Ultrasonic Cleaners - They do Work...

[4-2-7]

Okay, 4-2-7 just earned a place in my Ignore list.

I'd like to hang around and contribute to a useful exchange of information,

Obviously you do not want to exchange information and opinions, when asked questions what do you do? I see nothing logical or anything to justify an opinion, based on nothing really factual. So when you can't just have people listen and follow along (Groupthink) we take our ball and go home.

Oh I'll still be able to read your post and share my opinion...

 

[Wildcat]

Wildcat, I agree about the value of the VPI thread on ultrasonic cleaning. Harry Weisfeld started as a skeptic, observed some negative results in the high frequencies, continued to experiment to resolve the negative issues, and is now wholeheartedly enthusiastic about the results he's getting. Like you, I'm largely following the same setup he's currently using but playing around with what I'm using in the ultrasonic bath (Tertigol rather than Photo-flo, for example) and with filtering the water. I pay attention to HW's comments because he's always willing to actually try something to see if he can get better results.

I've used a mix of Tergitol and a small amount of isopropryl alcohol--as Harry says, the dilute amount we use will not affect the vinyl (which is what chemists also claim). If I'm not mistaken, Photo-flo isn't around anymore? What I didn't realize was that the extra step in ultrasonic cleaning is the important rinse and vac treatment. Even when we used to clean things ultrasonically decades ago at the shop, we always rinsed afterward. I just wish I had a more powerful vacuum system.

The one reason I can trust Harry's advice is that he has the resources to experiment with these steps. I don't know about high frequency loss, but some of the used vinyl we all buy is probably in a lot worse shape than anything he's cleaning at his place, and I'd rather lose a barrage of surface noise from dirt even if it cost a possible small amount of high frequency loss. Regardless, for new records, I give them a minimal run through the ultrasonic. For older records that have more crud, they'll run a while longer. I can safely say (if I haven't already) that the ultrasonic cleaning has gotten records cleaner than anything else I've tried (especially those overpriced cleaning solutions, which I've found to clean no better than the simple Tergitol/IPA formula I've used in recent months that cost a small fraction thereof to make). Even new records get a cleaning now.

I've never felt vacuuming alone was enough. Seeing how the ultrasonic has improved any record I've vacuum cleaned kind of proves that point. Wetting the packed-in dirt for a minute or two can never loosen it, and neither can felt pads. (Same concept as soaking a dirty dinner plate for two minutes vs. an hour.) It needs something to agitate the dirt out of the grooves and the ultrasonic provides that.

 

[ETLS]

Wildcat, I agree about the value of the VPI thread on ultrasonic cleaning. Harry Weisfeld started as a skeptic, observed some negative results in the high frequencies, continued to experiment to resolve the negative issues, and is now wholeheartedly enthusiastic about the results he's getting. Like you, I'm largely following the same setup he's currently using but playing around with what I'm using in the ultrasonic bath (Tertigol rather than Photo-flo, for example) and with filtering the water. I pay attention to HW's comments because he's always willing to actually try something to see if he can get better results.

In that post you linked to, it reads as; one revolution at five seconds, and he's done with the ultrasonic cleaning.

 

[Wildcat]

In that post you linked to, it reads as; one revolution at five seconds, and he's done with the ultrasonic cleaning.

Oops--he meant five minutes. Read down to his next post (bottom of the page) where he clarifies.

 

[ETLS]

That would make more sense.

 

[Rushton]

Oops--he meant five minutes. Read down to his next post (bottom of the page) where he clarifies.

Yes, HW corrected himself. And, he has now increased his time to allow for approximately 3 rotations in ten minutes.

 

[Rushton]

I've used a mix of Tergitol and a small amount of isopropryl alcohol--as Harry says, the dilute amount we use will not affect the vinyl (which is what chemists also claim). If I'm not mistaken, Photo-flo isn't around anymore? What I didn't realize was that the extra step in ultrasonic cleaning is the important rinse and vac treatment. Even when we used to clean things ultrasonically decades ago at the shop, we always rinsed afterward. I just wish I had a more powerful vacuum system.

The one reason I can trust Harry's advice is that he has the resources to experiment with these steps. I don't know about high frequency loss, but some of the used vinyl we all buy is probably in a lot worse shape than anything he's cleaning at his place, and I'd rather lose a barrage of surface noise from dirt even if it cost a possible small amount of high frequency loss. Regardless, for new records, I give them a minimal run through the ultrasonic. For older records that have more crud, they'll run a while longer. I can safely say (if I haven't already) that the ultrasonic cleaning has gotten records cleaner than anything else I've tried (especially those overpriced cleaning solutions, which I've found to clean no better than the simple Tergitol/IPA formula I've used in recent months that cost a small fraction thereof to make). Even new records get a cleaning now.

I've never felt vacuuming alone was enough. Seeing how the ultrasonic has improved any record I've vacuum cleaned kind of proves that point. Wetting the packed-in dirt for a minute or two can never loosen it, and neither can felt pads. (Same concept as soaking a dirty dinner plate for two minutes vs. an hour.) It needs something to agitate the dirt out of the grooves and the ultrasonic provides that.

Good information, Wildcat. Photo-flo is still available. I just found that my local camera store can get me some for about $12 a pint, and it can be ordered from Amazon for a bit more. I decided I'd rather spend a bit more and go with Tertigol, like you, based on all the information Vince was able to provide in this thread before he left the forum (such a loss!).

Wildcat, which Tertigol are you using? The NP-9, the 15-S-7, or 15-S-3 and 15-S-9 in combination? How are you mixing it up?

 

[ETLS]

Is one third RPM more desirable than say one or two RPM? It would seem than RPM speed that low wouldn't make much difference. I could see higher RPM speeds wouldn't make much sense as it wouldn't spend much time in the bath, before it was already out.

 

[ripblade]

Is one third RPM more desirable than say one or two RPM? It would seem than RPM speed that low wouldn't make much difference. I could see higher RPM speeds wouldn't make much sense as it wouldn't spend much time in the bath, before it was already out.

It spends the same amount of time in the bath regardless of the speed of rotation as the time is dependant on the surface area submerged, ~40% per rotation. What changes is the amount of time the solution is allowed to rest on the surface before becoming submerged...a presoak of sorts. Too long and the solution might dry out while too short might not make best use of the soaking time.

 

[ETLS]

2 RPM motor is what I'm using.

 

[Rushton]

It spends the same amount of time in the bath regardless of the speed of rotation as the time is dependant on the surface area submerged, ~40% per rotation. What changes is the amount of time the solution is allowed to rest on the surface before becoming submerged...a presoak of sorts. Too long and the solution might dry out while too short might not make best use of the soaking time.

Good explanation, Ripblade! I'm sure HW arrived at his current rotation speed choice through experimentation, and your explanation is making a lot of sense to me regarding the variables to consider in experimenting with this.

 

[Rushton]

Just sharing research... I've continued to develop my parts list to set up a U/S record cleaner. One area I've spent time exploring is filtering the tank water. After considering the various aquarium tank solutions, I've decided to go with the inline water filter approach shown by bbftx in the diyAudio thread and by doublenaught in the VPI thread.

The biggest challenge is finding the inline pump at modest cost. Doublenaught uses a Shurflo which are readily available. Bbftx uses a now discontinued Little Giant 1-AA-OM pump. I just purchased one of the Little Giant 1-AA-OM pumps from an eBay seller who apparently must have several on hand; they are new old stock. It shipped very promptly and arrived in good condition.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Little-Giant-531001-1-AA-OM-Pump-/252508771367

 

[MRL_Audio]

Curious about the thought on filtering the water given the mix of products to make the cleaning solution. I currently just toss the water after a session and don't really worry about it. Not worth the time to go that extra step in my opinion.

 

[Rushton]

Curious about the thought on filtering the water given the mix of products to make the cleaning solution. I currently just toss the water after a session and don't really worry about it. Not worth the time to go that extra step in my opinion.

Yes, but it's not the mix of products in the cleaning solution that we're concerned with here. As you suggest, that's good clean stuff when it starts out. The filtering is to remove from the U/S bath all the grunge coming off those records we're cleaning. Otherwise, the cavitation is just beating those particle into the grooves of our records. Of course, if you're doing just one set of records through your tank then tossing out your water, certainly no need to filter. The filtering is just for those of us doing several rounds of records in a session.

 

[MRL_Audio]

I do 50 to 100 LP's in a single session. NOT one round of 4 or 8 or 3 or whatever your US machine accommodates. I am not buying used LP's that played in a sand box.

 

[Rushton]

I do 50 to 100 LP's in a single session. NOT one round of 4 or 8 or 3 or whatever your US machine accommodates.

Glad you've got a process that's working for you MRL_Audio. And I've appreciated your comment that the VinylStack Sonic Spin is working well in your setup.

I'm probably cleaning similarly but in somewhat smaller sessions of 20-50 LPs at a time. My concern has been the loss of high frequencies that some have reported. The recommendation from those who have experienced this, but then solved the issue to their satisfaction, is to keep the solution in the U/S tank very very clean. So, for me, this is where the value of filtering in between batches of LPs comes into play.

I'm delighted you're happy with the results you're getting, that's a good thing and no worries. Not having to deal with filtering during a session certainly simplifies the process and I'm glad hear about your experience. Sharing what's working helps us all.

 

[4-2-7]

I think I would never sign up at that DIY site. The members there would get on my nerves as they over think things and try to reinvent the wheel.

 

[MRL_Audio]

"

Ummm, I'm probably cleaning similarly in sessions of 20-50 LPs at a time. But just curious..., are you putting 50-100 LPs into a single tank and doing one session? Or are you doing a cleaning session where you clean one or several LPs at a time in your tank but complete 50-100 over the course of session with the same U/S solution in your tank?

If the latter, this is where the value of filtering comes in. It's all about keeping the solution in the tank very very clean over the course of doing a bunch of records in a session. But, if you're happy with the results you're getting, that's a good thing and no worries.

I do 4 at a time and 50-100 in a session using the same solution the entire time. I understand your desire and logic in filtering the solution to rid it of the grime as you clean and it makes sense but to me over complicates a process that has worked well for me as is. Loss of dynamics, or highs, has never been noticed and frankly find that comment funny. Either way everybody has their own way of doing this. I like to keep it simple. The results from US cleaning have been far far superior to any other method I have used in the past and I do not see any reason to turn back no matter a filter or not.

 

[MRL_Audio]

Agree with 4-2-7. A lot of DIY is a solution looking for a problem. That's part of the fun though.

 

[Rushton]

I do 4 at a time and 50-100 in a session using the same solution the entire time. I understand your desire and logic in filtering the solution to rid it of the grime as you clean and it makes sense but to me over complicates a process that has worked well for me as is.

Thanks for the added information about your process!

Loss of dynamics, or highs, has never been noticed and frankly find that comment funny. Either way everybody has their own way of doing this. I like to keep it simple.

Unfortunately, this is my problem - I have heard this loss of high frequency energy in the listening comparisons I've done with various friends who have set up U/S cleaners for themselves in the past. So, I'm skittish. And, accordingly, I'm willing to take some extra steps based on others' experimentation who've heard the same but are now completely sold on their U/S implementations.

The results from US cleaning have been far far superior to any other method I have used in the past and I do not see any reason to turn back no matter a filter or not.

Great encouragement to pursue this. Thanks for taking time to elaborate.