ultrasound record cleaning machine damaged my records

Dear all,

 

I got back my Lyra cartridge from Japan. They sent me the following email. 
“This cartridge has been bumped (hit against record or other object) by the customer. The front magnet carrier (purple piece) have rotated around mounting screw, and this has caused cantilever to be pushed out of position. This is not a warrantable problem. The reason for the distortion is that the rotated front magnet carrier touches the cantilever while playing the record. After the adjustments and revoking, all problems are now gone. The cartridge will play like when it was new.“

 

and it does play very well. The records which I believe were damaged are not damaged at all. 
 

what is more extraordinary is how the problem was visible only after cleaning. Which! shows how the stylus traces the groove in a deeper form after cleaning. 
 

thank you all for your comments. 

what could be better and more expensive does not always offer better results and sometimes products are marketed before actual testing and it will be the end customers who act as beta testers without their knowledge.
I have been using a manual Nitti Gritti for 40 years and never had any problems washing over 5000 records; a Teflon gasket first and a rubber one later (up grade) which are the intake ones are the only things I changed.
I'm sorry for the opener who damaged his discs, I don't want to think that if they had been very rare or very expensive copies for collectors, how much damage the machine would have caused.

After such a lengthy ordeal, glad you found the solution 

After my last post I made a complete TT set-up, to confirm what were the causes of the distortion.  Had it checked by an expert in TT setup. 
 

I found some issues. The O-rings of the suspensions towers were too stretched and one of the towers was no more suspwnding the table. Replaced all the O-rimgs. But the problem continued. 
then checked the needle with a microscope. Found some dirt on the back of the needle, hard to remove. Using the Lyra SPT with care, finally arrived to remove it. It got better, but the problem was still audible. 
 

and not only audible by me. Clearly audible by the person who made the new set up. 
 

finnaly, checked overhand, VTA, weight (1,71 g, on the recommended values). Everything is ok. 
 

Finnaly, put my spare cartridge back on the table, set it up and everything went into focus again. I must conclude that the problem is on the cartridge. 
 

I will send it to reconstruction. 
 

however, it is amazing that only on the cleaned records the problem was noticeable. It is very strange and unexplained thing. And audible by two persons, to eliminate psicológicas effects. In fact, in some cases even a deaf would detect the distortion. And only on the cleaned records. 

My hope is that the OP has learned that he isn't using an ultrasound machine.

@antinn,

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

    Boy, now when I want a book put me to sleep, I can retire "The Dancing Chain" a riveting story of the history of the bicycle rear derailleur.

@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

@elliottbnewcombjr "A picture is worth a thousand words. How many pics to tell Neil Antin’s 145 pages of words?"  Yes, it is and that's why I bought a Degritter.  Didn't Paul Rigby in one of his reviews on the Degritter say he washed a record a hundred times and not only did it not damage it, it improved sonically with every cleaning?  

Shoulda stuck with a simple VPI 16.5. No damage, just clean records. 

get this, put one drop per gallon of water, it does not leave a residue or damage the record. Have cleaned about 600 records with it. The bottle might last my lifetime. 

 

@pfmaudio  You should have contacted the good folks at the CableCo and explained your issue with the pump on the Autodesk.  I did that a few years ago when my pump broke and they upgraded me to the newest model for $1500.  Not sure, but think that's cheaper than getting one of those cheaper options that, like you have discovered, can ruin your records.

If you still have the AutoDesk, I would call Robert Stein at the CableCo and see what he can do for you.

@pfmaudio It was very clear to hear the distortion. Can we post in here an audio file?

Yes one can be linked, but the file itself must be hosted elsewhere on the web.

@antinn You remind me of something: the reason I bought a Loricraft many years ago was that I'd read the BBC was buying them to conserve their record collection. In those days if the BBC did it, it was a good recommendation. Not sure that is true any more!

@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

@oldrooney - FWIW@antinn was insistent that the book be made available for free. I was fine with that and more than happy to host the work. I've had a number of discussions with Neil, some far ranging, and always learn a lot. 

@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.

 

@pindac Thanks for the tips.
@antinn When I cite your work in future, I will be sure to include the text from the foreword, p. 3 that you quote above.
@whart Thank you for allowing free download of the current edition of Precision Aqueous Cleaning of Vinyl Records. It truly is a gift to the community and offers solid guidance in the midst of a forest of ‘solutions’ I feel.
@pfmaudio I’m glad things went well at the dealer. Your experience vindicated your reticence to mention names at the start, in my opinion. I don’t know about you, but every new purchase these days seems to generate a high degree of anxiety in me which seems to affect both my senses and my sense, if you will. I wish I had a dealer I could go to in order to confirm or deny my perceptions. I guess my old age (70+) makes me frail in ways I don’t always anticipate.

As far as I know you can post links to YouTube video clips that contain music, but I haven’t done it myself. The key is linking the data file, I’m not sure you can upload the file itself, but others may correct me. You might reach out to the site moderator for instructions and limitations.

@dogberry, I understand your point. It was very clear to hear the distortion. Can we post in here an audio file?

If it was only the cleaned records sounding off, one can only explain this by wondering if they were not completely dry, or even whether psychacoustic factors came into play somehow? (I mean no disrespect with the latter, we are all susceptible.)

Surely it cannot be a TT set-up issue or that would affect all records, cleaned or not.

After this long thread I went to my dealer to discuss the matter. We listened to all the records on his system. And to the surprise of all, there was no problem with the records when played at his system. The problem must be at my turntable, as that is the only variable that wasn’t checked before. 
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. 
The TT and cartridge of the dealer was of a similar quality of mine (SME 20.12 with Lyra Atla Carteige). His turntable a little better and the cartridge a little below the Atlas. 
I will keep everyone informed on further developments. 
Ome of the reasons why I didn’t at first reveal the brand of the machine was this one. I have more than 30 years on this hobby and it is not the first time that the reason of a problem is the one we think. 
To all HuminGuro owners and future owners I say to be assured that my records weren’t, apparently, damaged by the US cleaner. 
Thanks everyone for the help and comments, specially @antinn for the great help. 
I will keep you informed. 

@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.

@oldrooney I have built a kit around the Manual Cleaning Method described using UK Sourced Substances to be used as a mixture to produce the cleaning solutions.

I also bought into a 2.5Litre Pressurised Gardner Spray Bottle, with adjustable nozzle from jet to fine mist. This is excellent for wetting and Power Rinsing.

For the Mixtures produced to be Cleaning Solutions, I bought from Amazon multi Pack Spray Bottles approx' 0.5 Litre with adjustable nozzle from Mist to jet. 

I have a Batch of Baby Scalp Brushes, colour coded to prevent cross contamination, each Brush has it own shallow rinse bowl.

I have Super Absorbent Sponge for First Dry and the Micro Cloth for the final dry.

New Sleeves are a must once cleaning is complete.

When I get fired up to clean, I protect an area with News Paper to catch the over spray.

Clean over the News Paper, but keep the Albums off the News Paper.

I can do 10 Albums in an Hour and the first 2 or 3 Albums are dry enough to play when the cleaning session is over and evidence of it having happened are cleaned up.

After the first Album is Played, if played immediately, all Albums can follow being played if wanted.

@pindac Thank you for posting a link to Neil Antin‘s magnum opus.
@antinn Thank you for responding to clarify specific questions with citations to your book.

Generally speaking, this is a very very confusing topic for beginners such as myself, getting back into vinyl in a serious fashion. I found the organization of Precision Aqueous Cleaning of Vinyl Records, 3rd Edition quite well laid out, easy to read, and well illustrated. What’s more, it cites materials for not only the United States, but Europe, the United Kingdom, as well as Australia. In five chapters it describes the process recommended as a starting-off point, with the what’s and why’s of each step. It’s strongest point, I think, is that it doesn’t hold up one ingredient or the other as a silver bullet, or mandate specific ‘hard rules’ so much as (1) describe the task, (2) list materials, (3) describe precisely how and why procedure is given the way it is, (4) offers ways to check effectiveness. Finally, it is very well documented. Anyone seeking to clean their records would benefit from reading it, in my opinion. It was worth the morning I spent doing so.

Note: Chapter 6 discusses keeping your records clean, and Chapters 7 through 15 delve deeper into the component parts of the cleaning process, starting with the water, and finish examining the method and effectiveness of record cleaning machines, both vacuum and ultrasonic. Appendix B consists of a helpful List of Abbreviations and Acronyms (don’t you wish everyone did).

For my part, I washed my old records by hand with warm water and Fels Naptha Soap and dried them with a cotton towel. [Hey! The process was aqueous, wasn’t it?] Play improved on all but the worst ones. I’ve purchased a Spin Clean, but have yet to use it. I’m thinking I’ll print out chapters 1-6 and start building my kit before I start in on my collection of about 200 LPs and 750 45 RPM records.

@pfmaudio I hope you are able to get some satisfaction from the dealer, and hopefully recover whatever was lost on your recordings. I can certainly understand your reticence to make any more sacrifices for ‘science’ or other’s satisfaction. 

@antinn Thank You for the supplied information.

Polysorbate 20 is much easier to source in smaller volume, hence much cheaper as a purchase than the cost for BASF™ Dehypon® LS 54.

Options on Costings and Chemical for a Part to be used in a mixture to produce a Solution for the cleaning process, is now improved for the UK and EU individuals that express an interest in such practices..  

@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.

The records I clean on my Humminguru all sound great.  I use distilled water.   

Meanwhile, my dealer contacted HummingGuru and got the following email. 
 

@antinn,

thanks for your feedback. The only time I had no trouble was when I used the new distilled water with no cleaning fluid (the small bottle, of the same brand). However, it was with an old record, to which I listened before and after, without detecting differences. On old records there are always things we hear and it was a record that I didn’t listen to for a long time. I am 99% sure there were no issues. But not 100%. However, I didn’t hear the king of distortion present on the other records. 
 When I used the old distilled water only, the results were a disaster. 
When I used the new distilled water bottle with 2 drops of cleaning fluid, I  got bad results, but it was subtle. Only at the fourth track I could be pretty sure. On the 3 previous tracks there was perhaps a veil which prevented me to immerse on the music. But it was vague enough for me to admit there might be a psychological effect. However, on the fourth track, it was unmistakable. 
so perhaps you’re right and the problem is on the cleaning solution. The problem is that I don’t want to risk more records…

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

I’ll keep you informed of further developments. 
 

best regards,

Thank you Neil @antinn for recapping the data on "one step" cleaning processes and residue. 

Bill

A few have asked me in PM what the heck is my Manual Cleaning method?

Of course you can prove this is a horrible thing to do to LP’s, but

Manually Clean LPs

Lots of words but it is easy.

critical for success: ama zon, sort by price: lowest.

critical for enjoyment: do this while listening to music (I sit dead center).

Materials:

1st, but the kit from ama zon, search titles are from Ama zon

Big Fudge Vinyl Record Cleaning Kit (whatever one is on sale)

it comes with some washing fluid. Buy some extra fluid.

2. Next buy Alcohol

C V S Health 91% Isopropyl Alcohol, 16 Ounces

3. Buy Jet-Dry dishwasher spot eliminator

Finish Jet-Dry Liquid Rinse Aid, Dishwasher Rinse and Drying Agent, 23 fl oz

4. Find a small spray bottle (not heavy while working) to put your mix in and spritz lps with.

5. Brushes, Baby Scalp, 3 pack

Loofah Sterilized Cradle Cap Brush - 3-pk

5. Distilled Water. C V S has it, but clerks look in the wrong places

C V S Health Distilled Water, 128 oz

6. Waterproof Vinyl Sheet, mine is from Party Store, doubled over to protect my dining room table.

7. Lint Free Cloths,

a. to keep the area of work mostly dry, under the lp so the paper label on the down-side doesn't get soaked.

b. when lifting lp out of cleaning spinner (has ONLY distilled water it in). while dripping water back into the tank, do a preliminary wipe before putting LP into the drying rack so it dries faster (and area below rack isn't a puddle).

8. Final, most expensive: get a lid from a Chinese soup container, they are the size needed to protect the paper label while scrubbing.

Procedure:

cleaning fluid mix (not scientific): supplied lp cleaner with a decent amount of alcohol, and several drops of jet-dry in the spritz bottle. This stronger mix is only going to be on the LP a short while.
tank, fill with distilled water only, leave the kit's brushes in for final rinse

drying rack ready
batch of 10 lps. (as I wash them, I turn the covers upside down in a stack), easy to get the washed/dry lps back in the covers in order without searching.
soup container lid held on with one hand
spritz, scrub, vigorously, you won't hurt them, you want the bottom of the grooves clean so the new stylus shapes which get down deep will find virgin groove information, that is the key for success. This, and the stronger mix, is what I think is better than ultrasound, who knows.
rinse in spin tank, drip/wipe some (change distilled water as needed).
place in drying rack.

you will be amazed the first time you play a previously filthy LP.

 

 

 

 

@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.

@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

@pfmaudio Your reporting the Brand, has been more than acceptable, especially now you are convinced the use of the Machine is causing a condition to LP' that is quite a concern.

I would suggest all owners of the Brand who have seen this Thread, hold off from further usage, whilst you pursue an answer to your issue. It does seem quality issues are present and these may already be very similar in other machines sold.  m

pfmaudio 

It will be interesting to hear what the dealer has to say and hopefully if it's a problem that can either be fixed or exchanged for another manufacturer .

I don't own a US cleaner ,  but I've sent in close to 200 albums to Record Genie and had him double clean using 2 different machines with fantastic results .

Meanwhile I am using a Spin Clean with better results than my using a Discwasher for over 25 years before that . 

And by the way, @cleeds, I don’t fabricate affairs. That’s why I was careful enough not to put the brand of the machine before. 

Following my last post, i made more experiments. Cleaning a récord using the old bottle of distilled water gave all the problems I reported before. It seemed the problem was with the distilled water. However, having courage to eventually destroy another good record, I put to wash a new record, 180 g, of JamesTaylor “sweet baby james”, which I have 3 records. I used the new distilled water and 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. I decided to send it back to the seller and have my money back. There must be a problem somewhere, but I don’t  want to know anymore what it is. 
A machine like this is supposed to clean our precious records and not to destroy them. With the audio desk the problem was the pump but everything was ok. My fight with audio desk is the vulnerability of the pump and having no solution to replace it. Even 1/2 price for the replacement is a lot of money. But it was very trusty and never ruined anything. 
by the way the machine in case is a HummingGuru. I will let you know what will be their answer to the problem. 
best regard and thanks for your time and help. 

The OP states 40kHZ and 60W output. The Humminguru website states output is 45W. Maybe it isn’t a Humminguru?

I can understand the reticence about publishing the brand, but the worst of all worlds is to allow a brand to be falsely suggested as the culprit. Maybe the OP would simply say it isn’t the HG, but something different if that is indeed the case?

I don't know what you got, but some of those more inexpensive ultrasonic machines are not made for records but rather for things like jewelry.

I bought a DeGritter about 3 years ago and have cleaned thousands of records in it and it still works like a champ. 

I wish you luck in finding a good solution. 

Agreed. I always run the record through the SpinClean (with only distilled water) after the US.

To me, if you are using any chemistry, you should rinse.

The Audio Desk units can be repaired. It’s the pump that dies. I’ve done it. It takes some doing and a bit of creativity, but it can be done. There are several threads here on Agon discussing the procedure.

That the distortion problem was related to not effectively removing the surfactant does not surprise me, nor am I surprised that Neil deduced this based on the facts provided. Before I connected with Neil (my blog is where his work on vinyl cleaning has been published), I had worked through all sorts of cleaning processes using a combination of manual cleaning, vacuum removal of fluid and ultrasonic. A lot of this was just working and reworking various records, rather than a scientific approach. I am not a chemist, or engineer. 

One thing I found with older records (typically what I purchase) is that a lot of issues come from a bad previous cleaning in the hands of predecessors. In some instances, you can look at the dead wax of an LP and see residue of liquid spotting. I remember all the sorts of cleaning products, from sprays to wiping, that were used back in the day. A lot of these left a residue, which may be the chief problem with "used" records, apart from groove damage from kludgey tone arms, bad set ups on changers or whatever. 

To me, if you are using any chemistry, you should rinse. That holds true with vacuum machines as well. I know some folks prefer a "one step" vacuum cleaning agent and perhaps the chemical residue of those is low enough? I don't know. @antinn 

Glad the OP got it sorted. 

Bill Hart

@antinn Not to side track the thread, but at present I work with the suggested for the UK, BASF™ Dehypon® LS 54 nonionic surfactant. as a substitute for  Tergitol 15-S-9.

Can you give a description of how Polysorbate 20 also(Polysorbate 80 is found), fits in as a additional chemical to be used for a solution, or is the chemical to  Supersede Dehyphon as a part of a solution?  

  

mswale

You are more likely to damage a record with manual cleaning than the ultrasonic machine.

That's very likely true, but in this case we don't know much about the machine he's using. Perhaps he's rigged a commercial machine intended for an entirely different purpose. Or maybe he's just fabricated the entire affair.

I have a Hummingru machine, have used it on all my records, new old, and vintage. It has done nothing but clean them. Some vintage ones need a couple of rounds to get everything out. But there has been 0 damage done. You are more likely to damage a record with manual cleaning than the ultrasonic machine. The Hummingru machine is suppose to have a thermal shut off if the water gets too hot. It also states to not run more than a few times per round. If you do the wash/dry cycles it cools the unit off during the drying cycle. My water never gets hot, even after using it all day, as I usually clean in 20-50 records at a time.

My routine is to use G2 manually, then go into the bath. Only distilled water and one drop of G2 ultrasonic cleaner per gallon. 

lewm

Cleeds, I drive a well known German automobile. Can you name it with any certainty? No.

Of course not. That’s my point. I don’t understand the coy secrecy here.

dwcda

I’m guessing based on the specs it’s a Humminguru.

Of course everyone is free to speculate. We can speculate that @lewm drives a Porsche. But he could just as easily be a VW or MB guy. Or something else.

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,

hmmm that's weird. I have about 1200 albums and have cleaned them all at least once with my US RCM. No issues. I wonder how water could damage records. Vinyl has a melting point of about 100C, about the same as boiling pt of water. So I did an experiment last week with a handful of albums that STILL have a lot of clicks and pops.

20 minutes at 35C

hand scrub with Disc Doctor full strength cleaner

rinse in tap water

20 minutes at 35C

scrub again

rinse again

20 minutes at 35 C again

dry

This process DID get rid of probably 90% of the clicks and pops, with no audible damage - at least to my old retired ears. I also have a TDS - total dissolved solids - meter that also measures temp. My TDS after all the cleaning was 4 ppm. Also found the temp meter on the RCM is totally out of whack - I have to set it to about 45C to get 35C on my TDS meter. 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,

It is seemingly the Solution used for cleaning that is the key to the end result being able to substantially impress or not, tools used are merely tools being used.

If I were to change a Cleaning Solution it would be one identified by Neil Antin or someone with Neil Antin credentials, offering the Mixture Ratio for the selected substances.

My days of producing a drip or two of this, splurge of that, diluted with this, to produce a potion where info is supplied from a variety of sources, even the manufacturers. When there is no real understanding of the qualities that are on offer from what is produced, are very much over. 

I strongly suggest anybody putting their faith in the Tools and not the cleaning solution, have a rethink, and discover the mixture / solution that really does benefit the cleaning process.  

I'll stick with my SpinClean, thank you.