Rushton's DIY approach to ultrasonic record cleaning published by Positive Feedback


Over the past several months I’ve invested a fair amount of time exploring ultrasonic cleaning because I’ve fallen way too far behind in my record cleaning. With over 6000 LPs, I needed a faster way to clean than my trusted multi-step manual wet/vac cleaning process. That manual process got the best results I’ve ever found, but I was not keeping up with my collection and it is just painful to me to play a record that I’ve not cleaned.

In exploring ultrasonic cleaning, my hope was to find that I could complete multiple LPs in a single US cleaning cycle and greatly speed up my rate of cleaning records. My goals were to FIRST do no harm and then SECOND see how close I could get to the results of my manual cleaning regimen.

My past experiences with ultrasonic cleaning demonstrations were completely underwhelming. What I heard did not approach the excellence I was achieving with my multi-step wet/vac cleaning regimen.

What I’ve learned, and now apply in my new ultrasonic cleaning regimen, are multiple elements to the cleaning process that must be used in combination to achieve the best possible results. And these results have far exceeded my expectations.

I’d thought of posting here on Audiogon the summary of what I’ve learned and am now applying as my new record cleaning regimen, but the inability to post images and to apply formatting here caused me to send my summary to David Robinson at Positive Feedback who has graciously published my comments as a guest essay. Please read that essay, and then come back here to Audiogon with comments and to share your experiences:

http://positive-feedback.com/audio-discourse/rushton-paul-diy-approach-ultrasonic-cleaning-lps/


I look forward to some further discussion and sharing of experiences.

.


128x128rushton
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.
terry9:  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.
I may not reclean 30 records with a wider spacing, but I will do a few previously US cleaned LPs to find our what I hear. It's the only way to know and NOW is certainly the time to find out. :-)
A friend pointed out this thread to me today.  Thanks for all of your contributions.  I will be making some adjustments to my cleaning solution mix.
I've been using a DIY ultrasonic cleaner for about two years now.  I use an 80 kHz Vibrato tank and turn three records through the bath at a 5 minute per rotation rate.  My record spacing is about 1 inch.  
Rushton's recommendation of a maximum bath temperature of 36 degrees Celsius accords exactly with my experience.  At higher temperatures (40 degrees plus), and while using a 60 kHz transducer, I did rarely experience some permanent vinyl deformation.
i agree also that regular tank filtration (1 micron filter) and periodic cleaning fluid replacement are essential to success.
in comparing the results of the 60 and 80 kHZ transducers, I found that the 80 hHz machine was the superior cleaner but that it required longer bath times.  The Vibrato machine I use has both a thermostatic control and a timer shut off.  Consequently, I don't hesitate to leave particularly dirty records (I buy many used ones) cycling for 35 or 40 minutes at a time.  
Given prolonged exposure, the finer cavitation bubbles of 80 kHz machine ultimately remove the dirt more effectively than the 60 kHz.  The finer cavitation bubbles and limited bath temperature allow extended safe exposure of the vinyl to the bath.  


Salvatore on 'highendaudio' has tried us record cleaning. He say to take care with maximum power.
@cedar

Thanks for sharing your experience! 

I've looked at the Vibrato tanks, and while much more expensive than the generic 40kHz machines like mine, they look to be designed and constructed at a significantly higher level.  And for an 80kHz machine, $675 is actually a very reasonable price based on other machines at that frequency.  Have you used the Vibrato for the whole 2 years since you started, and if so, how is it holding up?  Any issues or problems with it?

http://vibratollc.com/new-products.html

Thanks,
Bill