Thumbs up for ultrasonic record cleaning

Yes, just add a little more water.

I’ll pull the rollers and try to reinstall but I don’t think that’s it. Also, for water level it gets very close to perfect. Do you all just add a little more water to make the water level go higher?

The AudioDeske has a sensor that indicates low water level. If that is not working, it needs to be repaired.  Mine had that problem. Check with your dealer. 

@mayoradamwest,

Did you purchase your AD used?

I’m about 30 records into using the Audio Desk and it really does an amazing job. My only problem is that (1) the rollers on one side seem to struggle a little bit and don’t fully contact the record all the way up, which sometimes leave a strip of uncleaned surface on the inside. (2) the water level only usually gets to half way through the last track, which means that area doesn’t benefit from ultrasonic. Anyone else have these problems?

@jtimothya

I don’t own an Elma.

I actually have the pump after the filters. My thinking was this would increase the pump’s lifespan.

Installed the larger pump this morning. Went from 1gpm to 1.2gpm.

I would like to get a TDS meter. (Actually, just ordered one)

I have my set-up posted on my virtual system page.

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.

I'm now convinced with my current tank, (with it's placement of the internal water outlet and size), I need to get a larger output capacity pump to address my concerns. This will be the easiest, most cost effective way to go forward. 

So after two weeks with the 5 micron filter (complete water change), the water still looks clear. In the past, after several weeks, the water generally looks cloudy,(yellow). We'll see.

Well I’ve had the 5 micron filter in for a couple weeks now. I’m realizing (what I referred to as hairs or fibers earlier) now that the "slurry" that settles on the bottom of the tank after days of no use, is just that. I watched as I turned on the pump and started leading the output hose around the tank. Getting close to the bottom I can see that "slurry" being moved up into the water and then looks like fibers or hair.

One of the upsides of this set-up (or downsides of my Audio Desk) is I can see and clean the tank. With the AD, one is very limited in this regard.

@prof 

I'm glad there's a choice for us all. The main point is you're experiencing the benefits of US cleaning.

My Degritter US cleaner makes cleaning records a cinch.
Drop record in, hit button, go do whatever else, and return to US cleaned and dried record.
Perfect for folks like myself who are too lazy for other methods.

@totem395 

Thank you for your post. As you see, my thought process had gone that way after mulling it over. It seems to make more sense.

In other filter applications you start with coarse and proceed with
finer and finer etc.

Then again, maybe a 5 micron filter as the first filtering stage?

I’m happy with my newest cleaning solution. The stickiness on the rubber O-rings (Vinyl Stack), I reported a while back, was due to too much cleaning solution.

After the US cleaner has rested for 5 days, upon restart I notice what looks like short fine black hair. Not a lot. I assume this is vinyl "shavings".
I finally ordered my .5 micron filter to supplement my 1 micron filter. Should arrive today. I think I’ll install it after the 1 micron filter based solely on the higher cost of the .5 filter.

Really the visual "shavings" should be taken care of by the 1 micron filter. I think the real issue is either/or a lack of proper suction or not enough volume ability to be sucked out of the tank. Maybe a larger outlet of more strategically placed outlets?

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?

It's been a while...I've had my US machine off-line for a few months. I got it back on-line and running an adjusted solution. Since I'm committed to steaming first, I thought I'd reduce the Versa Clean. I'm currently using just 1 oz Versa Clean and 1/2 oz photo-flo in my 10 liter tank. 

This new solution is the first time I've heard it with my new SoundSmith Sussurro Mkll. What a big difference I'm hearing with the new cart. Notes a even fuller, dynamic expression is greater, vinyl is quieter. Loving it!

So i have had my electronic Record cleaner since August 2018, i have to say its amazing and competatively priced.

With a collection of over 5000 LPs,EPS,45s this has been a god send they clean up like new depending on the usage of the vinyl obviously

anyone who is looking to purchase one from the lovely gentleman i bought it from can knock one up for you.

For enquires please quote "SUPERSONIC1" to the following email address Cbaker@sky.com the is based in the UK

Hope that helps Happy cleaning

Yes, my Elma is a dual frequency device, but I rarely use 37 KHz. 45C is warm, all right - but I find that, with my machine and its temperature sensor, nothing goes wrong until 52C. The test mentioned above, finished at considerably more than that. Hence the warp.

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. 

@jtimothya

Hello JT. What I was trying to say is, not only is there no evidence of damage from US, there is evidence of no damage from US. Since the latter is a stronger statement, perhaps it is more accurate in some sense. That’s all. Both Slaw and I have done such tests.


From my post of March 6:

Methodology:
1. Wash both sides with VPI 16.5.
2. US clean both sides for 5 minutes.
3. Turn off the motor, so that one sector of the record remained in the US bath.
4. Cooked the record in US for an hour.
5. Removed the record from the bath, and rinse.
6. Play on a high end system, expecting a change every second or so.
7. Observed no change or difference of any kind.
8. Concluded that US does not damage vinyl.

Of course, after cooking in the hot bath for an hour, the record was warped - but that is a function of heat unevenly applied, not US energy.

My US cleaning process:
1. Rotate at 12 RPH.
2. Clean at 80 KHz with Elmasonic machine (German, lab grade).
3. Chemistry is 2.5% VersaClean from Fisher Scientific.
4. Temperature is 45C.
5. Rinse heroically.


I applied my usual US cleaning process for the test, except that the temperature began at 45C and rose considerably, and ceased rotation as noted.

Thanks for your interest.

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.

Jtim, I have set out to damage a record with excessive exposure and temperature. Other than warping the record, I failed. The record was undamaged after more than an hour's exposure to a lab grade machine.

I tested by first cleaning the record by rotating it in an US bath. Then I turned off rotation and let it cook for more than an hour, then rinsed. Any damage would have been clearly detectable upon playing. The damage would have cycled in and out every second or so. No damage was detected.

Therefore, your statement is not accurate. Not only is there no evidence of damage, there is positive evidence of no damage.

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

In thinking about all of this again...

There seems to be a concern for the lp to withstand the US bursts from 80hz above, even though it’s obvious that say, 120hz, which creates smaller blasts, gets into the grooves better. Yet we still play vinyl records. This consists of dragging a diamond through a plastic groove...over and over and over. BTW, this creates heat.

I’m trying to figure out the hesitancy that keeps many from the US cleaning method?

BTW, @jtimothya, I enjoyed your article. Very though and insightful. Thanks to @whart for publishing it.

Another thought, I realize some are searching for the ultimate effects of US cleaning. OK. Does it really matter. In our lifetime? Just think of all of the gems we search for in the record shows that who knows how they've been cared for (Ha!), whether it be previously played on a suitcase record changer, maybe with a penny, dime, or nickel taped to the head shell…. yet we bring it home and clean it with a US cleaner and all is fine. I think you're getting my point?

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

@totem395 - Tomtem- i think you misstated the article which (correctly as I understand it) says that higher frequency = smaller bubbles. The theory, so far as record cleaning goes, is those smaller bubbles may do more to get into the grooves. But they are less powerful than the larger bubbles generated by lower frequencies when they implode.
I think the folks on the DIY Audio site have experimented to some degree with cleaning effectiveness of different frequencies. I like the idea of having a machine that provides alternate frequencies. It is a good article in talking about frequency and power. Thanks!

For those following all the different "opinions" on 
what frequency works best etc I came across this site
from another forum.
Which shows in real world usage that
as ultrasonic frequency increases bubble size increases.
And as frequency decreases intensity/force increases.

Higher frequency may in fact not be the best after all.
 
https://techblog.ctgclean.com/2011/12/ultrsonics-number-and-size-of-cavitation-bubbles/
 

Hi Whart,
Thank you for the thoughtful and thorough feedback.

I like your idea of starting of with less fluid, then experimenting from there.

Also, I'll probably keep my Clearaudio Smart Matrix Pro cleaner, to address the tough-to-clean records.
Thanks again,
Labpro

@Labpro–– Although much of this thread is devoted to DIY methods, many of us have had the Audio Desk. I owned one before the "Pro" was introduced, and based on the recommendation of some early adopters, reduced the amount of "fluid" I put into the bath- not so much for cost-savings but to reduce the potential for fluid residue. Honestly, I could not hear artifacts from the cleaning on the original AD, at least when using just a capful, rather than a whole bottle of the fluid. (Robert Stein, the importer, may disagree, but he’s not a disagreeable person).
I have shared some records with a collector friend who has the "Pro" version, he loves it, and the records sound fine when played on my system, many states away from him. In a couple instances, I have done more intensive cleanings for him, but no rigorous comparisons of before and after. My take is that you should be satisfied with the performance of the AD, and there is some benefit to the ’no work’ approach.
There were some (ahem) issues with the early AD machines and most of us moved on. I bought the KL before AD introduced the "Pro" model, but the KL doesn’t allow for a surfactant. So, it’s trade-offs. Much of the attention on DIY is cost savings over the commercial US record cleaners, but some is getting better results than what those provide through a medical/lab grade US system, the use of surfactant, control of temp, frequency, de-gassing, filtration and other features or variables that you cannot control on the ready made for LP cleaning units.
My main issue with the AD when I owned it wasn’t the residue of the fluid, but that it didn’t do as good a job on problem records- I buy a lot of used, rare vinyl, some of it in less than pristine condition (not beat up copies, but ones that benefit from more intensive cleaning, combining manual cleaning, point nozzle vacuum and ultrasonic). Others may have a different view, but assuming you are dealing with new records or older records that were well maintained by audiophile types, you should not have any issues over cleaning quality.

Folks,
I'm new to this thread, but I just placed an order for a new Audiodesk PRO.

Knowing that the Audiodesk PRO does "not" do a clean distilled water rinse at the end of the cleaning cycle, am I getting all the benefits of sonic cleaning?

Also, should I expect to see residue on my wonderful EMT stylus?
Thanks,
Labpro 

Someone wanted this chart a page back...
https://myucsystem.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/effectiveness-of-particle-removal-relative-to-frequen...
The chart shows cleaning effectiveness versus particle size by ultrasonic frequency. From this chart, it would appear that 80kHz is an ideal frequency, while 120kHz is likely close.

@slaw

Further to the sticky o-ring problem:

Washed until the rings were sticky, about 3 or 4 cycles of 20 minutes at 45C. Then
1. Wiped rings with isopropanol - worse.
2. Dusted and rubbed rings with charcoal powder - better. But it made a heck of a mess, looked as if I had been fingerprinted.

Thing about charcoal is that it’s pretty inert, and a superb dry lubricant. I used medical charcoal from a capsule, maybe a quarter of a capsule for the 4 spacers of the vinyl stack. No obvious charcoal residue on records or labels.

Would not use talc.

@terry9 

I contacted McMaster-Carr with my (specific) issue with really no valid response. Actually, it seemed to be a response directed at their stock, and  I'd hopefully buy something.....

I've broken two lps recently that were on the VS overnight. These were 120gr/older lps that I thankfully have replacements for.

I'm glad to be reporting this to others before they have a more substantial issue, than I.

@slaw 

Yes, unfortunately I have experienced this too. What I have done is this:
1. reduce temperature to 45C (as you have done)
2. keep o-rings out of the bath
3. remove records promptly
4. pry records loose from the o-rings by holding at the edge of the record, twisting slightly to hook the spacer on the metal rod, and pushing  (while praying)
5. and eventually replace the o-rings. The good folks at Vinyl Stack will supply.

You have stimulated me to reconsider this, though. I wonder if an isopropanol wipe would help? Or, as you suggest, chemical resistant o-rings?

I expect to be doing more US cleaning next weekend - let's share results on this.

I put on Keb Mo "S/T" over the weekend. I've since been working on it. It's the Pure Pleasure version.

Prior to my "working on it" it was 'ticky' most of the way through.

It is now,  not 'ticky' at all.

My experience with Pure Pleasure is inconsistent quality in pressing quality and SQ. With some love, The Keb Mo is outstanding!

Another vote for cleaning records...and sometimes recleaning them!

@terry9 

I have a question specifically for you..

I'm currently experiencing the lps sticking to the O-rings on my vinyl stack, especially when/if I leave the lps clasped in it overnight.

Have you experienced this? Could it be a result of the Versaclean?

I've looked at McMaster-Carr for O-rings. Would one's that are chemical resistant be better? Any thoughts?

Thanks.

Oops...I did it again..

I left a brand new 180 gram lp in my 40khz cleaner set at 45 C for 50 minutes and forgot to plug in my Vinyl Stack. I put it on another 50 minute cycle w/ the VS plugged in and can hear no harm.


(After my experiences with my 40khz machine and reading others' experiences with their 60/80khz machines, I'm becoming convinced that the higher frequency machines may be superior in cleaning the vinyl grooves.)

Thank you. 

Air drying should work fine, especially if you perform a final rinse in DI water.

Anyone having good results by just air drying after US spin?

What solution?

I read somewhere about this approach but haven’t been able to find the info again.

Thank you.   

It seems the water should be drained from the bottom where released particles would fall, pass through the filter, then be pumped back in at the top.

I'm not an engineer but this doesn't look logical to me.

It seems there is a lot more thought than that which went into the Degritter. From the Degritter website:

"The active filtering solution works by circulating water through the filter and then back into the bath while your record is being cleaned. Water is pulled into the filter from the top of the tank in order to remove all floating dust and particles. Heavy particles that settle at the bottom will be pumped out to the external water tank, which has a dedicated sediment section."

It looks like they have all issues covered.

prof, not your doing but it looks like they designed the Degritter filtering system backwards.  It seems the water should be drained from the bottom where released particles would fall, pass through the filter, then be pumped back in at the top.

I'm not an engineer but this doesn't look logical to me.

I have a KLaudio and a Loricraft
i have never heard any issues with sonic degradation

I have cleaned a large amount of my rare collection of records. They only sound more refined with enhanced sonics


only better resolved low level resolution, removed tics pops static noise floor, separation of instruments etc

as for the ’hypothetical’ issue
Klaudio did extensive 9 hour continuous tests with yellow vinyl and found no traces of vinyl shavings

I have had the KL since 2013
it has been incredibly reliable
The machine was heavily researched, patented ultrasonic array, etc. F

I don’t find a salesman in a white coat to dismiss a viable urc Using fear of 'improper' variables to sell his wares. Especially when some of his comments are the opposite of physics

hopefully he sells a great urc at a good price

Well, I put my money where my laziness is...and ordered the upcoming Degritter Ultrasonic RCM!

Interacting with the folks at Degritter (as well as reading beta user reports) has given me confidence in their product and in their character, so it seems like worthwhile gamble. If it works as advertised it would be the perfect record cleaner for me.

It’s supposed to ship in September. Whenever it arrives, I’ll let people know my impressions.

More info here, with some demos:

http://degritter.com/

FYI: Just a couple days left to get in on the first batch. 

Michael Fremer reinterviewed Mr. Kirmuss at the Munich show. A lot to think about after hearing the interview.  https://www.analogplanet.com/content/if-charles-kirmusss-record-cleaning-machine-and-regimen-correct...  

The higher the frequency, the smaller the bubbles, hence the better to clean small spaces and crevasses.

One of our big problems with vinyl is grease (fingerprints, etc.). It's hard to see plain water being very effective at removing that, irrespective of frequency. I use a lab grade detergent (Versaclean from Fisher Scientific) for surfactant, and  chemistry at 45C.

But this requires a rinse or three.