Ultrasonic record cleaners

@whart Nice to see you posting on this !

You and Neil have done a real service to the community. That's where I learned to finish with a distilled spritz, and to do an anti-static wipe with Tigercloth.

Thanks! And all the best!

Hi, Terry. Thanks for the kind words, Neil really deserves the credit for his experience and effort. @antinn 

great to see you here too! 

I have a Kirmus ultrasonic, and it's changed records I've gotten from various sources, from unplayable to sounding as if I just opened it brand new. But, and this could be a deal braker, it does take about 8 mis per record to get those results. I do not buy into the Kirmus "official" way to clean but a more modified way that sounds just as good.

Bill @whart  and Terry @terry9 thank you for the compliments.  I would like to add a few items for those reading:

1.  What @terry9 says about the equipment power rating can be very true.  The German made Elmasonic UT machines are quite powerful, and this is easily noted by how quickly the bath fluid heats up.  Essentially, the ultrasonic power (watts) is converted to heat, and the fluid heats-up.  The inexpensive UT machines at 6L are generally rated at 160-180W (three 60W transducers), but there are a number of details such as how the transducers are attached to the tank and the tank wall thickness that will affect how much power actually gets into the tank.

2.  All of the spinners provided with the inexpensive units spin way too fast; and lower kHz units (<80kHz) are very sensitive to flow in the tank.  If the flow rate in the tank >50% volume/min, the cavitation intensity decreases very quickly.  The book PACVR 3rd Ed Precision Aqueous Cleaning of Vinyl Records-3rd Edition - The Vinyl Press Section XIV.5 has an equation that you can use calculate the number of records and speed (rpm).  The spinners are all VDC and by varying the VDC you can slow the motor down and Amazon has various cheap variable VDC power supplies you can buy and the book XIV.5.5 has a link.

3.  Bottom firing transducers can benefit record cleaning.  Without going into detail (see the book XIV.1.7), standing waves develop in the tank and these standing waves create layers of high/low cavitation energy.  Industry tries to minimize these with sweep frequencies because parts are generally static in the tank.  But the record(s) is rotating and standing waves may be beneficial since the record is exposed to a scrubbing type action as the record alternately moves from areas of lower cavitation intensity to areas of higher cavitation intensity.

4.  When cleaning more than one record at a time, it is good practice to space the records no closer than the tank wavelength which for a 40kHz is about 1" (see the book IXV.3.7 for further details if interested).  

5.  Fresh fluid or fluid that has sat for about 12-24 hrs needs to be degassed to remove dissolved gases.  Failure to do so will pretty much make the first few records cleaned not actually exposed to much if any cavitation.  If you see bubbles, that is not evidence of cavitation.  Cavitation produces no bubbles; and time to degas is proportional to the kHz (and volume).  Lower kHz requires more time (~15-min) while a 80-120Khz can degas in ~5min.  For UT units that have no degas function, just operate the tank.  The book XIV.2.1 goes into further detail.

Overall, UT is great cleaning process, but there are many details necessary to get the best results.  The book Chapter XIV goes into other details, but the above are the ones that many people miss on the performance side.  Otherwise, depending on the cleaning agent (generally a simple nonionic surfactant) you can go for a no-rinse just wetting concentration or a concentration with detergency that should be rinsed and the book XIV.10 has some suggestions.  And, unless you have a large source of DIW (and its relatively easy & not too expensive to make your own - see VII.4) bath management is something you need to consider if you want to get the best possible results and book Chapter XIV has lots of info, as well as a tutorial on how to setup a DIY filtration system with three different price options (with parts list) at the end.

Good luck, but "The devil is in the details".  

Neil

@livin_262002 I have the Kirmuss as well and I'm wondering if you could share with me your recipe for your cleaning solution using Triton X-100 and 91% Iso.

I just bought a LP length ultrasonic cleaner and bought a rotator assembly which fits on the side and suspends the LP above the label. It works great. I use a little dawn dish soap and 'photoflo" surface tension reducer so that the water flows off with no waterspots.  Works really well. I cleaned about 250 LPs in a weekend, two at a time.  About 25 minutes rotating in 90F solution.  Really reduced surface noise. Total cost for the rig, about 450.

I use the Vevor ultrasonic cleaner. With a 3V PS for the spin. This gives me a little over 1 minute rotation. And my solution is TRITON X-100 , HEPASTAT 256, ALCOHOL (IPA) and Purified water. With a Purified water rinse. Great results with "normal" dirty vinyl. Extra dirty require a pre manual clean. Then vacuum the rinse water.

New vinyl now always cleaned first before playing.

@rvillanova Sure, I used Triton X-100 and 91% IPA to prepare the concentrate.

40 ml Triton X-100

48 ml 91% IPA

Then add 22ml of this solution to Kirmuss cleaner. Once 5min clean cycle done I take it out and rise with distilled water and vacuum dry, twice. When distilled water is applied to US cleaned record the first time, you can see the surfactant wetting the grooves. After the second rinse with distilled water, the drops will just bead up.

Hope this helps.

@antinn  Wow! Just plain, WOW.

Haven't seen your book since the draft stage, and I'm just blown away. Highly professional look, feel, and of course, encyclopaedic content. Congrats to you and to Bill. @whart 

Wow!

@antinn and @whart thanks again for your contributions on getting the best out of our vinyl.  I can say unequivocally that adding ultrasonic cleaning to a mechanical regimen such as a vpi has merit.  Best is to use both, as they work differently and and are additive.  I learned a HUGE pearl today, thanks to Neil: that ultrasonic baths that have been sitting unused for 24 need an additional degassing cycle in order to be most effective. I hope everyone else caught that as well.  Me thinks a small, but crucial cog in the cleaning wheel.  Thanks again, Neil!

@antinn Your Contribution is much appreciated, it certainly reaffirms why I chose to use the Manual Cleaning Method, with a Planning for the Method in use, that can be honed to one that can achieve Six LP Albums cleaned in approx' 30 minutes.

Why Manual, as stated previously in various Threads and within this Thread, I own prior to the Manual Cleaning commencing a US Tank and Rotation System to manage 6 LP Albums. The Manual Cleaning proved so satisfactory and satisfying, the only way I could describe the finished item was as a Purified Album.

I was not motivated to change from this and use the US Tank, being left wondering if all the requirements that you have made known are best to be in place, were in place.

The evidence from the replays of Albums following the manual cleaning I have carried out, have left me totally reassured all the requirements you make known, are addressed, and the methods suggested are present when cleaning, with the result leading me to feel quite confident the overall advisories offered from your Vinyl Cleansing-ology Document have been very accurately applied. 

@Terry9. If I understand your description (and it isn't easy), you US cleaned the records 3 times, each time in new fluid. If thats what it takes to get to a "clean" record, count me out. Although, reduced stylus wear is a great benefit! I don't own a Koetsu, but my ZYX is worth protecting. I was considering the Monks to replace my old Harry Weisfeld machine as the US option is just too expensive, or just getting rid of all the analog stuff and going digital. So much work and expense involved just to play music.

@orthomead,

What you are doing by first cleaning with the VPI vacuum-RCM and then cleaning with UT is what @whart does with his Monk & KLAudio, and if you were to read the book, and step-back what it preaches is pre-clean/rinse/final-clean/rinse/dry which is the foundation of precision cleaning with aqueous cleaners.  And as the book says, this was all worked out 30-yrs ago forced by the elimination of CFC-solvents.

There are many ways to put together a cleaning process using the concept of pre-clean/rinse/final-clean/rinse/dry.  If you sink clean with a pure manual process, you can use chemistry and concentrations that you would not use with machine-based processes.  

You can use only a vacuum-RCM and get excellent results by using the right chemistry (aggressive pre-cleaner and then mild final-cleaner), the right brush and the right technique.

You can use an Elmasonic P-series dual frequency UT that you would use 37-kHz for pre-clean and 80-kHz for final cleaning.  Although really gross records would still benefit from a manual-type pre-clean - i.e., sometimes you need two pre-clean steps which is what the manual process in the book Chapter V does.

At the end of the day, my technical position is that there is no best cleaning process.  With the right chemistry, the right technique, the right hardware and the right process they can all achieve a clean record; but the devil is in details.  Ultimately it comes down to how much convenience do you want and how much are you willing to compromise because of time, space, money, etc.

So, I always, state, the best record cleaning process is the one best for you and the book is written accordingly - how to get the best from each process.

Take care,

Neil

@charliee Evidently I was less clear than I hoped.

I was describing a test procedure. My cleaning procedure is:

1. wet and remove surface crud with running purified water

2. for very dirty records only, 10 minutes at 37 KHZ with detergent; otherwise skip this step

3. 10 minutes at 80KHz with detergent and 40 degrees C

4. rinse heartily with running purified water

5. rinse in distilled water bath

6. spritz with distilled water

7. air dry

Amongst the suggestions Neil makes for an LP cleaning process/procedure, my favorite new step is to pre-rinse the LP in the sink. I bought an item on ebay to facilitate that rinse: a product comprised of a pair of LP label-size clear plastic discs, with a handle to hold the LP under running tap water (at this stage of cleaning---and this stage only---tap water will suffice).

I use this step only for used LP’s (or unusually dirty new ones), to remove the dust and other debris often found on those discs. That prevents the dust and other debris from contaminating both the water in my ultrasonic tank, and the platter and brushes on my VPI HW-17.

I also have found Neil’s recommendation of Tergitol 15-S-9 (the surfactant made by Talas) and Liquinox (the cleaning solution made by Alconox) to be an excellent one.

For the final step, I don't care for or approve of "air" drying. Though I'm no longer in the California desert (dust is EVERYWHERE there!), I still prefer to vacuum off the final rinse distilled water. Two revolutions on the HW-17 gets LP's bone dry, usually without creating a static charge. For that problem I have and highly recommend the Furutech Destat III. More effective than the Zerostat, and far easier to use.

Cleaned my record collection using a VPI and the Walker Four Step Process. 90% thru discovered that no one does the Fourth Step except maybe Mr. Walker. Sigh.

Re cleaned VTL 006 The Doctor with an Audio Desk machine. Played Isn’t She Lovely.

Way more natural. Less hi fi. Cymbals are relaxed where before they were etchy.

Prolly you want to know the rig. Lyra Atlas Sierra Lima. Basis arm and turntable. Super Lumi phono stage. Nagra pre. Manley 440 w/KT 77 driving Eminent Technology Super Eight mid/tweet. Manley 500 w/KT 90 driving woofers. Hsu VTF-2 Subs. NBS wire.

So called damaged records are mostly dirty. Clean ’em up and they’ll sound great again.

Important to use Stylast 4 and 5. 4 to clean yr styus after which use 5 so’s the stylus will slip thru the groove. It’ll sound better and preserve yr stylus.

I lean toward the idea, a Clean LP with certain sized contaminants removed from the Groove will be an improved environment to allow a Styli to have an extended usage life.

A cartridge styli is one of many parts that are impacted on by contamination.

The Crud that collects at the Armature Base at the Damper and Coils interface is quite something, it is a hard to believe the collection of particulates when seen.

A not too old Cartridge with not too many hours of usage can easily be in a state of cleanliness that will be a condition that will most likely impede the Cart's performance. 

I am even aware of Metal Dust Particles entering the body to come into contact with the Coils and ultimately burning/shorting out a channel.

The cleanliness of the LP Groove is only one area of cleanliness to show a concern for if the very best replay is the ambition, if the longevity of the Styli is the only concern, then the Groove being clean, seems to be a good measure to assist with achieving this, it certainly produces a valuable 'peace of mind'. 

@tennisdoc56 +1 on the HumminGuru recommendation.  I too was interested in an ultrasonic cleaner but didn't want to spend $3,000 on a Degritter or KL Audio.  All ultrasonic cleaners basically do the same thing, spin a record in a bath of water, have a set of transducers to shake the dirt loose and then dry the record, Many have mentioned that the HumminGuru's transducers are not as strong as KL Audio or Degritter.  HumminGuru's transducers run at 40k Hz and DeGritter operate at 120k Hz. I can't comment on which is better and by how much.  There are many YouTube videos on this topic.

None are miracle workers and won't repair a record with medium to heavy scratches and if a record has lots of dirt or grit, you should first clean the record via a suitable brush before using any ultrasonic cleaner..

I decided to purchase a HumminGuru for $450 and am happy I did so.  The HumminGuru is simple to use and I find it cleans records better than a vacuum based cleaner.

For any ultrasonic cleaner, you'll want to use a surfactant such as GrooveWasher G-Sonic concentrate to break the surface tension of the distilled water used in the cleaners bath tank.  For the HumminGuru bath tank, 1 drop is all that's needed, so a $30 1 oz bottle should last a lifetime.  

Remember to use an anti-static device as static noise can be as bad as a dirty record.  I still use my 45 year old ZeroStat device with terrific results.  Make sure to test it's effectiveness with the supplied mini light bulb which is basically a Christmas tree light.

Hope it works out for you.

@chowkwan @pindac I believe you are correct to say that very clean records will prolong stylus life. One my cartridges that have cantilevers (an odd statement to some of you, I suppose) I do use an "ultrasonic" stylus cleaner - it isn't ultrasonic at all, much lower frequency, and some Last 4. But the Deccas can only withstand a stylus brush, and this is important: any liquid placed on their styli will track up inside the cartridge and dissolve the glue holding the coils in place. You do not want that to happen!

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!

The use of a Jewellers Putty has been reported to me via a friend as being a very good method for cleaning Styli.

My friend is impressed to the point this is their only method used, other methods are no longer considered.

I was informed that Jewellers Putty is the same as other Styli Cleaning Putty available via HiFi Outlets, but the J' Putty will be cheaper to acquire.

If concerned about the cleaning method for a Styli, the Putty is worth a investigation. 

Drbond, my only comments on your latest routine are (1) I would replace Photoflo with Triton X100 or Tween20, because Photoflo has some additives you don’t want, and (2) one ounce of isopropanol in 6L is not going to do anything, especially at 35 degrees which will hasten its evaporation. I use a standard mix that includes 25% isopropanol/water, for one example.

Fer Gawd's sake, don't tell Fremer about jeweller's putty!

Can it be cheaper than Magi Eraser?

@lewm 

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

@drbond & @lewm,

Please be careful with high concentrations of IPA in water and use with a heated ultrasonic tank.

25% IPA/water has a flashpoint of about 80F; and no ultrasonic tank you can afford is explosion-proof. With an ultrasonic unit three mechanisms are now in play - the heat that speeds up evaporation; the record turning is drawing fluid out that is evaporating, and the ultrasonics are agitating the fluid surface and a mist/vapor is often produced. All of this has the potential to setup the necessary conditions to develop flammable AND explosive vapors. At 100% IPA, the lower and upper explosive limits are 2.3 to 13.2%. But, even diluted with water, at 25% water-IPA, the lower and upper explosive limits are 2.3 to 7.1%. In a common domestic setting, it is very unlikely that the high ventilation turn-over rates that are required in medical and industrial settings that prevent the accumulation of flammable/explosive vapors will be used. So, the risk in a domestic setting is higher.

@drbond,

As written in the book -

VIII.7: KODAK™ PHOTO-FLO 200: This is a wetting agent that is water mixed with a combination of 25-30% propylene glycol (i.e., anti-freeze) that acts as a solvent and as an antibacterial and antifungal agent and 5-10% nonionic surfactant. The nonionic surfactant by the CAS number 9036-19-5 is most likely Dow™ Triton™ X-114. This type of surfactant (octyl-phenol ethoxylates) is an environmental aquatic toxin and is being phased-out (see CHAPTER IX. DISCUSSION OF THE FINAL CLEANERS: for details). If the surfactant is Dow™ Triton™ X-114, the surface tension will be about 31 dynes/cm, the CMC will be 120 ppm, but the low 25°C/77°F cloud-point limits this product mostly to applications equivalent to room temperature.

If you add a cap-full that may be 10-ml, at best only 1-ml of surfactant is added, but (1-ml/6000-ml)(100) = 0.0167% = 167 ppm. So, there should be enough for it to act as a wetting solution. The propylene glycol diluted does nothing other than increases the non-volatile residue which if not rinsed, can leave a viscous type of residue.

My recommended nonionic surfactant is Tergitol 15-S-9 which is a very high-performance surfactant - Tergitol 15-S-3 and 15-S-9 Surfactant | TALAS (talasonline.com). At 1-ml in 6L tank, the 167-ppm will provide excellent wetting and also provide detergency that Triton X100 will not unless you add 3X more - Tergitol 15-S-9 is much more efficient, mixes easier and rinses much easier.

Edit:  FYI - Tergitol 15-S-9 is not the same as Tergikleen - different products and the book addresses in detail the difference in Chapter IX. 

drbond, You have a point about the fact that I do my cleaning in a conventional VPI RCM. And I guess I take the point of antinn that using 25% IP alcohol in a heated US cleaning tank might be dangerous, although that surprises me. However, the fact remains that such a low concentration of isopropyl alcohol as you propose is unlikely to help much, in my opinion. By the way, because of the low concentration of Photoflo as you propose to use it, I have to think that I was being overcautious in mentioning the undesireable additive, which antinn names as propylene glycol. However, antinn seems to agree that other surfactants might work better, e.g., Tergitol. Sorry for any confusion, otherwise.

@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?  

One of the best reasons to purchase a degitter is that it has a filter that cleans the water every cleaning cycle. Most other cleaners once you clean the first record the dirty water is returned to the water tank

@drbond,

The 'solvent' in Kodak Photo-Flo as I addressed is propylene glycol - and it is not harmful to a record; and it is non-toxic in many cosmetic products.  

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.)

@drbond,

Good to hear of the improvements.

The book is only available free by download, Precision Aqueous Cleaning of Vinyl Records-3rd Edition - The Vinyl Press. Bill Hart @whart runs a tight ship as they say, and I can only guess that the book (pdf) has been downloaded many, many times with no one ever indicating any malware or virus. The document was scanned for viruses and malware before being posted and the (my) computer that was used to write the document has a very high cyber security posture and the book is password protected from making any changes.

If you download the book, before opening, with MSWindows you can right-click and there will be an option to scan the document for viruses/malware.

@drbond - loved the bread commercial if you remember it.

I cannot control the web, but I use Cloudflare and have a really good IT guy here in the States. If you have access to a robust computer/printer system (work?), you might ask them to print for you. I’m sure there are other alternatives- get a commercial print shop to do it for you, at a fee. Interesting issue, never had it raised before, but I get where you are coming from.

Bill Hart

Oh, PS: I guess I should mention that in more than a year of different versions being available on TheVinylPress, I have not once received any message that there was a problem, virus, etc. with respect to the download. But I don't want to twist your arm here. 

I'm careful what I download too. Vinyl Press has caused no (0) problems for me. @antinn How do you clean Tigercloth without compromising it's properties? Thanks!

I have modified my practice as a result of reading Neil's thoughts (I must have missed it in the book, if it was there). I now de-gas each morning before cleaning my first disk. And that is not some sordid reference to the bathroom.

So far, I can say it has done no harm. It makes good sense technically, so I shall continue the habit as it costs nothing and might add something important (like making my expensive Degritter work better!)

@livin_262002 

Thank you.

@terry9,

WRT to cleaning the Tiger-cloth - the only thing I do is once dry - I shake it out.  Used only during to assist with drying the record after DIW rinsing, the Tiger-Cloth only sees DIW.  So, after use, I hang to dry and then shake it out and store in clean bag.  The cloth is a very fine weave and anti-static, so it does not hold on to particles/lint - ergo a good snap-shake dislodges any lint/particles, and this has been verified with the UV light (the cloth does not fluoresce).   I have been using the same Tiger-cloth for >2yrs.  Otherwise, I periodically inspect the cloth with the UV light and someday when it shows that its 'dirty' I will just toss and use a new one; they are not expensive.  To me, it's not worth the effort trying to clean it and then use multiple DIW to rinse out the cleaner which if you do not, when you use the cloth to assist with drying the record, it will leave a very slight haze which is the diluted cleaner residue, which I have seen with those microfiber cloths with some nap. 

Note that I use a PVA sponge (as discussed in Chapter V of the book) to remove the bulk of the DIW; using the Tiger-cloth only for the final-dry which is not intended to fully dry the record, but to leave a thin-film that prevents any static being developed and then the record air dries in 3-5 minutes.  

@dogberry,

The book addresses Degas as follows:

XIV.2.1 Dissolved Gases & Degas: Fluids exposed to air will absorb air and the solubility of air in water is inversely proportional with temperature and can decrease by about 25% between 20°C/68°F and 40°C/104°F. Air that is dissolved in the fluid will interfere with cavitation. As the cavitation bubble forms, the dissolved air in the fluid migrates into the cavitation bubble preventing maximum cavitation intensity when the cavitation bubble collapses. The degas process operates the ultrasonics with a tank of fresh liquid to remove some or most of the dissolved air. Degas efficiency is dependent on frequency, power and volume. Low frequency 40-kHz and less can take 30 minutes or more to fully degas a large tank, while 80 kHz and greater can accomplish degas in as little as 5 minutes. During the degas process, bubbles may be seen rising in the fluid; the fluid may go from cloudy to clear; there may be a change in sound; and the surface can change to smooth with just a slight rippling effect caused by the ultrasonics.

The book does not state to degas each day if using the same bath although it is implied with the first sentence above. If the book is ever revised, XIV.2.1 will be revised to be more explicit.

With the Tiger Cloth, I have made a recent discovery that is not a concern, but as it is inquired about, it may be relevant.

The Tiger Cloth has now been used as Neil Described on approx' 70ish Albums.   The DIW Rinse is carried out with Pressurised Bottle with a Jet Nozzle, it does work sufficiently as a Blast Rinse. 

I too leave the T'cloth out to air dry and then in a sealed bag to store it.

Recently I purchased a Camera Lens that I have put through the wringer of learning its qualities over the past few months and only a few days ago decided to give the Front Protection Filter a Clean. My thoughts went to the Tiger Cloth which I utilised.

The cleaning was not successful for the Lens with the Tiger Cloth, as there was a new produced smearing showing on the lens filter that was remaining. I had to use my usual method that is a Lens Fluid Cleaner and Lint Free Paper Towels to clean the Lens to the standard usually achieved.

As said, this is not a concern, as I genuinely don't see the T'cloth as causing any cleaning issues with the Vinyl Lp's, it is very efficient at absorbing the thin film of DIW following a rinse and Sponging Dry.

 What the T'cloth is most likely also collecting, is a very miniscule quantity of a Solution, and after 70ish uses has enough contained in the proportion of the Cloth I used on the Lens to be detected on the Glass. 

Prior to using the T'cloth on a Lens in the future, I will soak it overnight in a distilled water and when dry, try it on a Lens to see if the smearing has ceased from occurring.    

@pindac,

When you cleaned the camera lens did you use the tiger-cloth dry, or did you use your lens cleaning solution and try to dry with the tiger-cloth? 

When you use sponge & tiger-cloth for record drying, do you wear gloves?  

What specific sponge are you using?  How do you get the water out of the sponge after use and how do you store it?

In between cleaning steps, do you rinse/dry your free-hand (that works the brush) a little which will pick up some cleaning agent?  I have a lint-free microfiber cloth that I hang and grab it with my free-hand to somewhat dry it between steps to minimize cleaner carryover noting that when I go to dry with the sponge, it's the same free hand that was working the brush with the cleaners. 

The tiger-cloth is not very absorbent - so if used with a lens cleaning solution, it may not remove the lens cleaning solution enough to prevent leaving a residue.  If used dry it could just smear what was on the lens.

Again, for record drying, the tiger-cloth is not used to dry the record.  Instead, it takes the water left behind by the PVA sponge and absorbs some (but not much), but mostly it spread outs the water to a thin uniform film which then dries quickly.  Otherwise, water droplets can take over an hour to dry.  

After cleaning six records - my PVA sponge is very wet (I just ring-it out) but the Tiger-cloth is barely damp.  

In the meantime, I have used the same tiger-cloth as I address in the book over 500-times w/o problems.  Any haze is readily evident on the lead-in groove and the dead-wax (run-out) areas.  I have contaminated a PVA sponge and the haze was evident - I tossed it (reproposed for floor cleaning) and got a new one.  

I do wear Gloves during cleaning and sleeving the dried LPs.

I do not wear Gloves whilst assembling or putting the cleaning items away.

I have a batch of Sponges, and as I only Clean Six LPs in one session as the average, the sponges absorb hardly any water as a new one is used for an LP.

A Sponge might get used on a second occasion if I run out of Dry Sponges, when an additional LP is to be cleaned but this is rare now, the habit is for six

The Lens was dry when the T'cloth was used to clean the Protective Filter.

As said, I do not view this as a concern for the process of cleaning a LP, unless there is something to be added as a contribution that would identify it as a condition present that is of a concern.    

It is really something, the formulas and recipes that sounded like a good idea at the time. Best left in this case to a chemist who understands the chemical makeup of that which is to be cleaned, using the safest and most effective products.

 Then let's take to another microscopically delicate area, the stylus, and pull out a razor sharp blade to whittle of chunks of burned on dirt. Don't worry, it's a diamond, you can't hurt it. Where's my Mr. Clean magic eraser? You have an added benefit if you own a unipivot tonearm. Take it off the TT, and hold it tight between yer knees. Now you can really wreak havoc on grime.

 That's how it's done in the clean room boys.

Sanctus from Bach Mass in B Minor conducted by Karl Richter.

First clean VPI with Walker 4 step.

Second clean Audio Desk.

After cleaning with the Audio Desk there is a quantum leap in sound quality compared to the VPI only cleaned record. More detail and warmer in tone at the same time.

Guess that rig.

https://youtube.com/shorts/rhHcKSXormI?feature=share

Nagra Phono stage, Nagra Pre, Manley 440 and 500, Super ET8, Hsu subwoofer, NBS wire.

An ultrasonic cleaner or any cleaner for that matter is not going to fix a noisy record. You will have a clean noisy record just like you have now. You are better off spending money on new quiet records. 

What does it mean when you say that an ultra sonic record cleaning machine is “laboratory grade”? Is that just a euphemism for “expensive”?

mijostyn

An ultrasonic cleaner or any cleaner for that matter is not going to fix a noisy record.

That depends on what you mean by "noisy record." Many a noisy record is merely a dirty record. Those records absolutely sound quieter after cleaning.

@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.

+1 on Loricraft PRC-4

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.