My Cleaner Vinyl ultrasonic record cleaner arrived today and it’s impressive.
Everything I’d read indicated that ultrasonic was the way to go, and now I count myself among the believers. Everything is better - records are quieter, less ticks and pops, more detail etc.
All my records had been previously cleaned with a vacuum record cleaner and were well cared for. Nonetheless, the difference is obvious and overwhelmingly positive.
As I remember, it's something about the 120kHz making the process more amenable to using simple water and keeping it the right temperature. They use more power than other machines to approach the cleaning action of the lower frequency machines.
About the degritter-120 Khz? Totally opposite of other record cleaners on the market. It is difficult from the site images to tell whether the US is aimed directly at the record or in the bath beneath it. Good operating temperature and filter system. Made in Estonia. Not actually local to me-expensive to ship for repairs.
I have a pal who always takes the cheaper way out, always looking for a bargain, buying second hand etc. We have different approaches - he is always willing to spend time and effort to save a buck; I am always willing to spend some bucks to save time and effort.
But when I see the record cleaning efforts he goes through, I just know I’d never be in to that. It would annoy me.
For me, given records now play such a major role in my listening and will for many years, spending a couple thousand to keep them sounding great, and improve the sound of many records I would buy, is almost a no-brainer. I have spent far more than that on any number of equipment "upgrades" over the years and record cleaning seems at least as important and relevant to the listening experience
That’s pretty much where I’m coming from. I jumped on what I think was the first consumer vacuum cleaning machine - the Nitty Gritty - back around ’81. This is before they used the felt cleaning strips. It was way ahead of its time and I still have it. While it can be very effective, it’s such a messy and tedious nuisance that I never used it as much as I could have.
I bought a Klaudio last year and it’s so convenient that now there’s just no good reason to ever play anything but a perfectly clean LP. Yes, it’s pricey. But considering what I’ve spent on a phono system - turntable, pickup arm, cartridge, equipment stand, phono preamp, cables, alignment tools - it’s not quite crazy.
Prof I completely agree on the effort and lengths some go to here to achieve near pristine vinyl. Sorry but takes the enjoyment out of the music for me. I am likely going to give the Kirmuss a whirl, $800 I can deal with in my mind. Now I know my attitude towards vinyl cleaning would make appear to not be a true audiophile in some eyes and if that is the case then so be it.
I love the sound of my vinyl and the process involved EXCEPT the full on cleaning bit. Our LRS has invested in a large ultrasonic cleaner so a lot of his recent acquisitions have already been cleaned which is a huge bonus to me.
And yes being English I have some of that "cheapskate" blood coursing through my veins. Well maybe more like a sedentary amble nowadays but you get my drift.
Certainly the older I have got the more I have eyed up jobs balancing money saved against effort expended. Can't remember the last time I worked on my own cars tbh, just not worth my time and effort when you also consider everything that could go wrong while attempting a home repair. So I can make an analogy with record cleaning for sure.
I certainly get that reaction. But...I AM that lazy ;-)
I have a pal who always takes the cheaper way out, always looking for a bargain, buying second hand etc. We have different approaches - he is always willing to spend time and effort to save a buck; I am always willing to spend some bucks to save time and effort.
But when I see the record cleaning efforts he goes through, I just know I'd never be in to that. It would annoy me.
For me, given records now play such a major role in my listening and will for many years, spending a couple thousand to keep them sounding great, and improve the sound of many records I would buy, is almost a no-brainer. I have spent far more than that on any number of equipment "upgrades" over the years and record cleaning seems at least as important and relevant to the listening experience.
Having jumped in with both feet recently back in to vinyl, including purchasing a nice turntable, I’ve been starting to investigate record cleaning.
My problem is I’m lazy. Or, at least, uninterested in adding record cleaning as a chore.
I enjoy everything about taking out an album and putting it on - part of the experience. But almost every single record cleaning technique I’ve looked at has been off-putting, an chore added to the experience, and I’m not into vinyl for adding more chores to my life.
Hence...my interest in some of the do-it-all ultrasonic cleaners.
I don't now if this new US cleaner has been mentioned somewhere in this thread, but I have a feeling one of these are in my future:
benjie-Why do you think Isonic chose such high temperatures? They would warp the record and melt the grooves at 5 minutes at 140 degrees or thereabouts. Maybe Kirmuss is smarter by lowering his temps. Also, other's have commented that 35Khz is too low and that it should be 80Khz. My friends tell me that lower is better... This is making a decision more complicated. I'm almost ready to buy a Monks or Loricraft record cleaning machine which I've used and liked but were too expensive prior to my purchasing the VPI.
@slaw Just curious if you think Photo-Flo really adds anything to the party. I eliminated it after shifting from IPA to Versaclean. Versaclean's principal ingredient is Linear Alcohol Ethoxylate, an excellent surfactant. Photo-Flo would seem to be redundant.
It’s been a while since I looked hear. Glad to see the continuation of this thread!
Here’s my current method. As you all may have noticed, I go in steps so I can evaluate things better.
(1) Use Audio Intelligent (Down With Dirty) mixed at 1&1/2 oz per 16 oz of distilled water...spread onto a lp. Then steam off. Both sides. (2) The US bath.... Eight oz. of Versa-Clean, 1 & 1/2 tsp. of Photo-flo, to the 2 gallons of distilled water in my 6 quart tank. (40Hz) (3) 45 minute bath at 45C (4) Rinse at my sink with the sprayer with hot tap water. Then a final once over with a bottle of distilled water (5) Vacuum on my 16.5 after the lp is dried manually.
Right now, I don’t think I need a 40:1 tank solution as I do the pre-steam method above. Time will tell.
Wow, I had no idea when I gave a general thumbs up to US cleaning that this would turn into such a long and educational thread.
First, my thanks to those who contributed to my efforts and in particular @terry9 @slaw @whart
FWIW I took a slightly different slant with my efforts which I’ll mention here.
Our hobby tends to be an obsessive, but in this case my obsession took a slightly different tack. While most of you/us are concerned (quite rightly) with the science and the SQ, I became obsessed with how I was going to get through my entire collection in some reasonable period of time and how my early, sloppy US cleaning might differ from the more refined efforts that came after input from this thread.
My early efforts WERE sloppy, I was putting 6 records on my Cleaner Vinyl machine and used a mix of alcohol, dish soap, photo flo and distilled water. Then I vacuumed the records dry with a Record Doctor and figured that was all I needed.
Then the coaching started on this thread and over time I switched to Versaclean, less overall chemicals, higher temps, 3 records at a time (arguably still less than optimal based on what I’ve read). And thought I was good.
Then the subject of "Heroic Rinsing" (love that) and steam cleaning came up and I got curious about that.
But introducing a rinse step was going to slow down the overall effort and that thought was killing me...
So, I bought a second tank (cheap one) and a second Cleaner Vinyl. To speed things up.
The new method is 15 min cleaning in a 6L tank at standard speed, using a solution of 1 ounce of Versaclean and an ounce of Photoflow followed by 5 min in a rinse tank with distilled water and an ounce of Photoflo.
Compared to my earlier crude efforts, I now used more refined chemicals but less of them. And I incorporated a rinse step which most agreed was a good/required step. I included Photoflo in the rinse step after trying to rinse a few with no additive and noticing that the water seemed to be pooling on the surface of the record and not penetrating the grooves.
Using two Cleaner Vinyl’s and vacuuming them dry allowed me set up a little assembly line where I was able to constantly clean, rinse and vac dry and move swiftly through my collection (it’s modest only about 1000 records). At the right pace I had two tanks going and some vacuuming all going on near simultaneously.
After I got through the rest of my collection using this new approach I then went back to the first group of albums I had cleaned sloppily and with no rinsing and did the following.
1. Set up two rinse tanks - both distilled water and 1 ounce of photo flow 2. Proceeded to rinse about 50 records 5 min at a time in each tank (this group of records had been cleaned w alcohol and dish soap and had been vacuumed, by not rinsed) 3. Looked at the contents of the tanks
The first rinse tank was pretty "murky" and had noticeable particulate in it, while the contents of the second was reasonably clear.
4. Changed the solution 5. Rinsed 50 of recently cleaned and rinsed records in each tank (recall that this group had been run through both a US cleaning step and a rinse step and also vacuumed) 6. Looked at the contents of the tanks
The first tank was reasonably clear, the second really clear.
You can draw your own conclusions, but mine were two. 1. Take it easy on the chemicals and be far more careful with cleaning solution than I was in the beginning. 2. Rinsing (or maybe some type of pre cleaning) seems essential.
So, if you are concerned like I was about the time and labor required to move swiftly through your collection I can recommend the two machine, vac dry / assembly line approach to speed things up.
But based on observations, (not listening) I highly recommend taking it easy on the chemicals and rinsing. If you want to go fast, but get even better results then it seems like better tanks with slower rotation speed might be a couple of valid steps up from what I did.
One last thing. I did incorporate a 1 micron filter into the cleaning tank. My observation is that it does a good job with the particulate, but the solution still looked murky to me even after letting the filter run for a while.
Thanks again to everyone contributing to my education on this and particularly those mentioned above.
I just changed the filter from 1um to 0.5um. After some 20 Lp's first pre-cleaned with vac the old filter did have some particles left on it - like a very fine grayish sand plus a bit of yellow coloration. So the US does extract something vac did not extract.
Yes, I rinsed using the VPI 16.5. The record was click and pop free with low surface noise. It just lacked the sparkle (the disc has a ton of highs) of those other half dozen discs that were not cleaned via a US unit.
I heard the a less than pristine pressing on the famous Von Schweikert Ultra 11/VAC 450 $1.4 million system. That was the closest I've ever heard an audio system sound to the recording venue. So exciting and musically interesting. I highly recommend the Urania disc.
Two other discs I purchased from different vendors also used a US machine to clean the discs and although they were quiet, they lacked high end too. Why, I don't know but I'm afraid they did something wrong.
US machines need felt lips to clean, filters to clean, changing tank fluids, etc. My VPI 16.5 doesn't even have a tank (converted from a VPI 16 unit) and easy to clean felt lips. The Monks/Loricraft has a tank to empty when it gets full and string to replace when the bobbin is empty. I just think that there's more upkeep for a US machine.
A Monks or
Loricraft would be safe choice relative to the unknown potential damage
of KLAudio and AudioDesk (and hassles to use) ...
It isn't clear what you trying to say here. While I don't have first-hand experience with the AudioDesk, I can tell you that the Klaudio is the easiest to use record cleaner of any that I've ever had, or seen in use. The user just pushes one button, and the device does the rest. That's a big part of its charm.
... he chose it over the KLAudio because the
cavitation bubbles were not directly hitting the record surface. He
thought that was the reason for shearing off high frequencies and
possibly distorting the vinyl grooves.
When I first got my Klaudio, I actually made digital recordings of a few LP excerpts both before and after cleaning, and then looked at the waveforms to ascertain if there was any damage after cleaning. If there had been, I would have returned the unit to the dealer. But there wasn't, and I haven't suspected any damage since.
Guys, I don't think that was really necessary. The multitude of approaches and opinions is what makes the progress possible. Quite surprisingly, US cleaning is still a pretty fresh subject even for scientists - I've googled out scientific publications in high impact physical journals as young as 9-10 years (!). Let alone the US use for vinyl, where in the absence of any structured research from the industry, we are left on our own with all the experimentation. So the exchange of ideas/procedures/results is absolutely crucial, no matter if we agree with them or not.
I concur on the benefits too. really transformed the quality of the records. some that were barely playable sound great. I use cleaner vinyl and clean two at a time. 36c for 15 minutes. I use distilled water with a couple of drops of Dawn liquid and a cap full of Photo Flo. drip and air dry. my watchmaker friend swears by Dawn for delicate cleaning with his ultrasonic cleaners.
Maybe I’ll just stick to using Disc Doctor cleaner on a VPI 16.5 with Mobile Fidelity brushes, rinsing twice with distilled water. A Monks or Loricraft would be safe choice relative to the unknown potential damage of KLAudio and AudioDesk (and hassles to use). I cleaned records on Monks machines 30 years ago and they came out very clean. My friend owns an AudioDesk and said he chose it over the KLAudio because the cavitation bubbles were not directly hitting the record surface. He thought that was the reason for shearing off high frequencies and possibly distorting the vinyl grooves. I tried his AudioDesk and found it didn't make a difference after cleaning using my VPI method, even in his system using a Caliburn turntable rig ($100,000s).
I would be cautious about any US machine which is not intended for a laboratory. The reason is, that lab machines must meet spec. Spec for power, spec for frequency, stability, features, etc.
It's not worth my time or trouble to deal with alternatives - YMMV.
I use running water, twice filtered down to 1 micron, mounted on a special order high speed Vinyl Stack. Then thrice filtered running water, filtered down to 0.5 microns. Then a bath in distilled water. It takes 50 or 75 records to show any hint of detergent contamination, which is when I change it (use the discarded rinse for cleaning).
This would not work, except that my tap water is almost indistinguishable from distilled.
terry9 The Kirmuss interview of his US is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKT5fvJ_otk starting at 45:25 Maybe the larger cavitation bubbles are necessary for 78s as is the lower temperature and greater distance between discs mentioned to be further apart for lower frequency agitation? I have 7,000 78s and intend to someday clean them, record them through the SimplyVinyl Sugarcube declicker machine. This would be ideal for a two-step noise reduction, US cleaning and then declicking.
BTW, those using Tergitol - what are your rinsing procedures? After my PhotoFlo disaster I'm quite obsessed with rinsing: I first use high purity water. Distribute it with a rinse brush, rotate 3x with the brush on in one direction then 3x in the other, then vacuum. As the last step, I use 3% ethanol with the same 3x + 3x rotation. Perhaps so many revolutions (6 altogether per liquid) are a waste of time?
On Kirmuss - he seems to go pretty much against all the usual US considerations. Perhaps he is right, I’m not judging. But its seems that in semiconductor industry, where they are most preoccupied with damage, they go not for 80kHz but for 800kHz to eliminate cavitation altogether and rely on acoustical streaming as the main cleaning mechanism. If I’m to buy another tank, I think I’d give 80khz a try, given that I pre-clean with vac anyway so no need for the stronger cavitation power.
4) Spacing - I use 6L 150W cleaner with 3records max but at 70% power. The central record is 37mm (the 40Khz wavelength) to both side records. Side records about 30-35mm to the tanks side. Could be more but I can see the ultrasonic action clearly in all the spaces.
Just some friendly suggestions to help out, I'm not playing any games here.
Your rotation is too fast (try a fifth of that speed), your rinsing is only one stage (try 4), and your temperature is only 33C (try 40-45C).
Also, make sure that there is enough space between the records and between the records and the sides of the tank (4 cm for 40KHz, 2 cm for 80KHz). More space is better, as it allows for records that aren't mathematically perfect planes, e.g. warped or temporarily warping in the bath. Makes sure that there is enough energy (50W per record).
@whart Interesting re the brushes. I've been using brushes (Osage for cleaning, Okki Nokki for the rinse) thinking they create more resistance, which is what I want (I like working harder through the vinyl surface). Never tried pads but will definitely do! I also scrub so motor speed is not an issue - I can create any speed my hands allow ;) I pre-clean with the same fluid I use for US: 5%IPA + 0.05% Tergitol S7
@bydlo- for what it’s worth, the Monks brushes work really well on the Monks which runs at a higher rpm than something like the VPI. I don’t know what fluid you are going to use for pre-wash, but I’ve found that the velvet pad type, e.g. Disc Doctor/MoFi, do a better job with the AIVS No. 15 (which is what I use for heavy duty pre-cleaning). It allows you to delicately ’scrub’ the record. You have to pre-wet the applicator pad, which soaks up more than a brush. The applicators from Lloyd Walker are unidirectional pile and the easiest for me to handle. I will pre-pre-clean to get the grit or surface particles off using a mild fluid and brush (.e.g, Hannl, but you could use something else), and vacuum. Then use the AIVS No 15, let it soak, agitate (light scrub) and sit, doing this while the motor on the Monks is "off. The pads create more resistance/friction than the brushes and I don’t want to screw up the motor; there is also no need to spin the disc at speed to do the scrub/agitate phases. I don’t have to worry about grinding particulates into the surface b/c of the pre-pre clean. I will add more fluid, and agitate more. Then vacuum, rinse with high grade water, then US. If I’m really compulsive, I’ll do a vac dry on the Monks rather than using the blow drier on the KL which has helped get some remaining tracing distortion out of a few records. Obviously, I don’t go to these lengths on every record. But, some need the extra work to get to a high state of play without any groove noise. And it works!
I must say I was perhaps a bit too harsh on US. Most of my experience was based on 10%IPA +0.1% PhotoFlo for 10min at 70% power, 33C, 3rmp, and then a US rinse with DI water to get rid of the crappy PhotoFlo "plastic"sound. Now I’ve cleaned about a dozen of Lp’s using 5%IPA + 0.05% Tergitol, 15min, 70%, 33C, 1rpm, and apart from the record I happened to use for tests (which turned out to be problematic), the rest does show v nicely quiet background with very much reduced amplitude of clicks n pops compared to what I’m used to. I did not take the time to listen inbetween initial vac pre-clean and the US clean, so this subjective opinion is based on the final result of my vac+US+vac cycle (which costs me an arm and a leg - I can’t do more than a dozen Lp’s per day). All in all, at this moment I can say US can be efficient but not out of the box (in the DIY version) - quite some experimentation and tuning needed.
PS I’ve found a 0.5um polyprop filter to better filter the solution....and ordered a Keith Monks record brush to perhaps improve pre-clean too. What I’m failing to find is a small (4-5W) 0.3-0.5rmp motor in EU.
Just spent an hour trying to find it, but could not. If you want to, look for the ultrasonic record cleaning thread, and start where I left off, at page 80.
I
too have bought many records which appear NM, but play poorly. Just to
note, most records look NM after a US cleaning (scratches excepted,
obviously). Nevertheless, a well used record plays that way, no matter
how it looks.
Exactly. And it's just amazing how good an LP will look after a pass through a good US cleaning system.
I've
purchased ebay records where the seller used the KLAudio. The records
are nearly mint; however, they are missing their highs
I don't think there's any correlation between the lack of highs on these LPs and the use of the Klaudio machine. I have a Klaudio and have not experienced this problem. When I first got the Klaudio, I actually went to the trouble of recording to digital both before and after samples from a few records, and then compared the waveforms. I didn't see any damage to the discs, and haven't suspected any damage since.
I too have bought many records which appear NM, but play poorly. Just to note, most records look NM after a US cleaning (scratches excepted, obviously). Nevertheless, a well used record plays that way, no matter how it looks.
My experiments, 80KHz and 45C with an Elmasonic, would appear to contradict those claims. And in my view, experiment is the ultimate arbiter.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
