HI Zg,
You are comparing equipment differences that go well beyond just a difference in frequency. The tank size is different, different manufacturer, different system design, different transducer coupling, etc. Do they both have heaters?
I would hesitate to attribute all of the cleaning difference to just frequency.
Best,
B B
Your points are duly noted. I should have added that I am cleaning between 105F and 110F with the Sonix (I added a silicon heater to a non-heated unit) and 110F - 115F with the Vibrato. No pre-cleaning with another record cleaning machine or pre-spot cleaning. Clean 4 records at a time with a 10 minute rotation cycle. I cut it from 4 to 3 on the Vibrato as I was noticing the finger prints were still visible however cutting to 3 did not make a significant difference.
I understand that each manufacturer is different for all the reasons you have mentioned. That aside, the "holy grail" Ultrasonic Cleaning unit we have discussed are the Sonix IV 6 Litre, other larger Sonix IV units, Elmasonic P60H 6 Litre, Vibrato 60 & 80 KHZ units 6 Litre. So comparing those USC against each other is quite valid. There may even be a 40 K unit that is working as good as the higher frequency units. Just trying to see if there is some empirical as well as personal observations that may help produce a better cleaning result albeit a specific UC or frequencing or time or cleaning solution or temperature or number of records or combination or who knows.
Cheers...ZG
Last edited:
More human than human
Well said. I would add to this list of mitigating factors the opportunity for competent after-sale service and support. IMHO thus far, Louis at Vibrato more than exceeds this requirement.
For all of the technical and mechanical merits we have all debated throughout this epic thread - it is the human contribution exhibited time and again that makes the biggest difference. Cheers to BB, Louis, et al.
Well said. I would add to this list of mitigating factors the opportunity for competent after-sale service and support. IMHO thus far, Louis at Vibrato more than exceeds this requirement.
For all of the technical and mechanical merits we have all debated throughout this epic thread - it is the human contribution exhibited time and again that makes the biggest difference. Cheers to BB, Louis, et al.
I'd be very interested in seeing microphotographs of the surface of vinyl records that have been ultrasonically cleaned.
Ultrasonic cleaning is really quite an aggressive process - not mild at all - and can easily pit or erode materials in the tank - e.g. try a sliver of kichen foil...
Is there any research on this? It'd be a great shame to damage the records in any way.
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk
Ultrasonic cleaning is really quite an aggressive process - not mild at all - and can easily pit or erode materials in the tank - e.g. try a sliver of kichen foil...
Is there any research on this? It'd be a great shame to damage the records in any way.
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk
I'd be interested in knowing, as I'm planning on getting involved in this.
The people I bought mine from aren't selling them anymore, but mine looks very like this one (6litre version)
Mechanical Digital 2L 3L 6L 9 L Liter jewellery Ultrasonic Cleaner heater Timer | eBay
Mechanical Digital 2L 3L 6L 9 L Liter jewellery Ultrasonic Cleaner heater Timer | eBay
"There are reports of tests people have done leaving a record in the tank for hours with no audible differences (in this thread somewhere I think)."
That's right, Mike. My comment was one of very many. I think that no-one was able to find any evidence of damage. Certainly, I did not, and my system is a sensitive one.
That's right, Mike. My comment was one of very many. I think that no-one was able to find any evidence of damage. Certainly, I did not, and my system is a sensitive one.
"Curious if anyone else has noticed the 80K unit not getting at some of the tougher dirt or how their 60K is working."
Zg, I have a dual speed Elmasonic: 37 and 80 KHz. For fossilized fingerprints (Cambrian?) I use 37 KHz for 20 minutes - since this heats the bath considerably, I am not sure whether it is the frequency or the temperature which is effective. My bath formula is 2-3% liquid detergent, as per manufacturer's recommendation.
Zg, I have a dual speed Elmasonic: 37 and 80 KHz. For fossilized fingerprints (Cambrian?) I use 37 KHz for 20 minutes - since this heats the bath considerably, I am not sure whether it is the frequency or the temperature which is effective. My bath formula is 2-3% liquid detergent, as per manufacturer's recommendation.
bbftx - Sorry for the delay in responding. I forgot to set up to follow the thread, my bad.
I did look at your v. 3 and man, you've come along way.
I've also read more recent posts on higher frequency units, as well as the multi-frequency, which interest me because reading the thread I'd gotten the impression - sorry for not being terribly scientific here - that lower frequencies may be better at removing large bits, higher frequencies more for removing oils & films.
I'm one of those vinyl buyers who actually gravitates toward those discs that look rather like old engines with few miles that have been sitting idle for ages but gathering dust in the meantime. So I have to deal with both ends of the spectrum. It may be too much to ask for, but the ideal cleaning unit to me would be one that do it all so I'm not forced to pre-clean on some other device. Problem seems to be though that the moment one moves up a multi-frequency device, the cost goes up to $2k or am I mistaken on that?
I did look at your v. 3 and man, you've come along way.
I've also read more recent posts on higher frequency units, as well as the multi-frequency, which interest me because reading the thread I'd gotten the impression - sorry for not being terribly scientific here - that lower frequencies may be better at removing large bits, higher frequencies more for removing oils & films.
I'm one of those vinyl buyers who actually gravitates toward those discs that look rather like old engines with few miles that have been sitting idle for ages but gathering dust in the meantime. So I have to deal with both ends of the spectrum. It may be too much to ask for, but the ideal cleaning unit to me would be one that do it all so I'm not forced to pre-clean on some other device. Problem seems to be though that the moment one moves up a multi-frequency device, the cost goes up to $2k or am I mistaken on that?
Based on what I've been seeing, lower frequencies might be better for grease and other nastiness due to being more abrasive. Higher frequencies would get deeper into the grooves for smaller particles while also being gentler. Ironically, I'm wondering if blowing the extra money on the higher frequency unit was the right choice for me after all, since some records are just stubbornly nasty and may have benefited from the tougher cleaning of the 40kHz. Oh well.
Number and power of transducers is also important, etc. There's also a question of whether too much cleaning might make matters worse. Some things I expected to clean up nicely have just been click-fests after an extensive cleaning regimen. Very frustrating. Though maybe these are just instances where the vinyl just isn't that good, and cleaning is just revealing the flaws. *shrug*
Number and power of transducers is also important, etc. There's also a question of whether too much cleaning might make matters worse. Some things I expected to clean up nicely have just been click-fests after an extensive cleaning regimen. Very frustrating. Though maybe these are just instances where the vinyl just isn't that good, and cleaning is just revealing the flaws. *shrug*
My own hardly scientific tests using other cleaning methods has led me to believe that when working with the record horizontal, it's pretty easy to move surface debris into the groove, harder to get it back out. It's one reason I've stopped trying to brush anything off the record as a first step, moved to flooding it with water (R/O) and removing by hand with my DIY wet-vac. Because this seems to have helped my normal process. I do wonder if when working with really dirty records like I do, one doesn't have to still be careful when using any of the ultrasonic processes - change the cleaning fluid after just a few runs - perhaps setting several "clean" records aside and then running them through again in a pristine r/o bath. I understand the process is supposed to move contaminants away from the record, but can't quite get to the point of believing that all contaminants are heavier than water, or that even if they are, they'll be able to overcome the ultrasonic agitation and fall to the bottom.
The frequency generator and transducers need to be matched to the same frequency, so no, it's not worthwhile changing the transducer frequency in a unit built to operate at a different frequency.
Cheers,
B B
Ah, I see. So the 60kHz transducer resonates at that frequency.
How hard are the drive circuits to build? Just wondering if a mod is possible to a 40kHz machine?
Hi gang,
I'd like to offer a couple of reminders regarding frequency choice, cost of different machines, and build quality. Remember that ultrasonic cleaning is not a cure all. It can't fix scratches or other structural imperfections in the vinyl. Some vinyl is just plain noisy, even when clean.
I like considering real data if it's available. There has been testing done on effectiveness of particle removal as a function of frequency and particle size. I posted it in message #93 in this thread and have reattached here. The particle size range of this slide corresponds pretty closely to the most worrisome particles we see on a record. Larger particles certainly get on records (e.g. visible dust), but they are less likely to be embedded in the vinyl and should come off easily with a variety of cleaning methods.
The chart shows 80 kHz is superior at smaller particle sizes and about the same as 40khz at larger sizes. It is reasonable to assume a 60khz line would fall between the 40 and 80 curves. Therefore 60khz would be slightly more effective than 40khz for the smaller particle sizes and about the same at the larger.
Mold particles go down to about 3 microns in size, so I want my machine to be most effective there.
Smoke particles range from .01 to 4 microns. Again, for used vinyl, that's a size range where I'd want the best cleaning performance I can get for a reasonable price. I would argue that sub 1-micron particles aren't of great concern since they are unlikely to disturb a stylus in a record groove, but that is assumption on my part.
There are cheap 40khz units and expensive 40khz units. Build quality is a consideration here. Noise is a consideration. Cheap 40khz units are built poorly, make a horrible noise and it's hard to be in the same room while they're on. Is that the type of machine you really want in your system? [Not backed by real data, but I suspect some of the cheap machines from Asia sold as 40khz aren't even 40khz and might be 20-25khz and that contributes to sonic irritation.]
The 60khz Sonix machine used to be a bargain when it was available at around $500 or less. It's still obtainable under $700 and for me, still seems like a good cost vs. value tradeoff. Elma build quality is first rate, and would be my second choice at about $1400 for 80khz. Tuttnauer CSU-3 is a 3 gallon, 60khz machine that can be had for about $1200 with heater.
One's personal decision depends on your budget and your own assessment of performance value vs. cost. But those are my thoughts.
Cheers,
B B
I'd like to offer a couple of reminders regarding frequency choice, cost of different machines, and build quality. Remember that ultrasonic cleaning is not a cure all. It can't fix scratches or other structural imperfections in the vinyl. Some vinyl is just plain noisy, even when clean.
I like considering real data if it's available. There has been testing done on effectiveness of particle removal as a function of frequency and particle size. I posted it in message #93 in this thread and have reattached here. The particle size range of this slide corresponds pretty closely to the most worrisome particles we see on a record. Larger particles certainly get on records (e.g. visible dust), but they are less likely to be embedded in the vinyl and should come off easily with a variety of cleaning methods.
The chart shows 80 kHz is superior at smaller particle sizes and about the same as 40khz at larger sizes. It is reasonable to assume a 60khz line would fall between the 40 and 80 curves. Therefore 60khz would be slightly more effective than 40khz for the smaller particle sizes and about the same at the larger.
Mold particles go down to about 3 microns in size, so I want my machine to be most effective there.
Smoke particles range from .01 to 4 microns. Again, for used vinyl, that's a size range where I'd want the best cleaning performance I can get for a reasonable price. I would argue that sub 1-micron particles aren't of great concern since they are unlikely to disturb a stylus in a record groove, but that is assumption on my part.
There are cheap 40khz units and expensive 40khz units. Build quality is a consideration here. Noise is a consideration. Cheap 40khz units are built poorly, make a horrible noise and it's hard to be in the same room while they're on. Is that the type of machine you really want in your system? [Not backed by real data, but I suspect some of the cheap machines from Asia sold as 40khz aren't even 40khz and might be 20-25khz and that contributes to sonic irritation.]
The 60khz Sonix machine used to be a bargain when it was available at around $500 or less. It's still obtainable under $700 and for me, still seems like a good cost vs. value tradeoff. Elma build quality is first rate, and would be my second choice at about $1400 for 80khz. Tuttnauer CSU-3 is a 3 gallon, 60khz machine that can be had for about $1200 with heater.
One's personal decision depends on your budget and your own assessment of performance value vs. cost. But those are my thoughts.
Cheers,
B B
Last edited:
Missouri, it is only necessary to dislodge the particles and binding material, if any. Once particles are in suspension, they can only move back to the grooves by convection; (1) this is low probability, (2) any particles will tend to deposit on the surface, and (3) there will be no binding material to keep them there.
That said, I like to filter my solution every dozen records if they are garage sale items, every few dozen if they have already been cleaned.
That said, I like to filter my solution every dozen records if they are garage sale items, every few dozen if they have already been cleaned.