Recorded Cleaning Machnies

see attached re Isonic

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/isonic-cs6-1-pro-ultrasonic-record-cleaner

Thanks, that was most useful! 

I have both an isonic and a degritter.  They work at different frequencies-the degritter at 120KHz and the isonic at 35Khz.  The higher the frequency the better the cavitation in the groove-so a cleaner record where it counts.  If cleaning more than 3-4 discs at a time, the cavitation isn't strong enough to completely clean the disc.  Neil Antinn has commented on this many times.  I think both are good machines and I use both, the isonic as an intermediary step and the DeGritter as a final distilled water and ethanol rinse.  If I had to choose one, it would be the degritter all day long.

I'll add a few things. First, I started using an ultrasonic machine to clean records when the Audio Desk original model came out. I found that it did a nice job on well preserved and new records but if you buy older copies, or have copies with a questionable cleaning history, you need to use a manual cleaning method (combined with vacuum) to clean some deeply contaminated records effectively-- that ultrasonic alone won't do it despite the convenience, lack of physical contact with the groove surface, etc. 

I also found that a lot of the problems with "used" records probably resulted from previous "bad" cleanings- sprays, wipes, etc. This form of contamination is essentially the residue of cleaning agents that were not effectively removed from the record. 

Third, and think Neil addresses this, the number of records in a given bath, spacing, location of transducers and the ultrasonic machine's power in relation to the bath size all factor in to  effectiveness of the ultrasonic process; there is some science to this and its also understandable when you consider how cavitation works: waves creating imploding bubbles. The implosions are what cleans.

A machine that does ten records at a time is not necessarily going to clean more effectively than one that only does a single or double LP at a time; it could be less effective, though it sounds more convenient. This can all be calculated.

You also have to consider whether you are going to use chemistry; it will enhance the cavitation effect by reducing the surface tension of the bath water, but you also have to remove the chemical residue once done. This takes us full circle to my comment about past bad cleanings. 

I'm sure Neil (@antinn) can correct anything I mistook above; I don't have the science or engineering chops but arrived at a lot of these conclusions through experimentation. And, I'm happy to say that I published Neil's book, Precision Aqueous Cleaning of Vinyl Records, and in the course of doing so, learned a hell of a lot about why certain things work and others are less effective or cause problems. 

I am thinking of buying an ultrasonic. Can anyone tell me an approximate number, percentage of records that need "contact washing" vs ultrasonic washing? 

And would I be able to tell by looking at the record if ultrasonic will suffice?

I was first under the impression that a regular clearer/vacuum machine would do a good enough job for MOST of my records but now it may be the other way, I'd be better off with an ultrasonic? 

@whart, 

Bill what you said is correct.  To amplify, Industry testing has shown that for low kHz machines (< than about 60-kHz), if the flow in the tank is >50% of the tank-volume/min the cavitation intensity drops off very quickly.  As the record spins through the bath, it essentially creates flow, and the book has a calculation that considers the number of records and the rpm, and based on one or other, determines the max rpm or max # of records.  However, there is a minimum rpm recommended of about 0.5-rpm otherwise depending on the UT tank power, the record may be damaged.  Even with the inexpensive Chinese UT tanks, which may not produce advertised power, the bottom of the record is very close to the bottom mounted transducers where the cavitation intensity will be highest.  

@gano, 

Basic rule of thumb for using a single UT tank, is that for best results and best bath management, you want the record to be visually clean before UT cleaning.  So, for a new record, do a simple quick brush with a soft brush to remove visual surface debris, and then into the UT tank.  For used records, you want to perform a pre-clean step before final UT clean, and that can be performed with your process of choice be it a SpinClean or vacuum-RCM.  

@antinn Thanks, Neil.

@gano - the answer is that proportion of older copies that have been contaminated. Visually, you may not see this. I was buying a considerable number of "rare" records and in some cases, particular pressings,  that were either not often seen for sale (even before the Great Disappearance™) or quickly went up to astronomical pricing. Therefore, I tried like the devil to get them to a high playing state. (Though in a few cases, I did wind up with multiple copies to get one that was a good, quiet player). 

I’d say there is a direct correlation between how many old pressings you buy and how often you have to resort to more rigorous manual cleaning. In some cases, I bought records that were never played, just bounced around among dealers, some of whom didn’t know what they had. Those days are over and I’ve slowed down considerably on buying, given grade and price inflation. Some are simply not on the market given the limited number of original pressings that were made, private label or obscure things that never succeeded in the market place at the time of release. There is no good answer to your question. Every record here gets cleaned before it gets played, including new records which for me, is a small fraction of what I have. But I vary how I approach each and also use a Furutech DF-2 flattener-- once you are sensitive to warped records, you’ll see how many are; I won’t flatten something that tracks properly but if the record is out of round, there’s not much you can do. Perhaps digitize it and rely on that-- I know that goes against the grain of the analog purists (of which I was once one), but I don’t want to risk my cantilever, especially on a linear arm where you can see the arm "hunting" on an out of round copy. 

PS: FWIW, if I had to choose between a vacuum machine and an ultrasonic, I'd opt for my Monks Omni, which is not a casual purchase. But, thankfully, I don't have to make that choice; I use both methods and they are synergistic in a real sense. 

It's been my experience that US cleaners perform best when cleaning one lp at a time. 

Neil and Bill have it right: you can't tell by looking, and some combination of mechanical cleaning and ultrasonic cleaning is needed for older records. Maybe if one only bought new records an U/S machine alone would suffice, but I can't see why anyone would limit themselves to only new LPs!

Having said that, any cleaning is better than none, and even a simple vacuum machine will give you most of the auditory gains. When you see the minutiae of cleaning solutions, kHz and KW discussed, we are in the territory of diminishing returns. Those smaller gains may be very important to some, but you can have 80-90% of cleaning benefits just by doing it at all, by whatever means.

@whart, @antinn

Thank you! 

I should have added:

I mostly buy very old, very used records. I wont use two machines, two processes. Not because I don’t believe in it, I just know I would not have the energy, I would a put a record after I bought it in the machine and then I would have little reason to do it again as I do my best to keep them away from dirt. I also don’t have the budget and space for two items (barely for one). I want to buy the one that does most of the job. Sounds like the vacuum based would be it. The ultrasonic does the final, smaller portion. Maybe I am very wrong in understanding it. 

So Pro-ject or HummingGuru?

@gano- one of the nice things about Neil's book is that in the course of explaining what is going on in the process of cleaning a record, he offers methods to do this without using a machine. It will require you to buy some chemicals and inexpensive apparatus but it is a thorough explanation, and you can, if you take the time to digest it, explore and determine the best approach for you. I'm a big believer in a rinse step, due to the residue issues discussed above. 

thanks @whart !

I am not very handy which is why I thought a vacuum cleaner may do a better job than I would. The less I touch something the better.

@gano, 

I want to buy the one that does most of the job. Sounds like the vacuum based would be it.

For old, used records yes.  However, you still need to perform multiple steps:

Step 1:  pre-clean with a detergent solution; I recommend 0.5% Alconox Liquinox (Amazon.com: Alconox - 1232-1 1232 Liquinox Anionic Critical Cleaning Liquid Detergent, 1 quart Bottle : Industrial & Scientific).

Step 2: rinse with distilled/demineralized water (DIW).

Step 3: final clean with a nonionic surfactant solution, I recommend 0.05% Tergitol 15-S-9 (Tergitol 15-S-3 and 15-S-9 Surfactant | TALAS).  The final clean makes sure this is no residue left from the pre-clean step.

Step 4:  final rinse with DIW

Step 5:  dry

I always recommend this brush -Amazon.com: Record Doctor Clean Sweep LP Vinyl Cleaning Brush : Electronics.  

Couple of things to remember:

• With vacuum RCM, you perform the cleaning, the chemistry, the brush and your technique are what cleans the record.
• The strength of the vacuum provided by the machine determines how much of the detritus released by your cleaning technique get removed.  The stronger the vacuum the more that is removed/sucked from the surface.  But some solution is always evaporated/dried in place.  The strongest vacuums appear to leave about 10% behind while the weaker vacuums appear to leave as much as 30%.  So, the 'quality' of the vacuum RCM can matter.

This vacuum RCM may be current best value - Music Hall WCS-5 Vacuum Record Cleaning Machine.  It has a forward and reverse rotation and a vacuum adjustment, is of decent construction and is made in the USA.  Music Hall is closing it out and you may be able to still get a good price Music Hall WCS-5 Record Cleaning Machine – Upscale Audio , Music Hall - WCS-5 - Record Cleaning Machine; otherwise Music Hall WCS-5 Vacuum Record Cleaning Machine – Audio Advice.  

Good Luck,

thanks so much @antinn ! I am checking it out. I am also interested in used, may work just as well.

For the price, the HumminGuru Nova has an updated higher operating frequency of its positive reviewed budget US.

HumminGuru NOVA Advanced Ultrasonic Vinyl Record Cleaner

Comparing with the Isonic, cost and a few less features? 

When I feel compelled to get a US, I’m either all in with a DeGritter or this HumminGuru on the cheap.

My only contribution here is to amplify the excellent points already raised.  I use a VPI MW-1 Cyclone for pre-clean, rinse, (a second pre-clean if the record is very dirty, rinse, second clean, then final rinse and dry. I use a HumminGuru Nova for the final rinse, then back to the VPI for dry.  All fluids as defined by Neil's post and in his book.  This is quite easy to do, takes perhaps 5-6 minutes per record total.  I will opine from my experience: 

1.  Neil's book is invaluable

2.  If you are on the horns of a dilemma between a scrub and vac machine and an ultrasonic machine, ask yourself if you intend to clean only new or near new records, for which the US machine should be preferred, or if you have or intend to buy old/dirty records, for which the vac machine should be preferred.  If you are not sure because you are just starting out, I recommend a vac machine because it is more versatile.

@tablejockey,

For the price, the HumminGuru Nova has an updated higher operating frequency 

FYI, the new HG-Nova does not use a higher frequency, it's the same kHz and power as the original.  Download and compare the two operating manuals: HumminGuru Owner's Manual.  The Nova adds some convenience features, uses a wall-wart versus a brick power supply, and makes cleaning 45-records easier.  

"Recorded Cleaning Machnies"

Cool, they must on record and clean super fast .... 

I have a Clearaudio Double Matrix Pro Sonic (long name) cleaning machine, and I like it very much. It does both mechanical and sonic cleaning/drying on both sides of an LP  at the same time. I had a VPI 16.5 for many years and this is much easier in my old age.

The iSonic is a great machine. I wrote about it extensively here on Agon.  I clean 7 records at a time and use filtered tap water. Records come out shiny, glossy and sound noticeably better after a 10 minute clean followed by an 8 minute rinse and the rapid spin air dry that takes about 3-5 minutes.  Highly recommended ! 

I've had great success with the Gem Dandy Record Cleaning Machine followed by an ultrasonic bath in David Ratliff's Ultrasonic V-8 machine. I don't think anything can beat high powered tap water to clean out the grooves of a record. However, you still need the ultrasonic with distilled water to take care of any mineral residue with the tap water. I am seriously considering adding a Kirmuss, though, for older records that require multiple cleanings.

@washline I believe the Kirmuss machine is a repurposed Isonic machine.  I would compare prices.  The people at Isonic are great to deal with, BTW

There's considerably more to the Kirmuss system than just the machine. I would certainly like to try his method.