Thunderbox
Super Member
Yes it looks like they just cropped that model. That is good for record cleaning though.
Record Cleaning: Developing the Best Possible Methods
- Thread starter guest110
- Start date
- Status
Reminder:
Folks, I want to remind you of the existence of the following thread. It is a real educational gem:
I am concerned about the author, as the thread has not been finished, and we have not seen the author since March of last year.
Enjoy,
Rich P
Folks, I want to remind you of the existence of the following thread. It is a real educational gem:
I am concerned about the author, as the thread has not been finished, and we have not seen the author since March of last year.
Enjoy,
Rich P
I especially liked the following passage which rules out dish detergent:
Conditioners:
A few producers included a conditioner in the mix to aid in lubrication and control static. The typical conditioners are quaternary ammonium salts with long fatty-acid derived chains (“quat.” surfactants) [2]. Many quats have the added benefit that they have biocidal properties. Resin formulations that include them result in records that have lower surface friction, lower potential for static charge, and resistance to microbial contamination. These properties can be neutralized by anions, so it is useful to avoid common household dish soaps and detergents that typically include the anionic detergent SDS. The quats on the surface can be replenished, or added to records that don’t include them, by including them in cleaning solutions. [7].***
Remember that those are used in very low concentrations in your solutions, but they are good additions to the mix. They will also contribute to solution stability in your storage concentrations.
Enjoy,
Rich P
Tiver
Enjoy the music
There was a 3M(IIRC) branded Quat disinfectant at Home Depot I picked up recently. I added a squirt to the US tub on the last run. I haven't any idea whether there is a real benefit, but the principles offered seem to support its use.
Anyhow, should one find themself in the aisles of a Home Depot, it might avail itself to you. I know I would have been slow to order it through the web, but it was right in front of me so I grabbed it. I think it was $5ish or under.
Anyhow, should one find themself in the aisles of a Home Depot, it might avail itself to you. I know I would have been slow to order it through the web, but it was right in front of me so I grabbed it. I think it was $5ish or under.
Doesn't a good shampoo + conditioner have quats?? That's what I've been scrubbing with of late.
Also, @pustelniakr Thanks for reminding all of that good thread. I tried wrapping all threads into my "compendium" thread, and I linked to all but that one, I think.
Another hoping we hear from this thread's author.
Also, @pustelniakr Thanks for reminding all of that good thread. I tried wrapping all threads into my "compendium" thread, and I linked to all but that one, I think.
Another hoping we hear from this thread's author.
Yes, but there are other questionable ingredients in there as well. Plus the addition of the shampoo includes anionic surfactants, like SDS, which tend to react with quats to cancel some of the benefits, reduce the quat contribution to the micro-layer left behind after rinsing, and produce undesired precipitates. In this thread, we are shooting for that last bit of goodness from our solutions. Remember that you do not want anionic surfactants in your solutions to which you add the tiny bit of quat.
Rich P
Had some days off so just did a massive cleaning of around 400 records. All previously owned by someone else (so wide variance in condition). Some notes/thoughts.
Hepstat/Titron/IPA/Tetrasodium EDTA mixture with distilled water. I've got a Vinyl Stack and a cheap US cleaner. That set-up does three records at a time. I've got a DIY vacuum using a dead turntable for rinsing/vacuuming clean. I've also got a filtration system on the bath for the US cleaner, which I run the whole time. I have since seen that moving the water hinders cavitation but oh well and that I'm maybe filtering out the stuff I need to actually, you know, clean. Before I had a working filter system I did 3-4 runs of about 18 or 21 records total, then tossed out the bath and started new (the water was pretty filthy--an old pic is on post #2067). However, I noticed that the records on the first couple of batches sounded great, but the records in batches 6 or 7 less so. They were kinds of noisy. I took a DSLR to my stylus, then enlarged the pic and noticed just a ton of crap hanging off it. Seems like whatever was getting shaken loose from the first three records was being redeposited on records 19-21 but loosely enough that my stylus was picking it up. So, that's why I run the filter. There's just too much crap in the bath to risk it. Willing to listen to arguments that something else must be happening, but going from my own experience on that. Anyway, to the mass cleaning itself.
First, I don't recommend it. It's exhausting. I wasn't even doing that much physical exertion. Yet I still feel like I slipped a disc and felt drained the entire day after I finished. As for what I did right and wrong...
I probably didn't change the bath often enough. I did four clean starts. But they weren't evenly staggered. The first went about 200 records, the next three about 60-70 each. The first I noticed the color had turned from the very faint pink of the Hepstat to something slightly yellowish. My filter was also looking pretty filthy. That seemed bad. So I changed both the solution bath and the filter (it's a 1 micron filter) out at this point. Sound silly in hindsight, like how could you possibly think not to change out at, oh, 100 records or something not insane. But I'd check the bath and everything looked good, until it didn't. Then I refreshed with a little more frequency. I did mix up a 1L bottle to top off as the solution level dipped, so I was replenishing with something that was theoretically still keeping things in proportion, although I'm sure the filter was probably working against that to some extent (how much, I have no idea). Both filters are pretty dirty. If nothing else, all that nastiness is no longer on my records.
For time's sake. I dropped the spin/bath time to 9 minutes (three revolutions). That's almost the exact amount of time it takes to vacuum clean and re-sleeve three records, then load the next three on a spindle, so I could work almost seamlessly. Is 9 minutes enough? I don't know. Again, I don't think I'd recommend working this way but I was determined to make it through the stack I had to clean and a 67% increase in bath/US cleaner time wasn't going to get it done. Are the results as good as 15 minutes (my prior allotted time)? Can't tell, which is probably a good sign. In other words the marginal difference isn't so great that it's immediately obvious to my ears.
Bath temp: I was working in an unfinished basement and the temperatures outside were well below freezing. So my workspace wasn't warm. The temp of the bath on my US cleaner doesn't regulate, it just keeps going up as long as the elements are running. So it can get too hot to work (one reason why I waited for winter to do this project). However, because the ambient temp was so low, my bath never got much above 28-29C and was often around 25C. Is that too low? Maybe. Again, not noticing a huge difference. Other people seem to report that warmer is better. Not warm enough doesn't seem to be detrimental.
The accumulated marginal 'errors'—stale bath, shorter spin time, lower temp, solutions out of proportion—are enough to make me worry that I might not have done a particularly good job and will have to do this all over again (ugh). So for a quick test I re-ran three batches (9 records total... ). Fresh bath, no filter, 32 C temp and 15 minutes. If the records weren't really that clean I would probably have seen some debris accumulate. But nope. Nothing visible to the naked eye at all. So that's good. First handful of records sound decent enough. Many weren't in great shape. So they are clean but I'm not getting scratches out of the copy of Meet The Beatles that looks like it was used for second base at a company softball game. Dirt is gone though. And it's probably the best it has sounded since maybe the mid 70s.
Anyway, whole process seems to be forgiving enough that I'm not going to worry too much about whether the filter was actually working against me or not or my temp wasn't ideal, etc. Results speak/sound for themselves. I mean I would genuinely like to know what's best in terms of process, but if you're OCD, proceed with the idea that even if everything isn't absolutely perfect, you're probably going to get results superior to 95% of anything else you might try.
Hepstat/Titron/IPA/Tetrasodium EDTA mixture with distilled water. I've got a Vinyl Stack and a cheap US cleaner. That set-up does three records at a time. I've got a DIY vacuum using a dead turntable for rinsing/vacuuming clean. I've also got a filtration system on the bath for the US cleaner, which I run the whole time. I have since seen that moving the water hinders cavitation but oh well and that I'm maybe filtering out the stuff I need to actually, you know, clean. Before I had a working filter system I did 3-4 runs of about 18 or 21 records total, then tossed out the bath and started new (the water was pretty filthy--an old pic is on post #2067). However, I noticed that the records on the first couple of batches sounded great, but the records in batches 6 or 7 less so. They were kinds of noisy. I took a DSLR to my stylus, then enlarged the pic and noticed just a ton of crap hanging off it. Seems like whatever was getting shaken loose from the first three records was being redeposited on records 19-21 but loosely enough that my stylus was picking it up. So, that's why I run the filter. There's just too much crap in the bath to risk it. Willing to listen to arguments that something else must be happening, but going from my own experience on that. Anyway, to the mass cleaning itself.
First, I don't recommend it. It's exhausting. I wasn't even doing that much physical exertion. Yet I still feel like I slipped a disc and felt drained the entire day after I finished. As for what I did right and wrong...
I probably didn't change the bath often enough. I did four clean starts. But they weren't evenly staggered. The first went about 200 records, the next three about 60-70 each. The first I noticed the color had turned from the very faint pink of the Hepstat to something slightly yellowish. My filter was also looking pretty filthy. That seemed bad. So I changed both the solution bath and the filter (it's a 1 micron filter) out at this point. Sound silly in hindsight, like how could you possibly think not to change out at, oh, 100 records or something not insane. But I'd check the bath and everything looked good, until it didn't. Then I refreshed with a little more frequency. I did mix up a 1L bottle to top off as the solution level dipped, so I was replenishing with something that was theoretically still keeping things in proportion, although I'm sure the filter was probably working against that to some extent (how much, I have no idea). Both filters are pretty dirty. If nothing else, all that nastiness is no longer on my records.
For time's sake. I dropped the spin/bath time to 9 minutes (three revolutions). That's almost the exact amount of time it takes to vacuum clean and re-sleeve three records, then load the next three on a spindle, so I could work almost seamlessly. Is 9 minutes enough? I don't know. Again, I don't think I'd recommend working this way but I was determined to make it through the stack I had to clean and a 67% increase in bath/US cleaner time wasn't going to get it done. Are the results as good as 15 minutes (my prior allotted time)? Can't tell, which is probably a good sign. In other words the marginal difference isn't so great that it's immediately obvious to my ears.
Bath temp: I was working in an unfinished basement and the temperatures outside were well below freezing. So my workspace wasn't warm. The temp of the bath on my US cleaner doesn't regulate, it just keeps going up as long as the elements are running. So it can get too hot to work (one reason why I waited for winter to do this project). However, because the ambient temp was so low, my bath never got much above 28-29C and was often around 25C. Is that too low? Maybe. Again, not noticing a huge difference. Other people seem to report that warmer is better. Not warm enough doesn't seem to be detrimental.
The accumulated marginal 'errors'—stale bath, shorter spin time, lower temp, solutions out of proportion—are enough to make me worry that I might not have done a particularly good job and will have to do this all over again (ugh). So for a quick test I re-ran three batches (9 records total... ). Fresh bath, no filter, 32 C temp and 15 minutes. If the records weren't really that clean I would probably have seen some debris accumulate. But nope. Nothing visible to the naked eye at all. So that's good. First handful of records sound decent enough. Many weren't in great shape. So they are clean but I'm not getting scratches out of the copy of Meet The Beatles that looks like it was used for second base at a company softball game. Dirt is gone though. And it's probably the best it has sounded since maybe the mid 70s.
Anyway, whole process seems to be forgiving enough that I'm not going to worry too much about whether the filter was actually working against me or not or my temp wasn't ideal, etc. Results speak/sound for themselves. I mean I would genuinely like to know what's best in terms of process, but if you're OCD, proceed with the idea that even if everything isn't absolutely perfect, you're probably going to get results superior to 95% of anything else you might try.
Wow, that's a lot of work. I have the patience for maybe 10-20 records in a day. Then I'm done!
Johncan
Record collector
I have a similar set-up. I don't run my pump and filter while the US is running. I only filter after running 3 or 4 cycles. I drain and replace the water and cleaning solution after 25 or so cycles of 3 LPs.
Were you rinsing the LPs once they came out of the US bath? The final rinse is an important step if you are using the Hepastat/Titron/IPA mix.
Were you rinsing the LPs once they came out of the US bath? The final rinse is an important step if you are using the Hepastat/Titron/IPA mix.
Hey TwoFooted, I can offer a few observations given your marathon that seems at least partially successful! You get my "E for effort" award for sure.
This was just posted by Johncan as I began my reply to you and is something I will echo as well. I agree with the importance of the rinse step although there are some who do not concur. Everyone has their own preferences based on what they have seen work for them which is fine. I, however, am a huge proponent of the rinse afterward as I have done it both ways, beginning with just letting them air-dry which resulted in stuff on my stylus as you also found....However, since you are rinsing and drying I would suggest a part of the problem lies with your method of doing that. After a rinse and vacuum dry, I find NOTHING on my stylus aside what might be floating around in the air before and during my playing of the record....this usually releases itself from the stylus at some point during the play and if not, is easily removed between records with the blutack method. This is rare, so rare that I can't remember the last time I had to do that and I do inspect my stylus (visually, with the help of some higher-powered reading glasses and bright LED pen light) between each record.
I also admired the creativity of some who designed clever methods of re-cycling their solution but then remembered something in Phontomrebel's posts that discussed the liabilities of doing so with regard to what is actually being filtered and the result regarding the effectiveness of the solution. I decided not to go this route and opted instead to change the solution out after a certain number of records had been cleaned. This number varied with the condition of the records before they went into the bath and the only way I had of determining timing of changing the solution was to visually inspect it. I remember changing it after as few as 9 records and as many as 36!
I have the same VinylStack as you, the 3-record one, and have cleaned over 2,000 records so that now I'm pretty much done aside from new records that come in on occasion. My reasoning was also, in part, that the solution is pretty darned affordable and the whole shootin' match was under $1.50 per tank and then I had brand new solution to proceed with each time. One thing I discovered very quickly was that a thorough vacuuming of each record prior to it being put in the tank helped tremendously in keeping the solution much cleaner for a longer period of time. Just makes sense though.....remember, when you do that, you also must keep your vacuum apparatus clean so changing of the pads frequently is essential. In my case, I fashioned a vacuum wand that has pads which can be cleaned and rinsed easily and quickly:
Your comment about doing that many records in that time frame is understandable and I rarely did over 12 records a day.....this way I was able to actually enjoy things, inspecting each one before putting it in the tank, doing the vacuum thing, preparing new inner and outer sleeves, and in many cases re-acquainting myself with the liner notes, e.g. where it was recorded, the mastering engineer etc., a major hit of nostalgia in many cases and well-received! I knew it was going to be a "marathon," as you experienced, but I also just looked at the next 12 or so records and not the 2,000 behind them!!! Important to maintain perspective methinks, and NEVER did the process interfere with my listening session that usually occurs early evening!
Dropping the spin-bath time to 9 minutes was likely hurting, not helping you. I have the VinylStack set to 6V, which according to the instructions included gives 1 revolution every 3 minutes and I run it for 15 minutes with 3 records in the bath. This was perfect, giving me time in between to rinse and vacuum dry each set of 3 while the next set was in the bath. BTW, I also procured a similar tank as the one you mention, mine being a Vevor brand costing just under $100.
As for your comments/questioning about temperature....Initially, the heater would heat the water to the set temperature (takes at least 30 minutes on mine) and then, upon turning on the transducers it would increase the temperature pretty dramatically. Not sure why, but after a while this stopped happening and the water temperature now is stable when I set it....I use 42 deg. C. I know, I know, many would not go this high but I have not seen a negative effect with warping or anything else. And yes, I did check the bath temperature with two other devices that were known to produce accurate readings and they matched the temp indication on the tank read-out. YMMV, but that's where I'm at.
You can always try an approach like this with some records that you have already cleaned and see what the difference is, before and after. I can attest to 42 deg. C not harming any of my records, but do this at your own risk and BE SURE YOU HAVE A VERY RELIABLE MEASUREMENT! Do not, repeat, do not rely simply on the LED read-out of the tank as that could have disastrous outcomes. Just because mine was spot-on does not mean that yours, or others' will be so.....remember, these are mass-manufactured and quality control may not be up to snuff on all produced. In any case, try to stay with maybe 12 records a day and you won't get the burnout described.....or even just 3 records and then spend some time listening, enjoying (hopefully) and judging your results as you go.
Good luck, amigo!
This was just posted by Johncan as I began my reply to you and is something I will echo as well. I agree with the importance of the rinse step although there are some who do not concur. Everyone has their own preferences based on what they have seen work for them which is fine. I, however, am a huge proponent of the rinse afterward as I have done it both ways, beginning with just letting them air-dry which resulted in stuff on my stylus as you also found....However, since you are rinsing and drying I would suggest a part of the problem lies with your method of doing that. After a rinse and vacuum dry, I find NOTHING on my stylus aside what might be floating around in the air before and during my playing of the record....this usually releases itself from the stylus at some point during the play and if not, is easily removed between records with the blutack method. This is rare, so rare that I can't remember the last time I had to do that and I do inspect my stylus (visually, with the help of some higher-powered reading glasses and bright LED pen light) between each record.
I also admired the creativity of some who designed clever methods of re-cycling their solution but then remembered something in Phontomrebel's posts that discussed the liabilities of doing so with regard to what is actually being filtered and the result regarding the effectiveness of the solution. I decided not to go this route and opted instead to change the solution out after a certain number of records had been cleaned. This number varied with the condition of the records before they went into the bath and the only way I had of determining timing of changing the solution was to visually inspect it. I remember changing it after as few as 9 records and as many as 36!
I have the same VinylStack as you, the 3-record one, and have cleaned over 2,000 records so that now I'm pretty much done aside from new records that come in on occasion. My reasoning was also, in part, that the solution is pretty darned affordable and the whole shootin' match was under $1.50 per tank and then I had brand new solution to proceed with each time. One thing I discovered very quickly was that a thorough vacuuming of each record prior to it being put in the tank helped tremendously in keeping the solution much cleaner for a longer period of time. Just makes sense though.....remember, when you do that, you also must keep your vacuum apparatus clean so changing of the pads frequently is essential. In my case, I fashioned a vacuum wand that has pads which can be cleaned and rinsed easily and quickly:
Your comment about doing that many records in that time frame is understandable and I rarely did over 12 records a day.....this way I was able to actually enjoy things, inspecting each one before putting it in the tank, doing the vacuum thing, preparing new inner and outer sleeves, and in many cases re-acquainting myself with the liner notes, e.g. where it was recorded, the mastering engineer etc., a major hit of nostalgia in many cases and well-received! I knew it was going to be a "marathon," as you experienced, but I also just looked at the next 12 or so records and not the 2,000 behind them!!! Important to maintain perspective methinks, and NEVER did the process interfere with my listening session that usually occurs early evening!
Dropping the spin-bath time to 9 minutes was likely hurting, not helping you. I have the VinylStack set to 6V, which according to the instructions included gives 1 revolution every 3 minutes and I run it for 15 minutes with 3 records in the bath. This was perfect, giving me time in between to rinse and vacuum dry each set of 3 while the next set was in the bath. BTW, I also procured a similar tank as the one you mention, mine being a Vevor brand costing just under $100.
As for your comments/questioning about temperature....Initially, the heater would heat the water to the set temperature (takes at least 30 minutes on mine) and then, upon turning on the transducers it would increase the temperature pretty dramatically. Not sure why, but after a while this stopped happening and the water temperature now is stable when I set it....I use 42 deg. C. I know, I know, many would not go this high but I have not seen a negative effect with warping or anything else. And yes, I did check the bath temperature with two other devices that were known to produce accurate readings and they matched the temp indication on the tank read-out. YMMV, but that's where I'm at.
You can always try an approach like this with some records that you have already cleaned and see what the difference is, before and after. I can attest to 42 deg. C not harming any of my records, but do this at your own risk and BE SURE YOU HAVE A VERY RELIABLE MEASUREMENT! Do not, repeat, do not rely simply on the LED read-out of the tank as that could have disastrous outcomes. Just because mine was spot-on does not mean that yours, or others' will be so.....remember, these are mass-manufactured and quality control may not be up to snuff on all produced. In any case, try to stay with maybe 12 records a day and you won't get the burnout described.....or even just 3 records and then spend some time listening, enjoying (hopefully) and judging your results as you go.
Good luck, amigo!
Yep. Rinse with distilled water and then vacuum that up. Absolutely agree that the rinse/vacuum is much better than just air drying.
To do it over again, I'd swap out the bath maybe every 45 records or so. It's relatively cheap. That was probably my biggest 'mistake' but so far everything sounds pretty good (and without any objective, measurable criteria as to how cleaning fared across time, how it sounds is all I have to go by). As I come across things that maybe didn't clean as well (late in a batch, etc.) I can segregate them out and do a few small batches every now and then.
I totally get the incremental approach, but I had a few days time I could block off and this fairly large collection that I hadn't touched because I wanted them cleaned. Like I said, wouldn't recommend it (nor would I do it again that way) BUT... it's also nice to have this whole catalog suddenly opened up to playing. Anyway, just my experience. Thought it might help others make their decisions on what (or what not) to do.
Thanks to all who have contributed to this thread. I am not a chemist and never would have come up with this on my own. Nice to be able to tap into the expertise of others.
To do it over again, I'd swap out the bath maybe every 45 records or so. It's relatively cheap. That was probably my biggest 'mistake' but so far everything sounds pretty good (and without any objective, measurable criteria as to how cleaning fared across time, how it sounds is all I have to go by). As I come across things that maybe didn't clean as well (late in a batch, etc.) I can segregate them out and do a few small batches every now and then.
I totally get the incremental approach, but I had a few days time I could block off and this fairly large collection that I hadn't touched because I wanted them cleaned. Like I said, wouldn't recommend it (nor would I do it again that way) BUT... it's also nice to have this whole catalog suddenly opened up to playing. Anyway, just my experience. Thought it might help others make their decisions on what (or what not) to do.
Thanks to all who have contributed to this thread. I am not a chemist and never would have come up with this on my own. Nice to be able to tap into the expertise of others.
Trodder
Member
So did we ever get a list of safe alternatives to Hepastat 256? It is wildly expensive for how much we will actually use in a lifetime and not the most readily available. Understanding the mixture ratio for any suggested might be helpful too as they are varied in chemical makeup. I have been trying so hard to get to the simple conclusion of what can I use in lie of Hepastat 256.
Trodder
Member
My above post shows that the cleaner is slightly acid but is likely right around 6, so with all the dilution and the short exposure time I would assume it is safe to use.... but I am no chemist. Not sure if we can maybe balance the ph a little with ammonia water or baking powder??
One thought: Adding bases to acids generally results in precipitates, salts, and/or charged ions, which would at least need to put through a filter, due to potential abrasive qualities. As to whether the ingredient is too acidic, at our concentrations and for our purposes, that would be a question for a chemist. Personally, the pine scent means that there are perfumes in there. I'm also interested in what the inert ingredients are that make up the 67% number. How will those perfumes and generally inert ingredients affect the performance of the solutions we are discussing in this thread. Maybe the Materials Data Sheet, for this candidate ingredient, would be of some value to examine.
I wish @phantomrebel would return to us, here.
Enjoy,
Rich P
I wish @phantomrebel would return to us, here.
Enjoy,
Rich P
Last edited:
ripblade
Addicted Member
Me too. I hope he's just on a well deserved break.
Trodder
Member
Me Three! ETLS suggest using barter but that doesn't even put a band-aid on the situation. I am looking for a long term alternative for all of us, not just me.If push comes to shove I can just suck it up and get a huge lot of Hepastat 256, but the point is to find a readily available alternative for everyone. hopefully @phantomrebel will return some day and we can all start by thanking him profusely for the wisdom he has shared. I wouldn't have even gotten this far without combing through 100s of his posts. What I would love to do with this topic is get one consolidated thread where the first post gets updated with any new findings, but ultimately having a list of products we can use to accomplish each factor in the cleaning/rinse process and give them some sort of rating with a simple word of caution or disclaimer that nobody is responsible if you ruin records. Maybe make a table with safety rating, ph level, mixture ratio, and anything else that might be pertinent. Extracting all the information out of 115 pages is TOUGH! This could make it easy for all.
oscarinovp
Active Member
I suspect the price of Hepastat 256 is through the roof because the pandemic has caused a huge demand for disinfectants in the health care setting. Once the pandemic is over, I suspect availability will improve and prices will drop.
- Status