Ultrasonic record cleaners


I have a modest lp collection, mixed bag of original college age purchases, used records before the current renewed interest, and some newer albums to replace some older issues from the p mount needle days.  Have a vpi 16 machine and audio intelligent form 6 fluid. I’m not finding a significant improvement on my noisier issues.  The price of ultrasonic cleaners have come down to a price I would consider.  Appreciate the experiences of those who have purchased the ultrasonic machines, are they superior to my vpi and are the less expensive models effective?

TIA

tennisdoc56

Bill (@whart)

Tim was first using a no-rinse formula of ~2.5%i-IPA and ILFOTOL and filtered.  ILFOTOL is not bad, but it does foam a lot and the delivered concentration can vary, and they did reformulate making what exactly you are working with that much worse.  He did add a rinse step.

However, late last year after continued prodding he switched to Tergitol 15-S-9 at about 150 ppm and the first four posts pretty much sum it up - tima's DIY RCM | What's Best Audio and Video Forum. The Best High End Audio Forum on the planet! (whatsbestforum.com)

Take care,

Neil

 

 

I'm another Degritter user.  I wanted my records to be clean, but hate cleaning records.  Some people turn it in to a second hobby, but I didn't want that. I was willing to pay for the combination of great cleaning and as easy a process as possible.  The Degritter was created to hit that goal precisely.  It's a joy to use.

That said, I have been particularly cursed in having more problems than most with the Degritter.  I've had one replaced, had to send that replacement back.  But...when it's working, it's great.   (Again, it seems most owners wash thousands of records with no issues).

I have only tracked the results being reported on for the @antinn PACVR Text Book on the 'gon'.

It was good to be able to link to another forum and see the results being made known from another. Who has obviously taken their LP Cleaning very seriously and developed a method not to commonly seen.

The report on a small change being made to a regularly used Solution, brought a notable change, that was perceived to be a betterment to the cleaning process and is desirable to be maintained, is one further reason to give Niel a 'Hats Off' 🤠 Salute. 

Something that might be off interest to a wider group could be, if the comparison cleaning method I was referring to previously in the thread was carried out. As the control available through using forum members to participate is better than my previous thought for the planning. The reason being, is that there are common solutions/mixtures being used for cleaning, as a result of the PAVCR Textbook.

These mixtures are being used in conjunction with different ancillaries in use to support cleaning methods.

The rethink on the methodology is as follows:

New Albums of the same Band/Title could be purchased between a selection of cleaning enthusiast who are using Different Cleaning Methods, but where all individuals are using Neils Suggested Solutions/Mixtures.

It does seem feasible this could be created, as the advisories from Neil seem to be adopted by quite a few enthusiasts.

Once LPs are Cleaned, the Albums will be Posted to each Participant, who in receipt will then be able to replay all the Cleaned LPs in short duration between replays and assesses the impact of the cleaning methods used, on their own systems.

For the few $$'s it would cost to set something up like this comparison trial, which could easily be funded as a Group Buy from an extended group within the forum, with an interest in the Outcome.

As a Guestimate:

4x Albums @ $100.

3 x postages to send all Cleaned Albums to One Address, approx', $30.

3 x Postages to send the Batch of Cleaned Albums for the additional assessments to other Addresses, approx', $30.

3 x Postages to return the Albums to their original cleaned address, approx', $30

Approx', $200 to put a valuable comparison information into the mainstream, for a group of experienced LP Cleaners to make their assessment known on the impact of a variety of LP Cleaning methods compared side by side. There does seem a lot to like, especially when the costs are accounted for, to acquire a device to assist with LP Cleaning. When others with an interest are looking into this as a practice, a machine is usually to be considered, and a Mid-Priced Model with a Brand Name can easily ask for a $1000ish to be paid.    

From experience, I have cleaned New Purchased Vinyl, and have heard improvement (Surface Noise Decreased) as a result of the Cleaning Method, especially, when using the PAVCR Textbook Manual Cleaning Method.

It is to prove quite impossible to presume a purchase of used LPs will share a similar deterioration or contamination level.

I would suggest a purchase from Amazon of LPs to be selected for the comparisons, as there are quality issues that can be discovered with a purchase of New Vinyl and with Amazon the option to return and receive a replacement is very useful. I have returned particular Modern Bands Albums on at least three occasions, and on one particular Album returned it twice, to receive what I would class as an acceptable condition LP.   

An undertaking of this type, if a few participants can be found to take part, will certainly be a good use of a connection between interested enthusiasts within a forum.

It would certainly assist with extending on advice being made known for others, 'if a common selection of cleaning ancillaries were to be used', whether a Manual Cleaning Method, RCM Method, Cheap range of US Tank Method or Expensive US Tank Method would be the most worthwhile to consider as a set up for cleaning. 

The assessment would be quite straight forward, as recording quality is not being scrutinised, the assessment will be solely if a Particular LP has offered an impression that it is clean/quiet, and whether this impression is different depending on the cleaning method used.

I would be more than happy to donate a percentage of the overall cost to see this materialise, I'm sure a few others would be willing as well.

Working on the basis that a US Tank offered to be sued, is one with the most desirable design and build, is used as a cleaning method for the Trial, along with the monetary value attached, might be considered the one that will produce the best results.

If one such Tank is offered to be used, this could be the last Address to receive the Batch of LPs for an overall assessment. Once the assessment is done the US Tank could be used to clean the Three LPs not cleaned using the US tank and then returned to the original cleaners, they could then assess through recollection if the returned LP was presenting an impression of cleanliness that differed from their own recollection of their cleaned LP. 

@pindac

Thank-you for the compliments.  

FYI - someone did a comparison of the PACVR Manual Method, and results are summarized here:  Do I need to clean my LP's? | Page 2 | Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum in Post #31. 

However, one better than another to achieve a clean surface is not a fair comparison because ANY precise/rigorous cleaning method can achieve a clean record with the right chemistry, the right process/technique adapted to the machinery specific to the method being employed be it manual, vacuum-RCM, ultrasonic, or combinations thereof but the devil is in the details.  

For manual methods - YOU are the machinery and even with vacuum-RCM (except the few that are fully auto); YOU are the 'cleaning' part of the machinery. It's that manual-technique that with the brush and the chemistry that does the cleaning.

In vacuum-RCM, the blower strength in CFM and Lift are what determines how completely and how fast the fluid is removed from the surface - Vacuum Strength: CFM and Water Lift | Dustless Tools. So, every vacuum-RCM can be different.  So here too, the machinery is important. And, once we get to ultrasonics, the number of technical variables/details increases exponentially.

Every method has its strengths and weaknesses, and after all is said and done, they all 'can' produce excellent results, but again the devil is in the details.   And, what constitutes a clean record is quantifiable by surface cleanliness criteria and I detail this in Chapter XI, but Chapter XI is very technical.  Unfortunately measuring surface cleanliness at the levels that would need to be measured are not readily available.  So, the book compares against established cleanliness levels and probability of achieving the required level with the method in a residential environment in Chapter XI and XII.

Otherwise, the best cleaning method is the one best for you, and there are many factors in-play such how much convenience do you want, how much $$$ do you have to spend, how much space do you have, how much noise will you tolerate, how much are you willing to compromise, is your goal 'best achievable cleanliness", what is your work throughput, etc.

Take care,

Neil