Ultrasonic Cleaners - They do Work...
- Thread starter jgordon
- Start date
ripblade
Addicted Member
BTW the fish tank filtering is a pain in the ass, doesn't filter well and is in the way. Far far more simple and better filtering dumping the tank thought a metal strainer, sitting on a big pot though paper towels.
And of course this has already been brought up pages back.
Seems to me if the cavitation is cleaning the records how can it also be beating particles back into the grooves.
And of course this has already been brought up pages back.
Any prof of this or just repeating what you read,feel, or it's true because I read it on the internet.
Seems to me if the cavitation is cleaning the records how can it also be beating particles back into the grooves.
It works fine Bob, I do it all the time, I'll clean 32, strain, and have used my mix for up to 200 records.I have heard of people also after a session of cleaning emptying the cleaning fluid thru a coffee filter then reusing the fluid over again. Not sure how well that would work.
Vinylmasters
Super Member
I have heard of people also after a session of cleaning emptying the cleaning fluid thru a coffee filter then reusing the fluid over again. Not sure how well that would work.
I filter with a restaurant fryer cone filter. It works to get a lot of things like hair and lint out, but it doesn't actually filter the water itself - just to get the stuff that floats out. You still need to change it when it looks noticeably 'unclean'. I make my own so it's not expensive at all - no worries.
Does anyone use a vacuum machine for drying purposes after ultrasonic?
Anyone see a problem with using a vacuum after for drying?
mace
Rocks
I use a vacuum, with no issues. Also use a Spin Clean after the US, to help dislodge anything left behind.
ripblade
Addicted Member
Some people do, but I have a bigger problem with leaving dust on the record, so I rinse and vacuum. People seem to think that U/S is some kind of miracle cleaner....all it really is, is a high definition scrub. The rest of the usual RCM cleaning cycle still needs to be done.
Now, if you've got several records in the bath at once there will be some logistical difficulties in rinsing and vacuuming the last one before the fluid dries on it. I only ever cleaned one record at a time.
I skip the vacuuming, and just air dry, the main reason for me is to not add static back onto the record. When we use heated solutions in the ultrasonic cleaner are records expand and as they cool in drying they contract. This expansion / contraction removes all static from the record, vacuum RCM starts the proses of adding static back onto a record, not to mention flipping both side onto a platter that can just start adding dirt again. Then if we look at the handling time and moving records around, the less we do the more we limit ascendents happening.
Exactly.
Harry Weisfeld demonstrated this on the VPI forum. After doing an ultrasonic cleaning, he does a rinse cycle. Ultrasonic loosens the dirt inside the grooves, but does not completely flush it out. When Harry did a rinse cycle on a Cyclone, he was still getting dirty water out of the machine. Can't stress that enough. And I have found the same in my experience--records are cleaner and play back quieter after I do a vacuum rinse. (Quietest I've ever had in over 20 years of vacuum cleaning records, in fact.) Letting it air dry is only baking that dirt right back into the grooves. Since my vacuum system supports the record by the label, vs putting it on a platter, I am not further contaminating it.
When we used ultrasonic cleaning at work for industrial parts, we also rinsed the parts in a solvent afterward. And the jewelry store does this also. Ultrasonic cleaning is a not a magic cure-all--it only adds a "scrubbing" phase to the cleaning that record vacuum systems cannot ever achieve on their own.
I am pretty sure I linked to Weisfeld's thread on the VPI forum. If not, I can look it up later when I'm back at my regular computer and paste it here. But the bottom line is, vacuum cleaning is essential.
I just use the antistat for static soe a vacuum afterwards causing some static is no big deal...
phantomrebel
Serial Tapist
This is my experience as well. I always follow US with a RCM, including a dH2O vacuum rinse and drying. Have DIY fluid with antistat in the US bath that only costs a few pennies/gallon so I don't mind dumping it out frequently (no filtration).
IMO, there is no, one way to clean records, and records can be as individual as the people that own them.
If someone buys a few records a month it's quiet reasonable to think and do many cleanings as an attempt at making it better wether it does or not. If one has a collection of a few hundred records they can have the time do multiple washings and listen to each one and even go wash it again.
In my case and the reason I got a US cleaner it does bulk and I can get a large volume cleaned quickly. I buy far to many records to even get to listen to them right away let alone spending hours cleaning 10 titles. I also buy them in person looking at, and really only buying records that are E to mint. The only thing is they could have dust from storage all these years that worked it's way into the cover. I will also find some rare copies and of course they might not be as good and I can give them more attention.
However with a US cleaner and running the bulk of records though once and giving them a new sleeve is just fine for 90% of the records I get. When I play them and at that point if they are noisy or I hear things that maybe more cleaning can fix, I'll use my Oki Noki. But sometimes less is better and using products that are less invasive, most of these 40 year old mint records are mint because man wasn't touching them.
Well lets use the word mint loosely, as we all should know that a lot of the records produced in the past where not all that great new anyway. 40 years ago popular music wasn't produced for audiophiles to listen to. So we can scrub and scrub and really get no were in sound quality.
Yeah no magic bullet in cleaning records and one might just be better off buying multiples of the same titles listening to the differences in quality from one record to the other, than washing and washing to make a sows ear a silk purse.
If someone buys a few records a month it's quiet reasonable to think and do many cleanings as an attempt at making it better wether it does or not. If one has a collection of a few hundred records they can have the time do multiple washings and listen to each one and even go wash it again.
In my case and the reason I got a US cleaner it does bulk and I can get a large volume cleaned quickly. I buy far to many records to even get to listen to them right away let alone spending hours cleaning 10 titles. I also buy them in person looking at, and really only buying records that are E to mint. The only thing is they could have dust from storage all these years that worked it's way into the cover. I will also find some rare copies and of course they might not be as good and I can give them more attention.
However with a US cleaner and running the bulk of records though once and giving them a new sleeve is just fine for 90% of the records I get. When I play them and at that point if they are noisy or I hear things that maybe more cleaning can fix, I'll use my Oki Noki. But sometimes less is better and using products that are less invasive, most of these 40 year old mint records are mint because man wasn't touching them.
Well lets use the word mint loosely, as we all should know that a lot of the records produced in the past where not all that great new anyway. 40 years ago popular music wasn't produced for audiophiles to listen to. So we can scrub and scrub and really get no were in sound quality.
Yeah no magic bullet in cleaning records and one might just be better off buying multiples of the same titles listening to the differences in quality from one record to the other, than washing and washing to make a sows ear a silk purse.
Last edited:
captouch
Addicted Member
Waking this thread back up. . .
Has anyone played with different rotational speeds and compared cleaning effectiveness as a function of RPM's? I'm wondering at what point is cleaning effectiveness really negatively affected. The motor I've bought to use in my DIY spinner is 0.8-1 RPM, and another AK'er shared with me that their experience is that letting the record sit stationary is much more effective than even a slow spin. After sitting for awhile, periodically spin to a new area and let it sit again.
I'm wondering how much less effective it would be letting it rotate at 0.8-1 RPM vs letting it sit.
What speed are most of you rotating at, or are you letting it sit for awhile also?
Has anyone played with different rotational speeds and compared cleaning effectiveness as a function of RPM's? I'm wondering at what point is cleaning effectiveness really negatively affected. The motor I've bought to use in my DIY spinner is 0.8-1 RPM, and another AK'er shared with me that their experience is that letting the record sit stationary is much more effective than even a slow spin. After sitting for awhile, periodically spin to a new area and let it sit again.
I'm wondering how much less effective it would be letting it rotate at 0.8-1 RPM vs letting it sit.
What speed are most of you rotating at, or are you letting it sit for awhile also?
Also, if any longer-term users (someone who has cleaned ~1000 LPs) could comment on the reliability or any issues, would appreciate same. Thanks in advance.
I can't recall how long my "spin cycle" was, but a slow rotation was best. Stationary results in uneven cleaning since some parts of the record are submerged longer than others, being that there is a lot of overlap when rotating to the next stop, and too much time in the ultrasonic damages the grooves, likely from overheating. (Harry Weisfeld noticed that the sound on his records was dulled slightly if the ultrasonic cycle was too long.)