@slaw
The Vibrato has a degauss feature.
Where you previously doing a manual degaussing step
prior to the Vibrato?
Thumbs up for ultrasonic record cleaning
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.
Phil
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.
Phil
373 responses Add your response
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. |
I have been following this thread with great interest, I read Terry’s recommendation for the vinyl stack a while ago, maybe on a AT cartridge thread. Purchased one and a Chinese tank and was underwhelmed with results. I’ve been thinking of revisiting the system and found this thread. I had been using low heat setting and photo flow with distilled water for 5 minutes. Tried versa clean added to the mix and 40 degree solution for 30 minutes and now I see the light! I was concerned with warping at those temps. Now listening to previously noisey discs and they are clean, thank you all!! |
@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. |
@jtimothya 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. |
Thank you for the references, which mainly point out that there is very little formal research on US cleaning, beyond the obvious and the theoretical. Let me give you another reference: the Rushton thread (2016) here on Audiogon, to which I contributed extensively. It seems that we mostly agree, but: 1) temperature. Your references suggest that low frequency US cleaning might be more effective at removing fats and oils. As I mentioned in the Rushton thread, I had thought so too until I found that it was a temperature effect. The lower frequency US did a better job of cleaning oils, while heating the chemistry more. When I controlled for temperature, the low frequency advantage disappeared. So I use 80KHz, sweep function, and 45C. 2) frequency mix - see above. By the way, I have done a fair bit of trial and error, including 2000 odd records which were inadequately rinsed! So I had to do the whole lot again, with a better regime: rinsing under running highly purified water followed by a distilled water bath. Air dry in a clean-ish room. By TDS I assume you mean total dissolved solids. I use distilled water for cleaning, so total dissolved solids is very low - for the first 2 records. Naturally that increases with each pair. That increase is roughly indicated by the colour of the chemistry, which is close enough for hobby work. For suspended solids, I allow the chemistry to settle and use the valve on the ElmaSonic to drip solid-free chemistry into a jug. I use VersaClean 2.5%. By IPA, I assume that you mean isopropyl alcohol. I don't use anything volatile and flammable, because, while it is easy to monitor and regulate vapour in a lab, it is hard in a garage. Since my Elma machine can be an ignition source, I avoid the hazard. |
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 |
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.. |
@jtimothya 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. With respect to frequency, my reasoning is as follows. Bass response is a good analogy because both are sound waves in a confined space. Low frequency energy will be present in a listening room regardless of size - the problem is that different frequencies will manifest at different points. The mechanism is constructive and destructive interference. This is a function of reflections and dimensions (spacing). If you want really good bass response down to a given frequency f, then the room should have at least one distance equal to or greater than c/2f, where c is velocity. Better is c/f, or even more. By analogy, record spacing will affect the distribution of energy on each record surface. For a uniform distribution of energy (bubbles) which washes the entire surface, at least one wavelength is required. Consider the case of the US cleaner in Imperial measure, as it is more convenient. Then c ~ 5000 ft/sec = 60,000 in/sec. At a frequency of 60KHz = 60,000Hz, a wavelength is 1 inch. At 80KHz, wavelength is 6/8 = 0.75". Of course, records are not planes; they wobble on the spindle, they are slightly warped, etc. Therefore a safety factor of 1.5 to 2 is sensible, for 1 1/8" to 1 1/2" at 80KHz. I use 2". By theory, the definition of energy is the ability to do work. The work in this case is microscopic bubbles on the surface to be cleaned. Since we know that low frequency US heats the chemistry much more than high frequency US, much low frequency energy is used to heat chemistry rather than clean. That is, the energy is expended elsewhere than on the surfaces. This is evidence that spacing matters. By experiment, try cleaning a pipette in an ultrasonic bath. If anything is caked on the inside, it will take forever to come clean. The US agitation is negligible in such a confined space. Also, I tried close spacing and had to re-clean nearly a thousand records. I got as much suspended solids off during the second cleaning as I did on the first. Your analysis of energy may well be correct. Thank you for enhancing my understanding of this by forcing me to think more about it. But in our practical case, it comes to the same thing - something is happening, so either we increase spacing (and reduce the number of records) or we reduce the number of records (and increase the spacing). In conclusion, the direct evidence is: fewer records with greater spacing removed more solids. This experiment, however, does not differentiate between two potential causes: spacing and energy/record. Both interpretations of theory come to the same thing: fewer records, widely spaced, is better. |
All, An inherent problem with using ultrasonics to clean PVC is that as a plastic, it is going to absorb ultrasonic energy http://www.zenith-ultrasonics.com/part_positioning.htm, and https://techblog.ctgclean.com/2011/11/reader-question-baskets-for-ultrasonic-cleaning/, noting that John Fuchs with Blackstone ultrasonics has been in the business of UT cleaning for over 25 years, and is a recognized expert. This is a good article addressing some of the basics written by John Fuchs, https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19950025362.pdf. If you overload the UT tank with records, you are going to significant reduce the power available to clean. Note UT came into promenance 25 years ago when the elimination of CFC solvents forced the industry to develop environmentally suitable aqueous cleaning solutions. But, this was mostly for metal cleaning. You can compensate the high plastic load with more power, that is variable, but you are talking industrial units starting at over $2K. Check the units at Blackstone and Crest Ultrasonics, these companies have been manufacturing USA made UT tanks/consoles & systems for over 25 yrs. |
@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
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. |
@jtimothya, Energy supplied to the transducers is actually very close to the energy in the tank, since thin stainless steel is essentially transparent to ultrasonic energy. If the plastic is easily deformable such as a PVC record, unlike thicker metal, then plastic will absorb energy which will be cause an increase in PVC record temperature, increase in the bath temperature from UT notwithstanding. Overloading for metals used for UT tank cleaning has been a topic of conversation and analysis for some time with fixturing and spacing applied to achieve acceptable results. But for metals (and some non-metallic) cleanliness verification has been in use for decades. For critical applications such as high pressure oxygen were surface contamination levels as low as 5 mg/ft^2 and particles as small as 50 microns (if accelerated by flow) can lead to a fire (that looks like an explosion) NASA and the Navy have very detailed cleanliness verification methods using very specific chemistries and analysis methods - you may find this report of some casual interest - https://p2infohouse.org/ref/14/13872.pdf; I wrote it. I developed the cleaning and verification procedures and I share the patents for Navy Oxygen Cleaner, the details are now formally documented MIL-STD-1330/1622; so I do have 'some' knowledge in this area. However, use of UT to clean PVC records is a relatively new application. But, in the case of PVC records that have a very defined geometry and surface area, overloading can be analyzer by number of records per tank and per watts. But, this can be complicated by UT transducer location - side of tank or bottom. If side of tank, will record(s) in the center of the stack see the same cavitation energy? The record grove is pretty well defined reported as a V-shaped groove that is 56 microns (0.0022") wide at the top, a radius of 6 microns (0.00025") at the bottom, and a nominal depth of 28 microns (0.0011"), with groove spirals are nominally 200 grooves per inch equal to a groove separation of 125 microns (0.005"). Note that since the stylus rides below the record surface, contamination on the surface of the record should have little impact unless it is deep enough to affect the surface the stylus sees, which is why some used records with very fine surface scratches (likely caused by use of multi-stack record changers) can still play perfect. The chemistry used in the UT tank can have a significant impact. The very small grooves of the record really need a cleaning agent/fluid that will reduce water surface tension to assist with wetting/getting into the groove. This is very different from smooth metal surfaces. Tergitol 15-S-9 is a gentle non-ionic surfactant and at 0.06 wt% is at its critical micelle concentration (CMC) and will reduce the surface tension of the water from 72 dynes/cm to 30 dynes/cm, and with a 13.3 hydrophilic-lipophilic balance (HLB) categorizes it as detergent. When using surfactants you target a concentration of 5-10 times the CMC to get acceptable bath life, any more and you only complicate rinsing. If you do not rinse with water (can be simple tap followed by DI water final simple spray rinse), softly adherent contamination may remain and the surfactant will bind to the PVC in an invisible transparent layer (just angstroms thick) that can affect the record sound and 'gunk' will build up on the stylus. Using any aggressive solvent based chemistry or high temperature or too much power and you risk extracting or possibly eroding some of the PVC binders in the groove noting that the groove ridges are much smaller than the groove. What you are trying to clean, has a significant impact, and for most general type cleaning such as a PVC record, a wide variety of contaminants can be present. Depending on the type of contaminant, there will be a minimum exposure time, and in precision cleaning for sensitive material such as PVC a maximum duration of 10 minutes would apply (ref MIL-STD-1330). But, the PVC itself presents a difficult material because particles may be embedded in to the surface. Temperature always helps since the PVC will expand helping to free up embedded invisible particles (as small as 1 micron and less), and simple oils will soften and flow. The human eye assisted with bright white light can see particles sized 50 microns (ref MIL-STD-1330D, I wrote it). So this is not small enough to see the smaller particles that could be in the trough - ~6microns, let alone those between the groove wall ridges. Have you ever tried Ultraviolet (Black) Light to inspect for particles and fingerprints? Blacklight can detect contamination at about 25 mg/ft^2 and particles as small as ~30microns? Animal/vegetable fats will fluoresce. Mineral based oils/greases generally will not fluoresce. But, like you say, there are currently are no cleanliness verification methods for PVC records other than play and listen. So, you are still in the experimentation phase. Otherwise, I do not use a UT tank for record cleaning. I developed my own manual cleaning procedure (that steps off from what the Library of Congress uses) using the VinylStack record protector that I can clean/dry 6 records in about 45 minutes which is good enough for me; and I am fine with the results. I am using a multi-step process of pre-rinse with flowing tap-water, clean/scrub with Tergitol 15-S-9, post-rinse/scrub with flowing tap-water, final rinse with DI water spray, then two step dry - medium-pile lint-free microfiber and final dry with anti-static cloth - after which it only takes another few minutes to completely dry. I developed a fully detailed procedure just for an exercise formatted similar to a Military Standard-Tech Manual. Hoped the above expands upon the knowledge base, and Good Luck. R/Neil |
@antinn Thanks for your expert contribution. @jtimothya What I do to gauge results is clean 50 records to the lower standard, allow chemistry to settle overnight, drain drop by drop, and note (e.g. photograph) the solids deposited on the bottom of the tank. Then I change chemistry, retaining a sample of the old, and clean the same 50 records according to the higher standard. After letting the chemistry settle overnight and draining drop by drop, I compare the solids deposited on the bottom of the tank to the photo, and compare a sample of the newest chemistry to the old. The comparison is therefore of the lower standard to the increment of lower standard plus higher standard, which is approximately (in my experience) the higher standard. Not precise, granted, but good enough for hobby work. Although I welcome R/Neil’s comment and correction. |
@terry9: This is going to be a long thread, but the devil is in details. The fundamental challenge with cleaning records, is that we are trying to achieve a cleanliness level better than what we can see. Right now, the record UT vendors are using post cleaning microscopic inspection to determine the process parameters. For critical application precision cleaning cleanliness is defined by two parameters - non-volatile residue (NVR) which relates to oils/grease and the like, and particles. For cleanliness levels that are below visible, very high purity fluids are used to flush for final clean/verification of the surface to determine residual NVR that an be determined by a number of different methods sensitive down to about 1 mg/ft^2, and for particulate cleanliness. A particle count is used and measurements to 1 micron are common. Unfortunately, none of this is practical ($$$$$) for a record. Additionally, the groove design and that fact that the stylus does contact the entire groove surface makes it difficult to determine what is the minimum cleanliness level required, some particulate may be inconsequential depending where it is. But, your process of reviewing post cleaning effluent is often used. You establish minimum process requirements such as chemistry, equipment, temperature and time and then observe the effluent at the end to determine if the process has removed all the contaminants it can. Although the eye cannot see individual particles much less than 50 microns, in clear water, very small particulate can often be detected as a bloom/turbidity - very small particles act as colloidal suspensions and can conglomerate into larger particles that can then be detected. When you try to make the process cost effective, a whole other level of challenge arises. If you are going to push the bath chemistry, it has to be the right chemistry that will suspend the contaminants to prevent redisposition with enough concentration to get repeatable cleaning performance - the last records in the bath are cleaned as well as the first, and the first records are rinsed or cleaner just as well as the last. In another post on UT tank cleaning, I wrote something similar to the following, that I have slightly modified by adding a cleanliness verification step: If you are using UT to clean a lot of record, consider using a demineralizer, and this is the best value I have found, https://dirinse.com/product/d-i-rinse-pro-50-unit/. If your tap water is of reasonable quality, it can produce about 2000 gallons of demineralizer water at a cost of $0.20/gallon, and it can be refilled ($200 for 2 refills), and the valve arrangement can make a very coinvent install. If you have a source of readily available cheap DI water, then you don't need to worry about bath life or filters/pumps etc to extend the bath life. And, you could easily add an effective rinse/cleanliness verification step as follow: Step 1. Clean records in UT tank with aqueous chemistry. You do not need to use a lot of cleaner since you will only be using one tank-bath for each batch of record. This way you can baseline that every record batch will be exposed to the exact same chemistry. Step 2. Drain UT tank to household waste drain. While draining use just warm tap-water to flush over records for first rinse. This will remove most cleaner residue and loosen contamination. Step 3. Refill UT tank with only DI water and using ultrasonic, perform rinse/final clean to remove mostly any remaining very fine particulate. Hopefully the chemistry in Step 1 removes all surface oils and greases that may trap/cover fine particulate, so that only DI water is required to do the final polish. If you want to do a cleanliness verification - at the conclusion of Step 3, obtain about a 100 mL sample of the UT DI water in a clean clear container. Cap, shake and verify no stable bubbles - this will verify the cleaner has been removed. To check for particulate, place a piece of white paper behind the container and inspect for visible particulate or turbidity. You should not see any visible particulate and unless very turbid (and this will take some experience), at this point the process has done all it can do. If the sample is very turbid, reclean. Note - if you are constantly having to reclean, then Step 1 needs to be adjusted - it may be the chemistry, the chemistry concentration, the bath temperature, exposure time, record loading, or the tank Hz and watts. But an occasional (not frequent) reclean is generally indicative of a pretty efficient process. If you never have to reclean, chances are you doing more than 'required', but that is not necessarily bad. Step 4. Remove records to dry.; or if cleaning records again proceed to Step 5. Step 5. If cleaning another batch of records, or cleaning the same records again, just add cleaner to the existing DI bath and begin at Step 1. This reduces the amount of DI water used. Quick analysis with a 1.5 gal UT tank volume. The demineralizer should provide enough for 1333 tanks, and assuming you are cleaning 3 records/batch, that is 4000 records. The initial cost is $0.30/tank for DI water, and for the Tergitol 15-S-9 at 6 ml/tank, is ~$0.28/tank for at total of $0.58/tank or about $0.20/record. After the first 1333 records, the DI water cost drops to $0.07/tank, so the total per tank cost drops to $0.35/tank, and the per record cost drops to ~$0.12/record based on the assumptions of this analysis. Clean 6 records per batch, and the per record cost adjusts proportionally, down to as low as ~0.06/record. This is just a quick analysis. Like I said, you are still in the experimentation phase. Good Luck R/Neil |
@antinn Hello R/Neil. Thank you for the long response. Much appreciated. My filtration system gets me down to 30ppm of dissolved solids. I use that for rinsing before the distilled bath. Two questions: 1) Is 30ppm low enough to use for cleaning? (have been using distilled) 2) Is 30ppm low enough for polish? Thanks!! |
@terry9 First the R/ = shorthand for Respectfully, and I noted an error in post - meant to "... the stylus does contact..." In precision cleaning, the industry standard for water is ASTM-D1193. Once we get past tap-water, ASTM-D1193 has essentially 3 classes of water, Purified (Type 4), Pure (Type 2) and Ultra-Pure (Type 1) and theses are generally specified by resistivity - ohms (or its inverse - conductivity). You can get on the web and find TDS to resistivity conversion charts, but 30 ppm TDS is equal to about 20K-ohms. Definitely way better than 200-ppm tap-water, but this is how it compares: -Purified Water (single step distilled, demineralized, RO) = >200K-ohms -Pure Water (two step distilled & demineralized) = >1,000K-ohms (1M-ohm) -Ultra-Pure Water (generally about 3-steps) = >18,000K-ohms (18M-ohms) 30 ppm water that is about 20K-ohm is fine for cleaning, but is a bit short for the final polish. The purer the water, the more aggressive it becomes believe it or not, and of course the less residue. Ultra-Pure water is used to clean semi-conductor chips, but it can takes weeks for the applicable system to clean themselves to the point that they are clean (i.e. system commissioned), and has no application here. Even Pure Water is a stretch, but Purified Water for the final touch/polish should be the goal. That being said, in the past (now retired) I have approved Navy cleaning procedures where the final polish was only 50K-ohm, and it was acceptable, but the particulate cleanliness was not critical, anything less than visual was not a problem. But very small particulate and salts/mineral residue is an issue here, so, my recommendation for the final polish would be Purified Water (distilled or demineralized) to get the best results. R/Neil |
@antinn So good to have a technical conversation free of snake-oil. Thanks! I was wondering about your step 1: a fresh, low concentration bath for each cleaning session. I use 80KHz near the maximum temperature for vinyl (45C), at a 2.5% solution of VersaClean, and, IIRC, a hint of oil can remain after 15 minutes, or even 30 minutes, even for the first pair in the series. This leads me to question a low concentration of surfactant. But it could just possibly be bad memory. Your views? |
@terry9 The Fisherbrand™ Versa-Clean™, is a broad-base cleaner, with a combination of surfactants and corrosion inhibitors and some alkalinity, and the recommended concentration for use is not less than 60:1, but as much 10:1. The product details are pretty limited, and although it says concentrated, it is actually a diluted form of very concentrated surfactants. There is no way to know if a 2.5% solution will achieve the lowest surface tension. So, 2.5% (40:1) may not be enough, but its not cheap. And what is IIRC? When you say a hint of oil are you talking about oil as the original contaminant on the record. The Tergitol 15-S-9 that I use for a cleaning solution is very similar to what the US Library of Congress uses to clean delicate shellac records, and is a non-ionic water soluble surfactant. It is a replacement for Triton X100 that you may often see discussed in these forums, and has the same performance, but at 1/3 the concentration and is not an evironmental hazard. Tregitol 15-S-9 is very concentrated and is quite cheap, a Qt is $38.70 and at about 4ml/gal https://www.talasonline.com/Tergitol-15-S-3-and-15-S-9, would make about 250 gallons of cleaning solution. A similar product to the Fisher Versa-Clean is Liquinox, https://alconox.com/liquinox but it is likely more concentrated since it only requires 100:1, and at that concentration it will achieve a low surface tension of 29, but it is anionic and will foam. R/Neil |
@antinn Not cheap - how true! But the specs looked good, formulated for plastics, and it was recommended by Fisher, so ... In any case, a better bet than Audio Snake Oil Formula 6 at $99/l. Too bad I didn't know an expert to ask before now. IIRC - If I Remember Correctly - which I may not 'hint of oil' - as in a fingerprint I was going to try soaking in 100% VersaClean for a few minutes and then trying US, but haven't got around to it. |
@terry9 The Alconox Liquinox cleaner has been around for many years, and is very well doucumented. The company Alconox has a lot of data available, most of the ingredients are specified, and Liquinox is available Amazon www.amazon.com/Alconox-Liquinox-Critical-Cleaning-Detergent/dp/B003FZAQKG?th=1, $21/Qt, $67/Gal, which at 1:100 dilution makes it pretty cheap. Read the application notes here https://alconox.com/resources/standarddocuments/tb/techbull_liquinox.pdf Post rinse with these products is absolutely necessary to prevent leaving cleaning residue behind, and Liquinox recommends flowing water for rinse, and states "For critical cleaning do final or all rinsing in distilled, deionized or purified water." Note that these products (Liquinox) are not that much different from household dish detergent such as Dawn, designed to mix with tap-water, except they are fragrance-free, and the ingredient concentration is formulated more for the industrial and medical sector. My use of Tergitol 15-S-9 mixes it with DI water and uses a soft nylon record brush whose bristles do not penetrate deeply into the groove, and nylon softens when exposed to water so very limited risk of record harm. But a brushing action develops a lot of agitation, so I can get away with just a single Non-Ionic Surfactant. For ultrasonics - you have the cavitation, and this is excellent for blind holes and inaccessible surfaces, but use for records that have no inaccessible surfaces is really about efficency, except for deeply embedded partcles that may be removable with heated ultrasonics. Good Luck, R/Neil |
| Post removed |
@JTimothyA and Antinn Both of you have affirmed that there is no standard for measuring what is clean.I would like to draw your attention to my thread in this forum, entitled "The Groove Probe, for optimizing and evaluating record cleaning systems". There is a summary of it in the post in the first reply. While it doesn't rise to the level of a standard for evaluation, I believe it does offer a way to quantify cleaning results. I certainly would appreciate comments, either here or there. https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/the-groove-probe-for-optimizing-and-evaluating-record-cleaning-systemshttp:// |
@rexc, I can't argue on the value of measuring the after clean audio file. However, the intent of my comment was to address pre/after cleaning inspection at the time of cleaning. However, I am now using a 365nm UV blacklight Alonefire SV003 10W 365nm UV Flashlight Portable Rechargeable Blacklight Flashlight with good results. UV blacklight can detect particulate not otherwise visible, see VPI forum, General Audio, for some photos. Neil |
@rexc, Let me also expand the problem. Verifying absence of particles from the groove that can cause ticks and pops is only part of the problem. The other problem is how clean are the groove wall ridges. If these ridges that at 20 kHz can be spaced at 15 to 10 microns are filled with oil/grease/debris then while there may be no pop or tick, there will be loss of high frequency detail/resolution that maybe noted as distortion or just reduced signal as the stylus fails to fully read the record. In this case, the audio file unless it is compared to the perfect file, may not detect this type of contamination. Neil |
@antinn, What I showed was only an example. Use of the Groove Probe is limited only by your imagination. It offers you a complete, quantitative record of the groove, including high-frequency information. You can analyze the data any way you want. Before and after cleaning would be a great way to use it. I have used it to diagnose tracking problems in monaural records. I was able to watch and trace every little spot where the needle lost contact. Monaural records are a great way to detect minute problems that you might not otherwise find. Hgh-frequency noise is a also a suitable subject for analysis. Analysis of quiet sections might be especially revealing. For example, the lead-out groove is usually not supposed to have any signal recorded on it, so any noise you detect there is either surface noise or noise in your system. The lead-in bands (or whatever they’re called) also often have some signal-free regions. What kinds of things might you analyze? You might look at the amplitude and frequency distribution before and after cleaning. If you really want to kill some time, you could look at the time structure of the noise before and after cleaning. Does it look like embedded particles or something else? Micro-clicks? Or maybe defects in the plastic? Of course, there’s probably a floor of noise that we’ll never eliminate -- even the freshly cut master had some surface roughness. And here’s a question that some people might want answered: Did US make the problem worse by damaging the plastic? Good idea about the UV light. I have a 395 nm light and a 365 nm light. The 365 nm light is especially good at revealing practically EVERYTHING. I’ll try it next time I digitize an LP. |
I bow down to the scientists here..... Here's my update: What I've found with the carbon filter is that it works well, I don't notice yellowing anymore...( the Versa-Clean has a dark piss color to it). After 5 weeks from a water change, the water is getting cloudy. So, I wonder if the carbon filter is removing more than the yellow color? Hmmmm? Records still sound great! The Vibrato is working well. After my experience with the Audiodesk (4 years). the Chinese tank (two years), now the Vibrato.....it's lack of noise has you wondering at first if it's really cleaning. (Remember, I'm going from two different 40 khz machines to an 80 khz machine here). The answer is yes! |
