ultrasound record cleaning machine damaged my records


I recently purchased an ultrasound record cleaning machine. For reasons which I hope you understand I won’t name brands, because I am not wanting to make bad publicity to anyone but to discuss the matter. 

Previously, I had anather ultrasound machine which broke. I cleaned more than a 1000 records with it, with no concerns at all. The machine broke and, due to its steep price, I decided to go for a less costly solution. 

With the new machine I cleaned 7 records. One of themLeonard Cohen’s “New Skin for the old ceremony”. When listening to “Chelsea Hote”, I remarked a distortion that wasn’t there before. IT was clear on the low notes, like the instrument being out of focus or vibrating. I had some old very worn records which had that problem due to bad stylus. At first I started to think that there was a problem with the stylus of my Lyra Atlas. So I went to another version of the same album I have at home, to check if there was a problem with the stylus. Clean passage. No problem at all. 

As on the previous cleaned record I noticed a similar problem, not so apparent, I decided to clean the second version of the LP on the new machine. Playing it i heard  the same distortion on the same music. Checking out all the 7 records I cleaned, I heard issues on all of them, some less apparent ( the mono ones) and some more appparent. 

I couldn’t believe it but the new machine was damaging my records. 

The combination of my atlas and my SME 312 arm gives some “needle talk” - music heard when with everything muted you put your hear next to the stylus on the record. Doing it, I heard the same rumble distortion that was being amplified by the system. 

 

I used distilled water (not a new one but one which was opened for the previous machine) but it was clear clean. I put the exact amount of surfactant liquid on the mixture of distilled water. I kept all the operating instruction rules. I don’t understand what is wrong, but the fact is this machines damages the grooves on the record. 

 

Does anyone had this problem before? Any help provided?

 

Note: I already contacted the dealer who sold it  and I am going to see him next week. It is a very good a solid dealer.  It I’d like to hear your opinion. 

 

Best regards,

pfmaudio

Regarding the ability to damage a record with UT, there are a lot of variables in-play.  The record spin speed, the kHz, the tank volume, the power W/L, the transducer location and how close is the record to the transducers and the actual record composition - not all records have the same composition.  

The video that shows over 12 sequential cleaning cycles, and it caused damage (whatever that means), is a one-time event with not a lot of supporting detail like what was the tank temperature.  Deliberate improper use of any device can lead to damage; either to the device itself or the object being cleaned.  

Damage that may occur is erosion caused by the cavitation event and the high velocity jet that does a lot of the cleaning.  Watch this video between 6:19 and 8:30 Cavitation - Easily explained! - Bing video that shows with high-speed video how a cavitation bubble collapses.  This video is a computer-generated simulation of a single cavitation bubble collapse Inertial collapse of a single bubble near a solid surface - Bing video.  Pay attention to the pressures and temperatures (which are theoretical and do not actually occur in use) associated with the implosion event. There 'can' be a lot of energy with the event.

Otherwise, here are some of the basic design rules for UT tanks.
-The power to produce cavitation is proportional to the kHz, so a 120kHz UT needs more power than a 40kHz.
-For ultrasonic tanks, the bubble diameter is inversely proportional to the kHz, so a 40 kHz UT produces a large bubble than a 120kHz UT.
-The cavitation intensity is proportional to the bubble diameter and the tank power (watts/L) but there is a maximum power above which no addition cavitation intensity is obtained. 
-The number of cavitation bubbles produced is proportional to kHz, so a 120kHz produces more bubbles than a 40kHz, but smaller bubbles.
-The smaller the tank volume, the more power that is required. It has to do with the ratio of the tank volume to its interior surface area.
-For lower kHz units (<60kHz), if the tank bath flow rate (from filtering or spinning) >50% of the tank volume per minute, cavitation intensity decreases.

Hope this is of some help,

Cleeds, I drive a well known German automobile. Can you name it with any certainty? No.

Of course not. That’s my point. I don’t understand the coy secrecy here.

dwcda

I’m guessing based on the specs it’s a Humminguru.

Of course everyone is free to speculate. We can speculate that @lewm drives a Porsche. But he could just as easily be a VW or MB guy. Or something else.

I have a Hummingru machine, have used it on all my records, new old, and vintage. It has done nothing but clean them. Some vintage ones need a couple of rounds to get everything out. But there has been 0 damage done. You are more likely to damage a record with manual cleaning than the ultrasonic machine. The Hummingru machine is suppose to have a thermal shut off if the water gets too hot. It also states to not run more than a few times per round. If you do the wash/dry cycles it cools the unit off during the drying cycle. My water never gets hot, even after using it all day, as I usually clean in 20-50 records at a time.

My routine is to use G2 manually, then go into the bath. Only distilled water and one drop of G2 ultrasonic cleaner per gallon. 

You are more likely to damage a record with manual cleaning than the ultrasonic machine.

That's very likely true, but in this case we don't know much about the machine he's using. Perhaps he's rigged a commercial machine intended for an entirely different purpose. Or maybe he's just fabricated the entire affair.

@antinn Not to side track the thread, but at present I work with the suggested for the UK, BASF™ Dehypon® LS 54 nonionic surfactant. as a substitute for  Tergitol 15-S-9.

Can you give a description of how Polysorbate 20 also(Polysorbate 80 is found), fits in as a additional chemical to be used for a solution, or is the chemical to  Supersede Dehyphon as a part of a solution?