Ultrasonic record cleaners

@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.

I’ll throw one more log on the fire--using surfactants in an ultrasonic should also involve some method to rinse and remove the fluid/contaminants once the cleaning is done. Some of the made for LP ultrasonics use forced air. When I had an Audio Desk (older model), I had, at the suggestion of some early adopters, reduced the amount of AD fluid from a bottle to just a capful. I could still see what I believed was a function of fluid residue when the same record was recleaned later on the KL--- the way the water behaved on the record surface in the KL.

I think Neil addresses this as well in the book- it’s been a while since I read it. And @antinn, I know you and @jtimothya went back and forth on the value of a rinse step- he was at the time using a formula he had adapted from the London Jazz Collector site. Don’t know where that left things which is why I flagged him here as well.

Glad Dr. Bond got the book. It would cost to produce a decent print copy and I’m not sure people want to bear that cost. And then Neil would have to autograph them for deluxe editions, etc. :)

Bill (@whart)

Tim was first using a no-rinse formula of ~2.5%i-IPA and ILFOTOL and filtered.  ILFOTOL is not bad, but it does foam a lot and the delivered concentration can vary, and they did reformulate making what exactly you are working with that much worse.  He did add a rinse step.

However, late last year after continued prodding he switched to Tergitol 15-S-9 at about 150 ppm and the first four posts pretty much sum it up - tima's DIY RCM | What's Best Audio and Video Forum. The Best High End Audio Forum on the planet! (whatsbestforum.com)

Take care,

Neil