It may be that our understanding of cleaning vinyl via ultrasonics is in its infancy. That means there is probably a lot of misunderstanding about what combination of variables yield optimal efficiency. Vinyl "safety", if you will, is part of optimal efficiency. Over the years of various vinyl cleaning methods there has been some scare factor that is alway in play. For example we still have remnants of fear that alcohol will cause damage to "my precious." What we haven't seen yet are studies of a) particle and groove size relative to frequency, and b) frequency and groove deformation and resilience. Of course there are other variables: time, temperature, chemistry and agitation. I suspect such studies specific to vinyl records are not going to burst forth given the economics. (Though you never know - there are enough quirky professors out there that some may be audiophiles and engineers and have grant money to burn.) So ... in the meantime we need to pool information and experience based on our real world efforts. That does not exclude USC system manufacturers, but some caution is warranted wrt marketing claims. In the case of frequency alone, the relation between it and particle size is pretty much common knowledge. (Fwiw, the chart often cited, and linked above, associates to cleaning perpendicular magnetic tape, not vinyl records, but it still makes the point.) What is less discussed is the relation between frequency, particle size and time. From my experience multiple frequencies applied in sequence are more effective than a single frequency. (Industrial cleaning often involves up to 7 different cavitation frequencies.) Consider that dirt (for lack of a better term) can be layered in terms of particle size. Duration is part of the equation.
The longer you beat on something as hard as you can the more likely damage can occur. I've been cleaning at 37kHz for 10 minutes then 80kHz for 10 minutes. I'm now thinking of varying that to something like: low for 5, high for 5, low for 5 and high for 5. If I had a third higher frequency, I'd put that into the mix as well. Can this make a difference? I don't know, but its worth exploring. (FWIW I have zero evidence my current regimen causes any damage or downside - any change to it is out of curiousity, not concern.) Experimentation continues. See more at The Vinyl Press. If you try something or discover something, document it and speak up. tima |
Thanks, slaw. I think I agree with your above post.
From my perspective, concerns about LP resilence in the face of cavitation bubbles generated at various frequencies is thus far groundless. That doesn't mean the topic should not be discussed.
But I've yet to see any documented evidence of record cleaning damage at 40kHz up through 120kHz. Speculation, yes, but no evidence, particularly no photographic evidence. There are manufacturer claims as a part of an effort to seperate their product from others, but no documentation or evidence in support - at least that I've seen. If such evidence (beyond hearsay) is out there, please bring it forward.
On the other hand I've heard report after report of successful US cleaning and intact vinyl. Given the continuous discussion of the topic on various fora for several years US cleaning appears viable.
Of course there are reasonableness factors. How long is the LP exposed at a given frequency. What is the water temperature. What surfactants are used. I'm confident someone could find a way to damage an LP using US cleaning if they set out to do so - but that's not oriented to success. Nonetheless experimentation efforts to learn boundary conditions may be worthy.
In the meantime there is likely more damage
from playing dirty records
to both physical records and listening enjoyment. When done right, imo, US record cleaning is at least as effective as any other technique, is probably the most time efficient method available today, and is largely available to the average vinyl collector.
tima
|
Hi Terry - If you meant that my statement about trying to cause damage intentionally did not pan out in this instance, I have no problem being 'inaccurate' about that. :-). I had not tried to damage a record in the way you described and was speculating. You are to be congratulated for conducting the experiment and reporting on it! Although it is a single test, it seems to be good news.
When you say you "let it cook for more than an hour" I took that to mean you let the record simply sit in the USC subjected to constant cavitation
Was the ultrasonic frequency constant throughout? What was the frequency? And what was the water temperature? I suspect the water temperature rose as the US machine operated. Did you use only water or a solution? Can you say what machine you used?
This seems to be relevant news and adds to what we're learning about cleaning records via a US machine. I'd like to suggest you document your experiment and observations and present that here as a new post for more to see. Thanks for the follow-up.
|
Thanks for that update, Terry. I use an Elmasonic myself - v. nice machine.
Can you do dual-frequency? If so, a similar test at ~38kHz would be equally as interesting and perhaps more profound. 45°+ is quite warm.
|
For those of you with an Elma or similar unit, how is the design in this
area. Maybe, like a household sink, the water outlet should be in the
center of the tank?
@Slaw - Which Elmasonic machine do you use? On the Elma P120h there are two rows of three transducers organized on the tank bottom. I suspect that placing a drain in the center of the tank would disrupt that layout and possibly impact dispersion of the cavitation action.- One idea is to run your pump/filter for 10-15 minutes prior to starting a cleaning session or alternatively do that every week whether you clean or not. Another is to use a TDS meter to gauge water/solution purity. I don't know the layout of your setup. Presumably you have the pump prior to the filter(s). Not questioning your approach, I'm a bit surprised at the need for two filters. Which cannisters do you use? I switched to a .35 micron filter. Have not seen the condition you describe. |
The Elma has the drain on the right hand side. Since it is very finely
controlled (down to drop by drop), I clean my solution by (1) arrange a
clear plastic drain line with a dip in the middle (2) let the chemistry
rest for a few hours (3) begin the drip into a clean jug (4) wait
overnight (5) remove the jug of clean chemistry (6) rinse everything.
I don't understand how dripping solution into a clean jug overnight does anything to clean the solution. (By 'solution' I assume this means water + chemicals.) Can you say more? |
With my DIY setup, I do no rinses and I air dry the records. Rinsing is an unnecesary step that adds time, especially if it is done one record at a time on a horizontal vacuum which also adds considerable mess. When records are pulled from the tank after a wash cycle if the water on the record is clean then the records will be clean when they dry. The key is keeping the tank water clean during the cleaning cycle. More here: https://thevinylpress.com/timas-diy-rcm-follow-up-2-compelling-changes-improved-results/ |
No worries @slaw - If you prefer a DIY system that includes rinsing, go for it. With a TDS meter reading of 40-59ppm I certainly would rinse. It's good you're using a meter.
In the context of my DIY setup, rinsing is an unnecessary time-consuming step. When I pull records out of the cleaning tank the water on them consistently measures 003-005ppm so no need to rinse. I change the USC tank water if that number goes higher - that's typically after 65-75 records or so.
Each spends his time as he will. I confess I'd rather listen to music than clean records.
|
@slaw - Into ~2.75 gallons distilled water I add 1⅓ cups 99% pure Isopropyl Alcohol (roughly 3%) and 0.9 tablespoons of Ilfotol (wetting agent used in final rinse of photograph development.) In a fresh tank that combination checks out at ~0002ppm. It stays low thanks to continuous filtering at 0.35 microns.
I agree - always a good idea to to do a TDS test on anything under consideration as a cleaning agent, both by itself and diluted.
|
Dripping overnight allows the sediment to settle out. Almost all of it.
@terry9 - That's interesting - thanks for the follow-up. Guess I'm still a bit unclear. Where does the dirt in solution settle or get captured? In the tank, the dip of your drain tube or in the jug? Have you considered using a filter? |
Slaw describes this as a slurry, which is correct in every sense - I should have thought of that. Okay - let's say that covers insoluables. What makes you think the "95% of the cleaning chemistry safely in the jug" is any cleaner than it was in the tank? |
The additional length means twice the surface area of the smaller filter. I wonder if there is any back pressure from the smaller one?
My original USC tank made in China started malfunctioning. it was replaced by the dual frequency p120H unit from Elmasonic
|
Upon having everything filled and ready to go with the carbon filter I
had bought before the old tank bit the dust, I fired it up and black
water was filling the tank...... Note to self, (Always, run water
through a new carbon filter well, before initial use). Now that is out
of the way, the first thing I noticed is how quiet the unit is! What a
welcome nicety. I've not heard of using a carbon filter with ultrasonic cleaning. Typically it is used for odor and taste in, eg, an RO system. |
@slaw In an RO system the charcoal filter is typically last in order to not introduce its ’fines’ (particulates) into other filters. Yet experiments are worth trying. Keep posting so we learn your results.
|
80kHz is much quieter than 40kHz. A combination of both frequencies gives the best results. 40kHz means larger vacuum bubbles with greater implosive force,. 80kHz yields less force but more, smaller bubbles.
@j_damon - 40 degrees C is too hot.
|
@jtimothya
Don't
see why a mixture of frequencies should be better. There was a graph
posted in the DIYAudio thread of cleaning efficacy vs frequency. For
gaps the size we see on records, 40KHz is only marginally superior for
the largest gaps, and quite inferior for the smallest. This mirrors my
experience.
IMO, 40C is low - only a touch above body
temperature. I often start a session with a temperature in the low 40's,
but continue to begin 15 minute runs until the temperature hits 47C,
when I wait for the chemistry to cool a bit. I acknowledge that it can
be disconcerting to see your vinyl come out of the tank a little warped,
but with uniform cooling in the rinse stage, the warp disappears. At
least in my experience, by my standards. I use a 60RPM Vinyl Stack and
running purified water for rinse.
Are you sure that your
thermometer is accurate? And that it is monitoring the relevant
temperature? Stir the chemistry vigorously - if the temp reading
changes, then your tank is not homogenizing the chemistry and hot spots
or cold spots may emerge with use. That could be affecting your
perceptions of appropriate temperature. Hope that helps.
It's not just about size.
What particle sizes do "we see on records." ? I don't think there is a univeral range.
If audiogon allowed posting pictures I'd do that here.
Take a look at the graph on p.16 of this PDF: http://www.idema.org/wp-content/downloads/1622.pdf
This is about cleaning perpendicular magnetic tape but it should give you a basic idea. Also take a look at my article here: https://thevinylpress.com/timas-diy-rcm-follow-up-2-compelling-changes-improved-results/There is quite a bit of information on the Web about use of multiple frequencies in USC. Don't
just
stick to threads about record cleaning, there is a ton of junk information to sift through in audio forums. We are still learning, mostly from trial and error, but the technology has been in the industrial areas for quite a while. Here's one example about particle size and frequency; you can find more with a little research of your own: https://techblog.ctgclean.com/2019/09/micron-size-vs-frequency/Wrt temperature, there is a relationship between solution composition, heat, and cleaning efficiency. Wrt VersaClean, what is the TDS ppm using that in solution? I prefer high purity IPA. PhotoFlow is not recommended - a little research will tell you why. Of course, people can do whatever they want based on what they believe. I'm only passing along based on my experience and research. |
I also see that you are cleaning 6 records at a time, which means a
spacing of at most 33mm. That spacing is OK for 80KHz, about 1.7
wavelengths, but, at less than a wavelength, that spacing is quite
inadequate for 37KHz. Also, with 6 records your effective US power per
record is down to about 55W. I find that I get better results at 75W.
YMMV
@terry9 Pardon me for being sceptical about the utility of either of those statistics. I'll tell you my thoughts and then you can explain. I don't see how the wavelength of a given frequency is relevant to the space between records. If you're saying a given wavelength, say ~40mm for ~37kHz (water, 30-degree C) is too wide to fit between a 33mm space between records, I don't see how that makes any difference. The frequency determines the number and size of the vacuum bubbles generated that will implode against the record in solution - that is the cleaning force.
My Elma has 6 transducers on the bottom of the tank and they will generate the same number of vacuum bubbles at a given frequency regardless of the spacing between records. I don't see how a wavelength greater than the distance between records changes ... what ? - the access of bubbles to records, as if that wavelength limits how many vacuum bubbles get to the records? I don't see it. The claim of higher watts per record is based on having fewer records in a given tank. I don't see why the ratio of records to watts makes a difference. The same number of watts will be output regardless of the number of records. Granted there are more bubbles per record with fewer records but
the records are in a fixed position and the total bubbles in the tank at any given time is the same independent of number of records.
It's not clear that fewer records 'attract' or receive more bubbles than a greater number of records. Wrt frequency: There is a correlation between particle size, particle tenacity, the efficiency of particle removal, and frequency. If there was relatively constant particle size on a record we could target the frequency to that. But given the state of used records, there is no such constancy. From a visible glop of something to a few microns, multiple frequencies target a broader range of dirt. Btw, which Elmasonic model do you have? As you read, mine is the P120H.. |
@antinn Thank you for your interest in this topic and your contributions. Fwiw, we are talking about units costing more than $2k. At least I am; I don't know what Terry9's machine cost.. I tried the cheap Chinese route and it proved unreliable. If I'm willing to spend a lot more time with a lot more mess, I can get a record as clean with a one-at-a-time horizontal machine and enzymes (eg Loricraft and AIVS) as I can an ultrasonic with filtering. My goals were to maximize throughput, reduce the time needed to spend on cleaning while still obtaining clean records. My setup and technique are designed to meet those goals. Your comments seem largely related to sizing. I'm sure we can agree that issues will occur with a rig improperly sized to do the job that one asks of it. Generalities warrant assessment against specific set-ups. An inherent problem with using ultrasonics to clean PVC is that as a plastic, it is going to absorb ultrasonic energy
Everything vibrates and everything absorbs energy. That PVC absorbs energy is not an inherent problem to the use of
ultrasonics for cleaning records, at least to the point that whatever "problem" may exist is not a deterrent to its use.. The successful use of ultrasonics for cleaning
records - and it can be successful - is demonstration of its efficacy.
There is no standard for measuring what counts as clean. There is no effective way to compare techniques or methods. You cannot clean the same record twice. When do you stop cleaning?
My rule is: if it sounds clean it is clean.
I'm familiar with Fuchs and Zenith and consider them knowledgeable resources. Apart from observing that plastic baskets absorb energy, It is unclear how basket design is relevant in the case of cleaning records which uses no basket.
If you overload the UT tank with records, you are going to significant reduce the power available to clean.
There are many sized tanks. This statement begs the question. As Fuchs points out tank size, surface area, proximity to transducers,
etc.
are relevant. So what counts as overloading? This argument simply says a tank is overloaded when there is a significant reduction of power availalbe to clean..
Energy asorbed within the tank is not the energy
used to power the transducers whose output is independent of what is
absorbed. If the tank and its transducers are insufficient to do the job then there's a sizing problem. It's not like absorbed energy reduces the overall energy in a tank at a given time.
Transducers continually cavitate, continually cause the creation of vacuum bubbles for the length of a cycle. Records continually rotate across working transducers. |
@terry9
Your example of particle size is unconvincing to me. A ’visible glop’ is made up of tiny particles which can be broken loose by US action, and then either deposited as solids or taken into solution as solutes, or perhaps even suspended. It is not necessary (or desirable) to remove the blob of glop all at once - a 1/4" glop would respond best to a frequency so low as to be reminiscent of a file.
Okay. Given enough time leaving an object in a constant stream of water will often result in a clean object. Exposed to the milder implosive power of more small bubbles coming off a higher frequecy may remove a substance - given enough time. But I don’t want to think about the composition of the dirt on a record or continually vary the time of a cycle according to that composition. Through trial and error I arrived at 10 minutes at 80kHz and 10 minutes at 37kHz - and that works. Rarely do I need another cycle. Wrt the whole wavelength isse, which I see as largely theoretical, hopefully we’ll just agree to disagree. My dual frequency approach can process 5-6 records in 20 minutes and I’m quite satisfied they are clean. But I’m not a dogmatist, I will try using an extra spacer and 4 records though I’m uncertain how I would gauge results unless there is a significant difference. The use of multiple frequencies within a cycle is common practice for industrial ultrasonic cleaning - I read no articles that talk about wavelength, for example specific item spacing for 40kHz, which is probably the most common frequency used. When f=.037MHz and c=1480m/s (water) Wavelength=40mm My spacing is ~31mm. Thanks for your engagement on this topic. I appreciate your interest. |
