My version of an Ultrasonic Record Cleaner

[bbftx]

Originally Posted by 78RPMcollector

I'm wondering about the importance of the temperature of 120 degrees.

Hi 78RPM,
The elevated temp helps the cleaning action. Is it required? No, but it definitely helps whatever cleaning solution you're using work better in the URC.

I haven't cleaned any 78s. And I'd be reluctant to do so. They're just a whole different animal, and I don't know anything about cleaning them, other than avoid all alcohol. I do have some Edison Diamond Discs from my grandfather, but I know you can't get those wet.

BB

[bbftx]

Originally Posted by freax

What have you guys done about the residue that sticks to the record when you pull them back out again?
I'm wondering if a harder water wouldn't fix this and cause most of the deposits to go to the bottom.

Hi Freax,
A filter solves these issues. See post #121 in this thread.

Cheers,
BB

[Vinyladdict]

Originally Posted by freax

diyaudio.com, making the kitchen sink obsolete since 1955...

What have you guys done about the residue that sticks to the record when you pull them back out again?

I'm wondering if a harder water wouldn't fix this and cause most of the deposits to go to the bottom.

It was a bit of trial and error for me to get my mixture dialed in and by reducing the Triton X to only 6 drops I do not get any residue that I can see with the naked eye, nor more importantly hear. Distilled or ultrapure lab water seems to give me the best results and I use this when cleaning my "nice" records. Duplicates and particularly grungy garage sale finds get filtered tap water. Of course YMMV.

[rickmcinnis]

do you mean another cycle in water, alone, in the ultrasonic machine?

Seems like this could not hurt.

I wonder if one could get away with more than three records in a rinse cycle?

If so, that would make it less frustrating.

My US machine was just delivered. Can't wait to give this a try this evening.

Thanks again for your guidance,

[rickmcinnis]

I am sorry my expectations sounded so unrealistic - I know that there is no way to make a old, heavily played record pristine - especially since pressing defects are a large part of the noise.

You did not oversell the technique and I should have tempered my words.

Made a rudimentary setup last night and cleaned some records and there is no question this does a much better job than any of the other techniques I have tried. Noise is reduced, certainly not eliminated, but there is a leap in transparency that will make listening to my records a new experience.

Can't wait to get the motor and install it and be able to walk away while the cleaning takes place.

Also thinking that with repeated cleaning there could be further gains. Simply cleaning the records you intend to listen no matter if they have been previously US'ed should be worthwhile.

Thanks, again,

[bbftx]

Rick,
I actually think it would be a pain to change out the URC fluid, reload records and run another cycle in the URC with plain water for a rinse.
And, plain water might indeed hurt. It leaves spots and can attract dust while drying. Hence products like photo-flo.

Consider the formulation for Disc Doctor Quick Wash. It was designed as a no-rinse cleaning solution. What's in it? Purified water, propanol, and surfactant --- the same components talked about in this thread.

Everybody has their own favorite cleaning process that works for them, and I wouldn't demand anyone use mine. I'm just trying to lay out my rationale for not doing a rinse. Perhaps I'm just too lazy to do a 10 step cleaning process!
Cheers,
B B

[bbftx]

Originally Posted by rickmcinnis

Made a rudimentary setup last night and cleaned some records and there is no question this does a much better job than any of the other techniques I have tried.

Awesome, Rick. Glad you were able to start cleaning a few LPs!

I haven't experimented much with more time in the cleaning cycle so I don't know if longer times yield more benefit or not. There are a few LPs I've run through the cleaning cycle 2 times. I didn't notice much, if any, change after the second cycle. Certainly nothing compared to the improvement after the first cycle through. These weren't the best LPs though, so my results aren't exhaustive, for sure.

I think this might be a case of rapidly diminishing returns. For me, I'm thinking my time is better spent cleaning other LPs the first time, rather than running records through a second time. But it might be worthwhile running some of your favorites through a second time if you suspect further improvement might be had. It is certainly worth more experimentation.

Good luck with the rest of the setup,
B B

[christempler]

Hi,

This is my first post ever to a forum.
I have just finished the unit as per the pictures and would dearly like to correspond with someone else that has gone down the same route.

I made some assumptions before I started - 1. One at a time (see 6). 2. Brushes to help clear the debris away. 3. 50 degrees Celsius. 4. One RPM. 5. Cheap Chinese unit @ 40kHz as other frequency units too expensive here and this one can be maintained by the local (South Africa) agents. 6. To have a separate rinse / vacuum unit which is almost finished.

So far the results have been superb. In every case the LP's washed had been done on both a VPI unit and later with a SpinClean and all of them showed a big improvement. One record was after cleaning by the other two still almost unplayable and is now virtually pristine.

Fluid used was a very dilute Iso Propyl alcohol / filtered water mix with a few drops of Pluronic 6200 surficant. Very little to dry as the fluid runs off as the LP is lifted out of the bath.

This weekend I intend to try a detergent use in dish washers as I found it worked very well in the SpinClean but it needs to be rinsed afterwards.

More later but a comment I read about drying. Any dirt that is dissolved in the cleaning solution plus any dissolved and suspend solids will re-deposit if air drying is used as in the Audio Systeme cleaner or the SpinClean.

Regards to all

Chris

[bbftx]

Hi Chris,
Great first post! Welcome to online discussion and thanks for showing your beautiful project.
Nice looking unit you've built! It's elegant enough to leave it sitting out, right beside your audio gear!

I will say that I don't understand putting scrubbing brushes in an ultrasonic bath. I haven't found ANY medical instrument or jewelry applications where this is done.

People use ultrasonic cleaners in applications where brushes for scrubbing aren't adequate for some reason. The tip of a brush bristle can't reach as deep in a record groove as an ultrasonic cavitation bubble, so what's the point of the brush? Ultrasonic cleaning either works or it doesn't. The brush is superfluous.

Another reason you don't find brushes in an ultrasonic bath is that an ultrasonic cleaner can only handle so much surface area before cleaning effectiveness drops. The general rule of thumb is that you shouldn't load a unit with more than about 230 sq. inches of surface area per gallon of tank capacity. Brushes and the structures to hold them present a LOT of surface area in the bath and reduce cleaning effectiveness of the ultrasonic process.

If you're getting good results, that's great. But I don't think it's because of the brushes...

Regarding redeposition --- filtering is a good solution. It can even pay for itself by reducing the consumption of cleaning solution over time. Even without filtering, dilution of impurities in over a gallon of fluid would make any redeposition a tiny, tiny fraction of whatever was originally on the record. I wouldn't over-worry about that.

B B

[oshifis]

Rinsing with distilled water could have some advantage. The surfactant in the US cleaner decreases the surface tension of the water, so the water "wets" the PVC and goes in the grooves. However water drops (that contain residue) remain in the grooves after US cleaning, and they dry in. Pure distilled water has high surface tension, so water drops run off the disc after rinsing, and ideally no drying would be needed.