Ultrasonic record cleaners

While I’ve heard great things about the expensive US cleaners, I couldn’t justify the 3k price, given I only had a few hundred LP's, so I bought the VEVOR for $200, and it seems to do an excellent job. I don’t know how it would compare to other cleaning systems, like the VPI.

Thanks for everyone sharing their knowledge and experience in this thread. As a consequence, I have modified my ultrasonic cleaning process in several ways:

1. I extended the de-gassing cycle to the time it takes to warm up the water bath to 35 C, and I now de-gas before each use, after the device has been sitting unused for a day;

2. I added a capful of surfactant in the 6L tub (I’m using Photo Flo 200);

3. I extended the cleaning time in the warm ultrasonic bath, to approximately the time it took to de-gas and warm up the water bath;

4. I slowed the rotation of the motor to about 3 cycles per minute (this is using a low voltage adjustable DC adapter set at its lowest 3V), which is as slow as my adapter will turn the motor;

5. I added a "rinse" process: I just use a sprayer filled with distilled water to spray both sides of the LP after the ultrasonic bath.

I still use 1 oz of 91% isopropyl alcohol in the 6L of distilled water. . . and this is for the VEVOR 40kHz ultrasonic machine.

I’ll find out how much of a difference this makes from the way I used to clean, which was just throwing the LP in the warm ultrasonic bath for a few minutes at a high rotational speed, and call it a day. 

I will keep an open mind, and consider that it is possible that I'm just being obsessive over an issue that won't make much of a difference at all. . .but perhaps it may. . .my system is sensitive and detailed enough where I should be able to detect an audible difference, if there is one. . . although for most users on this forum, just a simple wash in the ultrasonic bath would probably be sufficient.

Thanks!

@lewm 

What is that much alcohol (25%) supposed to do in the ultrasonic bath? 

@antinn 

Thanks for the word of caution about Photo Flo.  Do you know if the solvent in Photo Flo could adversely affect the LP at all?  

So, with my new, updated ultrasonic LP cleaning process, I do notice a significant improvement in sound quality. The updated process has made my slightly noisy LP’s (static, pops, etc) almost silent, with only an occasional static pop noted. The LP’s that I formerly couldn’t even listen to because of the surface noise (mostly static-type noise) are now very listenable; although there is still noticeable surface noise, it is greatly diminished (I would roughly estimate a 75% drop in surface noise). Overall, it’s quite an improvement, and I’m beginning to wonder if longer, and a few more cleaning cycles may even clean up those troublesome LP’s that were formerly unlistenable. . .

Thanks to everyone for their input, and thanks to @antinn for sharing his knowledge. I don’t suppose that there’s a hard copy of your book available for purchase? (I generally don’t like clicking on links to "download" items because of virus and malware risks.)

@mijostyn

More thorough ultrasonic cleaning following many of the recommendations here did make my noisy records much quieter. . .(but these were mostly sealed records, without a scratch that played very noisily (tons of static-type noise (from what? maybe the plastic from the inner sleeve deteriorated onto the LP?). After noting significant improvement, I put a couple through an even longer cleaning process, and I’m curious to see if I can make them even quieter. . .

@lewm

"Laboratory grade" means that it is standardized, and validated to perform as described.  Consumer products can otherwise make empty promises.

Based on my initial experience, the first clean is as good as the second clean, and the static-type noise is still present on those noisy LP's.  The first clean probably decreased the surface noise by 50-75%, and made them listenable, but unfortunately, the second clean didn't do any better. 

@antinn 

What, in your experience, do you think would be the best combination of additives to the distilled water in a 180W 40kHZ ultrasonic 6L bath for cleaning LP's  (e.g. how much 91% isopropyl alcohol, Triton X, dawn dish detergent, or other.), and what time length would you think to be sufficient?
Thanks. 

@antinn 

Thank you for the detailed response.  It looks like even on initial review that I could use 5+ oz of 91% IPA to get an approximate 2.5% solution in 6L. .. I am aware of alcohol's antibacterial properties, but I wasn't aware exactly what it did in the water bath:  your explanation explains it quite well.

Thanks!

@antinn 

I downloaded your book on an old ipad that is no longer used for anything with passwords, etc.  It looks to be a great resource.  Thanks to you and Bill for sharing that with the audiophile community!

Are you aware of any real world experience comparing the LP cleaning capabilities of an appropriately powered 40 kHz ultrasonic cleaning machine as compared to an appropriately powered higher frequency (120-200 kHz) ultrasonic cleaning machine?  And, along the same lines do you think that there would there be any real world difference in LP cleaning capabilities between a 40 kHz cleaner and an 80 kHz cleaner?  
Thanks. 

@antinn

The ultrasonic cleaner that I currently have it 6" in width, which leaves 3" on each side of the LP if I clean 1 LP at a time. Is there any practical or theoretical disadvantage if I were to clean 2 LP’s at a time, with a distance of 2" between each LP and 2" from each edge of the tub for a standard 180 W, 3 head, 40 kHz machine?
Thanks.

@antinn 

Thanks.  So it seems that, based on a flow calculation, due to speed of rotation, only 1 LP is recommended at a time in the 6 L tank.  And on review, it looks like 1 LP should be cleaned at a time based on surface area as well.  Your book also references a Kuzma rotater:  I went to their website, and they have similar recommendations as your book, but not nearly as detailed.  Unfortunately, it looks like the Kuzma website is also recommending Photo Flo 200, which has the Triton X, which is so bad for the environment, so perhaps you could send them an email to recommend the Tergitol instead? 

@antinn 

The cloud point is an interesting property of Triton X:  I studied college level chemistry, and generally speaking, I thought most substances/chemicals were more solvent as the temperature of the solution increases.  But with Triton X, having a cloud point of 25C indicates that Triton X becomes more insoluble as the temperature increases above 25C. . .