Thumbs up for ultrasonic record cleaning

I've been experimenting a fair amount over the past week.  At first, I was running the tank around 40-43 degrees Celsius, for 3 turns @ 7 mins/turn.  So 21 minutes total.  After reading more on the VPI forums, I decided to try Harry's recommendation of no heat (other than cavitation generated)  and increasing the rotation speed.  So I have been doing 10 minutes without heat @ 4.5 mins/rotation.  Really, there's not much perceivable difference.  It's a bit of apples to oranges or I'd say there is no difference.  Although some records are going to need another bath because they still have a fair amount of pops and ticks.  But this was even the case at 21 minutes.  They are probably just beyond cleaning.  What I don't agree with on the other forum thread is the loss of highs.  Even at high heat for 21 minutes, I immediately noticed the opposite - increased upper treble extension.  So maybe my gear isn't quite good enough to notice a loss in highs or maybe it's simply not happening (I suspect the latter).  I think I've cleaned about 80 records so far.  Still a loooong way to go.

@phil0618 ,

I already had a thermometer on hand and checked mine over the weekend. My tank temp was 1 degree C over it’s setting. I’m running 45 degrees C which may be on the high side of comfortable for some but I have had no problems.

When I change out water, I’ll heat it up first in a big pot to put less stress on my tank’s heater. Of coarse this only works for that initial newly clean water but every little bit helps I guess.

@terry9 @slaw
A bit more tinkering.

My US tank seemed suspect / deficient in a couple of ways so I tried a couple of things to address the problems.

The issues with the tank were;
It took forever to warm up and and
the temp gauge never read above 38c.
Based on commentary from Terry9 and others it seemed the target could/should be around 40c.

So, I did two things.
First, I bought a cute little thermometer from Risepro with a probe that goes in the tank while the gauge sticks to the outside of the tank via suction cup. All of $7 including shipping and it validated that the temp gauge on the US tank was wrong. The temp gauge on the tank was reading low by as much as 5c. So, while I might have seen a reading on the tank of 30c I was probably closer to 25-27c. The net is I think a thermometer is a worthwhile investment.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01EYSGV9M/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o03_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Second, I bought a submersible aquarium heater to augment the heater in the tank. This was an attempt to both heat the water faster and sustain a higher temperature. While I think having some auxiliary heat source is useful, I don’t think aquarium heaters are the answer. Most of these max out around 93F, so at best it would help sustain about 34c, which is where I seem to be getting to. It’s an interesting idea as many of these are narrow enough to fit in the tank with the albums and fully submersible, but since they all seem to top out around 93F it’s not a true solution. Also, while it provides some assistance in warming the tank quicker it is not a real solution. My unit is only 50 watts, so selecting a unit with higher wattage would help, but there is only so much room in the tank so getting a unit that is physically larger poses challenges. The net, still searching for a solution to my heating issue.

BTW, this is the tank I'm using
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01M0328QT/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o01_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 

The pump is useful and I’m using it between cleanings and it is definitely able to filter out the particulate, but the water still seems to get a bit murky over time so still learning about this.

Lastly, I’ve simplified my solution. I’m just using 3 ounces of Versaclean - see @terry9 discussion earlier in the thread - and an ounce of photoflow with the remainder of the solution being distilled water. And then I finish off the effort on the Record Doctor.

@psag- I have a Monks too (an Omni). If I had to choose one machine, that would be it. But the synergy of cleaning on the Monks and ultrasonic- in both directions-- brings more to the table. Try it. 

Thank you so much, Terry, I will certainly have a deeper look into this.

I use Keith Monks vacuum machine. Built like a tank. Quick, easy, safe, no mess, no setup, minimal maintenance, and records sound great. Game over.

Worried? What, me worried? Arrggghhhhhh .....

slaw, no need to apologize.  I thought my little teasing would be obvious to everyone but apparently it was not.

Anyway, not to detract from a serious subject (yes, I'd like to optimize the performance of my records too) but I can't resist a bit of fun from time to time.

I use to tinker. I made my own cables, rack, RCM and I was considering to build my own TT and cartridge set. I was even considering making my own music and pressing my own vinyl. Then I woke up! I went down stairs. It was just a bad dream. 🖖✌️

@phil0618 ,

Yeah, my little pump really has great output.

I’m still "tinkering" as well. What I’m doing now is cycling on the pump between each cleaning for around 1 & 1/2 minutes. When I figure the best way to secure the return hose in a logic/functional way so it will stay in a corner of the tank, I may try to run the pump while cleaning for a couple of minutes. Just a thought, I don’t know if would help or not.
BTW, at this point during my weekend cleaning, before the filtering system, I would have noticed the water becoming cloudy and the cleaned lps having some dust particles on them when removed. So far, this isn't happening at this stage of the weekend.

Still having fun.

@pryso @terry9, (Apologies for my interjection). My passion overrides good sense at times. Terry9, I realize this is the second time I've made an apology to you...you must be worried. haha!

@slaw @terry9  
I also just put a pump together.  Very similar to Slaw. 

I used a slightly stronger motor from the same company - A108, 5 Amp, 1.2 gpm.  But honestly, I think it's overkill.  That pump moves a lot of water, so I wouldn't obsess about the power of the pump motor.  A motor moving half the fluid seems like it would be plenty.  

Nothing elegant about my solution, just a 1 micron filter, pump, and power supply.  No housing.

I think Slaw's idea of using a plug to be able to connect and disconnect the power supply from the pump does seem convenient.  Having a quick connect from the tank to the pump might also be convenient.

More to tinker with, but the net is this setup seems to clean the fluid very quickly.

@pryso @slaw 

Damned if I don't feel like Samson ...

Well I am 12 records in and completely sold on US cleaning.  I did some old records and some new.  One was even sealed since 1988.  I played that one first and although 80s vinyl quality are infamously crappy, this pressing was fantastic.  Especially for 80s Thrash Metal.  But what sold me most was cleaning my early US-pressed Led Zep III.  It went from a VG to arguably a NM record.  And for this record, there are a lot of acoustic parts, so it was quite annoying with all the pops and ticks.  Now, it's fantastic.  I did a PF Animals early German pressing with similar results.  A '73 UK pressing of PF's Darkside of the Moon, same result.  Plays fantastic now.  The only disappointment was my RL Led Zep II pressing.  The thing is just mangled with scratches though :(  But it definitely sounds better than it did before.  I'm going to do another batch this afternoon.  This is fun!

@pryso ,

I think I really got the gist of your post. Your recognition of what I initially thought I perceived is refreshing to me.

So I stand by my my initial reaction.

"Obviously that was not his intent, but that's the way I read it".

Which is it?

I perceived it in the most remarkably unremarkable way.

IE: I think we're OK!

Sorry slaw, you missed my apparently bad attempt at humor.  My question was how terry could evaluate a record if it was still sealed?  Obviously that was not his intent, but that's the way it read.

On subject, I still utilize a VPI machine, although I intended to set up a US cleaner.  I will say that I too have sometimes noted LPs which appear quite beat up but play cleanly, while I also have some which look "pristine" but do have pops or crackles.  I'm hoping the US will eliminate those.

@pryso ,

I can easily answer this for him..

In the context of the previous discussion, there was a reason to post one extreme from another. In the case that @terry9 sited, ...it was just a reminder that even if one buys a sealed lp, there’s no guarantee it will be in Mint condition.The chain lengthens........

alf, doing a cost comparison between a US system VS replacing your bad records assumes you will then stop buying LPs.  In addition to all the reasons posted here, it sounds like you may continue shopping for records in bargain bins, so a US will soon put you ahead cost wise.

terry9, how could you judge the sonics of a record if it was sealed? ;^)  (Just pulling your chain, I expect you meant previously sealed.)

In case anyone is interested...here is a list of the parts I ended up with for my filtering system:

(1) Bayliite model BYT-7A102 RV water pump from Amazon, rated at 12V, 3A,1GMP
(2) Hotor DC converter, Input 100-240V/50-60Hz, Output 12V DC +/- 1V, Max Amp 10A. ( From what I’ve read, I went with this higher rated output model because from other users’ experience across the board, sometimes these products are mislabeled at a higher output than the actual output). (Amazon)
(3) Roadpro 12V plug, (Amazon) This was not necessary but I thought a conveinience that has since proven to me to be just that. It’s just a simple plug adapter like one would use in their auto to run a 12 V device. One caveat...it comes with a 2Amp fuse, this isn’t enough, I bought a 10Amp fuse. Careful though, as it has to be 6mm x 30mm or it will not work. The benefit is, I use it to disconnect/connect power while I’m cleaning without stressing the two wire connectors. This may be just something I find useful.
(4) The Baylite pump has 3/8" NPT barbs, So in spite of the fact I bought the filter housing with 1/4" barbs, I bought 1/4" to 3/8" adapters (brass) for my fittings.
Then of coarse you use teflon tape on all of your fittings. This all matches the input/output of the pump and makes life easier in that one has to buy just one size of hose.

Enjoy!

Welcome aboard @james1969 !

A little late to the party, but here I am.  My DIY kit came from Amazon today.  I'm a believer.

I agree with Terry, Whart and Slaw

I’ve been pretty amazed at the difference in cleaning using the US approach. All of my records would have been cleaned at one time or another with a Nitty Gritty vacuum record cleaner and until the popularity of US cleaning vacuum cleaning was probably regarded as state of the art.

But there is no question that using a US method I’m getting my records cleaner and they sound better. If you do a broad web search on ultrasonic record cleaning you’ll get a lot of hits from people who feel the same.

As stated previously, my system is good, but not SOTA and there is no doubt that I’m hearing improvements. And as also stated, US can’t fix a record, but it can certainly get it clean and improve the sound quality.

I’m evolving my cleaning efforts based on feedback in this thread and I think the results continue to improve.

I’m a big fan of US cleaning and it also makes sense to me that the combination of US cleaning along with vacuum cleaning is also a winner, and so I vacuum after I clean, but I have no empirical data to back the claim that it is an improvement. But minimally the vacuuming also dries the records much quicker which I like quite a bit.

I'll be making some additional mods to my cleaning efforts over the next week or two and will add more info then.

Good luck

@Alf- That link you provided is almost a horror show of what not to do in my estimation. Using dish soap- sure it will work, getting it off is another matter- I suppose hot water will work but it isn't necessary to use some detergent with a lot of other chemicals perfumes, etc to clean an LP--
getting the labels wet- yeah, that's not good-
using tap water as a rinse- full of minerals.
My experience buying a lot of used records is that ultrasonic isn't a complete answer but complementary to more basic cleaning. Some I know pre-clean without a record cleaning machine and then pop in the ultrasonic. 
I like the AIVS No. 15 cleaner for deeper cleaning- using it with a pad type applicator, like the Disc Doctor or MoFi makes for a very effective cleaning step. You must rinse this stuff off- I would use distilled water, perhaps a couple steps if doing it manually - with clean cloths. Then into a home brew ultrasonic. 
Some users may go straight into the ultrasonic for kludged up records- but my experience was the best results came from a combination of methods, which you could do on a budget. 
I'm pretty agnostic when it comes to brands- whatever works most effectively, with minimal harm caused to the records. 

@alf77,

It would be hard to expand on @terry9 eloquent post except that to ask how committed you are to vinyl and if you’re in it for the long haul. If your answer is, I am & yes, the US cleaning method is a no-brainer.


I’ve been exploring my new filtering system today. Everything runs great, no leaks. It is an extremely nice, effective addition to the process. I’ve been focusing on 3 lps I’ve previously cleaned several times for my initial evaluation.

I’ll just mention two now.....Robyn Ludwick "Out of These Blues". This one has been previously cleaned by 3 different methods. I am a huge proponent of pre-steaming for years and always did it prior to using my AD US cleaner.
I just put it through my US cleaner earlier this week w/o the filtering system and plain distilled water. I just listened again with the filtering system and distilled water with the AD cleaner additive.



(Lyle Lovett "Pontiac"...same history of past/previous cleaning. I’ve listened to these two lps twice this week. Immediately upon putting it on today, I noticed a more spacious sense of a bigger studio, much more involving, more lifelike. This was always an excellent recording in terms of SQ.)


This is for the RL lp...Upon listening, I immediately noticed more inner detail, a more relaxed presentation along with a quieter surface noise. This lp had what I previously thought was inherent, unremoveable surface noise. It just became noticeably quieter. While this isn’t a reference recording, (I’d give it around an 8 for sonics) it is much more enjoyable now.

Looking forward at some point to following the previously mentioned DIY fluids and more pure water.

Have fun!

I think that an examination of this thread will show you a better way. IMO, US is the best way.

I have a record of 60's folk music that looks terrible, grade about 'Good', but that plays NM. That said, I also have a sealed Chopin which is unlistenable, and no US treatment, 40KHz or 80KHz, improves it. US or not? I would say, definitely. But don't expect miracles, and be sure that the machine will meet its specifications: frequency and power.

All this is really interesting, thanks so much.
Now, this is a budget question:
I buy new and used records, very often I get them from the thrift store or the bargain bin as I am really open about my compulsive money spending habits. Records from the latter source are usually somewhere between bad and really bad shape. I pass all my records through the Spin Clean machine, which makes a great job for most of the records but some of them seem to be really irrecuperable as they will keep on making really much crackling noise even when they show no visible signs of damage (there's the other way around as well, some records look damaged but they still manage to provide an acceptable sound quality). I ultimately tried the method from this guy:

http://www.instructables.com/id/Cleaning-Vinyl-Records/

... To very little improvement to be honest.

Now my budget question is: should I give a go to the ultrasonic cleaner? Or would I be better off upgrading my records that are too damaged, considering that I would probably end up spending approximately the same amount of money? And again, I am not looking for sound perfection but I am feeling somehow Samaritan and want to save these records and am looking for a bearable listening experience.

Your opinion is highly appreciated!

Have a great day.

Alf

@terry9 
Thanks Terry, that's not something I would have thought about.  As I said, I'm having a hard time getting my tank above 35c so I don't think it's much of an issue now, but if I get a different tank at some point in the future it could be.

Phil, I should have mentioned that when you clean hotter, you should cool the records as uniformly as possible. That's easy by spinning in a distilled water bath.

Thanks Terry.
@terry9 

I've already started to make slight mods...

Backed off the chemicals - basically cut everything in half.
Ordered Versaclean
Only cleaning 4 records at a time instead of 6
Not sure if my machine will be able to get temp up to 45C with the lid off, but I will give it a go.

I also took a closer look at the water / solution and I can see from certain angles that there is more going on than I imagine.  There are things suspended in the water - not just the particulate that I see at the bottom of the tank.  I think this means either more frequent cleanings of the water or that I should get a pump.

Not sure that I want to take on the heroic rinsing right now, but perhaps going forward I will spot clean/rinse some of my favorites as an experiment.

And thanks for the tip regarding VersaClean on my stemware.

Cheers,
Phil

Pleasure to help, Phil. We're all in this together!

I use VersaClean at 40:1 for clean records, the minimum recommended. For garage sale records, 20:1. A gallon goes a loooong way! (guilty secret here - also works brilliantly for good wine glasses)

I cleaned about 2000 records at insufficient heat, spacing, and rinsing. Then I upgraded methodology to 45C, 1.75", and heroic rinsing, changed the chemistry and re-cleaned 30 records as an experiment. I found almost as much debris at the bottom of the US tank as the first time (which was US cleaning of previously VPI cleaned records). I observed no discoloration the second time. Listening tests confirmed the improvement. Machine was an Elmasonic running at 80KHz.

Good stuff.  I appreciate all the feedback / guidance.  And hopefully others will too.

I agree that my methods are compromised in an effort to move more quickly through my collection.

The alcohol to distilled water should be about 50 to 1. Roughly 150 ounces of water (a gallon and then some) vs 3 ounces of alcohol.

Based on the above I will tone down my use of alcohol and I will likely look into Versaclean as an alternative to soap products.  I may also look into getting a pump/filter - it can only help.

About how much Versaclean should I add to my 150 oz mixture?

Also, I think I need to buy a thermometer to get an alternate reading on fluid temperature.

With respect to filling the tank only two thirds full to optimize performance  I don't think I have a solution to that as I need the water level to cover the entire surface of the record. 

I did go back and clean a couple of previously cleaned records putting just two on a spindle to see if I'd notice a difference.  Did this a couple of times and I couldn't see any noticeable particulate in the tank, but I think this is a suspect test as I imagine much of what gets removed is hard to see with the naked eye.

In any event, it's clear that my solution and approach is less than optimal, but it does seem to be a big step forward so I think I will make the changes to alcohol and look into Versaclean and a pump/filter and continue to forge ahead.

Thanks again for all the input.

@whart 

You are too modest, whart.

As far as alcohols are concerned, the issue is 'flash point', the temperature at which a vapour ignites. Since the US machine operates on electricity, there is always the chance of a spark, hence a constant hazard. That can easily be managed in an industrial environment, in a laundry room, not so much.

The issues vary from mathematical to the idiosyncrasies of the equipment. Calculations are a little opaque because of our antique measuring system. For example, ounce and fluid ounce are quite different. Concentrations can be measured by mass or by volume; chemists are very careful about this, they even have their own vocabulary. 

Remember too that US cleaners work best when filled to 2/3 full. That means a 6 litre tank contains 4 litres of fluid. Temperature can vary quite dramatically in the fluid column, so the position as well as accuracy of the sensor matter. Then too, the machine might be left on longer than intended, causing an unexpected rise in temperature. These are all sources of potential error, and hazard.

Botom line: I would only use an alcohol if I had a good reason to do so. IMO, records do not demand it.

About soap - don't use it. It can form a soap scum, especially in hard water. Detergent does not. I use a lab grade detergent, VersaClean, from Fisher Scientific. First, it doesn't have crap like perfume mixed in.  Second, it is said to be formulated for plastics. Third, it is recommended for US, based on their experiments, so I don't have to experiment.

Fourth, it is sold by a lab supply company - their stuff has to work as specified, or there is hell to pay, because zillion dollar facilities rely on it. And zillion dollar facilities have the expertise to analyze their supplies and reagents. And they punch above their weight. So I align my interests with theirs.

About rinsing - I do. First is highly purified running water, second is a distilled bath.

Just my opinions. YMMV

I cannot answer all of your questions, in part because I am not mixing any solution for my ultrasonic for the reason stated above (I use a KL machine right now).
One issue I see as a potential hazard is the flash point of isopropyl even diluted, given the vapor. I believe that the chemistry suggests it should be below 3% of overall volume for the temperature you are achieving (Note, i am not a chemist so this should be checked). Is 3 ounces of alcohol in 6 liters really a 50/1 ratio? My maths suggested it was about 5% but there is a reason I didn’t major in math- somebody check me here.

Alcohol will work as a solvent, I’m not sure how effective it is as as surfactant (to break surface tension of the water, which is the goal). I believe one of its long time values in record cleaning generally is that it evaporates quickly. For effective formulae, you should read Rushton Paul’s article if you haven’t; there are others, including a formula Tima (Tim Ackerman adopted) that is posted on my blog; others, including @terry9 (who does have a scientific background) can offer more on the chemistry they have found effective and also weigh in on whether I’m being a nervous nelly about the amount of alcohol being used.
In general record cleaning- whether ultrasonic or conventional- the main points are effectiveness of the solution/method and the ability to remove the solution from the record, once done. I do know old school record cleaning folks that used Photoflo and no rinse. My impression is that it leaves a residue as do most of these chemicals and cleaners. That’s why I employ a rinse step. (Even though I’m not using chemistry in my ultrasonic, if I have a record that I’m especially concerned with, I will, once removed from the ultrasonic bath, do a rinse step using reagent grade water and point nozzle vacuum system (Monks or Loricraft- which doesn’t have the same issues as wand or velvet ’lips’ type RCMs)).

You said you just want "good enough" and don’t want to go all white lab coat-- there are some who say vacuuming after ultrasonic defeats the whole purpose of US cleaning given the potential for contamination and static caused by some conventional RCMs. You have to make a choice here- by experimenting with the chemistry- Tima does not do a rinse step using his brew (which I think is an adaptation of the London Jazz Collector mixture meant for conventional cleaning); others, like @@terry9, @slaw might be able to tell you what their experience is. But I think first stop is Rush Paul’s article if you haven’t read it.
Number of records per load- this has also been calculated- is in the original diyaudio thread and has been verified independently by other’s empirical experience-- I can give you links to some of this if you can’t find it but for a smallish bath it’s more like 2 records at a time with space in between.
There is good proof that a filter goes a long way- again, not to rely on what I publish but Tima did a follow up on his results using a filter-- pretty much the same one outlined in the diyaudio one that Rush adapted- and there was a lot of crap picked up by the filter. See [url]http://thevinylpress.com/record-cleaning-timas-diy-ultrasonic-rcm-followup-1/[/url] How long can you go before changing the water without a filter? I don’t know. Part of it depends on how much crap there is on the records to begin with I guess. (I pre-clean, so less of an issue).

I had no idea this post would generate so much traffic, I was merely intending to endorse the notion of US cleaning (and btw I have no affiliation with Cleaner Vinyl or any other US or record cleaning company).

As there is more interest and lots of questions - many of whom have been answered by people far smarter than - I will simply tell you how I’m using it and some observations.

Before I get there, please note, I’m in the "good enough" / "incremental improvement" camp and not the seeker of total audio perfection. So I’m more interested in moving quickly through my record collection than cleaning one or two records at a time to perfection. So some of what you see here may be far from optimal, maybe even heretical to some of you.

Lastly, I know there are bonafide chemists who contribute to this subject and much has been written on the subject of which products and mixtures should be used, I just made my own home brew from info I read and haven’t looked back. If my vinyl dissolves into an unplayable oily heap I will regret my cavalier approach, but right now I’m a pretty happy camper.

I'm using the Cleaner Vinyl Pro - it's supposed to allow for 12 records at a time, but I only clean 6 at a time.
My US machine is a PS-30A 6 litre unit.
I brew the cleaning solution as follows
3 oz of 99% isopropyl alcohol
A couple drops of clear dish soap
1 Teaspoon of photo flow
150 ounces of distilled water (approximately)
So, I’ve got a solution of about 50 to 1 distilled water to alcohol

Turn on the tank for 15 minutes before doing anything else - I read that this agitation removes some oxygen/gases from the solution (degassing)

Turn the temperature to 35 centigrade. I haven’t experimented much with this, but it seems that I have a hard time getting the temp over 30c with the lid off of the unit. I leave the unit on till I see 30c. Based on some responses above I will experiment more with this.

I then load 6 records on to the spindle and place them in the tank for a period of 15 minutes.

When time is up I hold the spinning spindle above the tank for maybe 1 minute and let excess solution drain off.

Then I place the motor / spindle on a flat surface and take each record and put it on the Record Doctor. I give them a light scrub with the solution that is still on the records and then vacuum them dry.

Observations
1. I think 6 records at a time is too many for optimal cleaning. I think I only have about one half inch between records and it should be more. As pointed out above more space would likely improve cleaning. But again, I’m trying to move smartly through a collection of records that are generally in good to very good shape. If I start buying more used records I will likely have to give them more individual attention. Likewise if I play a record and it doesn’t sound right I can give another cleaning.

2. Pay attention to fluid levels. The fluid evaporates pretty quickly. You’ve got 1-n rotating disks drawing warm water up from the tank and pretty good surface area on each record and fluid evaoporates quickly. When you fill the tank use the label as your guide and not the run out grooves. Obviously the run out grooves vary greatly from record to record.

3. I skip the rinse step in favor of vacuuming with record doctor. I’m hoping this is a reasonable compromise.

4. I will clean up to 30 records in a single batch of fluid. I have no filter (although I think one would be cool / useful). After thirty or so records I drain the fluid and mix up a new batch. However... I keep looking in the tank and assessing. In one instance, after one batch of records the solution went from clear to almost milky so that necessitated changing the solution immediately. Based on what I’m seeing in the tank much of what is removed (at least what you can see with the naked eye) is particulate which seems to fall to the bottom of the tank and stay there. Also, while I know the solution is getting dirty with each use I’m guessing / hoping that whatever is left in the grooves will at least have been loosened by the US treatment and then the Record Doctor will suction off these loosened particles.

5. I would use a vacuum device as a last step. For one thing it saves a great deal of time over letting records air dry, and for another I think it’s just prudent to suck all of the remaining solution off the surface of the record. The Record Doctor is $200 and while probably not as good as some other products I think it’s great for this application.

6. Using the above I’ve cleaned roughly 120 records over the last 4 days. I work from home and so I can set some up to clean and when I find a few minutes I can vacuum them clean and start a new batch.

All in all, a very worthwhile endeavor and most importantly it’s getting me to play and enjoy all kinds of music.

Yours in cleaner vinyl.

@slaw
Thank you
I thought I might be missing something as you always appear to be cleaning vinyl...lol
Must just be that you so much  of it and not repeat cleaning

@slaw 

Thanks for your gentlemanly note. No offence taken.

BTW & FWIW... the filter housing that Rushton recommended is white. Upon looking on the website he provided, I noticed it is offered in clear which ...being the kind of guy I am, it made sense to me. A dollar or so more but the kicker is they are only sold in cases. I placed and order for a clear one on Amazon. This took around a couple of months... although if interested, they still may have singles now.

All of the parts I ordered for the filtering system are now confirmed working. I’ll be using this coming weekend heavily. I do have several bottles of the AD fluid I will try as well.

@audiom3

One of the reasons I’m now using just plain distilled water after going from my AD cleaner/AD fluid.. to the DIY cleaner w/plain distilled water was to have a better handle on any differences I hear. It’s just the now built in/second nature way I compare things. Looking forward to your results/initial impressions.

I should have my DIY system in a few days.  Has anyone used TergiKleen™ in their bath?  I figured it was safer to buy a pre-mixed solution to get the regimen down pat.  Then I can experiment with home brewed mixtures.

@ uberwaltz

Only one deep clean is necessary unless I feel after listening I think I can do better. Again..... I always pre-steam and for me it is an added benefit that I'm willing to take the time to do.

@whart 

You are correct. I apologize to @terry9 if I came off as disrespectful.

Thumbs up...

I am using since 6 years the Gläss Vinyl Cleaner

http://www.audiodesksysteme.de/en/vinyl-cleaner-pro

and I am still haven´t seen a better machine for this kind
of work!

@slaw @terry9
I think one of the values of terry’s input is the number of records you can effectively clean in one batch. There is a temptation to stack a bunch of records on a skewer and clean a lot at the same time. As someone upthread pointed out, bbftx started that monster thread on diyaudio that led to a lot of experimentation and was the starting point for Rush Paul’s seminal piece. bbftx did a similar computation, and noted that the upright 12" LPs act like baffles that block the bubbles, so you need some calculation for size of bath, power and frequency of transducers and spacing and number of LPs to optimize cleaning.
The science is a necessary part of it-- I’m not a scientist, but I can grok it with some research and help. I guess my point is not to dismiss the science as offputting- most of the hard core DIY’ers are pretty proficient people, but I think the DIY ultrasonic trend has reached beyond that hard core group to "regular" audiophiles. Thus, the anecodotal, the practical, and the scientific all have their place in the process.
Here’s to clean, quiet LPs!

@cleeds 
I was looking at the KLaudio but as you say a LOT of money indeed.
I have an el cheapo unit made by GrooveClean bought of eBay, it does its job but it has limitations and I am sure the KLaudio gets the job done better.
Looks like it is very well made

I have the Klaudio machine. It's outstanding ... convenient, very easy to use, one-step process. It's not the budget solution, though.

@slaw 

Question on cleaning schedule.
How often do you do a full deep clean on an album?
Just once when its in your ownership or have you found the need to repeat?

@slaw thanks for the clarification - I actually had no idea what you were driving at.  I have not read your posts about your cleaning regimen but I'll take a look. This thread has inspired me to rethink using the Audio Desk as the ONLY part of the process. 

I have owned a Loricraft PRC4(8yrs ago) and clearaudio double matrix(6yrs ago) among others. I have been considering a new RCM purchase for some time. I strongly considered the KLAUDIO, Audio Desk and ultrasonic. I read a lot of reviews and opinions but in the end I bought the clearaudio double matrix Pro sonic. I am thrilled that I did. Automatic, Quiet and really really cleans well. It is so quiet, easy to use and good looking, it earned a spot on my rack next to my tt. I now clean often. My vinyl was/is quiet. The difference is I no longer have concerns of damaging my cart or vinyl. It’s built quality is superb. It may be the most attractive component on my rack. It makes me want to clean and that’s saying something!

Wow!

This is, while it may be interesting to the scientists among us, IS what I was trying to evade...we..need to draw others in................

This kind of talk just makes for a harder sale!

I note that lwal questioned wavelength. The calculation is easy, from the physics formula V=fl (velocity = frequency x wavelength). Since the speed of sound is 5000 feet / second in water (60,000 inches per second), the equation is
       60,000 = 40,000 x l
from which it is trivial to solve for l.

l = wavelength = 60,000 inches per second   /  40,000 cycles per second
  = 1.5 inches / cycle

Note that the units match what we want to calculate, as they must if the formula has been used correctly.

For surfactant I use a lab grade detergent, Versaclean from Fisher Scientific.

@whart

Nothing you so elliquently stated is lost on me. I've always appreciated your thoughtful posts and your mission here.

I guess I assume that others will automatically remember all of my past posts regarding my regimen that includes (a pre-steam)...VERY IMPORTANT, to me, at least.

I have no doubt that a cleaning agent of some sort will be a positive improvement.

My posts recently have been focused on my transition from the AD cleaner w/ their fluid to the Rushton DIY w/ just distilled water.

I hope this will come through in a way that will draw others in to the US cleaning method and that it is low cost and better performing and when ready, the owner can try cleaning methods to their own personal way.

Cheers!

@slaw - a few years ago, I was doing some research for a piece on DIY US (after having owned both the Audio Desk and KL). One of my sources of information was a long time manufacturer of factory line sized ultra sonic cleaning systems. (He didn't focus on vinyl, but was willing to spend an hour and a half over the phone and provide me with a lengthy email). He was emphatic about the value of a surfactant as part of the US process- it improved cavitation effect immensely. He showed me metal parts cleaned with and without surfactant (granted, not vinyl LPs, but still). When I jumped on the KL after the Audio Desk, I thought- simple- no chemicals to rinse off, no kludgey spinning applicator brushes, etc. But, the KL doesn't allow for the  use of surfactants (I haven't confirmed that directly with KL but suspect I am right). The DIY US, from my perspective, actually brings more to the table than either commercial, made for vinyl, US cleaner. You can add surfactant, and avoid some of the complications of the Audio Desk design; you can control heat, degas, and build a recirculation system with a filter (something KL now offers, but still no surfactant). And, your price of entry can be cheaper. When my KL finally dies, that's the way I'm going. (I still pre-clean on the Monks, and for certain records, do a reagent water rinse after the KL). For now, I'm changing out the water at 30 records or less, even though with pre-cleaning there is very little residue in the KL tank. (If I put a new record straight into the KL without precleaning, there will often be some grit in the tank when I drain it). 

sorry I was just agreeing with the OP and adding a shout out for AI fluids. cheers!