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
 
bcowen:  And reducing or eliminating noise is only one of the positives the US brings to the table. There's more harmonic information, low level detail that in some cases was inaudible before, more pristine high treble notes, etc. More music, quite simply.  
bcowen, this is exactly what we are hearing. My wife also describes the effect of US cleaning as "opening up" the soundfield. There is simply more air, more openness to the sound.
moonglum
619 posts
 

Bcowen, many thanks for the in-depth response. This provides clear insights into what's happening on disc. If anyone isn't sold on the concept of US cleaning they should be ;^)

terry9
2,353 posts
 
Sleeves. I should have mentioned sleeves.

I like to use distinctive new sleeves for two reasons: first, new is clean; second, a distinctive sleeve signals that the record has been cleaned, averting that agonizing decision about a two foot long row of records. They look clean, and they look familiar, but ...

ochremoon
48 posts
 
@terry9 do you think I can get away with a 40Hz machine if I just do one record at a time (which I'm more than happy to do)?
terry9
2,353 posts
 
@ochremoon 

Hello Ochre.

It depends on the energy distribution in the tank, and the actual US energy delivered to the chemistry. That is something you get (and pay for, alas) with a lab grade unit. And, of course, enough space for the wave to develop, even for warped records (2 inches or so on each side of the record).

With those caveats, I think (repeat think, as in suspect) that you could get 90% of the way there with 40 KHz. Again with those caveats, I am confident that if you clean for 20 minutes or so, you could get a remarkable improvement over any non US alternative, with little room for improvement.

Good luck!


More to discover