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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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:
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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."
If not filtered out after each cycle, visible particles definitely settle to the bottom of a US tank, aggregating into long chains of grey fluff. Some remain at the bottom, and some agitate into the middle and upper reaches of the tank during use, settling to the bottom thereafter. IME, if using a standard open-bath US tank that is periodically filtered, it’s best to draw those heavier aggregated particles off at the bottom. However, as the Degritter filters during the cavitation cycle, the opposite direction of flow may make sense. At that point the unaggregated particles are small, widely distributed throughout the tank, and will likely follow whatever flow of current is presented.
I didn't read the entire website, but it would be good to know how fine the filter is. Mine catches 1um particles. At some point I'll probably shift to a .5um filter.
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.)
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 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.
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.
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
@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.
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.
@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!
The VERY interesting Degritter brand Ultrasonic cleaner is scheduled to become available in January 2019, at what retail price I don’t know (last I heard, a little over $2,000). It operates at 120kHz, for reasons explained on the company’s website.
Whart is correct; the higher the frequency, the smaller the size of the bubbles, and the less powerful (put another way, the more gentle).
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
