I'm using the elegant and highly engineered dustcover from my Nottingham 'table, which consists of a grooveless LP with a Nott' logo on it :) Place that on the VPI platter with the wet side of the just cleaned record on it, and remove it when I flip the LP over. One swipe with a cloth dries it off and it's ready for the next one. And when I'm done cleaning, it goes back on the Nottingham. The extra thickness doesn't seem to hinder the vacuum action on the VPI.
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.
.
151 responses Add your response
Spencer, I think you'll find that once you arrive at the correct chemistry, the LP comes out of the bath dry except for the immersed portion. A quick swipe with the Vinyl stack microfiber cloth clears 95% of moisture from that section, after which the record will air dry in a few minutes. I still have my VPI 16.5 and have experimented with it to vacuum off ultrasonically cleaned LPs. The problem is that since the record has two wet sides, the foam mat on the 16.5 will pick up moisture that transfers to the dry side when the LP is flipped. For awhile I used an old Ringmat II with thin cork strips on top of the 16.5 platter to minimize the re-wetting of the LP, but the microfiber cloth is simpler and works just as well. |
@sbank , congratulations on diving into the pool (er, tank). For something to spin your records while using that vacuum wand, I like your idea of using a vintage turntable with 16rpm speed. But you can probably change the ratios of any belt drive or puck drive junker turntable you find at Goodwill with a bit of ingenuity since you don't have to worry about rumble or speed accuracy. The trick is to find one with a spindle that can accommodate a friction fit or screw on clamp. Then place a 1 1/2"-3" diameter o-ring around the spindle so you're floating the record above the surface of the platter and you're good to go. I'm hesitant about the full surface cushion because you're transferring wetness from one side to the other of your just cleaned/dried vinyl. On my VPI RCM, I'm floating my LPs on o-rings so they don't rest on the mat and have been doing this for 10 years. |
| Post removed |
So Rush's writeup and this thread have me jumping into the ultrasonic pool(or is that bath?). Over the last week I ordered a 40hz 10L tank, vinyl stack(4) and the chemicals suggested. My plan is to follow Rush's process with one exception... I'm at the low end of the budget pool and have sold off my VPI 16.5 so now I will be looking for a low cost method for vacuuming off the water/ethanol rinses. Just ordered the suggested vacuum wand from squeakycleanvinyl.com to attach to my Shopvac. The open question is for a rotating platter to use while vacuuming. Searches led me to a DIY manual solution where a soft foam cushion grid is glued to a wooden "lazy susan". A threaded spindle or equivalent is mounted in the center with an easy grip large knob threaded on top. Probably very easy to make and ~$20 total cost. Main downside, manually spinning could get tedious if doing a large # LPs in a session. One user said he liked the manual control better than machine rotation. A small brainstorm leads me to this question. Would a vintage turntable that offers 16rpm speed option provide appropriate torque to serve as a rotating platter for vacuuming? Any suggestions of one brand or another that is more likely to reliably spin and suit the need? Craigslist etc. often have vintage tables for under $20, often because they have broken tonearms or need new stylus. Some of these old guys look pretty neat and if they have enough torque could make an interesting, quirky way to get the job done. Other suggestions on skinning this sub-topic? Cheers, Spencer |
Rushton, We hobbyists can be drawn too far down a path sometimes. Since LP enjoyment is so dependent on the LP surface condition, I felt the extra step was warranted in this case. Also, I built a couple of extra machines and sold them to other audiophiles in order to fund my experiment. My largest investment in ultrasonic cleaning has been my own labor to develop, build and operate the machine. It has been a pleasing way to spend my time. One thought to keep in mind. If Louis uses a new tank with a drain, that may alter the outer dimensions of his machine. That might have some impact on the cleaning system into which you are placing the new machine - just something to check before purchasing. |
@cedar , thanks for the additional information. I like your approach of listening to the results and stopping when you don't hear further improvement. Trust your ears! I'll be interested to see how Louis prices his new 80KHz tank to see if I can convince my wife to make the additional investment in the new tank. It's hard to make the decision without actually hearing the additional benefit given the great results I'm getting now. So, it is VERY HELPFUL to learn of your actual experience with this. |
Yes, I've used the Vibrato machines in my record cleaning systems. I found Louis, at Vibrato, to be a very reliable guy. I was influenced initially by the work of a Texan who published his methods and materials on a different forum a few years ago. He got me thinking about particle sizes and ultrasonic frequencies. I began with a 60 kHz Vibrato machine, which worked very well. A number of factors led me to believe that longer, gentler cleaning was a more effective and safer approach. So, I bought the 80 kHz machine. While the cavitation bubbles of the 80 kHz machine are most effective at removing smaller particles, I found that if I ran the record for a longer time those smaller bubbles did remove larger particles as well as the 60 kHz system did. Also, I experimented with timing motor speeds and the cleaning solution mix. My testing has been by ear. I listen to a record and clean it until I am satisfied that it has stopped improving. This listening test led me to conclude that the 80kHz machine would clean more effectively than the 60 kHz machine. One downside of my approach is that record cleaning takes more time. Since I enjoy the process that is not a burden for me. I use cork stoppers large enough to cover the record label between the records as I mount them on the spindle. These cork rings are 1.25 inches thick. I mount three LPs at a time, which leaves them approximately uniformly distributed between the tank walls in the bath. I did not perceive improved listening results when I have increased the distance between LPs (2 LPs per cycle). When I tried more than 3 LPs per cycle I did begin to see some impairment of the water circulation movement. So, I've stayed with 3 LPs. |
Cedar, thanks for contributing to the conversation! The more we share experiences, the more we each learn. And I really appreciate your contribution. It is helpful to get some reports of actual experience comparing results with the different frequency tanks. That's not something most of us get an opportunity to do. When you made your comparison with 60 vs. 80Khz tanks, how did you go about it? It is so difficult to control for all the variables. I'm getting ready to experiment with 2" spacing in my 40Khz tank to see if the results are better than my current 1" spacing, but if I use an existing LP that was cleaned with the closer spacing, I know the first challenge will be controlling for the simple fact that the LP will now have been cleaned TWICE. The VibratoLLC tanks have an excellent reputation. Louis is doing great work with his build quality from everything I read. I got an email reply from him yesterday that he will be announcing a new 80Khz ultrasonic tank WITH A DRAIN sometime after the first of the year. No pricing available yet, he says. I am very interested in seeing what he is able to offer. |
@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 |
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. |
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. :-) |
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. |
@terry9 I followed up with Harry Weisfeld on your question about the records spacing he was using when he compared cleaning results in both a 40Khz and a 60Khz USC. He replied that he used 1" spacing. He has a Vinyl Stack Spin Kit, so I’m assuming he’s using the approximately 1" spacing their spindle stack provides. See their photo. If he tested with just a single record in the tank, he didn’t volunteer that information. |
ochremoon : ...I may test the waters with a 40KHz machine, doing one record at a time and see how it compares with the vacuum machine I currently use.@ochremoon - I believe you will find the experience rewarding and I hope you will come back and share what you discover. My 40Khz tank has about 100 hours on it and is performing well. It may not have the longevity of a U.S. or German built unit, but it is giving me excellent results. And, importantly, it is not doing any harm to the vinyl - it simply cleans. As you move ahead, I highly encourage you to use a detergent formulation in your tank such as the formula I’ve shared. My earlier exposure to ultrasonic cleaning demonstrations using just water and alcohol with air drying were not at all compelling compared to my wet/vac manual cleaning process. With heat, a Tergitol/Triton solution in the tank, double rinsing and vacuum dry, my results with this current USC cleaning regimen are outstanding. I won’t be going back. (And, for the record, I’m using 1" spacing with 4 records at a time in this 9.5" wide 10L 40Khz tank. I’d have no hesitation doing 3 records at a time in a 6L tank with adequate width. As Terry says, it all depends on the energy distribution in the tank you're using. Do a foil test to check it out, then do follow-up tests from time to time to confirm it's still performing in the same way over time.) |
@ochremoon Let us know how it goes if you decide to jump into it. I think you'll be quite pleased with the results if you do. And since you already have a vacuum machine, I highly recommend you use it to do a couple rinse/vacuum steps after the US cycle. If the LP is just allowed to air dry, there will be residue of the cleaning solution left on the record. The rinse/vacuum helps remove that and get the LP in as pristine a condition as possible. |
@ochremoon I'm using a 40kHz machine and getting very good results. But in line with Terry's comments, I'm doing 2 records at a time at most, and more often just 1 even though the Vinyl Stack will hold 3 and there's room in the tank for 3. As well, I'm doing a 15 minute cycle instead of the more commonly noted 10 minutes, as I feel I get better results that way....with my tank. However, if I had to do it all over again, I would probably buy a better tank at the outset. Being cheap gets you, well, cheap. :) The $120, 6 liter tank I have now is working and providing good results, but I don't think it will last long due to the cheap construction, and it takes forever to heat up from room temperature into the mid-30C range (like 30 minutes). That in itself is pretty aggravating, and as has been mentioned many times here, the warmer temperature is a critical element of the process. |
@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! |
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: And reducing or eliminating noise is only one of the positives the US brings to the table. There's more harmonic information, low level detail that in some cases was inaudible before, more pristine high treble notes, etc. More music, quite simply.bcowen, this is exactly what we are hearing. My wife also describes the effect of US cleaning as "opening up" the soundfield. There is simply more air, more openness to the sound. |
@moonglum Moon, one little experience to relate from my end. One of my favorite "go to" pieces (for when the uninitiated come over to visit, look at all the tubes glowing, and invariably ask why I don't get something "new") is Roberta Flack's "First Time Ever I saw Your Face." Incredibly good recording, very quiet parts that go to very loud parts, and one of those "she's in the room" kind of reproductions. I have 3 copies -- one bought new, and 2 bought at used record stores. Both the used copies were very noisy -- pops, clicks, pow's, and a lot of surface noise, and all that noise destroys the whole emotional grip of the piece. No distortion, so I figured it was mostly crud and not groove damage. But after several cleanings of both on the VPI 16.5 including a couple rounds of enzyme, the noise was significantly reduced but still intrusive. So I bought the new one (paying a lot more than I wanted to) hoping to get a nice quiet copy. Well, the new one was absent most of the pops and clicks except for the lead in area, but there was background hiss that was worse than either of the used copies. Fast forward to the US setup, and amazingly the worst of the used copies is now the quietest and best sounding. The hiss is greatly reduced on the new copy, but still audible during the quiet parts and the clicks at the lead-in are better but still there. The used copy that cleaned up the best has one noticeable click towards the end of the song, but is otherwise completely quiet -- no hiss, no pops/clicks other than that one. Took me a couple tries to get it that way, but part of it was just learning the US process and figuring out what works best with my tank and cleaning formula (which is a blatant copy of Rushton's). And reducing or eliminating noise is only one of the positives the US brings to the table. There's more harmonic information, low level detail that in some cases was inaudible before, more pristine high treble notes, etc. More music, quite simply. I'm sold on the US, and as Rushton and Terry both point out it won't redeem a screwed up record, but it can work a miracle on some that you thought were screwed up. No real way of knowing which is which until you clean one with the US process and listen to the result. |
moonglum: When encountered, do you feel the damaged areas of e.g. 2nd hand LPs, are more audible, less audible or about the same nuisance value?Moon, I'm looking to get my records as absolutely clean as I can. Sometimes cleaning, whether via USC or RCM will make badly damaged records sound even worse because you've removed a veil by allowing the stylus to actually track the groove. Accurate tracing of the groove delivers more information, for both good and bad. I don't find US cleaning any more like to do that than my previous RCM regimen. What I do find with my current US cleaning regimen is that I'm hearing much more of what is important to me on the record the vast majority of the time. And, I keep reminding people, it's not just the US tank. It's the attention to the full regimen of detergent, rinse, temperature, time in the tank, not overloading the capacity of the tank, etc. etc. As I've said many times: I've been completely underwhelmed with MOST ultrasonic demonstrations I've heard. My manual cleaning was better. Only with the right cleaning solution in the tank and with pure water rinsing did I finally start hearing good results that got my attention. |
moonglum, if the surface noise is due to contaminants in the grooves (dust, dirt, oils, etc.), surface noise will definitely decrease. But this is not a magic bullet - if the grooves have been damaged, no cleaning will get rid of that; same if noisy vinyl compound was used in manufacturing the record. |
Thanks, Terry. I don't know what sort of spacing Harry may have been using when he tried the two different frequency tanks. Good question to go ask him. I recall seeing the graphs and discussion of particle sizes. It was interesting and I need to revisit that portion of the diyAudio thread. For anyone else following this, the diyAudio thread to which we're referring was a primary education for me in my research. There is a tremendous amount of good information here. See: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/analogue-source/218276-my-version-ultrasonic-record-cleaner.html |
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. |
Terry and Oilman, great contributions. Thanks to you both. Right now, my results with my Chinese built USC are good, exceeding my expectations. But, I have over 6,000 LPs in my collection, so I wonder about durability. And I certainly DO NOT want to start over again after 2,000 as was Terry’s experience. Are you both using 80Khz machines? I know the diyAudio thread has had a lot of debate over 40 vs. 60 vs. 80. My curiosity is: have you listened to the results with a 40Khz unit using the same regimen and found the high Khz units to give audibly better results? I ask because of one data point: Harry Weisfeld. Harry bought both a 60Khz and a 40Khz unit and reported that he could not hear any audible difference in results between the two tanks. See: http://vpiindustries.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=8850#p8850 As I recall, he ended up keeping the 60Khz tank long term, but I think it was more about build quality than any difference in results that he could hear. |
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. |
Terry, great thoughts, especially the relationship between spacing and wavelength. My approach was a little more experimental as i tested several parameters including spacing, temperature, etc but come up with similar experience. ALso agree on the importance of clean water. I live now in indiana where the water hardness is horrible. Even with the softener system there still is a ton of solids (ie, sodium instead of Calcium). Water quality will make a big difference on the rinse |
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. |
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 Terry & Rushton, I have used both the Chinese and Elmasonic models and find the Elmasonic a step up in effectiveness. At temps above 48-49C I have warped records. Some LPs return to shape as they cool and others require flattening. The digital temp gauges on these unit are not always accurate, and should be confirmed with a quick-read thermometer. Also, independent of the heater the ultrasonic action will naturally raise the bath temperature as it works-- sometimes rather quickly. I begin cleaning at 35C and give the system a rest when it reaches 48C. At some point I’m going to add cooling fins to my DIY filter circuit to keep temps linear at a safe level. |
terry9, how did you come to choose 50 degrees Celsius as you optimum temperature range? I have to admit being concerned going beyond 36 degrees and generally clean in the 31-35 degree range with good results. I've never attempted to compare results at 50 degrees, but I gather you must believe you are getting better results than with a lower temperature. |
@rushton Glad I could contribute just a fraction of a percent to your body of work. :) @terry9 Thanks for that info. 1 and 2 were an unknown to me, so appreciate the information. I'm a bit leery with the 50c temperature. Seems a bit on the high side? I'm assuming you've run at that temp without damage or warping? I'm running 15 minute cycles myself...10 minutes didn't work as well, which I chalked up to a less powerful machine on my end than what Rushton is using. I haven't noticed any ill effects from that length of time, and it seems to do the best job of cleaning with my tank. Agreed for sure on the rinsing, although I'm using distilled for a first rinse/vacuum, followed by a pure water ** and 5% ethanol second rinse/vacuum, and finally a straight pure water rinse/vacuum. Probably a bit on the overkill side, but I tend to be anal about a lot of things. :) **The "pure" water I get from one of my suppliers at work for $6 a gallon....it's deionized water that's UV sterilized and filtered at .05 microns. Not quite reagent grade, but close enough for me. |