was superior to the Classic LP equivalent. Anyway, when I played one of the more obscure recordings in that Miles Davis Quintet grouping, I noted an odd form of distortion. I pulled out my Prestige equivalent really to see whether the distortion might be on the master tape or something like that. This comparison showed that the Classic re-issue is grossly defective. One wonders whether the folks at Classic ever actually listened to it. Anyway, Classic Records existed between 1994 and 2010, when it was purchased by Analog Productions. So Classic as a brand was defunct for between 5 and 10 years before I discovered the problem.
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
I was unable to find your linked paper, but it's common knowledge that higher temperature will improve cleaning Cavitation-dynamics-in-water-at-elevated-temperatures-and-in-liquid.pdf but the peak is about 60C (140F) with little change up to 40C (104F). As far as record cavitation cleaning is concerned, I do not see temperature as a valid impact. However, there is testing that also shows that the depth of water in the tank as multiples of 1/2 the wavelength can have a significant difference varying between 20 and 60% - (PDF) Cavitation intensity of water under practical ultrasonic cleaning conditions. Otherwise, for just basic ultrasonic cleaning, this article is excellent awad-reprint II, written by the VP of Crest Ultrasonics. Take care, Neil
|
It was hidden in plain sight under Wayback Machine
Thanks for the article you referenced. Of maximum relevance to this topic, I'd like to quote a sentence from it:
If that includes microgrooves then my thoughts are that ultrasonic should be the primary method for cleaning records, with vacuum used to assist drying as an option. Do you have a feel about the smallest particle size we should be worried about? Sub-micron? |
That last quote, I would like to amend. "The released energies reach and penetrate deep into crevices, blind holes and areas that are inaccessible to other cleaning methods." and where there is no music signal possible and anyway where no stylus could possibly contact. I don't think Mozart would fit into a blind hole. |
I read your referenced article, but all it said was: There are significant temperature effects on these properties, and cavitation itself will be dramatically affected with increasing temperature. There are no context or data associated with the statement, and therefore, from my perspective, there is no proof for the statement. I do not consider the article a credible reference. As far as the smallest particle, it’s a complex question. The basic surface roughness of the record is reported to be between 0.01 and 0.005 microns. The smallest amplitude the stylus is reported to be able to reproduce is 1-mciron. So theoretical cleanliness would lie someplace in-between such as 0.1 micron. However, this is not achievable in a residential environment - you would need a clean room. So, practicality dictates something more reasonable. However, you have no method to verify the cleanliness without use of laboratory methods. Consequently, the cleaning ability of 40-kHz UT tank should be sufficient; preferably filtered to remove small particulate. Otherwise, you end up cleaning a record in dirty water - even if it looks clear. But absent a powerful UT tank, low powered UT tanks can benefit from a very small amount of nonionic surfactant to just reduce the surface tension to improve cleaning efficiency. But there can be a big difference between record general cleanliness and record best achievable cleanliness. Take care, Neil |
- 85 posts total