Investigating if ultrasound is harming LPs

How many times does one clean a given record this way?  I thought ultrasound was used once, and after only again if something catastrophic happened, like if the lp was buried in a mudslide in Turkey.  My gut feeling is the improvement made by deep blasting 50 years of crap out of the grooves would more than offset a loss of mass in the tenth decimal place, but what do I know?

mahler123

How many times does one clean a given record this way?  I thought ultrasound was used once, and after only again if something catastrophic happened, like if the lp was buried in a mudslide in Turkey ...

I have found that one cleaning usually suffices. However, I have a handful of favorite LPs that I've cleaned a second time. That's because - no matter what some may claim - an LP will acquire some dust during play. (There is no way to prevent that in a home environment. Even the use of a conductive sweep arm on a turntable can only collect dust from the tiny patch beneath it, leaving all he rest of the LP surface exposed.)

My gut feeling is the improvement made by deep blasting 50 years of crap out of the grooves would more than offset a loss of mass in the tenth decimal place ...

I'll go one step further. Even brand new LPs have dust and contaminants on them from the manufacturing and packaging process and they, too, benefit from cleaning.

Many audiophiles have never heard a truly clean record. You're one of them if you're routinely seeing dust on your stylus.

"The ’science’ of listening will always be flawed. "

Science is inherently flawed, imperfect, and incomplete that is the way that the world works you can not proclaim one aspect of science more important or more truthful, valid, or meaningful than any other aspect of science. One thing we have learned is that the sciences are all connected and the division, separation, and distinction we have made between the sciences are man-made and deceptive because we don’t/can’t see the whole picture but of course some will insist they have ascended the mountain and seen the truth that has been concealed from the ignorant, the poor, and my favorite "the uneducated".

I actually studied the effect of ultrasonic cleaning of LPs in great detail back in the late 70s when I built my first ultrasonic cleaner. I used a combination of optical microscopy (Olympus Laboratory Microscope at about 10,000X) and Photoelectron Spectroscopy (HP 5950A Spectrometer) to analyze sacrificial test LP samples before and after various cleaning procedures. Photoelectron Spectroscopy is sensitive to the top 5 nanometers of the LP surface and can determine the chemical structure of the LP surface and the chemical composition of contaminants on the LP surface. These experiments were done on sacrificial records that had obvious contamination. All of these experiments were done in a clean room environment.

Regarding US cleaning time, my experiments demonstrated that longer than a few minutes in the ultrasonic bath had little beneficial effect on the overall cleaning process and the possibility of a detrimental effect. Most of the cleaning took place in the first few minutes in the bath. I did observe that extended time in the bath would leach plasticizers, stabilizers or other additives from the bulk of the LP and eventually pit the LP surface. Once the plasticizers or stabilizers are fully depleted, the LP surface would become brittle and micro-cracks start to form. So I tried to keep the time in the bath to a minimum. When I finally set up my ultrasonic cleaner, I typically had it set at about 2 RPM and a run time of about 6 to 9 mins. That corresponds to actual exposure times of ~ 2 to 3 minutes (~1/3 of the LP surface is in the bath at a given time). For my setup, between 1 to 3 RPM worked fine. The 6 min time was for my LPs purchased new which had no obvious contamination and the 9 min time was for previously owned LPs. An LP that was quite dirty might occasionally require some extra time. I used this ultrasonic cleaner for over 30 years with excellent results and never any issues with my LPs. Even new LPs exhibited a significant improvement in SQ after US cleaning. Typically once an LP is US cleaned, it will need no further US cleaning if handled properly.

Besides time in the US bath, the key to optimum US cleaning is the proper bath solution and choice of surfactant. The most common bath solution is distilled water or distilled water with a small percentage of isopropyl alcohol. There are many surfactants to choose from. Typically nonionic surfactants are preferred. For my US cleaner, I used an alcohol ethoxylate with the general structure R(OCH2CH2)nOH where R is the alkyl chain and (OCH2CH2)n is the ethylene oxide (EO) chain. I chose the lowest molecular weight that would be soluble in water at room temperature. For solubility in water at room temperature, alcohol ethoxylates should have an average alkyl (R) chain length of 12 C atoms or more and contain at least 5 ethylene oxide (EO) units. The lower molecular weight surfactants were less likely to leave residue on the LP surface and were easier to remove with a distilled water rinse after the US bath.

For reference, the alcohol ethoxylate I used is similar in structure to Tergitol which is a secondary alcohol ethoxylate. Triton-X 100 is an octylphenol ethoxylate which in this case contains a phenyl group as part of the hydrophobic tail.

The concentration of the surfactant is also critical for proper cleaning. It is important for optimum cleaning to have the surfactant concentration at or above the Critical Micelle Concentration (CMC) and the cleaning bath at the proper temperature for micelle formation. The CMC and bath temperature are surfactant dependent. A micelle is an aggregate of surfactant molecules in a liquid solution with their hydrophobic ends on the inside of the aggregate and their hydrophilic ends on the outside, so that hydrophobic residues can be emulsified inside these aggregates. Micelles only form when the concentration of surfactant is greater than the CMC, and the temperature of the system is sufficient for micelle formation. The importance of micelle formation is that the micelles can emulsify surface contaminants that would otherwise be insoluble in the cleaning bath. This allows for the hydrophobic contaminants to be removed from the surface. For my nonionic surfactant the ideal bath temperature for CMC formation was between 36 to 38 degrees C.

Pindac, If you can bear to read all the posts on this thread (and I don't blame you if you cannot bear it), I invite you to look for mine back up near the beginning, where I suggested that one proper way to make the assessment is to use test LPs with specific pure tones encoded on them or it, say 100Hz, 1000Hz, 10kHz (all 3 frequencies on the same surface of the same test LP).  Since we would expect HF to be affected by excessive US cleaning, ahead of any effect on lower frequencies, you could play the test LP tones into a storage oscilloscope, to measure both amplitude and accuracy of the frequencies produced, before vs after cleaning, using same cartridge, tonearm, TT..  Yes, this is an oversimplified desription of the experiment I would endorse; I do realize that the US parameters, perhaps the buffer, the temperature, and many other factors could affect the results, and proper controls would be needed.  But basically, any eroding of the signal voltage amplitude or alteration of frequency of the 10kHz band in comparison to the 100Hz or 1kHz bands encoded on the very same LP would be meaningful to the degree that the lower frequency bands would have been exposed to the exact same conditions as the HF bands on that test LP.