2. analog
  3. 133916-3933

Thumbs up for ultrasonic record cleaning

My Cleaner Vinyl ultrasonic record cleaner arrived today and it’s impressive.

Everything I’d read indicated that ultrasonic was the way to go, and now I count myself among the believers. Everything is better - records are quieter, less ticks and pops, more detail etc.

All my records had been previously cleaned with a vacuum record cleaner and were well cared for. Nonetheless, the difference is obvious and overwhelmingly positive.

Phil
phil0618
gbanderhoos
20 posts
 
I’ve been following this thread for some time now, very interesting reading and thanks to all the contributors.

Some observations:
I owned one of the original AD US cleaners and was not impressed with the results or the build quality. I replaced it with a KLAudio KD-CLN-LP200 with (IMO) much better build quality, but still unimpressive results. I’ve looked at the DIY machines and have been reading everything I can get my hands on wrt to US technology. There seems to be a considerable difference between low frequency US cleaners (28kHz) and higher frequency (80-100kHz), the former used primarily as industrial cleaners (car parts, large metal components etc), the latter used for more delicate structures, especially fine jewelry. The cleaning action is created by the collapse of the cavitation bubbles which can create extremely high pressure (10’s of Mpa) and high temps (5000°C), but on a very small scale, determined by the size of the bubbles: The lower the frequency, the larger the bubbles and the more concentrated the released energy. On high power, low frequency US machines, this process can be so aggressive the sides of the stainless steel tank are subject to etching.

I was curious about this, so I did some measurements on my KLAudio RCM which is assumed to be 40kHz. It actually runs at 34.72kHz which would seem to be more aggressive, almost midway between 28 and 40kHz. There was a frequency adjustment pot, and I monitored the AC power being consumed as I adjusted the pot. Increasing the frequency lowered the power consumption and lowering it increased the power; at 33kHz, it went from 200W to almost 350W. The power consumption also changed drastically between running the cleaner with and without a record (200W with vs 150W without) indicating that the load seen by the transducers affect power consumption and the load changes with mass, density and distance from transducers.

So my question is this: With so many variables affecting the performance and operating parameters of the US process (temp, surface tension, power, frequency, cavitation efficiency), how does one know what they are really getting and what they are doing to the record surface (not only whether it is effectively being cleaned, but whether it is being damaged in the process)?
dgarretson
2,601 posts
 

With persistent clicks and pops, I don’t find that the 80khz setting on my Elmasonic P improves on a 38kHz cycle. Try 20 minutes at 40-45C and 100% power, with a 1:30 concentration of Fisher Versaclean instead of Iso.

Some records with stubborn clicks and pops just won’t clean up. Sometimes the pops seem reduced in amplitude.

bydlo
142 posts
 
@dgarretson Very interesting observation re 38 vs 80kHz! Have you made some systematic research on it? There is quite some discussion re frequency going on. You input would be very valuable.

At the moment I'm afraid to go past 35C and 15mins. If I have a Lp I can sacrifice, I'd try.


Ag insider logo xs@2x
cleeds
6,007 posts
 
gbanderhoos
I replaced it with a KLAudio KD-CLN-LP200 with (IMO) much better build quality, but still unimpressive results ...
That’s interesting. I’ve had outstanding results with the Klaudio. It may not be the best device for extremely dirty LPs such as you might find at a yard sale. For them, I think the right fluid and a vacuum machine might be the best first step. But for everything else it works very well, imo. What could be more impressive than a pristine clean disc?

... how does one know what they are really doing to the record surface (not only whether it is effectively being cleaned, but whether it is being damaged in the process)?
If the record looks clean, and the phono cartridge stylus is clean after playing the LP, I’m satisfied that the US cleaner was effective. Because LPs almost always sound better after a cycle through the Klaudio, I can’t imagine how the cleaner could have caused damage in any way. The few LPs I’ve heard that may not sound better after being cleaned in the Klaudio were clean to start with. They sound about the same after a pass through the Klaudio.
dgarretson
2,601 posts
 

@bydlo After many cleanings, I’ve set aside a few problem records for continuing experiments. Some of these were improved after transitioning from ISO to Versaclean. The 80kHz cycle didn’t seem to make a difference, though I like that its reduced power doesn’t increase the bath temperature as fast as the 38kHz action.

As long as you don’t allow the LP to sit still in the bath, don’t be afraid of cleaning at 45C. I’ve had some luck spinning problem LPs in the hot tub for an hour or so at 45C prior to engaging the pulse cycle. It’s likely that the vinyl expands and contracts repeatedly as it spins in and out of a hot bath, loosening debris over time that is then pounded out during the subsequent pulse cycle.

However, after all is said and done, some clicks and pops are deemed record defects. As a general rule I give every new record a cleaning, on the theory that it is better not to grind in debris with even a single pass of the stylus. However, I’ll usually pass on the pre-cleaning with MoFi and Analog Productions-- and with impeccable pressings like Rhino’s recent Donald Fagen Cheap Xmas box set.

More to discover