2. analog
  3. 126670-635

Rushton's DIY approach to ultrasonic record cleaning published by Positive Feedback

Over the past several months I’ve invested a fair amount of time exploring ultrasonic cleaning because I’ve fallen way too far behind in my record cleaning. With over 6000 LPs, I needed a faster way to clean than my trusted multi-step manual wet/vac cleaning process. That manual process got the best results I’ve ever found, but I was not keeping up with my collection and it is just painful to me to play a record that I’ve not cleaned.

In exploring ultrasonic cleaning, my hope was to find that I could complete multiple LPs in a single US cleaning cycle and greatly speed up my rate of cleaning records. My goals were to FIRST do no harm and then SECOND see how close I could get to the results of my manual cleaning regimen.

My past experiences with ultrasonic cleaning demonstrations were completely underwhelming. What I heard did not approach the excellence I was achieving with my multi-step wet/vac cleaning regimen.

What I’ve learned, and now apply in my new ultrasonic cleaning regimen, are multiple elements to the cleaning process that must be used in combination to achieve the best possible results. And these results have far exceeded my expectations.

I’d thought of posting here on Audiogon the summary of what I’ve learned and am now applying as my new record cleaning regimen, but the inability to post images and to apply formatting here caused me to send my summary to David Robinson at Positive Feedback who has graciously published my comments as a guest essay. Please read that essay, and then come back here to Audiogon with comments and to share your experiences:

http://positive-feedback.com/audio-discourse/rushton-paul-diy-approach-ultrasonic-cleaning-lps/


I look forward to some further discussion and sharing of experiences.

.


128x128rushton
rushton's avatar
rushton OP
2,445 posts
 
Terry and Oilman, great contributions. Thanks to you both.

Right now, my results with my Chinese built USC are good, exceeding my expectations. But, I have over 6,000 LPs in my collection, so I wonder about durability. And I certainly DO NOT want to start over again after 2,000 as was Terry’s experience.

Are you both using 80Khz machines? I know the diyAudio thread has had a lot of debate over 40 vs. 60 vs. 80. My curiosity is: have you listened to the results with a 40Khz unit using the same regimen and found the high Khz units to give audibly better results? I ask because of one data point: Harry Weisfeld. Harry bought both a 60Khz and a 40Khz unit and reported that he could not hear any audible difference in results between the two tanks. See: http://vpiindustries.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=8850#p8850

As I recall, he ended up keeping the 60Khz tank long term, but I think it was more about build quality than any difference in results that he could hear.
terry9
2,353 posts
 
The DIY thread has a graph of US effectiveness on particle size vs frequency. IIRC, because particle size is limited by the size of record grooves, 40 KHz is a few percent better for the largest particles, but far worse for the smallest. The smallest is where diamond dust hangs out.

So I use 80 KHz almost exclusively, exception being last ditch efforts for badly soiled garage sale records. And then I finish with 80 KHz.

My A/B tests were worthless because I did not pay proper attention to spacing. How about Harry? The proper test would be one record at 37 KHz (because Elmasonic has 37 and 80 KHz modes) vs one record at 80 KHz, to equalize energy.

But, assuming energy is sufficient, which is almost certainly the case, spacing considerations permit two records at 80 KHz or one record at 40. So, if throughput means anything to you, I would standardize on 80 KHz for that reason alone.

rushton's avatar
rushton OP
2,445 posts
 
Thanks, Terry. I don't know what sort of spacing Harry may have been using when he tried the two different frequency tanks. Good question to go ask him. 

I recall seeing the graphs and discussion of particle sizes. It was interesting and I need to revisit that portion of the diyAudio thread. 

For anyone else following this, the diyAudio thread to which we're referring was a primary education for me in my research. There is a tremendous amount of good information here. See:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/analogue-source/218276-my-version-ultrasonic-record-cleaner.html

moonglum
619 posts
 

Interesting thread. Hope you guys don't mind my asking the same question I asked EBM :

Do you find that surface noise decreases or increases after completion of your ultrasonic cleaning regime?

Many thanks :)

rushton's avatar
rushton OP
2,445 posts
 
moonglum, if the surface noise is due to contaminants in the grooves (dust, dirt, oils, etc.), surface noise will definitely decrease. But this is not a magic bullet - if the grooves have been damaged, no cleaning will get rid of that; same if noisy vinyl compound was used in manufacturing the record. 
More to discover