Record Cleaning Using Vacuum Machine for Cleaning and Ultrasonic for Final Rinse

My process is similar:

1. Loricraft vacuum with L'Art du Son in DW. Applied with Mo-Fi pad, then scrubbed in both directions with 10µ tip Stasis Groove Cleaner brush. Vacuum dry.

2. Loricraft rinse with DW applied with a second Mo-Fi pad, vacuum dry.

3. Degritter rinse and U/S wash, heavy cycle with DW alone.

The procedure is basically covered in Niel's book.  My cmments are specific to my setup and equipment.  First, it takes typically 4.5-6 minutes per record for the dirty record procedure and it takes about 3.5-4 minutes per record for the clean record procedure.  The records are vacuum dried because Neil reported finding 10%-30% residual solids left on the record surface using air drying techniques.  So it is important to get the debris off the record while it is still suspended in the cleaning fluid.  I use a microfiber towel to dry the turntable on the Cyclone between each side of the record during drying. I have also found that the surfactant (Tergitol) is critical to getting the record clean.  In other words, just using distilled water in the HumminGuru, for example did next to nothing.  HumminGuru says the same thing.  Their supplied bottle of stuff is a surfactant.  I also found, like many others that the ultrasonic final rinse does improve the sound of the records.  Ken Micallef of Stereophile describes the sound as like lifting a haze.  I would describe it as adding a little sparkle to the sound.  Note though, that when I tried just running a previously cleaned record through the HumminGuru alone, without first pretreating it with surfactant there was no appreciable improvement.  Again water alone does not seem to penetrate sufficiently into the record grooves.  This might be a characteristic of the HumminGuru because of the frequency of operation and would not apply to other brands of US cleaners.  Next, How does the VPI MW-1 compare to my HW-17?  It is not appreciably quieter.  The vacuum pump is noticeably stronger.  Both machines allow cleaning in both directions.  On my HW-17 the Tergitol solution was in the built-in tank, so both the Liquinox and the distilled water were dispensed by lab squeeze bottles.  With the Cyclone all fluids are dispensed by squeeze bottles.  No big deal.  Every day I clean 3, 4, 5 or 6 records.  It is easy to check the water in the HumminGuru so I do so at the end of every day and usually dump the water just to be safe every 3rd day.  It is not a lot of water.  The machine works flawlessly, but it can't clean a dirty record.  For that you need something that can scrub and vacuum.    So, how does this work?  Very well, the records sound better than they did just using the HW-17 and the extra step only takes a couple of extra minutes. 

I too follow Neil’s method, now doing a pre-cleaning of used records, holding the LP above the sink while gently running a cleaning brush around it after having squirted the surface with a diluted Liquinox solution. I hold the LP above the sink by means of one of those devices sold on ebay: the device is a pair of plastic discs slightly bigger than the center paper label on LP’s---each with a rubber gasket on it’s inner side, and a wooden handle with a bolt that passes through the center hole in the LP, a nut on the side opposite the handle with which to secure the two discs onto the LP.

From there the LP goes through the same regiment as non-used LP’s:

1- A cleaning on the VPI HW-17 (a spare mat having been placed on top of the HW-17’s mat for the cleaning and drying of the first LP side), applying one of a variety of cleaning liquids to the LP via a handheld bottle and spread via a handheld brush, then vacuum dried. Repeated on the second side, the spare mat having been removed before the cleaned and dried side of the LP is placed onto the 17 platter’s cork mat.

2- Then into the DIY ultrasonic cleaner that is filled with distilled water into which has been dropped Neil’s recommended amount of Talas brand Tergitol 15-S-9.

3- Then back onto the HW-17 for a final rinse of pure distilled water dispensed from the 17’s internal tank and spread via the 17’s swing-out brush, followed by two revolutions of vacuum drying. By the way, I have two VPI vacuum wands, one used for the first drying, a second only for drying after the final rinse.

I sure wish this level of LP cleaning had been possible when I first started buying LP’s in the early-60’s!

@billstevenson,  Bill, I am not sure if you took what I wrote in Chapter XIII out of context.

The records are vacuum dried because Neil reported finding 10%-30% residual solids left on the record surface using air drying techniques.  So it is important to get the debris off the record while it is still suspended in the cleaning fluid.  I use a microfiber towel to dry the turntable on the Cyclone between each side of the record during drying.

The blower-style vacuum-RCM (such as VPI) does not suck-up all fluid from the surface.  Anywhere from 10 to 30% is essentially dried/evaporated in-place.  So, it's important to final rinse after using cleaning solutions.  It's OK to use the vacuum to remove the cleaning solution and even if some is dried in place, the Alconox Liquinox pre-cleaner and the Tergitol 15-S-9 rehydrate and go back into solution when you rinse.  There is no reason to use a microfiber cloth to remove the cleaning solution.  

Let me show what happens with Tergitol 15-S-9 when its applied at the recommended 0.05% concentration = 500-ppm which also equals 500-mg/L (same as 0.5-mg/ml).  Let's assume you are applying 7-ml of fluid to the record surface:

1. If of 7-ml applied 0.05% Tergitol the worst case 30% dries in-place, that's 2.1-ml and at 0.5-mg/ml, 1.05-mg of Tergitol residue is on the record.
2. 7-ml of rinse water is applied, and now the 1.05-mg Tergitol is diluted to 1.05-mg/7-ml = 0.15-mg/ml.
3. If of the 7-ml rinse water (with some Tergitol) applied the worst case 30% dries in-place, that's 2.1-ml of 0.15-mg/ml Tergitol and now the Tergitol residue is down to 0.315-mg.  
4. Assuming the 0.315-mg is uniformly spread across the record, the residue thickness is ~0.0315-microns and this is down at inherent surface roughness making it inconsequential.  
5. If you wanted to be very conservative, you just do a 2nd final rinse

Hope this is of some help,

Take care,

Neil

I was in a hurry and did not explain myself well.  The record is taken out of the HumminGuru after the final rinse and placed back on the Cylcone turntable.  The top side is vacuum dried.  The record is removed and turned over, but before placing it back on the turntable to dry the other side I use a microfiber cloth to dry the turntable.  This just takes a few moments and prevents the dry side of the record from picking up any moisture.  Some people have expressed concern about using a RCM with a full size turntable because when the record is turned over if the turntable is contaminated in any way foreign material and moisture could transfer and adhere to the just cleaned and dried side.  With just a little care this possibility is easily prevented.

@antinn how do you get from mass of pure dehydrated Tergitol to film thickness of 31 nm? Tergitol is something like a C33 hydrocarbon chain and generally hydrocarbon chains are around 1 nm thick (e.g., sugar). I failed to find any information on volume of dry Tergitol.

I guess you could calculate number of molecules in 315 ng of T (MW ~550-650 depending on T variant), assume size of around 1 nm2, convert LP surface to nm2, divide LP nm2 by #of T molecules and get stack of T molecules per surface area and assume that stack has unit height of 1 nm.

@billstevenson,  Bill, thanks for the clarification.

Take care,

Neil

@oberoniaomnia, 

how do you get from mass of pure dehydrated Tergitol to film thickness of 31 nm? Tergitol is something like a C33 hydrocarbon chain and generally hydrocarbon chains are around 1 nm thick (e.g., sugar). I failed to find any information on volume of dry Tergitol.

First is does not dehydrate, as a 100% concentrate - it's an oil with very low vapor pressure and a specific gravity of 1.006 g/ml TERGITOL™ 15-S-9 Surfactant which is essentially the same as water. 

There are a number of ways to calculate the record surface area.  A close estimate is the surface are of the flat portion, the groove area and the side-wall ridge groove area.  A simple groove length estimate is assuming an average groove velocity of the outer and inner grooves ((51-cm/s + 20-cm/s)/2) = 35.5-cm/s times a playback length of 20-min (1200-sec).   The average groove dimension of the 45-deg groove wall triangle hypotenuse is about 0.0016-inches so that each groove has about 0.0032-inches linear length that is about 0.0022-inch wide at the top and then add 10-15% for the side wall ridges,  Run all the numbers, and the surface area including grooves and side-wall ridges is approximately, close-enough, to 1-sq-ft, which make the film thickness analysis easier.  

The non-volatile residue (NVR) nominal film thickness (Contamination Control Engineering Design Guidelines for the Aerospace Community, NASA Contractor Report 4740, May 1996)  assumes the contaminant is uniformly applied and has a density of 1-g/cm³ = 62.43 lbs/ft³ (same as freshwater); and while a 1-micron film calculates to about 9.1 mg/ft², for ease of use 10 mg/ft² equals 1-micron thickness is used which is proportional.  Most water-soluble nonionic surfactants have a density very close to water, but much lower density contaminants will develop larger film thickness while denser contaminants such as hard water spots develop thinner thickness.  

I do a deep dive into the whole subject of “What is clean?” and for a record “When is a vinyl record clean?" in this free book -Precision Aqueous Cleaning of Vinyl Records-3rd Edition - The Vinyl Press Chapter XI which is pretty technical but given your background you should be able to wade through it.   

Enjoy,

Neil

@billstevenson 

I was going to post that the third edition is now on-line but you beat me to it!

By coincidence I spent the last few days cleaning my scant record collection though a cheap Chinese ultrasonic machine, 9 records at a time, having scoured Sydney to find Polysorbate 20 and Ilfoton.  By and large, the results have impressed me no end though obviously nothing can fix scratches. Clicks that have been audible on every play have magically gone away.

Only one record does not look spotless, and I think it was the one the police dusted for fingerprints after the turntable it was on was stolen around 1980!

I took several shortcuts which will probably horrify Neil.  For example, because Canberra's water supply comes from the Snowy Mountains, it is very clean, so I just used tap water passed through a Brita de-ionising filter instead of distilled water.  I just let the records air dry vertically in a rack after wetting in the Ilfoton bath.

@antinn I would like to thank you most sincerely for a truly impressive 'work of art and science' that obviously has been a labour of love for you.  In my opinion it is the most trustworthy document I have found through this forum.

The key is to buy your ultrasonic machine before the 5th. 

@richardbrand,

Thanks for the compliment, but not exactly a labor of love.  I started that project during COVID when I was retired (not anymore), and it kept me occupied and my skill sets sharpened.  And thanks to meeting up with Bill Hart @whart he stepped in with many good suggestions and as Publisher allowing the book be offered free through his site.  

Otherwise, I am not horrified by your use of Brita filter to deionize your good tap water.  First, the book makes not specific recommendation of distilled water.  The acronym DIW means demineralized/deionized/distilled water.  It just so happens that distilled water is plentiful and cheap in the US, while in the EU/UK demineralized/deionized is plentiful and cheap.  Neither provides any benefit over the other for record cleaning.  Second, the book offers a similar suggestion in Chapter VII.4.2 There are a number of vendors manufacturing countertop pitcher/filter systems that can produce Purified water. The ZeroWater™ units Water Filters & Water Filter Pitchers - Clean Water at Home | Culligan ZeroWater have the benefit of containing the most amount of demineralizer resin. Amazon.au sells ZeroWater Official Replacement Filter - 5-Stage Filter Replacement 0 TDS for Improved Tap Water Taste - System NSF Certified to Reduce Lead, Chromium, and PFOA/PFOS, 3-Pack : Amazon.com.au: Sports, Fitness & Outdoors but not cheap.  

Otherwise, assuming you bought a 6L UT tank reducing the number of records to no more than three and space them out about 25-cm and slowing the rotation speed to about 1.5-2-rpm should provide you with a cleaner record.  Most of the Chinese unit spinners are 24VDC and you can easily purchase a variable power supply to slow the rotation such as SHNITPWR 3V ~ 24V 3A 72W Power Supply Adjustable DC 3V 5V 6V 9V 12V 15V 16V 18V 19V 20V 24V Variable Universal AC/DC Adapter 100V-240V AC to DC Converter with 14 Tips 5.5x2.5mm 4.0x1.7mm 3.5x1.35mm : Amazon.com.au: Electronic.

Take care,

Neil

Richard, You wrote, "I just let the records air dry vertically in a rack after wetting in the Ilfoton bath."  Many of us have found that a rinse in pure water (as defined by you, Antinn, etc) after exposure to a detergent like Ilfoton, is beneficial.  You don't want to let the LPs dry with detergent on their surfaces, or at least they will sound better if you don't. I've done the experiment, with vs without a pure water rinse (in my case deionized, distilled water from my lab at NIH, where the building supplied distilled water that ran into a huge deionizer at the main sink) made a big enough difference that I have never not done it since. Of couse, my RCM is a VPI HW17, not a US machine.

@lewm 

I gather NIH is the National Institute of Health?  I gathered you are a medical professional ... having an unlimited supply of pure water would certainly help with rinsing!

@antinn Thanks for the details.

With pure T density rho of 1 (close enough, easy math) 1g/mm3, 0.3 mg have volume of 0.0003 mm3 = 3 x 10e-4 mm3. Record surface ~ 0.3 m2 = 3 x10e5 mm2

3 x 10e-4 mm3 : 3 x 10e-5 mm2 = 1 x 10e-9 mm = 10e-12 m, which is subatomic. (Angstrom is 10e-10 m). So you have scattered molecules of T on the surface, not even a film. Thickness of impurity is that of the size of the molecule, ~ 1 nm.

As an upshot of this, rinsing with distilled water to get concentration of T down by factor 10–100x is a non-issue. It does not matter. At 100x higher concentration, "film" thickness is still in Angstrom order of magnitude, so still scattered molecules. 

Even if my calculations are not precise (record surface is 28 cm2 minus center label area guesstimated 20 cm2), our calculations give different result by factor of 10'000x, which is pretty significant, IMHO. My math skills are not that great, still don't know I passed calculus, but this looks pretty straightforward to me. 

I think the problem step is going from weight to thickness, which IMHO is not supported. Going from weight and density to volume, and volume/area to thickness is more direct. my 2c.

@oberoniaomnia,

The density (rho) of Tergitol is not 1, its specific gravity is essentially 1, so it's the same as freshwater which is 62.4-lbs/ft^3, convert to mg/cm^3 = 28,304,164-mg/28,316.85-cm^3 = ~1-g/cm^3 = 28,316,846-mg/ft^3.

How did you get only a surface area if 20-cm^2.  The record is 12"-D (113.1-in^2) minus the 4" D label area (12.6-in^2) = 100.5-in^2 = 648.4-cm^2.  Plus, you have to add the area of the grooves.    

1-micron (0.0001-cm) thickness across a 1-cm^2 surface = 0.0001-cm^3.  

1-micron (0.00000328-ft) thickness across a 1-ft^2 surface =0.00000328-ft^3.  

1-micron of surfactant with density of 1000-mg/cm^3 spread across 1-cm^2 surface = (1000-mg/cm^3 x 0.0001-cm^3) = 0.1-mg.  

1-micron of surfactant with density of 28,316,846-mg/ft^3 spread across 1-ft^2 = (28,316,846-mg/ft^3 x 0.00000328-ft^3) = 92.879-mg.  

So, my calculation is off by a factor of ~10.  In my book, I show 1-micron to be 10-mg/ft^2, when in fact is ~100-mg/ft^2.  So, 1-mg/ft^2 is not 0.1-micron but 0.01-micron.  Reviewing the NASA document I found my error.  They show 1-ug/cm^2 (1-mg/0.1-m^2) for contaminant 1-g/cm^3 = 10-nanometers = 0.01-micron; and 1-mg/0.1-m^2 = 1-mg/ft^2.

Take care,

Neil

@antinn 

Otherwise, assuming you bought a 6L UT tank reducing the number of records to no more than three and space them out about 25-cm and slowing the rotation speed to about 1.5-2-rpm should provide you with a cleaner record

Yes, the cheap Chinese machine I bought has a 6-litre tank.  I have not measured the record rotation speed but it is quite slow.  The unit is very noisy when operating.  I have been using two 30-minute ultrasonic sessions for each batch of records, set to a maximum of 40 degrees Celsius. 

I read version 2 of your book pretty much cover to cover a few months ago, and have not had time to do more than dip into version 3 (looking for dilution ratios)!

Before my new ultrasonic cleaning regime, I had to clean my stylus every few sides (new records left whiskers) but now it stays much cleaner.

So the records look sparkly clean, almost all my known clicks and pops have gone and the stylus stays clean.  Thanks again!

@lewm 

my RCM is a VPI HW17, not a US machine

You might have picked up that I have a problem with TLAs!

In this context, does US mean useless or United States?  I thought the VPI was built in New Jersey?

By the way, I now enjoy my meagre collection of records as much as playing CDs.  The physical effort does make vinyl more involving!

Now when I am buying music in physical formats, I buy the SACD version if there is one, then vinyl if there is one, then CD if that is the only option.

Now to try to reduce the residual noise in my venerable Garrard 301.  It is not really audible at my normal listening position, but close up it is there!  Hard to know what comes from the vinyl ...

@richardbrand,

If you are spinning 9-records in a 6L tank, there are 2-problems - too much mass in the tank and you are overloading the tank, and even at a slow spin speed you are developing enough fluid flow/motion to pretty much kill most cavitation energy.  As the book addresses, if the flow in the tank is >50% of the tank volume/min, the ultrasonic cavitation energy drops quickly.  Try 3-record space ~25-cm apart and spin for 20-min.  I suspect you will get good results, and the time to clean 9-records would be the same at 1-hr.

As far as dilution ratios, it's in Chapter XIV, but it's a bit spread-out, but here they are for Polysorbate 20 and your 6L tank

• No rinse, wetting only:  0.0035 to 0.0050% (0.2 to 0.3-ml).  Adding 2.5% IPA has some limited benefit in getting a little better wetting, but add the IPA after adding Polysorbate 20 or the Polysorbate will not dissolve quickly
• No rinse, with some detergency 0.008% (0.5-ml).  Adding 2.5% IPA can help with the getting a bit better detergency but add the IPA after adding the Polysorbate 20 or the Polysorbate will not dissolve very quickly.
• Rinse recommended, full detergency:  0.0150% (0.9-ml).  Adding 2.5% IPA to this has limited benefit.

If you can buy the Nalgene Dropper Bottle at a low price - Nalgene Drop Bottle (2-Ounce) : Nalgene: Amazon.com.au: Sports, Fitness & Outdoors, it delivers 0.04-ml/drop.  Otherwise, assume an eye drop will deliver 0.05-ml/drop.

Good Luck,

Neil

@billstevenson Adding a small amount of lab grade ethyl alcohol to your final rinse will improve the groove wetting by lowering the surface tension and will improve the effectiveness of your final rinse, audibly so to my ears.

@orthomead,

Below is Figure 39 from the book that shows the change in surface tension of Ethanol and IPA.  There is not much difference between the two.  To get an appreciable surface tension decrease about 5% is required.  The record surface tension should be about 36-37 dynes/cm.  Getting the water surface tension close is enough to 'wet' the record.  

 Figure 39 – Water + Alcohol Surface Tensions of at 25°C from PACVR
(adapted with permission copyright 1995, American Chemical Society)

 Data for Figure 39 is from “Surface Tension of Alcohol + Water from 20 to 50°C”, Gonzalo Vazquez, Estrella Alvarez, Jose M. Navaza, Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data. 1 May 1995.    

Leaving the record slightly damp from the Teritol cleaning in the VPI seems to provide the reduction in surface tension in the rinse step in the HumminGuru.  Alternatively, the surfactant that is supplied by HumminGuru is also effective.  In my opinion, the addition of IPA to the US machine is not a good idea.  My thought process is a) it is not necessary and b) it could need to be in a higher concentration consistent with safety.

@antinn Of course you are correct.  I guess I was thinking primarily of the rinse.  Of interest, there was a thread on the internet about 10 years ago where the author (I cannot remember his name) did a fairly detailed side by side comparison of rinse (only) between IPA and ethanol and concluded that sonically the ETOH was superior.  I have adopted that since, but I think it was more opinion and not science based.  I mentioned it only because the OP noted that distilled water alone didn't penetrate the grooves.  So I guess it's safe to say that adding some IPA or ETOH will likely help with the rinse.  

@billstevenson I have used both IPA and ETOH in several different ultrasonic baths without problem.  I contacted the folks at Degritter and they stated ETOH was not a problem in their machine, as long as the concentration was below the flash point that Neil outlines well in his book.  It definitely improves wetability which I think is advantageous for a final rinse.  I have had no problems whatsoever with this approach with over 2500 cleanings and 3 different ultrasonic machines and consider it safe. Also, the cleaning solution for the Clearaudio double matrix allows for ETOH to be added.

@billstevenson

OMG, I've just realised that US means Ultrasonic, not useless or United States.

Also any concentration of ethyl alcohol above 5% should be hitting the back of one's throat!

@antinn 

Now that I am satisfied that ultrasonic cleaning leaves my records better than they were (except for one new one I managed to scratch) I am happy to try to make them even better.  Will follow your suggestions more thoroughly!

Will even try secondhand!

Cheers