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
 
ochremoon : ...I may test the waters with a 40KHz machine, doing one record at a time and see how it compares with the vacuum machine I currently use.
@ochremoon - I believe you will find the experience rewarding and I hope you will come back and share what you discover. My 40Khz tank has about 100 hours on it and is performing well. It may not have the longevity of a U.S. or German built unit, but it is giving me excellent results. And, importantly, it is not doing any harm to the vinyl - it simply cleans.

As you move ahead, I highly encourage you to use a detergent formulation in your tank such as the formula I’ve shared. My earlier exposure to ultrasonic cleaning demonstrations using just water and alcohol with air drying were not at all compelling compared to my wet/vac manual cleaning process. With heat, a Tergitol/Triton solution in the tank, double rinsing and vacuum dry, my results with this current USC cleaning regimen are outstanding. I won’t be going back. (And, for the record, I’m using 1" spacing with 4 records at a time in this 9.5" wide 10L 40Khz tank. I’d have no hesitation doing 3 records at a time in a 6L tank with adequate width. As Terry says, it all depends on the energy distribution in the tank you're using. Do a foil test to check it out, then do follow-up tests from time to time to confirm it's still performing in the same way over time.) 

rushton's avatar
rushton OP
2,445 posts
 
@terry9

I followed up with Harry Weisfeld on your question about the records spacing he was using when he compared cleaning results in both a 40Khz and a 60Khz USC. He replied that he used 1" spacing. He has a Vinyl Stack Spin Kit, so I’m assuming he’s using the approximately 1" spacing their spindle stack provides. See their photo. If he tested with just a single record in the tank, he didn’t volunteer that information.
terry9
2,353 posts
 
Hello Rushton.

Thanks for the update. At those spacings, any record that was not perfectly flat would not be cleaned optimally at either frequency. The calculation is very simple: wavelength = velocity / frequency. Since the speed of sound in water is 5,000 ft/sec = 60,000 inches / second, wavelength is 1 inch for 60 KHz and 1.5 inches for 40 KHz.

Perfectly flat is the key here, and where I went wrong with 2000 records: I assumed that my records were mathematically perfect planes, and cleaned at 0.75 inches and 80 KHz. By doing it right I removed as much grunge again.

It is true that one can see some surface turbulence at smaller spacings, but that is not indicative of optimal energy distribution; at higher spacings, one sees surface turbulence which is an order of magnitude higher.

rushton's avatar
rushton OP
2,445 posts
 
Thanks, Terry. I'll have to try opening up the spacing to 1.5" or more on my 40Khz tank and see what I hear with some experimentation on this topic. I can't try out a 60 or 80Khz tank, but I can play with the spacing for the tank I have.
terry9
2,353 posts
 
Logical, Rushton.

May I suggest cleaning 30 previously cleaned records in new chemistry, under the new regimen? Then you will be able to see how much extra grunge comes off, as well as hear it. You may find that it's not worth the trouble - but I sure did.
More to discover