A Worthwhile Untrasonic Cleaner

All,

If interested, I use a manual cleaning procedure using the VinylStack label protector.  I use Alconox Liquinox in 1 wt% solution to pre-clean using the Record Doctor nylon brush. Then rinse under flowing tap water assisted with the nylon brush,  Then final clean with Tergitol 15-S-9 in a 0.05 to 0.1 wt% solution with the nylon brush.  Then first rinse under flowing tap water assisted with the nylon brush, and then final rinse with DI water.  

The Alconox Liquinox is a Industry Standard (for many years) broad based cleaner formulated with anionic and non-ionic surfactants.  The Tergitol is only non-ionic, and the low concentration will achieve very low surface tension so it will penetrate the groove for the final clean and also remove any residue from the higher concentration Alconox Liquinox that may have not been removed.  

A bit of trivia, anionic and non-ionic surfactants are soluble.  Cationic and non-ionic surfactants are soluble (example Hepastat 256).  But anionic and cationic surfactants are not soluble and will form a paste type precipitate/residue. 

I have been using approx quarter cap into the whole tank capacity, 10 liters or so.
Not had any nasty residue to deal with.
Not sure as I have noticed it inducing hard treble....

Thanks Antinn.
Very informative.

I found you have to be careful with the Photoflow. Too much in the mix and anything left in the grooves dries so that as the needle passes it shaves off what looks like soap!

Anyways, if you stick to two/three drops per liter, you are okay.

I make a try with photoflo on my us machine but I found the treble hard . I have to clean it twice on my regular moth machine to get again natural treble so I have ordered iltofol and am going to try in the next days.

Been using Photoflow in my tank since I got it set up at Christmas.
No records were harmed in the making of this mix.......

sammmmmmy, 

If you are curious, Kodak Photoflow  is a concentrated wetting agent that is water mixed with a combination of 25-30% propylene glycol (i.e. anti-freeze) that can act as an antibacterial and antifungal agent and 5-10% non-ionic surfactant. The non-ionic surfactant by the chemical abstract system (CAS) number is most likely Triton X-100 or from the Triton X family.  There is no surface tension data for this product, however, the propylene glycol component makes for a very stable shelf-life, and the chemical is very safe. Kodak recommends use at 1-part cleaner to 200 parts water, but this is for handwipe.

Either way,with ANY cleaner on the market, your actual vinyl-contact time is so miniscule compared to, say, a once-a-year record cleaning; as to make this discussion moot. 

Personally I use Kodak Photoflow and don't give a toss - althought most retentives rate it chemically worse than Tergitol/Triton.

@sammmmmmmy,

Both Tergitol and Triton X-100 non-ionic detergent (which has been used for cleaning vinyl records for decades) material safety data sheets list Poly (ethylene oxide), as a small impurity as part of the surfactants at <3%.  However, the CAS number listed is 25322-68-3 which actual traces to poly (ethylene glycol).  Tergitol 15-S-7 is what the Library of Congress uses to clean delicate lacquer records.  Ethylene oxide gas is considered incompatible with PVC, but that is not what we have here.  The record cleaning reps are wrong.  

Micheal Fremer has a youtube with 10 record cleaning reps-wotsits on the panel.
It was mentioned that Tergitol is ethylene oxide - bad for PVC.
At any concentration.

I made of couple of tweaks to the WEWU.  First - changed to a 5 volt power supply which slowed the rotation way down.  Would like to try a 3 volt but only had the 5 volt sitting around.  Second - put 3 rubber washers between each plate.  You can only clean 3 records at a time but it spaces the records much farther apart.

All,

For those of you that are using UT and using large quantities of distilled water, something to consider is a demineralizer, and this is the best value I have found, https://dirinse.com/product/d-i-rinse-pro-50-unit/.  It kind of expensive (but for this crowd, maybe not 😁), but if your tap water is of reasonable quality, it can produce about 2000 gallons of demineralizer water at a cost of $0.20/gallon, and it can be refilled ($200 for 2 refills), and the valve arrangement can make a very convient install.  If you have a source of readily available cheap DI water, then you don't need to worry about bath life or filters/pumps etc to extend the bath life. And, you could easily add an effective rinse step as follow:

Step 1.  Clean records in UT tank with aqueous chemistry
Step 2.  Drain tank to household waste drain.
Step 3.  Refill UT tank with only DI water and using ultasonics, perform rinse/final clean to remove any cleaner residue and any remaining very fine particulate.
Step 4.  Remove records to dry.
Step 5.  If cleaning another batch of records, just add cleaner to the existing DI bath and begin at Step 1.

Quick analysis with a 1.5 gal UT tank volume.  There the demineralizer should provide enough for 1333 tanks, and assuming you are cleaning 3 records/batch, that is 4000 records.  The initial cost is $0.30/tank for DI water, and for the Tergitol at 6 ml/tank, is $0.28/tank for at total of $0.58/tank or about $0.20/record.  After the first 1333 records, the DI water cost drops to $0.07/tank, so the total per tank cost drops to $0.35/tank, and the per record cost drops to $0.12/record based on the assumptions of this analysis.  Clean more than 3 or less than 3 records per batch, and the per record cost adjusts proportionally.

The chemist is correct for aqueous cleaners; years ago, CFC-113 was a near perfect solvent, but the Montreal Protocol put an end to that.  But, let me counter that there is no one cleaning method for all types and levels of contamination.  If you are trying to use UT for all types of contamination, then you will need a variety of chemistry.  BUT, there are limits to the power that UT can apply before it damages the record surface.  BUT, if you use multiple cleaning methods, then one chemistry may work.  As I said earlier in this thread, if you buy a Goodwill record that is just gunky, pre-clean it first.  Use the VinylStack record label protector, and use the Tergitol to brush/scrub the surface.  In manual cleaning with water rinse, you can use a slight higher cleaner concentration.  If you use a Record Doctor nylon record brush, the bristle diameter will cover the groove width, but not penetrate the groove which is protective, but it will drive the Tergitol deep into the groove, and the brushing action along with the Tergitol low surface tension will cause a lot of agitation.  However, if the record has dried glue or similar dried and hardened contaminant, you are going to have to move to a much more aggressive (potentially damaging, and likely hazardous) chemistry, but why buy the record anyway unless very rare and you are will just try.  Otherwise, trying to use a UT in one step for all types and levels of contamination is mis-application of the technology, it was never intended for that.  If you want to better understand UT check out the blog https://techblog.ctgclean.com/2019/11/the-purpose-of-this-blog/.  John Fuchs has been active in UT cleaning for decades.

So I wanted to follow up on this discussion as I have received feedback on another forum that I trust will be helpful here as well.  The kind chemist of whom I have spoken previously responded that while a simple solution is indeed convenient, it may not provide the best results.  He states "There is no ONE solution for every record as they vary in types and levels of contamination."  I believe this makes a lot of sense but am still going to give the Tergitol a go as well.  I have many records cleaned now with my present formulation using Triton X-100, Hepastat and IPA in distilled water so it will be interesting to see how those fare compared to some that I will clean with just a Tergitol 15-S-9 in distilled water mixture.  Stay tuned!

Thank you antinn, I will give it a go.....appreciate your follow up and look forward to comparing results. 

Anovak,

I received the Tergitol 15-S-9 and have worked out a good manual cleaning process.  Manual clean with a brush, and then two rinses, first with tap water to remove cleaner, and then rinse with distilled water from a spray bottle, overall, uses very little cleaner and very little distilled water.  The Tergitol has the consistency of a light weight oil, and at about 0.35% mixed very fast.  When sprayed on the record, it wets the surface almost instantly, very little foam, and under flowing water rinses very quickly.  But, for an ultrasonic tank where you may not be doing a follow-on water rinse, a 0.5% solution will be way to much.  The product will achieve lowest surface tension with margin at 0.1%, so for your tank size, 5 ml may be all that is required, but as I said, 0.5% will be way too much, even for manual cleaning.  The Tergitol is way more efficient than Triton X-100.

Antinn, I would think that getting the tank up to about 30-35deg. C and then turning it on, the transducers that is, as you add the Tergitol should then produce the desired result as far as dissolution is concerned.

Great you are getting back into spinning vinyl!  Good luck with your cleaning method and enjoy the music!

Thanks again for your input.

Anovak,
The data on Tergitol shows that one of its benefits is improved dissolution rate, i.e. how quickly does it dissolve.  Temperature and agitation improves the dissolution rate, but only up to point.  When the water is close to the cloud point (about 60C for both), the dissolution rate decreases.  Based on what I have read, it should dissolve much faster - first you will be using less Tergitol than Triton, and combined with the improved dissolution rate, it should mix easily.  However, you may want to add in 2 steps if if does not mix easily with one step, but keep in mind at 25C, it may take about 1-2 minutes for it to dissolve with agitation (simple shaking).

FYI, I bought the Tergitol 15-S-9, and the Vinylstack label protector and should (weather permitting) have both  tommorrow to do my own testing with simple manual cleaning.  I got back into vinyl about 4 yrs ago, and have since accummulated about 300 albums, mostly new or like new.  But I have a few new old stock that are very noisy, so I am going to try the Library of Congress method of scrub and rinse to see what I can get.  My library does not yet warrant the cost of a UT process. 

However, from the 1980's to early 2000, I was the U.S. Navy technical authority for precision cleaning of Oxygen and Compressed Gas/Life Support Sytems.  Did a lot or work with the Navy labs and NASA when we were all working to replace the CFC solvents, and ultimately developed precision aqueous cleaning processes using UT that are now documented MIL-STD-1330 and 1622.  So, I have some background; its been over 10 yrs since I was deep in it, but not much has changed, and as they say all that goes around, comes around.  There is a good short article by Blackstone Ultrasonics you can find on the web, with a NASA address, that discusses the UT theory and items to consider.  This was all done 20 yrs ago.  UT frequency, duration, temperature, surface tension and items to be cleaned stacking are critical factors.  Rapid rotation, i.e., more than 1 rpm, will not leave the surface exposed long enough to get the full benefits.  Also, too much duration/power at low frequency can damage the surface.  There is an old test where you place a piece of aluminum foil in the tank; if it perforates, you probably have too much power/duration for cleaning a vinyl record.

Thanks, antinn.  Will the Tergitol mix well in distilled water?  The Triton X-100 that I'm using now does not, hence pre-mixing it in IPA is necessary.  

25ml should be more than enough.  If you notice any rinse problems, reduce to 20ml or even 15ml.  Using too much is worse than using not enough.

Hepastat 256 is a Bactericidal, used to disenfect surfaces.  However, it has at 0.5 ounces per gallon, 886 ppm active quaternary ammonium compounds, and these salts are also used for antistatic in shampoos and fabric softeners.  However, if you are going to add Hepastat why use distilled water, you are just adding salt to the distilled water; Hepastat its intended to be used in tap freshwater.  Download the MSDS for Hepastat and look at the ingedients, its a spot cleaning agent complete with non-ionic surfactant and highly alkaline silicates. 

If you want to keep a tank full of the DI water-Tergitol solution for weeks, keep covered, and once a week operate the tank (no records of course) at 165F for about 15-30 minutes, and any criters should be  killed.  PS, the recommendation discussed to store the Tergitol in a non-food refrigerator is based on preventing any accidental ingestion by a child, but at 33-41F, you may need to allow the Tergitol to warm up so can pour it out.

Otherwise, the wet cleaning process will remove any static charge from the record.  Air dry or use an antistatic cloth to dry, such as Kinetronics Anti-Static Microfiber Cloth, 10x18-Inch Tiger Cloth (you can buy Amazon), and you should not cause a static charge to develop post cleaning.

"there is method to this madness."
To be sure, antinn, this is very true and since this whole thing is pretty new for most of us, I imagine there will be some trials and experimentation involved but in the end most effective and simplest method will be the one I'm interested in. 

So if I'm reading this correctly, to achieve .5% Tergitol 15-S-9  concentration one would use:

5qts.(total volume of distilled water) =  4,730ml. (1qt. = 946ml. x 5)
4,730ml. at .5% = 23.65ml or 24ml. to keep things sane, is that correct? 

Maybe even make it a bit easier to just use 25ml. since my measuring device has a marker for that and no harm done.  25ml. of the Tergitol to 5qts. distilled water and you're done....sounds like a plan and I'm going to order some later today. 

Will report back on the findings once I have cleaned some records and made comparisons to my present formula.  I believe the Hepastat 256 was recommended as an antistatic measure, so would there be any benefit to using that along with the Tergitol in your estimation?

Anovak,
One last item, the concentration to use for the Tergitol 15-S-9 is 0.1% to max of 0.5%.  This product requires about 3 times less concentration than Triton X100.  The technical detail is something called the Critical Miscelle Concentration (CMC), and this specifies the ppm concentration in solute (water) when the non-ionic surfactant-water solution reaches its lowest surface tension.  Beyound this any additional surfactant will not drop the surface tension any lower. However, to achieve best detergency, you want more than the CMC, general guidance is 5 to 10 times more. For the Triton X100 the CMC is 189 ppm, the Tergitol CMC is only 53 ppm.  Yeah, I know, way more than ever wanted to know, but there is method to this madness.

Thank you antinn.  I appreciate your efforts and this will likely lead to a way to improve upon the solution.  I am concerned about the Triton as well regarding environmental issues so the Tergitol seem like a better choice.  I'm going to order some and try it out.  I'll be back....

Anovak,
I need to make a correction here.  Essentially, Tergitol 15-S-9 is a more environmentally friendly (and by DOW data should be more effective) alternative to Triton X100 which because of having components that can mimic estrogen, are toxic to fish, and there is 'some' associated human risk.  DOW for now is continuing manufacture of Triton X100, but do not be suprised if they discontinue manufacture in the future as global environmental regulations increase.  Conservationist (those conserving painting) use surfactants when cleaning/conserving paintings, and are very sensitive to using products that do no harm, or as little as possible.  Some are using a non-ionic surfactant that appears  very similar to the performance of Triton X100 and Tergitol 15-S-9: SURFONIC® JL-80X.  

Anovak,
I did a little more research and there are a number of  theads that talk to the 15-S-3 and 15-S-9 mixture, some referencing that this is what the Canadian Archivists use, and some saying that the mixture equals 15-S-7.  Surfactants are classified by the HLB Scale: Hydrophilic-Lipophilic Balance.  The 15-S-9 is rated 13.3 which classifies it as a detergent, and with its low surface tension, and not excessive foam height, and high cloud point should make it an excellent UT cleaning agent.  15-S-7 HLB is 12.1, and 15-S-3 is 8.  When you blend 15-S-3 and 15-S-9, you get an emulsion with a HLB of 10.6, so this is not 15-S-7, so that rationale makes no sense.   Otherwise, for the life of me, it makes no sense to clean a vinyl record with a blend of 15-S-3 and 15-S-9 that is an emulsion and can result in a cloudy solution, that decreases the effectiveness of the 15-S-9, and may inhibit rinsing.  The only reason that you would add 15-S-3 to 15-S-9 would be as a defoaming agent.  But UT cleaning should not cause a stable foam to develop, unlike if using a pumped parts washer.  If you compare Triton X100 to 15-S-19, you will see similar HLB and surface tension 30 vs 33, but X100 can create a higher foam, and it is really intended for the metal cleaning industry where you are dealing with a lot of mineral based cutting oils and need the better oil emulsion properties, not some animal-fat based finger prints.

Antinn, thank you immensely and you sound a lot like that Phantomrebel guy, who has a slightly different take on it but I will give it a shot.  For one, makes it a whole lot easier, no need to mix up a solution, just add it to the distilled water and you're done.  If it works as well as what I'm doing now, all the better and that would certainly be a great place for anyone to start in terms of getting their US cleaning system going.  I am going to ask the question of Phantomrebel to see what he thinks about it and will post back here.  This is kind of an adventure we are all on for what's most effective and simple at the same time.....I'm all for that.  Very kind of you to chime in here with your knowledge, much appreciated indeed.

Anovak,
First, sorry my calc for ounces of 15-S-9 per gal is incorrect, its about 1 ounce per gal. I was in a hurry and rushing out and could not remember if a gal was 64 or 128 ounces, but it would about 30 ml for a gal that is 3.78 liters.

The IPA which is completely miscible with water, at the specified concentration would not make the 15-S-3 soluble.  There is absolutely no technical reason to add both 15-S-9 and 15-S-3, they are intended for entirely different chemistries.  The IPA may improve the "solvency" the ability to dissolve oils/greases, but this would be more inclined to heavy duty metal cleaning.  There is a pretty powerful water soluble solvent known as 2-Butoxyethanol that is common in heavy duty cleaners. But its not really warranted here, and at high enough concentration can damage the vinyl (extracts the plastizer), easily recognized as a dulling of the vinyl finish.

I would try with only a 0.5 to 1.0% concentration, leaving out the IPA and the Hepastat.  This would be the absolutely safest chemistry to you and the vinyl.  If you have some really grungy records, do a pre-clean step to remove the visible contamination - put a label protector on, and pre-clean with a soft brush and the 1% 15-S-9 solution, rinse under flowing fresh water (i.e., kitchen sink), or use a vacuum record cleaning machine and then put in the UT for the final clean.  The DOW literature shows that a 1% concentration of 15-S-9 will reduce the water surface tension from 72 down to about 30, so the solution will wet the record nicely, and may drain off fast enough to avoid need for a separate rinse.  After the UT clean step, if you can, a quick spin of the record(s) in air should leave the record(s) near dry.  And, with the record heated to about 100-125 deg F from the UT process, it will dry completely very quickly.

"Tergitol 15-S-3 is not water soluble, it is intended for oils."

Maybe that is why that formula also called for the IPA?  I don't know, just a guess so that it might be necessary for the 15-S-3 to become soluble.  In any case, this is way above my understanding of the chemistry involved.  What might you suggest as a formula that will work without the IPA?  Just leave it out, substitute 15-S-9 for the Triton?  Add Hepastat and try that?

Tergitol 15-S-3 is not water soluble, it is intended for oils.  Dow has a nice pdf handout with tables on all the Non-Ionic-Surfactants/Detergents, and you can read on the differences.  For the Tergitol, use 0.5 to 1.0% solution concentration, which assuming my quick math is correct should be about 0.5 ounces per gallon.  Note that that that the 'cloud point' is the temperature were the surfactant comes out of solution.

Antinn, that is very interesting.....one of the variants of the original formula was to use Tergitol S-15-3 and S-15-9 (not sure in what combination %) but then it was posited using Triton 100-X would work just as well so that is what I went with.  This is still a process, and I appreciate all observations to improve upon it.  If elimination of IPA is possible, that also reduces the cost quite a bit although it's not hugely expensive.  On the other hand, when considering doing about 15-20 records per tank and then cleaning/refilling with the goal of doing an entire collection of >3,000 records, it might become considerable. Thank you for your thoughts.

Yes, that is correct.....the original formula in fact called for 300ml to be added but I thought that I would try just 200ml and it seems to be working just fine.  The chemist I refer to also suggested that he felt this to be a bit overkill with the IPA, although nothing untowards as far as negative effect on the vinyl itself, so I reduced the amount to 200ml in large part just to be a bit more conservative and not go through IPA so quickly.  The original formula is available but I'm not sure I am OK to provide a link to it here.  Can a mod perhaps let me know?  I will be happy to do that, just don't want to get sideways with the rules of this forum.  Thanks for asking, questions are the way I got to where I'm at and I'm very pleased with the outcome!

All,
As a suggestion, substitute Tergitol 15-S-9 for the Triton X100.  You can buy this at Talas, one pint is $21.75. The 15-S-9 is very similar to the 15-S-7 that the Smithsonian uses for shellac record cleaning, except it has a higher cloud point which would be better suited for the heated UT tank use.  The Tergital is an Secondary Alcohol Ethoxylate NID and should be superior to Triton X100 which is a Octylphenol Ethoxylate NID.  With the Tergitol 15-S-9 which has lower surface tension and better rinesability, you should not need the Isopopyl Alcohol (IPA).  

Correct, the label will inform you of that and it is highly advised to wear protective gloves and eyewear when handling the product.  Avoiding skin contact and especially eye contact is extremely important.  Additionally, the container that it comes as I bought it has a dispenser that must be removed to get the liquid to flow out of the container.  This is all addressed in the other forum to which I alluded, the thread by Phantomrebel.  I'm not sure I can point to that thread directly without violating this forum's rules.  Please advise.  It is really necessary reading to proceed safely, but once you know how to approach things there will be no real concern, at least there was not for me.  Good call though antinn.  Thanks.

SAFETY ALERT!!!

Hepatstat 256 in its concentrated form is dangerous, its deadly.  Read the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS), and other Warning labels.  This is an Industrial product, and unless you have experience with proper Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) such as face shields, gloves, proper ventilation, STAY Away from this product.  This product in its concentrated form is hazardous through even skin absorption.  

Appreciate your post, spiritofradio!  I can tell you this was the one thing that held me back for a long time, not having a solution that was fairly inexpensive, made from readily available ingredients, and most of all effective!  After all, the whole reason to improve our cleaning techniques is that we want the cleanest possible records to spin, right?  The tanks and the record spinning gadgets had both become very reasonable in terms of price, so it was just what to use as the solution that kept me from jumping in.  Now that I have, and been cleaning this way for a couple months, it's really a no-brainer as far as I'm concerned.  Thanks again, I hope it helps a lot of vinyl enthusiasts take the next step.  By the way, Phantomrebel has quite an informative thread over on another forum that is extremely helpful if you are interested.  Just google him and record cleaning and you'll see what I mean.  

@anovak great post man!  Thanks for passing along this research.  Sounds like your significant effort is being rewarded through great sound.  Nice.  

Man this is like deja vu all over again.....

I spent well over a year researching the US cleaning thing and about 2 months ago had all my ducks in a row, took the plunge. I bought a cheap tank, 6L Chinese product that runs at 40kHz, 180W and would likely spring for something a little better but at $100 it seemed reasonable place to start.

I got the VinylStack 3 record but in retrospect, would have opted for the 4 record stack as it will just increase each cycle by 1 record and take no more time.

The formula was the most tricky part and on another forum, a gent who is a chemist has been entertaining questions and given learned answers for a couple years now. I thought that I would try a solution based on his and others recommendations which will hopefully cover most of the gamut of what we will run into as far as unwanted stuff stuck to our record grooves is concerned.

Here is the formula I am using and have found it to be very excellent indeed:

FOR A 10 GALLON MIX (8 TANK-FULLS AT 5 QTS. DISTILLED WATER PER TANK)
(I discovered that 5 qts. works perfectly in the 6 liter tank, fills nearly to the overfill line)

Triton X-100 50ml
Hepatstat 256 38ml
IPA (91%) 72ml
_________________
Total 160ml

Mix these ingredients in a container (I am using an empty IPA bottle).
You will need to refrigerate the Triton after opening as it is prone to growing bacteria otherwise. Once the Hepastat is added, no more worries and the solution can be stored at room temperature. Also, you will not be able to mix the Triton unless you have added the IPA as it is extremely difficult to mix unless you do.

Once you have the above ingredients mixed in your empty IPA bottle (or a bottle of your choice), add 20ml to each tank of 5qts distilled water. Then, ADD AN ADDITIONAL 200ml of IPA (91%) to the solution in the tank and you’re ready to go!  Once you start to see a lot of detritus in the bottom of the tank, it will be time for a refill.  Totally empty the tank, rinse well (I use the faucet in the kitchen for this) and dry (I use paper towels).  You still have 80ml of the mixture left, so enough to do 4 more tanks.....get the picture?

As mentioned, this formula is nearly identical to that suggested by the kind gentleman on the other forum who goes by the handle of Phantomrebel so giving credit to whence it is due.

The last step before you drop the records in on your VinylStack or other turning/holding device is to turn the US cleaner on for at least 5 minutes to allow the solution to degass.....you will achieve better results that way. I do use the VinylStack, as noted, and have it set to 6V that yields 1 complete turn of the record every 3 minutes. I set the timer to 15 minutes, which means 5 complete turns for that cycle. I set the heater to 30deg. C. but as others have noted, when the transducers are turned on the temperature will rise fairly steadily. I usually do about 9 records in a session (3 cycles of 3 records) and the ending temperature is about 42-45deg. C. I have noticed NO warping or other unhappy outcomes at these temperatures. I would suspect that the records at the higher temps (the last 3 cleaned) actually might benefit the most at the elevated temps.

Happy cleaning all.....and.....it really, really works! I’ve provided a couple friends here where I live with the details and they are just smitten at how clean and quiet their records are now.

Thought I would update with some mods I made to cleaning regime with this system.

Increase temperature to 40 C.
Increase US cycle to 22 minutes.
Clean just 3 albums at a time, not 5. This gives an appropriate 1" gap between albums.

Noticeable reduction in background noise of the vinyl.

Takes longer but if a job is worth doing its worth doing right.

Enjoy!

Quick update for any who maybe interested in going this route.

I think the rotisserie is very well made, the plastic label covers/ spacers seal very well with the silicone ring seals.
It’s a perfect fit on the lip of the US tank and slides up and down easily to dip the records in the tank.
Only wish would be for the motor to do both directions rather than the present anti clockwise only.

Tank works well enough IMHO, heats up quickly and drains very easily.
I heard a lot of complaints about excessive noise but obviously nobody works in my business... Lol.
I think is is very acceptable noise levels but I do have it set up out in the workshop due to the potential mess more than anything.
And I have a huge workbench I can spread everything out on with towels underneath all to protect.

Will it make as good a job as a $4k machine? I would say not but so it shouldn’t at over ten times cheaper!
I am all in at $360 USD.

Good time’s!

Spirit.
There are many threads about US cleaning and Slaw is a huge believer with a great diy set up.
I have been trying to get a set up going for a while.
First tank I bought was defective and I sort of let it slide for a while.
But reading this thread I decided to follow exactly what the OP had done and very glad I have.

Just need experiment with temperature and time a bit.
Probably less temperature and more time.

I think I know where my Christmas money is going....

Thanks Uber

Just an update.
My wife decided to hold onto these and make me wait till Christmas!
So have run about 30 albums through today using just distilled water and couple drops of isopropyl.
Ran it at 35 c for 7 minutes a go.

Just tried the first album out.
Holy cow!
It was a filthy album with a lot of fingerprints and now it is virtually silent apart from the existing scratches.
I'm a believer!

Mine should be here tomorrow, just in time for my return from vacation.
Plan on giving it a try with just distilled water first before trying additives.

Not too many of my records are in the truly terrible state, I would never buy any that were.

More old dust and years of accumulated debris in the grooves.

Review and opinions forthcoming....

...talk about synchronicity, I was just looking into ultrasonic cleaners for LP’s....*G*

Record handling was the issue; I was thinking a DIY approach, so thanks for the ’off the shelf’ item...pricey, but so is my time... ;) *L*

As for the ultrasonic unit itself, what caught my attention was this:
DK-600S
This has all the same basic features and size, but has a ’half power’ and a ’wave’ function that may prove useful for LP and CD that may not be ’disgustingly filthy’....just a ’touch up’ will do. ;)

DK seems to have more of a ’presence’, if you head off to their corp website....if you wanted one the size of a bathtub, they’d do that. *L*
They make a point of ’vibration stresses’...anything that ’does’ 40khz normally is trying to self-destruct...*L*

Thanks for posting at the right time @ the right place. *G* ;)

I was fortunate to grab an Audiodesk with the newer wiper blade design on sale here Black Friday($3600 cdn), after deciding against using the Kirmuss on my records. I did a dollar evaluation of my collection and it's value far out weighed spraying that "defactant" on them. Plus having seen it in action I was impressed but skeptical, it does leave that white toothpaste film after. The number of times it overheated and shut off, then having to wait "20" minutes for cool down turned me off it. 

benjie

You can keep saying it but it doesn’t make it true. Plain distilled water does not clean oil, grease or dirt from the record surface or the record groove.

Sorry, but you’re mistaken. I know this from first-hand experience with the Klaudio.

As for the all powerful Klaudio machine, it’s 40 khz. That’s nothing special.

Perhaps not but - as with many things in audio - the implementation is as important as the technology.

The only thing special about it is the over $4000 price tag. And now they are going to stop production. Great product.

It is a great product, actually. And although the company’s website says otherwise, it’s actually still in production. There’s a new batch arriving at Legend Audio on Dec. 9.

There’s no question that the Klaudio is pricey. But its combination of effectiveness and one-button convenience are unmatched, ime.

I have no affiliation with Klaudio other than as a satisfied customer.

You can keep saying it but it doesn’t make it true. Plain distilled water does not clean oil, grease or dirt from the record surface or the record groove. As for the all powerful Klaudio machine, it’s 40 khz. That’s nothing special. The only thing special about it is the over $4000 price tag. And now they are going to stop production. Great product.

billwojo

You definitely need something to break down the surface tension in the water.

Not really - that’s one of the advantages of ultrasonic cleaning. But probably not all US cleaners produce equal cavitation. For those that are weak, something like Tergitol may be necessary.

That’s part of what makes the Klaudio US cleaner so appealing, though. Nothing but distilled water is required.