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 It will be interesting to hear what the dealer has to say and hopefully if it's a problem that can either be fixed or exchanged for another manufacturer . I don't own a US cleaner , but I've sent in close to 200 albums to Record Genie and had him double clean using 2 different machines with fantastic results . Meanwhile I am using a Spin Clean with better results than my using a Discwasher for over 25 years before that . |
@pfmaudio Your reporting the Brand, has been more than acceptable, especially now you are convinced the use of the Machine is causing a condition to LP' that is quite a concern. I would suggest all owners of the Brand who have seen this Thread, hold off from further usage, whilst you pursue an answer to your issue. It does seem quality issues are present and these may already be very similar in other machines sold. m |
As the book says, BASF™ Dehypon® LS 54 nonionic surfactant is a substitute for Tergitol 15-S-9 but is only available from the UK - Dehypon - 1 Litre – Conservation Resources (UK) Ltd (conservation-resources.co.uk). Polysorbate 20 is more readily available throughout the EU and as the book says is a substitute for Tergitol 15-S-9. Technically, 15-S-9 and LS-54 are preferred due to achieving lower surface tension and have a lower viscosity making it easier to work with but in use Polysorbate 20 is fine. I did not recommend Polysorbate 80 because of its higher surface tension. Take care, Neil |
You previously said you tried only your old distilled water and the machine caused no problems. Then you bought new distilled water and added
Is the cleaner the problem or the machine? I previously indicated that the cleaner is an unknown and other forums had indicated less than satisfactory results with the brand cleaner. Cleaner residue is a well-known problem with record cleaning and people using cleaner w/o rinsing and not all cleaners rinse easy. Years ago, when I was developing precision cleaning processes for the Navy and its suppliers, and these were large multi-bay UT consoles, balancing pre-cleaner concentration to ensure they were rinsed in the follow-on UT rinse bath before final clean in 3rd UT tank was a critical attribute. One common commercial product at 10% concentration (as specified by the OEM) was not completely rinse in the UT rinse tank. This was evident since the final cleaner was a patented inorganic alkaline cleaner that would not foam, and suddenly started foaming caused by it removing the residue from pre-clean/UT-rinse step. The pre-cleaner need to be diluted to 2% to be effectively removed by the UT rinse step. So, is the problem the cleaner or the machine? Unless there is something wrong with the machine, that leaves the cleaner. |
The book in Chapter XIV lists no-rinse concentrations. Concentrations specified (see Table XXIII Nalgene™ Dropper Bottle Use for Degritter™ & Humminguru™) are good enough for wetting only. If the concentration is high enough to get detergency, then as the Table specifies - rinsing is recommended to avoid audible residue. But if we look at say 30-ppm of nonionic surfactant (of those specified by the book) that is essentially the same as 30-mg/L = 0.03-mg/ml. If we assume 3-ml dries on each side of the record = 0.09-mg of nonionic surfactant and the record surface area (with grooves) is about 1-sqft = 0.09-mg/sqft. And if you dive into Chapter XI, this is about the equivalent film thickness of 0.01-microns. This is down at the record surface roughness which is pretty much below audible. But to get good detergency from a simple high-performance nonionic surfactant you need to be up at 150-ppm = 150-mg/L, and now the residue thickness is 5X what was calculated above, and now the residue thickness is also 5X higher and now we are into the audible region based on user feedback. However, note that vacuum-RCM, because there is so little fluid being used, the recommended final cleaner concentration is 500-ppm, so rinsing is mandatory especially since the vacuum is not 100% efficient in removing (sucking up) all fluid from the record. Testing (as described in the book Chapter XIII) has shown vacuum RCM is only 70 to 85% efficient in sucking up all fluid (depends on the fluid). The 15-30% not sucked up is essentially dried in-place. Take care, Neil |
