Ultrasonic record cleaners

A cleaning comparison is one that I had attempted to encourage in the Past, as the methods used across a Group of Friends has variations.

After pondering the method that seemed most suitable for the comparison purposes only. It seemed the best practice would be to use Three New Albums, as the deterioration and contamination would have the most potential to be a shared condition.

The Albums would have been demarcated on the Cover or Label to identify the cleaning procedure. 

There is not any real-world method commonly used, that would enable a method of measuring the outcome. This is one that is assessed as an audible experience and receives merit, if an increased attraction for the changed condition has occurred.

The final analysis was to be carried out in front of a group of attendees, on a System to see which of the Albums seemingly was being perceived as the one that benefitted the most from a given cleaning procedure. The Trio of Albums were to be made available for others to assess within their own systems.

Interestingly within the Group there were Three Identical New Jazz Albums purchased, but the cleaning comparison never materialised.

As for Album Cleaning now, using the manual method from the @antinn Textbook, I can't foresee how an Album is able to be perceived as being any cleaner, so I am not needing to attempt to have an experience of comparisons. 

In a similar method to make a discovery about a reduction in noise from a LP.

A long time before the above idea developed. I had success in having been offered the support from a Selection of Bearing Producers to supply their Alternative Bearings for a Comparison of Idler Drive Turntable Bearings.

It took a period of time to Win the Producers over, and maybe it was their own curiosity in the end that won through to allow my requests to be met. 

From recollection there were Seven Bearings to be used, which was inclusive of an owned Original Bearing without any service history known and my owned PTP Bearing.  

It was to be a simple affair; a Bearing was to undergo a Pre-use/ Warm Up on a Standard Model of the Idler TT and then be swapped to a 'PTP Version' of the TT. 

It was estimated that time of 5-8 minutes would be the downtime between demonstrations.

From recollection, one Bearing producer was putting a condition on their supply of a Donor Model and requesting that all the Bearings used should have a Lazer Temp' taken and the Demo's should be carried out at a given temperature. I thought this a little anal, but the same person uses a Stethoscope to assess the noise produced from their Bearing Work, and what do I know about an optimised operating temperature, apart from that there is most likely one. 

Again, the assessment made, would be to see where a group in attendance was to make it known which of the Bearings in use was seemingly being perceived as having the most impressive performance as a result of the materials used and work undertaken on the Bearing.   

This one got tricky as there were Bearing Producers that wanted to attend, and that was to prove very difficult.

As an individual who has a long-time interest in Bearing Modifications, this one slipped through the net, and was a much-wanted experience. 

I have seen quite a few Artisan Producers of Ancillary Parts for other TT's today, that are using quite similar materials and designs as used in some the bearings I was to use for a comparison.

The Artisan Producers have adopted the methods used and are creating parts offered as a commercially available product.   

Second the Humminguru.  Awesome product and so easy to use. 

Excellent value and so convenient.  I clean every new LP.  

@drbond,

Thank-you for the compliment.

Regarding which kHz is better for LP cleaning; ideally you want both 37-48kHz for preclean and then 80-120kHz for final clean since each frequency targets different type detritus as illustrated in the book Figure 53.  Which is why the Elmasonic P-series is popular with those seeking best achievable cleaning - example Figure 56.  They clean records first at 37kHz (w/o filtering to get maximum cavitation) and then at clean at 80kHz while filtering (higher kHz are not affected by tank flow) and the Elmasonic P-series has variable power and a high-powered pulse mode.

Otherwise, comparing different machines with different kHz becomes more a comparison of the machine than the kHz because of the many variables, just a few being (and all addressed in greater detail in Chapter XIV):

1. Power:   The higher the kHz the more power is required for cavitation.  

2. Power to Volume:  As the tank volume decreases more power/volume is required because of the increase in tank surface area ratio to volume.  

3. Power Efficiency:  How much power gets into the water to produce cavitation.  The transducer design and how it is attached to the tank affects how much power is actually usable for cavitation.  This is actually pretty easy to measure with 'some' accuracy and the book XIV.15.2 details.

4. Record spin speed:  This is an issue for lower kHz but not higher kHz because lower kHz machines are sensitive to tank flow.  Create >50% tank flow/min and cavitation intensity decreases very quickly.

5.  For bottom mounted transducers tank water level.  How does it compare to multiples of 1/2 the kHz wavelength - the cavitation intensity can vary 20-30% see Figure 54.

Most any functioning ultrasonic tank can with the right process achieve a clean record.  For low kHz the first is not to spin record(s) too fast.  Then depending on machine power, adjust time & chemistry accordingly.  A high-powered unit may get by with low concentration cleaner for only wetting, whereas added concentration to get detergency maybe needed for a low powered unit but that then dictates DIW rinse.  

Take care,

Neil

For those that may be interested, here is a procedure that was developed for the Humminguru:

-Buy Tergitol 15-S-9 Tergitol 15-S-3 and 15-S-9 Surfactant | TALAS (talasonline.com)

-Buy this dropper bottle - Amazon.com: Nalgene Plastic Drop Bottle 2 oz. : Industrial & Scientific because it delivers a measured drop equal to 0.04 ul or 25-drops/ml. There are other places to buy the Nalgene Dropper Bottle.

-Fill the Nalgene Dropper Bottle 1/4 full with Tergitol 15-S-9 and then dilute to 25% by filling to full with Distilled Water (buy at a grocery store):

-Use as follows: three options.
1.-Add 2-drops to the HG 350-ml tank to get a no-rinse required wetting solution.

2. Add 3-drops to get a no-rinse required wetting solution with a touch of detergency. Note: If you have very sensitive hearing you should post rinse distilled water. Buy a 2nd HG tank to allow easy rinsing.

3. Add 4-drops to get a wetting solution with detergency. Post rinse with distilled water is recommended to avoid audible residue. Buy a 2nd HG tank to allow easy rinsing.

Note: When adding water for the first time cleaning you need to degas the fluid to get best cleaning. Run two 5-min cycles - see manual for steps HumminGuru_HG01_Owner_s_Manual_English_Version.pdf (shopify.com). You can be 'cleaning' a record during this degas process. The HG manual says nothing about degas - they missed it.

Yea, the cheap or inexpensive machines don't work, work well because they were originally designed to clean other things.  Ok, the Humminguru sort of was designed for lp's but I don't know if it's much, if any better than a 16.5. The Degritter, and Audio Desk,  are in a different league.  Personally, the Degritter is the way to go.  Easiest to use, cheapest to use, and most reliable machine out there.  I.ve owned the VPI 16.5 (hated it) and others and spent money on cleaners(I should show you a photo of them all).  If you like spending time cleaning records then go ahead, go low.  If like me, you just want to drop an lp in the cleaning machine and press start, and come back to a clean-dried record.  the Degritter is the one.  Worth every penny.  I promise.