I made myself a record cleaner

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
So, while waiting for the bath to arrive [at which point I can figure out the dimensions needed for everything by trial and error], I got a few bits and pieces: - a 6mm threaded rod for an axle [turns out that is too thin for a record hole - but I can always pad out the part where the records are to go to the correct thickness.

- various bits of wood, to build a support for the axle - some nylon hose joints, conveniently the right size for the rod, to use as bearings (It's not going to be bearing a huge weight, so that should do fine ... and if it doesn't I can fit something better in the future) The only problem now is I'm wondering, how do I drive the thing around?

I was thinking of creating a large outside gear wheel by taking 3 or 4 bargain-bin, very scratched, records and gluing them together, then skimming the edge to make a nice large, flat wheel. Then I'd drive that using a motor with a rubber bush on it. Similar to how the original poster did it, but not as cool looking as I don't happen to have access to lots of nice acrylic ;) How have others solved the drive problem?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
a fascinating thread.

I have a small US CD cleaner, which I have also used to clean various other household items .i.e rings etc. I'm struck at how the items dance around inside in a state of agitation, they are clearly being buffeted by the wave fronts.

I wonder if the LP records , or perhaps a single LP might not rotate gradually on their own if the axle bearings are fine enough and not need any additional mechanism to make them rotate ?
 
As the record is always only partially under water and the wettest part is the heaviest part due to the weight of the water in the grooves it won't rotate by the vibrations in the water alone. And also the direction of the rotation at any time could not be controlled.
Shortly: no.
 
Hello guys!
Great project here. I just ordered a EMAG Emmi 60H and a old Nitty Gritty Basic Record cleaner to clean my huge record collection for recording. I will keep you updated on my version of the cleaner. The EMAG is the best cleaner you can get. Made here in Germany with our engineering skills. 350W, your machines only have up to 200W I think (Made in China haha).

Here a datasheet of the successor Emmi 60HC which has minor improvements.

http://www.emag-germany.de/de/products/ultrasonic/Emmi_60HC.php?page=1

They will also release Emmi 55HC later this year to fill the gap in size between 40HC (too small) and 60HC (too huge for our needs). Watch out for this if you want your this in a few months.

I will keep you updated!

bye
 
Last edited:
Any updates?

It's been sometime since the OP and other brave pioneers completed their designs. Do any of you have any observations or insights after having used your devices over this time? In light of the current rave reviews of the AudioDesk system I suspect this thread will get new traffic. Cheers.
 
Hello guys!
Great project here. I just ordered a EMAG Emmi 60H and a old Nitty Gritty Basic Record cleaner to clean my huge record collection for recording. I will keep you updated on my version of the cleaner. The EMAG is the best cleaner you can get. Made here in Germany with our engineering skills. 350W, your machines only have up to 200W I think (Made in China haha).

Here a datasheet of the successor Emmi 60HC which has minor improvements.

EMAG AG

They will also release Emmi 55HC later this year to fill the gap in size between 40HC (too small) and 60HC (too huge for our needs). Watch out for this if you want your this in a few months.

I will keep you updated!

bye

Hi Zen,

Very interesting to come across this thread, as I have been researching an ultrasonic LP cleaner. :)

So you think your 60H and its replacement, the 60HC, are a bit too large? Do you have the dimensions of the upcoming 55HC, relative to yours?

And what were the "improvements" which the 60HC had over your 60H?

And how have you built a "rotisserie" to turn the multiple LPs in the bath?

Regards,

Andy
 
Hey andyr!
Thanks for your interest! I was told about the 55HC on the phone but I do not have exact dimensions. They only said me that it will have less width. So for the guys who only clean a few records a good solution.

I was able to clean up to 6 records with the 60H cleaner at the same time successful. For testing I lend a construction using a "grill engine", normally used to spin meat on your bbq plate ;)

Yes the HC version only has very few minor improvements. For example the pot in the middle to adjust ultrasonic power. Nothing that is important as we need the full 350W cleaning power. Highest value you can find! Chinese machines only have half of this.

Unfortunately I do not have the time now to build this "rotisserie". University keeps me busy, but in 3 months I will do my best to present a professional solution. It is really hard to find a good engine to spin slow but with force. Any suggestions appreciated.

Very important: suck the water out after the cleaning! I bought a old american Nitty Gritty cleaner from ebay but there are better machines out there for this job. Again time intensive to import this from a foreign country..

See attachments for the prototype and Nitty Gritty cleaner.
 

Attachments

  • 1.JPG
    1.JPG
    449.7 KB · Views: 1,888
  • 2.jpg
    2.jpg
    386.8 KB · Views: 1,802
Last edited:
I'd love to see this thread "reactivated" with energy and conversation

... so, to chum the water here are a few conversation starters.

Reiner Gläss of AudioDesk Systeme should be commended for his design of his Vinyl Cleaner in its unique ability to totally automate the record cleaning process - while still keeping the actual cleaning thorough and effective.

IMHO, the above scenario is usually mutually exclusive in that automation and convenience often sacrifice performance and high performance sacrifices convenience, etc. To me, this is his major achievement. I've had the pleasure to experience the product in person several times and have been tempted to (find a way) to acquire one - or at least similar results.

The critical accolades his AudioDesk Systeme Vinyl Cleaner (ADSvc) is getting right now (despite it being available for several years) is genuinely deserved - and as the first mover with a viable commercial concept is open to set his own price/profit margins relative to his R&D, bravery, etc. This happens in every industry.

This brings us to the next inevitability - iteration, imitation, evolution and eventually the next/next thing. This also happens in every industry. This is also the very same process that keeps DIYers like all of us engaged.

So, on that note, there are several things in his design that I'm curious about - because, they seem to buck the general consensus of best practices established in this thread as well as other ultrasonic cleaning conversations. Most of these design decisions can be observed here:

1 - The effectiveness of ultrasonic cleaning benefits from a heated bath (as far as I know, the AudioDesk product is not intentionally heated)

2 - The item to be cleaned should remain still in the bath (not only does his design have the LP constantly spinning at different speeds - there are roller brushes in full action for a majority of the bath cycle agitating the water)

3 - The amount of undisturbed time an item should remain in the bath should be relatively long (when compared to the exceptionally brief and "anything but still" minute that the ADSvc requires)

4 - No additional additive is required for effective bath water in the ultrasonic process (yet he has an additive - rumored to be some type of wetting agent/surfactant to aid in the drying process?)

5 - Finally, nothing is vacuumed. Simply dried with the ASDvc. This violates most known record cleaning concepts considered most effective up to now (Keith Monks, VPI, etc.).

So, despite all of these transgressions from known "rules' for effective ultrasonic cleaning (or vinyl LP cleaning in general) -- this product is highly effective.

So, what say you readers? I'm interested in the discussion.

cheers
 
I have not seen the ADS machine in person, and I'm still planning/deciding whether to do a DIY version. So, keep my lack of direct experience in mind. That being said, here are some thoughts and speculation in response to some of your questions.

2 - The item to be cleaned should remain still in the bath (not only does his design have the LP constantly spinning at different speeds - there are roller brushes in full action for a majority of the bath cycle agitating the water)

I saw a comment (somewhere) from a US expert to the effect that a certain amount of flow is acceptable. Presumably, the record rotation isn't an issue. The rollers might be a problem locally, but the flow they generate drops rapidly with distance, so still might not prevent good cleaning over most of the wetted surface. Beyond this, I think the rollers perform an important function in moving dislodged particles away from the grooves.

3 - The amount of undisturbed time an item should remain in the bath should be relatively long (when compared to the exceptionally brief and "anything but still" minute that the ADSvc requires)

A nit pick: the author of the video quoted 2 minutes of total cleaning time. Anyway, it appears to be long enough in this application. Is there some study elsewhere that suggests it needs to be longer? As per previous comment, the bath might in fact be still enough for good results.

4 - No additional additive is required for effective bath water in the ultrasonic process (yet he has an additive - rumored to be some type of wetting agent/surfactant to aid in the drying process?)

My observation is that the use of surfactancts is pretty common in US cleaning. Look into some of the industrial equipment providers; most sell this stuff by the gallon. Perhaps it's needed to ensure that the bath penetrates into tight places, such as record grooves.

5 - Finally, nothing is vacuumed. Simply dried with the ASDvc. This violates most known record cleaning concepts considered most effective up to now (Keith Monks, VPI, etc.).

There are some differences in this process vs. the ones you mention. (1) The volume of fluid in the bath is much greater than thin layer we spread on lps in the conventional machines. Thus, the particles per unit volume is orders of magnitude lower in the ADS machine, and this alone should substantially mitigate the problem of particles reentering the grooves. (2) ADS claims to filter the bath during use, and this should remove many or even most particles. (3) The vertical orientation allows suspended particles to fall to the bottom of the tank where they can do no harm. In conventional machines on the other hand, the horizontal orientation of the record means that all suspended particles will return to the LP surface if the fluid is allowed to dry in place. Surface tension might even pull particles deep into the grooves (possibly, surfactant in the US bath helps prevent this effect, too). My speculation is that these differences explain why vacuuming isn't critical in the ADS design. All that being said, vacuuming and a distilled water rinse might still be a good thing in a DYI version of US cleaning (your trade off between convenience and effectiveness might apply here).

6 - The ultrasonic fluid should be degassed in the bath for 5-10 minutes prior to cleaning (the ADSvc doesn't have a degassing phase)

The operating instructions, available on the ADS website, call for running the machine through a full cycle before inserting the first disk everytime new liquid is put into the machine. They say it's because "Air needs to be bled out of the pumps." However, this might also serve to degas the bath. It's not clear that degassing is needed before every use if the liquid has not been changed.

Anyway, thanks for keeping the conversation going.
 
Ishmail - Thank you for your reply. Your points make good sense. I've complete my DIY US bath cleaner and hope to post some photos soon.

One key differentiation I've made is to use a time cycled power adapter to rotate the record every 3 minutes -- effectively allowing each 1/4 of the record to remain still in the bath on the modified rotisserie. The total cleaning time is then 12 minutes per record (have not tried multiple records at once). I've also been using the AudioDesk surfactant in my bath and manually filtering the water using a DIY system incorporating some fine filtering sponges (aquarium style).

Oh, and did I mention that the telescopic structure that suspends the rotisserie motor was fashioned out of the support base of an old EA RockBand video game drum set?

I know - strange, but it works :)
 
Ishmail - Thank you for your reply. Your points make good sense. I've complete my DIY US bath cleaner and hope to post some photos soon.

One key differentiation I've made is to use a time cycled power adapter to rotate the record every 3 minutes -- effectively allowing each 1/4 of the record to remain still in the bath on the modified rotisserie. The total cleaning time is then 12 minutes per record (have not tried multiple records at once). I've also been using the AudioDesk surfactant in my bath and manually filtering the water using a DIY system incorporating some fine filtering sponges (aquarium style).

Oh, and did I mention that the telescopic structure that suspends the rotisserie motor was fashioned out of the support base of an old EA RockBand video game drum set?

I know - strange, but it works :)
CTOwens-

Thanks for the update on your progress. I like the power-cycled rotation idea, and thanks for the detail on how you implemented the telescopic support --- a nice solution that's on my short list of designs. So far, none of the postings I've seen mentioned the source for the telescoping hardware. In researching the idea, I did look at frames for real drum kits (not too promising) and especially entry-level monopods made for cameras (some reasonable options including the use of ball-head mounts). But can't beat the price of your recycled RockBand mount.

On multiple records, I think one could go to, say, 2-3 records without much loss of cleaning power, but I have doubts about designs that show 6 or more lps at the same time; I'm not sure the US cleaning action would be as effective in these tightly-packed configurations. Perhaps this is part of the reason ADS decided to limit their design to 1 record. Another reason might be that implementing rotating brushes for a stack of lps is considerably more difficult. I've given some thought to how brushes might be added to a DYI version. I'm also considering filtering, first manually with a Brita Pitcher filter, then automated with a low-flow-rate pump. I'd be interested to hear how your experiments with filtering work out, and overall, how effective the DYI US approach is with respect to traditional vacuum cleaning.

Have you looked at Alconox 1104 and Alconox 1304 (enzymatic), for example, as reasonably priced alternatives to the ADS surfactant? You can find them as concentrate or premixed liquid on Amazon. I haven't looked into it, but I guess that the ADS surfactant comes with the usual audiophile mark-up.

Meanwhile, I'll continue to over-think the design while waiting for my bank balance to recharge after a recent audio purchase.
 
My version

An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.

An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.

An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.


And, yes...that is the simple telescopic base of a RockBand drum set. I cut the plastic piping to fit the required length, installed a rotisserie motor to the top, repurposed all sorts of things from closets/garage and several hardware store trips.

For example, the discs that help hold the record in place were fashioned from furniture floor sliders, drilled, affixed with dashboard iPhone grip pads for - well - gripping power.

The motor plugs into this: Amazon.com: ART-DNe - Adjustable Cycle Timer: Home Improvement
 
Thanks for the update on your progress. I like the power-cycled rotation idea,

Ishmail -- Yes. The idea for power cycling was inspired from the online research we discussed earlier regarding the (potential) efficacy of US cleaning when the object is still versus in motion. A timed power cycler simply acts as a programmable switch with variable timing for on/off -- hooked up at the AC plate with motor power plugged directly into it. There are many options for these types of devices -- make sure you find one that can program ON-time in seconds (important for a 5-6 second rotation of 1/4 of a 12" LP -- depending on motor RPM) as well as minutes for OFF-time (experimenting with 2-3 minute still bath time for each 1/4 of an LP). There are many options that only do 30 minute cycles, hours, days for use in gardening, hydroponics, etc.

... and thanks for the detail on how you implemented the telescopic support --- a nice solution that's on my short list of designs. So far, none of the postings I've seen mentioned the source for the telescoping hardware.

I did similar research -- focusing primarily on inexpensive camera mounts and desktop digital camera mounts (which are far more expensive than I desired). The main issue was an inability to get flush enough with the US machine given the tripod footprint -- which then effects balance as well as length of spindle. Coincidentally, I was clearing out a cupboard around the same time and caught a glimpse of the RockBand kit -- eureka moment... the rest was trial and (lots of) error. The pipe is a perfect material to cut and shape for desired height. The base allows for flush mounting on either side (however it does need some additional weight to balance weight of motor).

I refashioned and spliced a long AC cord from an old dead APC backup battery to provide power to the motor up through the piping. This required making the cord coiled to allow for the raising and lowering of it within the telescopic pipe. I achieved this by winding it tightly around the unused skewer from the rotisserie motor package and then using a hair dryer to mold it into shape.

I've given some thought to how brushes might be added to a DIY version.

This is my next challenge as well. I'm currently toying with (over-thinking :) the implementation of two spare VPI velvet-lipped tubes from a 16.5 being affixed to the metal basket that came with my US cleaner. This may allow the brushes to gently come into contact with the LP's surface during rotation to help dislocate any grime. Easier said than done - given torque of the motor, lining everything up, maintaining an effective pressure on the surface of the record, etc. Have also considered dual carbon fibre brushes that sweep the record on either side at the surface of the water suspended from above the water line mounted on one side of the machine. To be honest, if I were at Spin-Clean and owned the rights to this machine: Vinyl Record Cleaner and Washing System | Spin Clean Record Washing System
I'd simply find a way to make the bath base stainless steel and add some US transducers -- keeping it manual to offset cost. Rush it to market and dramatically underprice AudioDesk with (potentially) analogous results. A testable proposition - nonetheless.

I'm also considering filtering, first manually with a Brita Pitcher filter, then automated with a low-flow-rate pump.

I've stuck to manual thus far. I use the spicket on the machine to drain down a flexible tube into two stages of tupperware (with holes poked into them for drainage) where I've layered two aquarium filter sponges that are rated for super-fine particulant filtering. I cut them out in the shape of the tupperware. This then trickles into a simple funnel that balances on top of a 5.25 liter storable water container form the Container Store. I collect lots of old german pressings of ECM jazz vinyl bought from folks in Europe who seemingly like to smoke while they listen ;) It's crazy to see dark yellow stains in the filters of residual nicotine in the shape of the drainage holes! I doubt Manfred Eicher ever considered the sound of nicotine whilst meticulously recording and mastering his artists :) The hardest part here is maintaining the speed of water flow as not to cause too much backup or leaking along the way. This stage could definitely be improved.

... and overall, how effective the DIY US approach is with respect to traditional vacuum cleaning.

Too be honest, this is where you may think I'm a total OCD nut. I'm using this DIY US bath as just an initial stage for what I believe to be heavily soiled or older LPs in my collection (like the german ECMs I referred to above). After this initial stage, I then continue with my usual process -- Walker Audio Prelude Quartet (4-step) cleaning fluids on my VPI 16.5. I then apply LAST LP conditioner as final step before demag-ing (another story) and bagging in MoFI static-suppressive sleeves. Obviously, not for the faint of heart - nor necessary for every LP I own. For others that I am simply suspect of - I simply do a rinse and vacuum on the VPI. Apparently, I'm not the only crazy one to experiment with such a lengthy process, as this reviewer has come to similar results: SoundStage! - The Vinyl Word - Audio Desk Systeme Vinyl Cleaner (3/2010)

Have you looked at Alconox 1104 and Alconox 1304 (enzymatic), for example, as reasonably priced alternatives to the ADS surfactant? You can find them as concentrate or premixed liquid on Amazon. I haven't looked into it, but I guess that the ADS surfactant comes with the usual audiophile mark-up.

I'll definitely look this up. If cheap enough, it may rule out the need for filtering as one could just empty the bath and start fresh for the next session. Currently, I do not drain and filter the water after each record -- just at the end of each session --- which never goes longer than 4 records. I use cheap bottles of Aquafina water (recommended by Mikey Fremer in a pinch) that goes through a purification process that incorporates reverse osmosis, ultraviolet and ozone sterilization at non-Audiophile pricing :)

Meanwhile, I'll continue to over-think the design while waiting for my bank balance to recharge after a recent audio purchase.

I'm right there with you, friend. :D
 
Thanks for the pictures --- lot's of good technical improvisations and creative details! Thanks also for the link to the Soundstage! review; I hadn't see it before. It partly debunks some of the more euphoric reviews of the ADS machine, but still finds a good deal of value that is complementary to the VPI machine. I wonder if the two procedures could be blended in an abbreviated hybrid method that is less time consuming than doing them each complete. For example, it seems that ADS does not use enzymes in its fluid. Maybe an enzyme presoak would make the US process effective on a wider range of dirt. A distilled water rinse and vacuum at the end should be better than fan drying, too. But, as the review points out, there are too many possible permutations and life is short ...

[By the way, your ECM collection sounds interesting, and yes, they smoke like chimneys in Europe compared to here. Or they did; in the last 10 years or so I've been happy to see a significant trend away from smoking take hold in the places I visit.]

You win on the OCD scale. I only use a 3-step process (AVI) and don't demag or LAST, but otherwise similar. Recently switched to Aquafina, too.

For rotating brushes, I'm considering using microfiber mini rollers for paint mounted on steel shafts and motorized and suspended from a superstructure spanning over the lps. Seems complicated, but I couldn't come up with a good way to mount the brushes from the sides. There are still several details that need more thought.
 
So I picked myself up a used ultrasonic cleaner off of eBay and I justed placed an order with Servocity for the rotation motor, mounts, shaft coupling, and power supply. My question is, what should I used for an actual cleaning fluid? I was thinking of using my regular home brew record cleaning fluid (3:1 distilled water to 90% isopropyl alcohol w/ Triton X-100 surfactant). Anybody have any better ideas? I'll post up pics when I get everything put together.

Kevin T
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.