ultrasound record cleaning machine damaged my records

The machine @pfmaudio is using based on the power, kHz and volume is a well-known unit (he has decided not to disclose the OEM, and I will respect that) for which there are 1,000’s in use. The damage being described is contrary to what others have experienced of which no similar type damage has been experienced.

Note that the KLAudio is the most powerful of all the specific record cleaning UT units with a power of 200W at 40kHz and a bath size of only ~700-ml, and this works out to 286W/L whereas the unit @pfmaudio is using is 150W/L, and both spin at near the same speed (~2-rpm),

It is entirely possible that detritus that was there before and essentially burnished into the groove has been removed. However, some people on other forums have noted that the cleaner (some unknown surfactant of unknown concentration) provided with the UT machine was not satisfactory. Most people are happy with 1-drop of the Groovewasher G•SONIC ULTRASONIC CONCENTRATE G•Sonic Ultrasonic Concentrate – GrooveWasher.

@pfmaudio, try recleaning a record with just distilled water. If the source of the issue is cleaner residue noting that you did not rinse and may have used too much cleaner (even using the OEMs recommendation) then the 2nd wash with just distilled water will act as a rinse. If this solves the problem, you can consider continuing use of the supplied cleaner but reduce the concentration. Again, not knowing what surfactant they are using and what the concentration is, it impossible to tell you what a "no-rinse’ concentration would be. Note that most people are satisfied with the G-Sonic used at 1-drop/tank for a ’no-rinse’ cleaner.

Optimally, for best achievable results, some people buy a 2nd tank and then use that for rinsing. There is an active thread at Audio Hardware | Steve Hoffman Music Forums just search for the thread using the OEM name.

Hope this helps

@pfmaudio 

The damage may not be permanent.  Some cleaning solution residue can be very difficult to remove.  HG provides very little detail on the what is in the cleaner other the standard market speak - HumminGuru The Small Bottle | Ultrasonic Vinyl Record Cleaning Agent.   Also, distilled water DIW that is a year old can have very high total dissolved solids (TDS) and can go acidic.  DIW absorbs CO2 which then forms carbonic acid leading to lower pH and higher TDS.  It all depends on how much air it and for how long it was exposed.

I would not yet give up hope.   Try recleaning one more time with fresh DIW and if you are in the USA, my go to simple nonionic surfactant is Tergitol 15-S-9 you can purchase here Tergitol 15-S-3 and 15-S-9 Surfactant | TALAS (talasonline.com).  One-pint will last you forever, and disregard DOWs 2-yr shelf life, I have Tergitol 15-S-9 that is 5-yrs old and is fine.  Just store in a cool dark place.  For use, download the latest version (3.1) of this book Precision Aqueous Cleaning of Vinyl Records-3rd Edition - The Vinyl Press and look at Table XXIII, Nalgene™ Dropper Bottle Use for Degritter™ & Humminguru™ for directions on use.

For those in the UK & EU, Polysorbate 20 is an alternative you can generally purchase which the book addresses.   

Good Luck,

Regarding the ability to damage a record with UT, there are a lot of variables in-play.  The record spin speed, the kHz, the tank volume, the power W/L, the transducer location and how close is the record to the transducers and the actual record composition - not all records have the same composition.  

The video that shows over 12 sequential cleaning cycles, and it caused damage (whatever that means), is a one-time event with not a lot of supporting detail like what was the tank temperature.  Deliberate improper use of any device can lead to damage; either to the device itself or the object being cleaned.  

Damage that may occur is erosion caused by the cavitation event and the high velocity jet that does a lot of the cleaning.  Watch this video between 6:19 and 8:30 Cavitation - Easily explained! - Bing video that shows with high-speed video how a cavitation bubble collapses.  This video is a computer-generated simulation of a single cavitation bubble collapse Inertial collapse of a single bubble near a solid surface - Bing video.  Pay attention to the pressures and temperatures (which are theoretical and do not actually occur in use) associated with the implosion event. There 'can' be a lot of energy with the event.

Otherwise, here are some of the basic design rules for UT tanks.
-The power to produce cavitation is proportional to the kHz, so a 120kHz UT needs more power than a 40kHz.
-For ultrasonic tanks, the bubble diameter is inversely proportional to the kHz, so a 40 kHz UT produces a large bubble than a 120kHz UT.
-The cavitation intensity is proportional to the bubble diameter and the tank power (watts/L) but there is a maximum power above which no addition cavitation intensity is obtained. 
-The number of cavitation bubbles produced is proportional to kHz, so a 120kHz produces more bubbles than a 40kHz, but smaller bubbles.
-The smaller the tank volume, the more power that is required. It has to do with the ratio of the tank volume to its interior surface area.
-For lower kHz units (<60kHz), if the tank bath flow rate (from filtering or spinning) >50% of the tank volume per minute, cavitation intensity decreases.

Hope this is of some help,

@pindac 

As the book says, BASF™ Dehypon® LS 54 nonionic surfactant is a substitute for  Tergitol 15-S-9 but is only available from the UK - Dehypon - 1 Litre – Conservation Resources (UK) Ltd (conservation-resources.co.uk).

Polysorbate 20 is more readily available throughout the EU and as the book says is a substitute for Tergitol 15-S-9. 

Technically, 15-S-9 and LS-54 are preferred due to achieving lower surface tension and have a lower viscosity making it easier to work with but in use Polysorbate 20 is fine.  I did not recommend Polysorbate 80 because of its higher surface tension.  

Take care,

Neil

@whart,

The book in Chapter XIV lists no-rinse concentrations.  Concentrations specified (see Table XXIII Nalgene™ Dropper Bottle Use for Degritter™ & Humminguru™) are good enough for wetting only.  If the concentration is high enough to get detergency, then as the Table specifies - rinsing is recommended to avoid audible residue.

But if we look at say 30-ppm of nonionic surfactant (of those specified by the book) that is essentially the same as 30-mg/L = 0.03-mg/ml.  If we assume 3-ml dries on each side of the record = 0.09-mg of nonionic surfactant and the record surface area (with grooves) is about 1-sqft = 0.09-mg/sqft.  And if you dive into Chapter XI, this is about the equivalent film thickness of 0.01-microns.  This is down at the record surface roughness which is pretty much below audible.  

But to get good detergency from a simple high-performance nonionic surfactant you need to be up at 150-ppm = 150-mg/L, and now the residue thickness is 5X what was calculated above, and now the residue thickness is also 5X higher and now we are into the audible region based on user feedback.

However, note that vacuum-RCM, because there is so little fluid being used, the recommended final cleaner concentration is 500-ppm, so rinsing is mandatory especially since the vacuum is not 100% efficient in removing (sucking up) all fluid from the record.  Testing (as described in the book Chapter XIII) has shown vacuum RCM is only 70 to 85% efficient in sucking up all fluid (depends on the fluid).  The 15-30% not sucked up is essentially dried in-place.  

Take care,

Neil

@pfmaudio,

You previously said you tried only your old distilled water and the machine caused no problems.  Then you bought new distilled water and added

two drops of the cleaning fluid, as recommend by the brand. After a careful glistening, I remarked lost of focus and quality. On the 4th music, steamroller, it was clearly noticeable the distortion on the electrical guitar.  I rest my case, I don’t want to ruin more records. This machine does ruin the grooves.

Is the cleaner the problem or the machine?  I previously indicated that the cleaner is an unknown and other forums had indicated less than satisfactory results with the brand cleaner.   Cleaner residue is a well-known problem with record cleaning and people using cleaner w/o rinsing and not all cleaners rinse easy.

Years ago, when I was developing precision cleaning processes for the Navy and its suppliers, and these were large multi-bay UT consoles, balancing pre-cleaner concentration to ensure they were rinsed in the follow-on UT rinse bath before final clean in 3rd UT tank was a critical attribute.  One common commercial product at 10% concentration (as specified by the OEM) was not completely rinse in the UT rinse tank.  This was evident since the final cleaner was a patented inorganic alkaline cleaner that would not foam, and suddenly started foaming caused by it removing the residue from pre-clean/UT-rinse step.  The pre-cleaner need to be diluted to 2% to be effectively removed by the UT rinse step.  

So, is the problem the cleaner or the machine?  Unless there is something wrong with the machine, that leaves the cleaner.

@pfmaudio 

Do you think doubling the drying time can help to remove the eventual residue?

Drying longer is not going to reduce/remove the residue.  Nonionic surfactant in their 100% state is often like thin oils and are essentially non-volatile.  When the volatile water evaporates/dries, what is left behind are the non-volatile ingredients of the cleaner.  If the cleaner only contains a simple nonionic surfactant, it will be a viscous type of thin oil that is generally easily removed (water soluble) with a water rinse.  HOWEVER, if there are any inorganic salts in the ingredients, they do not dissolve back into water.  Think about hard water stains - they will not redissolve into water.  You need an acid which is why you use Distilled White Vinegar to clean your coffee maker.  The acid can dissolve the hard water (mineral salts) deposits.  

This whole issue with reside remaining after the water (or solvent) evaporates/dries is what the industry terms "non-volatile residue" NVR.

@oldrooney,

Thank you for the compliment but let us not forget the contribution of @whart who generously stepped in as Editor and Publisher making the book available for free via his site -  Precision Aqueous Cleaning of Vinyl Records-3rd Edition - The Vinyl Press and arranging that any time the book is downloaded, it's always the latest version.  

And let me reiterate the premise of the book as stated in the Forward - 

All cleaning procedures specified herein are presented as only “a” way to clean a record. No claim is made there is only one way to approach the process. In the final analysis, the best cleaning process is the one that is best for you.

Good luck,

Neil

PS/For those in the UK & EU, Chapter II Table II EU/UK Manual Record Cleaning Process Material Substitution List, the Tonar™ Plasticgoat Natural Goat Hair Wet Record Cleaning Brush may not be suitable.  The design the book links - Tonar Plastigoat Natural Goats Hair Wet Record Cleaning Brush - SCOTT NANGLE AUDIO (snvinyl.co.uk) may not be the design being sold - Tonar Plastigoat Brush - HIFI MEDIA which has very short brushes and one user in Switzerland recently reported unsatisfactory (and may leave residue).  The preferred Stasis brush (same as the Record Doctor brush) is available in the EU - Stasis Plattenbürste - Rockers Records.

@pfmaudio,

It is a little misterious becaus, in my system, ONLY THE CLEANED RECORDS caused problems. I hear no difference in other records and the system seems ok to me. I will now check all the TT set-up because the problem must lie there. 

If you only played back these 'cleaned' records once, and playback at the dealer was a 2nd time, it is entirely possible that your 1st playback scaped the record clean.  In this case, and it can happen depending on the type & age of the residue, what was played back at the dealer was far cleaner than what you first played.  So, if you check your TT-set-up and all was correct, there is a plausible explanation.

Unfortunately, these types of variables can drive one nuts.  The more you know of the chemistry and the process, the less risk of falling into this trap.

@whart, and for every one of those discussions, I similarly learned a lot.  Your encyclopedic knowledge of the past industry both hardware and music are quite impressive, and as a music reviewer you are the equal of any other.  And you're taking the time to visit the Library of Congress and meet and see their record conservations practices lends to your credibility.  

Take care,

Neil

@vitussl101,

The book addresses many subjects including the science behind cleaning agents, how clean does a record need to be and details for ultrasonic cleaning for those going the DIY route. But the manual sink-cleaning procedure is very simply summarized in Figure 6 – Precision Aqueous Vinyl Record Cleaning Process Summary with a picture of the materials to use in Figure 12 - Step 1: Assemble Cleaning Process Solutions and Materials

Otherwise, the devil is in the details, and oh by the way, the book is now 192-pages.

Peace