Investigating if ultrasound is harming LPs

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?

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.

"The ’science’ of listening will always be flawed. "

Science is inherently flawed, imperfect, and incomplete that is the way that the world works you can not proclaim one aspect of science more important or more truthful, valid, or meaningful than any other aspect of science. One thing we have learned is that the sciences are all connected and the division, separation, and distinction we have made between the sciences are man-made and deceptive because we don’t/can’t see the whole picture but of course some will insist they have ascended the mountain and seen the truth that has been concealed from the ignorant, the poor, and my favorite "the uneducated".

I actually studied the effect of ultrasonic cleaning of LPs in great detail back in the late 70s when I built my first ultrasonic cleaner. I used a combination of optical microscopy (Olympus Laboratory Microscope at about 10,000X) and Photoelectron Spectroscopy (HP 5950A Spectrometer) to analyze sacrificial test LP samples before and after various cleaning procedures. Photoelectron Spectroscopy is sensitive to the top 5 nanometers of the LP surface and can determine the chemical structure of the LP surface and the chemical composition of contaminants on the LP surface. These experiments were done on sacrificial records that had obvious contamination. All of these experiments were done in a clean room environment.

Regarding US cleaning time, my experiments demonstrated that longer than a few minutes in the ultrasonic bath had little beneficial effect on the overall cleaning process and the possibility of a detrimental effect. Most of the cleaning took place in the first few minutes in the bath. I did observe that extended time in the bath would leach plasticizers, stabilizers or other additives from the bulk of the LP and eventually pit the LP surface. Once the plasticizers or stabilizers are fully depleted, the LP surface would become brittle and micro-cracks start to form. So I tried to keep the time in the bath to a minimum. When I finally set up my ultrasonic cleaner, I typically had it set at about 2 RPM and a run time of about 6 to 9 mins. That corresponds to actual exposure times of ~ 2 to 3 minutes (~1/3 of the LP surface is in the bath at a given time). For my setup, between 1 to 3 RPM worked fine. The 6 min time was for my LPs purchased new which had no obvious contamination and the 9 min time was for previously owned LPs. An LP that was quite dirty might occasionally require some extra time. I used this ultrasonic cleaner for over 30 years with excellent results and never any issues with my LPs. Even new LPs exhibited a significant improvement in SQ after US cleaning. Typically once an LP is US cleaned, it will need no further US cleaning if handled properly.

Besides time in the US bath, the key to optimum US cleaning is the proper bath solution and choice of surfactant. The most common bath solution is distilled water or distilled water with a small percentage of isopropyl alcohol. There are many surfactants to choose from. Typically nonionic surfactants are preferred. For my US cleaner, I used an alcohol ethoxylate with the general structure R(OCH2CH2)nOH where R is the alkyl chain and (OCH2CH2)n is the ethylene oxide (EO) chain. I chose the lowest molecular weight that would be soluble in water at room temperature. For solubility in water at room temperature, alcohol ethoxylates should have an average alkyl (R) chain length of 12 C atoms or more and contain at least 5 ethylene oxide (EO) units. The lower molecular weight surfactants were less likely to leave residue on the LP surface and were easier to remove with a distilled water rinse after the US bath.

For reference, the alcohol ethoxylate I used is similar in structure to Tergitol which is a secondary alcohol ethoxylate. Triton-X 100 is an octylphenol ethoxylate which in this case contains a phenyl group as part of the hydrophobic tail.

The concentration of the surfactant is also critical for proper cleaning. It is important for optimum cleaning to have the surfactant concentration at or above the Critical Micelle Concentration (CMC) and the cleaning bath at the proper temperature for micelle formation. The CMC and bath temperature are surfactant dependent. A micelle is an aggregate of surfactant molecules in a liquid solution with their hydrophobic ends on the inside of the aggregate and their hydrophilic ends on the outside, so that hydrophobic residues can be emulsified inside these aggregates. Micelles only form when the concentration of surfactant is greater than the CMC, and the temperature of the system is sufficient for micelle formation. The importance of micelle formation is that the micelles can emulsify surface contaminants that would otherwise be insoluble in the cleaning bath. This allows for the hydrophobic contaminants to be removed from the surface. For my nonionic surfactant the ideal bath temperature for CMC formation was between 36 to 38 degrees C.

Pindac, If you can bear to read all the posts on this thread (and I don't blame you if you cannot bear it), I invite you to look for mine back up near the beginning, where I suggested that one proper way to make the assessment is to use test LPs with specific pure tones encoded on them or it, say 100Hz, 1000Hz, 10kHz (all 3 frequencies on the same surface of the same test LP).  Since we would expect HF to be affected by excessive US cleaning, ahead of any effect on lower frequencies, you could play the test LP tones into a storage oscilloscope, to measure both amplitude and accuracy of the frequencies produced, before vs after cleaning, using same cartridge, tonearm, TT..  Yes, this is an oversimplified desription of the experiment I would endorse; I do realize that the US parameters, perhaps the buffer, the temperature, and many other factors could affect the results, and proper controls would be needed.  But basically, any eroding of the signal voltage amplitude or alteration of frequency of the 10kHz band in comparison to the 100Hz or 1kHz bands encoded on the very same LP would be meaningful to the degree that the lower frequency bands would have been exposed to the exact same conditions as the HF bands on that test LP.

Your questionable scientific method aside, the proof is really in the pudding.  I've been using ultrasound for many, many years now (was an early convert to Audiodesk).  I always clean my LPs before playing.   On Sunday mornings, I almost always listen to one of the MFSL first Beatles albums.  I'd say "Help" and "Rubber Soul" have been ultrasonically washed well over 200 times (probably more).  And they still sound perfect.

In fact, writing this post had whet my appetite for Rubber Soul.  Later. all....

@lewm, The experiment you suggest is interesting but as I have observed and others every LP that I have cleaned with an US cleaner sounds better after cleaning. The majority of my LPs were purchased new and US cleaning improved the SQ on all of them. In some cases a slight improvement and in others a significant improvement. Primarily reduced background noise and elimination of clicks and pops, and improved detail and clarity. 

As i stated in mp post above, US cleaning only requires a couple of minutes of actual exposure and in that time frame I never observed any measurable degradation of the LP surface. Certainly degradation of the LP can occur with long US exposure. 

Then there is me, who doesn't even own a US RCM and does not even care if US can damage an LP.  But for the umpteenth time, the question put forth by the OP was about a METHOD to determine whether US RCMs can damage an LP.  Not per se whether US does in fact damage an LP. 

Ok, maybe I should have been more detailed regarding the experiments I did back in the day to determine if US cleaning would cause damage to LPs. I certainly was concerned with this and why I did the experiments on sacrificial LPs before I actually used an US claener on my good LPs.

I used an Olympus Optical Microscope (10,000x) and Photoelectron Spectroscopy to analyze sacrificial LPs before and after US cleaning.

For up to a 5 min total US exposure, optical microscopy did not detect any damage but did observe complete removal of large scale contaminants. Photoelectron spectroscopy found the LP surface to be fairly clean with a minimum amount of contamination.

Between 6 to 10 min total US exposure, optical microscopy did not detect any damage and no remaining large scale contaminants. Photoelectron spectroscopy detected the presence of plasticizers, stabilizers and other additives that have been leached from the bulk of the LP.

Between 11 to 15 min total US exposure, optical microscopy could detect some pits and micro cracks beginning to form. Photoelectron spectroscopy detected large amounts of plasticizers, stabilizers and other additives that have been leached from the bulk of the LP.

So at greater than 10 min total US exposure we are beginning to detect damage to the LP surface and significant leaching of plastizers, stabilizers and other additives from the bulk of the LP.

Whether any of this affects the SQ of an LP, I can’t say because I would never leave any of my good LPs in an US cleaner that long.

Results may vary with different US cleaners and different LP formulations.

A controversial subject for which no one has produced conclusive evidence to support or refute the question.

MY EXPERIENCE is that US cleaning does not degrade an LP.  Again, MY EXPERIENCE, is that that US cleaned LPs sound dramatically better after a full US cleaning cycle.

My process:  Spin Clean, rinse, US bath using "Rushton's formula", rinse, Nitty Gritty vac dry.    US cleaning cycle at about 30' C / 15 min @ 0.33 RPM.  Each LP receives 5 full rotations with only half the LP submerged at any one time...so the entire LP is exposed to US bath for about 7.5min.

My results are dramatically quieter background.  I now have 50-60yr old LPs with a noise floor as low as my system, and lower in some cases.  I can easily hear a master tape trail off to the background, or an abrupt cut off at a very low level.  I hear greater HF extension, and much greater clarity around micro details- air, space, harmonic extension.  Transient response is much improved, with the leading edges of a transient much more audible.  My thought is that a micro layer of dirt and debris becomes bonded to the groove walls.  This layer essentially blunts the extreme edges of the very small groove modulations and masks/obscures all of the microdetails that were originally captured.  Standard light abrasive cleaning (spin clean, nitty gritty, VPI etc) is insufficient to remove this layer.  US cleaning is able to break down and remove whatever compound this layer is made from, and uncover the original grooves.

If US cleaning is in fact detrimental than shouldn't we hear degradation rather than improvement ?

So called Golden Ear reviewers have not heard detrimental changes, so far.

Instead of measuring LP weight, we should measure what we actually hear.  If someone is interested in conducting a test, I would suggest:

Purchasing a LP test record with HF tracks containing measurable content to at least 20khz.  Make 3+ rips/captures of the tracks at a min resolution of 24/192 and closely examine the wave patterns and FR extension above 15khz.  Wait 30-60min between each play of the LP tracks. (there is some evidence that repeatedly playing the same tracks at short intervals can be detrimental).

Then US clean.

Then capture/rip again at least 3 times, and compare the resulting wave patterns and FR extension above 15 khz.

If possible, overlay the graphs and publish the results.

Variable- how likely is it that the grooves containing the desired content can deteriorate from routine playing using a carefully aligned cartridge ?  Would ambient temperature and humidity affect the test ?

Report back to the group.

@iopscrl 

I agree with your findings regarding US cleaning. I believe that your actual time for your LPs exposed to the bath is ~5 min. Typically the bath solution is below the LP label so only about 1/3 of the LP is in the bath at any given time. So 15 min of run time equates to ~5 min of exposure which is a reasonable cleaning time. 

Ijgerens, I didn’t get to see your first post until after I wrote mine. I thought it was excellent.

@antinn  Do you really mean, 'less than 60KHz', or should that read,  "greater than 60 KHz?'

Thanks!

@terry9 ,

No, I did mean to say <60kHz.  Here are the basic UT rules:

1.  Power needed to produce cavitation is inversely proportional to kHz.  So, lower kHz requires less power to produce cavitation.

2. Cavitation bubble size is inversely proportional to kHz.  So, lower kHz produces a larger diameter bubble.

3. Cavitation intensity is proportional to the bubble size and the power into the tank.

Ergo, a lower kHz UT with a lot of power can produce very high cavitation intensity.

Take care,

@antinn  Agreed. I misunderstood you to be recommending frequencies below 60kHz, whereas in fact you are warning against high power at low frequency. I read it wrong.