I should add that correct record spacing and adequate energy concentration are very important. I cleaned about 2000 records without regard to these factors, and removed a lot of grunge; but I removed as much grunge again by scrupulously attending to these factors.
And now I'm almost back to where I was a year ago! One lives and learns. |
My experience with US, in order of importance:
1. record spacing should exceed 1.5 wavelengths (one wavelength is 1.5 inches at 40 KHz, 1.0 inch at 60 KHz, 0.75 inches at 80 KHz);
2. US energy should exceed 50 W per record, or more if the tank is filled to more than 70% capacity;
3. cleaning chemistry should consist of distilled water and a good lab grade detergent at recommended concentrations;
4. cleaning chemistry should be 45-50 C (added benefit is that it tends to straighten warped records);
5. 80 KHz;
6. 15 minutes;
7. multiple rinses in pure water, ending in distilled water rinse. Don't worry about exotic distilled water - by the time you've washed or rinsed a few records, the only difference will be a hole in your pocket.
That information is all in the DIY thread, some of which I posted.
|
In case anyone is wondering how much of an improvement to expect, well, at least as much as doubling the cost of a major component. In my case, about the same as upgrading a $10,000 TT to a DIY cost-no-object, aerospace technology, air bearing TT.
|
re: 50 C
Yes, BC, it's a bit disconcerting to see two fine records warp by .25 inches, but it's temporary. After 15 minutes, the records come out nice and straight - at least that's been my usual experience. |
Further to your concern BC, I sampled 6 records done at low temperature (<30C) and 6 at 50C. In three cases in each group, there was a small dishing effect, of about .01 to .02 inches. Since the two samples seemed similar, I find no evidence of warping. |
About warpage, I try to cool the record uniformly and quickly by rapid immersion in cool water. This may also play a part in my good (for the most part) fortune. |
Hello DG. Glad the Elmasonic is working as well for you as it does for me.
DG, if you are having warpage problems, I think it likely that there is some difference in our methods. By trial and error, and lots of luck, I have settled on
- 80 KHz (chemistry warms quite slowly at 80 KHz);
- genuine 50 C (checked with lab thermometer after stirring and degassing, and this is important because the interior of the tank is much hotter before stirring - 10 to 15 C - than the exterior, where the sensor resides);
- 7 minute rotation;
- chemistry consists of Fisher VersaClean and distilled water (1:40), no additives.
Have you noticed better results towards the end of your run, i.e. at 48 C? Because that is my target: 48 C +/- 3. At 51 C, I too give my system a rest. Looks like we are doing virtually the same thing, except I am running 3 C hotter.
On another note, I have enjoyed some of your recent posts on other topics. I always read your posts with attention when I find them. |
Hello Rushton. 50 C came from a challenge on the DIY forum, in which I posted that 37 KHz sometimes worked better than 80 KHz. The OP asked me if that was possibly an artifact of temperature. I tested, and it was.
This led me to try higher temperatures, and warp a few. I have had a mint, lovely Elizabethan lute record under glass for a year (eyes crossed)! Then I discovered how much hotter the chemistry could be in the interior of the tank, and took appropriate countermeasures, i.e. stirring and degassing and 80 KHz. Now I warp only a few, less than 1%, and those are mostly operator error.
I am committed to getting the last iota of grunge out of the grooves because:
1. one can hear it;
2. the grunge is an ideal grinding compound, consisting of more or less equal parts of diamond dust, grease, and fluff, which is ready and able to reshape the stylus;
3. my cartridge is a very, very expensive re-tip.
|
Yeah Oilman, I feel your pain. I washed a few records in LA with tap water, and no matter what I did, they were a dead loss until I cleaned them with US in 2013. Now they are pristine, stone cold mint renditions of great performances! |
Rushton, I am using a FisherBrand model 11203, which is a rebranded Elmasonic P60H. Even the color scheme and the manuals are identical. I have a sentimental attachment to Fisher Scientific, that's all. Also, as a scientific supply company, Fisher sells the real goods, like Elmasonic, and detergents that really work as advertised, like VersaClean, which is specially formulated for plastics and is recommended for US.
After using the Elmasonic for 3 years, I have no issues with the unit per se - it's well engineered, reliable, excellent features, specs you can trust, just a pro unit period. The only slight issue when using the P60H for records is that one has to be a little careful to place the records high enough. The tank length is exactly the same as the record diameter, which does not allow for eccentricity. That's all; for what it is (the best), it is highly cost effective, and an optimal record cleaner. Worth it's cost in stylus replacement.
If you have more than a few thousand records to do, you might want to consider the larger model, the P180H. It's twice the price but has a tank length of 13 inches, and should do four or five records at a time. I consider my collection of 3000 records to be the tipping point, but could not justify the purchase since I already owned the P60H. |
The DIY thread has a graph of US effectiveness on particle size vs frequency. IIRC, because particle size is limited by the size of record grooves, 40 KHz is a few percent better for the largest particles, but far worse for the smallest. The smallest is where diamond dust hangs out.
So I use 80 KHz almost exclusively, exception being last ditch efforts for badly soiled garage sale records. And then I finish with 80 KHz.
My A/B tests were worthless because I did not pay proper attention to spacing. How about Harry? The proper test would be one record at 37 KHz (because Elmasonic has 37 and 80 KHz modes) vs one record at 80 KHz, to equalize energy.
But, assuming energy is sufficient, which is almost certainly the case, spacing considerations permit two records at 80 KHz or one record at 40. So, if throughput means anything to you, I would standardize on 80 KHz for that reason alone.
|
Moon, when I first started using US, I found that noise always diminished compared to VPI 16.5, so now I clean everything with US to protect my stylus. That said, some records are just intolerably noisy, although a mono cartridge can help with mono records. |
Sleeves. I should have mentioned sleeves.
I like to use distinctive new sleeves for two reasons: first, new is clean; second, a distinctive sleeve signals that the record has been cleaned, averting that agonizing decision about a two foot long row of records. They look clean, and they look familiar, but ...
|
@bcowen
Longevity is a very good point, bc. I have about 500 hours of US on my Elma, and it still looks near new - but then it's made for continuous use, 8 hours a day 5 days a week. |
@ochremoon
Hello Ochre.
It depends on the energy distribution in the tank, and the actual US energy delivered to the chemistry. That is something you get (and pay for, alas) with a lab grade unit. And, of course, enough space for the wave to develop, even for warped records (2 inches or so on each side of the record).
With those caveats, I think (repeat think, as in suspect) that you could get 90% of the way there with 40 KHz. Again with those caveats, I am confident that if you clean for 20 minutes or so, you could get a remarkable improvement over any non US alternative, with little room for improvement.
Good luck!
|
Hello Rushton.
Thanks for the update. At those spacings, any record that was not perfectly flat would not be cleaned optimally at either frequency. The calculation is very simple: wavelength = velocity / frequency. Since the speed of sound in water is 5,000 ft/sec = 60,000 inches / second, wavelength is 1 inch for 60 KHz and 1.5 inches for 40 KHz.
Perfectly flat is the key here, and where I went wrong with 2000 records: I assumed that my records were mathematically perfect planes, and cleaned at 0.75 inches and 80 KHz. By doing it right I removed as much grunge again.
It is true that one can see some surface turbulence at smaller spacings, but that is not indicative of optimal energy distribution; at higher spacings, one sees surface turbulence which is an order of magnitude higher.
|
Logical, Rushton.
May I suggest cleaning 30 previously cleaned records in new chemistry, under the new regimen? Then you will be able to see how much extra grunge comes off, as well as hear it. You may find that it's not worth the trouble - but I sure did. |
Since I posted above, my last ultraslow synchronous motor died, and so I had to replace my DIY frame. I sprung for the Vinyl Stack UltraSonic Spin Kit.
Really nice quality, very fair price. Wish I'd done it sooner.
|
