2. analog
  3. 123170-1616

Record Cleaning - Ultra Sonic or My old ways

I went digging this weekend and came up with a few gems that were on my list.

I went home, dusted them off first then started my cleaning madness. But guess what? I found myself cleaning the record using my old method instead of my $4K ultrasonic method.

When first started to collect records, I started out cleaning with my DIY method, then with a Nitty Gritty, then I got a Spin Clean and used it in combination with my DIY method. I then thought that was madness so I moved up to a KLAUDIO ultrasonic cleaning machine. It works great but I still find myself using the Spin Clean and DIY method. Now that is real madness I thought. But I really get some satisfaction from doing it that way because I feel that the records are as clean as using the KLAUDIO. I think that is really the case because I have stop buying dirty records, therefore not a lot of pops or clicks from the records. I do not collect records just to have a large amount of records. I always listen to my new purchases and put a small red sticker on the ones I think are good pressing and good sounding records (Like the "Hot Stamper" guy does). I then take all of the others to Goodwill. I have a database (Momento Database) on my Android phone with my record collection, including those records that I donated, so that I don't purchase them again. Before having the database, after going Digging I would realize that I already have one or two copies of the same record, so the database really helps because I look up each record to make sure I don't already have it.

So, have ever reverted to your old ways of cleaning records?

The KLAUDIO is just sitting there and I only use it occasionally if I hear some extra noise from the records, which is not often.

almandog
miner42
709 posts
 
I am using the AIVS 3-step system with my Nitty Gritty MiniPro2 and have no desire to change what I am doing. The u-sonic systems have intrigued me but I have no desire to spend the $$$ for one.
whart's avatar
whart
3,031 posts
 
When I first started using ultrasonic several years ago, I was delighted at the ease of use- no toiling over a noisy machine, no real labor. I cleaned more records as a result. But, I also found that with older pressings of uncertain history--I buy a lot of old records- some of them weren't getting fully cleaned using ultrasonic. So, I started pre-cleaning using AIVS No. 15 and my old VPI, and rinsing before running in the ultrasonic. Sometimes, the records required multiple cleanings- whether it was fumes, cigarette tar or other contaminants that the ultrasonic didn't effectively remove. I've continued to modify my methods and equipment, but use both cleaning fluids and point nozzle vacuum RCM plus ultrasonic. Some old records are just damaged and can't be salvaged by intensive cleaning, but some have gone from distorted in places to very clean players as a result of these efforts. Worth it? For valuable older rare records, yes. Some are hard to impossible to find in mint condition. 
almandog OP
141 posts
 
My next move is to get another Spin Clean. One for washing, the other for rinsing, and I have a Lazy Suzanne to spin the records and dry them off; then I place them in a rack for further drying off. I picked up a paper holder at Office Depot that has six slots, and perfect for this. Right now my KLAUDIO is an expensive "Paper Weight". I am not knocking KLAUDIO, it works well, its just that I am not using it as intended because my old way of cleaning is much more satisfying to me. I guess: "To each his/her own".
r_f_sayles's avatar
r_f_sayles
872 posts
 
whart, just curious, what frequency machine are you running and what cycle times? Why I ask is, higher frequency machines 60-80khz seem to have been found to produce smaller bubbles of agitation and therefore produce deeper cleaning. Cycle times also seem to be critical to safe use, but also deeper cleaning, of course. Harry of VPI (on his website) has made no bones about the fact that the two disciplines used together, seem to bring the finest results. And that is considering that he has abandoned the idea of producing a commercial ultrasonic machine entirely.

I find, more times than not, that with my line-contact Lyra stylus, many, many, old (50-60’s) vinyl that was damaged/worn-out with a conical/elliptical style stylus, is damaged in the groove above where I am playing, or at very least, the majority of the line-contact’s contact spot is so much longer (height wise) then those others, that the percentage of information delivered to the phonostage compared to the percentage of groove distortions makes for a mighty pleasant listen. This stylus type has done more (on a properly set-up deck) for pulling out the nuances while also giving me a dead quiet record surface with a surprising amount of the vinyl that finds its way to be spun at my place.  And a thorough cleaning regiment is still vital, but not the only strategy to enjoy those old gems.

Happy Listening!
whart's avatar
whart
3,031 posts
 
r_f_sayles: I'm currently using the KL,  a finished commercial product, not a "DIY," so far less flexibility on frequency. I've been advocating the DIY ultrasonics (and may buy one myself) b/c it permits you to remove the ultrasonically washed record and do the drying on a point nozzle. To the extent I've done that with the KL (not recommended by the manufacturer, because pulling an undried record from the KL risks damaging the electronics in it), I've gotten better results than the forced air drying. I also like the idea that you can add some heat to the 'generic' ultrasonic baths.
More to discover