My version of an Ultrasonic Record Cleaner - Page 23 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Source & Line > Analogue Source

Analogue Source Turntables, Tonearms, Cartridges, Phono Stages, Tuners, Tape Recorders, etc.

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 9th December 2012, 06:59 PM   #221
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Default Couplings, bearings, collars, etc.

There's been some interest here of late in using various bearings, couplings, and collars for transmitting power to the rotisserie. Here are some pictures of various parts I purchased back in October along the same lines (still waiting for the deck to come in on which to mount it all).

The configuration in the first picture is not exactly what I will use, but it gives the basic idea. The gearmotor ($24.99) and mounting clamp ($7.99) in the second picture are from servocity.com. This is the 12 VDC motor I mentioned earlier; I also have a speed controller for it. The mounting clamp is a new product offering that fits the motor much better than the old plastic mount ($1.99), and is worth the extra $$ IMO. The flexible coupling ($10 from ugracnc.com) adapts from the 6mm motor spindle to the 1/4" (6.35mm) shaft I chose ($4.98 each) at servocity.com). The spiral cut in the coupling allows it to flex to accommodate minor misalignments between the motor and the shaft. In general, I think ready-made parts such as these are good solutions for people like me who lack the lathes etc. needed to fabricate their own parts.

The third picture shows a 1/4"-bore, roller-bearing pillow block (PB-04, $8.95 at lynxmotion.com) and a one-piece clamping style collar in aluminum (you can get a 4-pack of a similar style collar for $9.47 at Amazon; Ruland CL-4-A). The clamping style are a little nicer than the set screw type, but the difference likely doesn't matter for our use. Take your pick. The roller-bearing pillow block might seem like overkill, but my intended design configuration will stress the supports more than the simple supports shown in the first picture, and I want to minimize friction to extend the low end of motor speeds I can get with the speed controller.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg IMG_0647.jpg (539.8 KB, 673 views)
File Type: jpg IMG_0649.jpg (547.0 KB, 640 views)
File Type: jpg IMG_0648.jpg (553.1 KB, 625 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th December 2012, 08:08 PM   #222
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Default Bacteria and filter system maintenance; purified water; enzymatic cleaner?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbftx View Post
Just in case it's not obvious for anyone setting up a filtration system for their URC, I better point out that you need to drain your filter and pump, and open the filter housing to let the cartridge dry out when you're not using the system. Bacteria will grow if you leave the system wet when you put it away. This is also my concern about leaving cleaning solution or rinse water overnight, or for days on end.
I've left my system wet for about 10 days and only changed the cleaning bath every few days. I finally opened it all up last night in response to BB's advice. There was no obvious bacterial growth visible to casual inspection, but that doesn't mean it's not there. On the other hand, I'd rather not do this maintenance more often than needed.

I found this technical note on the Alconox web site How to: Monitor Stability of 1% Alconox Solution. Although they claim no microbial growth in dilute Alconox under closed-lid conditions for 3 weeks or more, they confirm that under open-lid conditions bacterial growth might be a concern. They suggest checking for microbial growth by monitoring for a drop in pH and for odor, and with these precautions, it might be possible to use the same solution for up to three weeks. Since in our use we change the bath more frequently than that, it might be sufficient to only dry out the filter when changing the bath solution. If viable, this would be much more convenient and less expensive than a daily ritual.

I just placed an order for an HM digital TDS-3, on BB's suggestion, to compare quality of store-bought water and to monitor my rinse water to know when to change it. In the meantime, I carried out some crude mechanical comparison tests of store-bought distilled water, store-bought RO water, and Audio Intelligence's Ultra-Pure Water (way too expensive in the volumes I need). If done carefully, you can get very accurate measurements of relative water purity by inspecting beading action and the contact angle between a bead surface and a substrate. My tests weren't all that careful, but they showed that my locally available distilled water and RO water were in the same ball park, with a slight edge seeming to go to the RO water. The TDS meter should give a quantitative comparison for these two soon.

The AI Ultra Pure Water is the best by far; no contest based on mechanical performance. I'm not sure whether the TDS meter will have enough resolution to show this difference, because many users report zero TDS with home made DI and store-bought distilled water.

All this has significance for rinsing, especially the final stage where if the extraction is sufficiently gradual and the water is pure enough, it might be possible to have the lps emerge nearly dry. With the water I have now and careful removal I'm almost there, but I'm still left with some beads of water adhering to the lp surface. These take much longer to dry than the rest of the lp surface, and they presumably concentrate whatever impurities are still present as they evaporate. I sometimes touch the beads with the corner of a clean tissue to wick them away to speed drying, but this is tedious and difficult on a stack of 3 records.

Better would be to find an affordable source of ultra purified water. I'm inexperienced with home RODI systems, and don't know whether a reasonably priced system can produce quality similar to the AI water or at least better than what I buy now from the store. Would a system with dual DI stages do better?

----

I did some tests combining a presoak in AI's enzymatic cleaner on one side of an lp with US cleaning in Alconox on both sides. It's difficult to draw definite conclusions without better controls, but there was some evidence that the side with the enzymatic presoak came out better. In any case, I decided to order a box of Tergzayme cleaner (Alconox plus enzymes; good up to 120 F); we'll see what if anything comes of that.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11th December 2012, 08:26 PM   #223
mgreene is offline mgreene  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Aiken, South Carolina USA
Default Alconox

I have been lurking this thread for a while. I saw where there has been some contact with Duane - the Disk Doctor. Some years ago, I had an online discussion with Duane about Alconox. He recommended against it - especially the dry alconox formulation meant to be fixed up by the user. I disagreed with his conclusions as I never had any problem with Alconox and found it to leave quiet records after cleaning with a VPI machine. I am now on a Loricraft and am alured by the idea of cleaning 6 sides at once

I should add that I recall that part of the objection had to do with the possibility of residue left on the record surface - in those days, I rinsed records sometimes twice so it was not a concern for me.

Mike

Last edited by mgreene; 11th December 2012 at 08:31 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th December 2012, 05:27 AM   #224
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Hello mgreene, and welcome.

Cleaning 6 sides at once does fundamentally change things. Cleaning new acquisitions isn't a bottleneck anymore. Now it's a question of keeping up with all the newly cleaned records. I can't compare to a Loricraft, but in terms of performance, ultrasound is the clear winner over my VPI 16.5 with a three-step cleaning process.

My experience also does not support the Disk Doctor's reservations. I've never had a problem getting the Alconox powder to dissolve completely, even at the full recommended concentration. At the low concentrations and warm bath temperatures I'm using, it's just not an issue. When dissolved and mixed to equivalent concentrations, the manufacturer claims there is no difference between Liquinox and Alconox, so I don't understand the basis for the doctor's criticism of the powder product. Maybe that was just speculation on his part.

In practice, I don't bother premixing, as Alconox recommends. I add a measure of powder directly to the bath while heating with the ultrasound on, and let the machine mix it for me. Used this way, I find the powder form at least as convenient as the liquid, and it stores in less space with a longer shelf life. As for residue, I've never detected any after rinsing, which I think should be beneficial in any case (a point of friendly controversy here). Residue could be a concern if one opts to skip the rinse, but it's not clear that that issue is unique to Alconox vs. other detergents. Everyone on this thread uses low concentrations of their chosen detergent, and that probably mitigates the residue problem --- if there really is one.

The Tergazyme was delivered today, so I can start trials to see if adding protease enzyme to this process brings any significant improvement.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th December 2012, 11:43 AM   #225
mgreene is offline mgreene  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Aiken, South Carolina USA
Hello Ish, thanks for the welcome.

The Tergazyme is a fascinating and welcome discovery. I have to say that Duane is a very nice guy and that although I didnt agree with him, I respected his opinion and valued the fact that he was willing to engage on these matters. I still have a Disk Doctor kit I never used - perhaps some day...

I also have a 16.5 and the Loricraft was definately a step up in every way - including the quietness of cleaned records.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th December 2012, 04:54 PM   #226
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Default Credit to Duane and ultrasound vs. Loricraft

I haven't had any interaction with Disk Doctor or his products, but I have noticed very positive comments about him here and elsewhere. It's good to have people like him in this industry. I have to assume the disagreement here is an honest one, and nothing more.

There are some reviews of the Audio Desk Systeme Vinyl (ultrasound) Cleaner that compare its performance favorably to Loricraft's. See for example SoundStage! - The Vinyl Word - Audio Desk Systeme Vinyl Cleaner (3/2010), The Audio Desk Systeme Vinyl Cleaner, and Ultra Systems Noise Destroyer Pricesheet.

The diy versions might even outperform the ADS due to the trade-offs between the ADS's fully-automatic, user-proof design and our semi-automatic versions intended for our own use. My understanding is that ADS does not heat the bath (I can imagine the pitfalls of heating in a commercial product --- one expose review describing the machine warping a prized lp and your product is DOA). That, in combination with a much shorter cleaning stage, should reduce the ADS's performance somewhat. The ability to handle a stack of lps allows the diy designs to match or exceed the ADS's throughput without limiting the duration of the cleaning stage. The short overall cycle time probably implies a coarser filter in the ADS. However, its method of filtering while draining the bath into a reservoir would reach complete filtering in one volume change, and this is not true for our recirculating designs. The brushes are another possible plus for the ADS, but the brushes are likely what limits its design to one lp at a time. Any advantage brushes might have has to be weighed against a difference in the duration of ultrasonic cleaning on the order of 10X and the increased throughput of the diy versions.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th December 2012, 08:20 PM   #227
mgreene is offline mgreene  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Aiken, South Carolina USA
Default Reviews

Thanks for those reviews. I found it humorous that the one reviewer found that records cleaned by the expensive ultrasonic cleaner sounded even better after being cleaned again by the VPI and vice versa
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th December 2012, 09:06 PM   #228
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
I remember reading that one, too. It's pretty hard to get objective comparisons, and you can go nuts looking at on-line opinions (including mine). I had my doubts for a while, but eventually jumped in and have no regrets.
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th December 2012, 08:45 PM   #229
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Toronto,ON
Default 80KHz German Elmasonic version...

Great posts everyone! Gotta love DIY!

Decided to try my own version using a state of the art German made Elmasonic P60H with both 37 and 80 KHz modes, sweep mode, pulse mode, and an accurate thermostatically controlled heater. Sure it costs more than the cheap 40KHz machines but when i look at what the Audio Desk costs, this is still only a fraction of the cost. Purchased from Tovatech in the US 973-913-9735

Using the Vinyl Stack solution found on Ebay to separate records and protect the labels. Very well made product but fits on a 1/4" spindle only so I am using 1/4" aluminum rod for spindle.

Using a rotisserie to rotate the records < 2RPM.

Made the top frame from 2" aluminum angle brackets.

Holds up to 4 records at a time.

Using distilled water and a few drops of PhotoFlo and JetDry.

Just starting to use it so results are inconclusive so far. However, visually records come out looking cleaner than new and cleaner than after my VPI HW-17F.

Will post more results as i progress.

It would be fantastic if people could record a couple tracks before and after and post them so we can all be the judge of the effectiveness of various cleaning approaches.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg DSC03654.jpg (647.1 KB, 538 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th December 2012, 10:11 PM   #230
bbftx is offline bbftx  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Austin, TX
Default Aluminum Angle, Arms, Recordings

Quote:
Originally Posted by cbachalo View Post

Decided to try my own version using a state of the art German made Elmasonic P60H with both 37 and 80 KHz modes, sweep mode, pulse mode, and an accurate thermostatically controlled heater. Sure it costs more than the cheap 40KHz machines but when i look at what the Audio Desk costs, this is still only a fraction of the cost. Purchased from Tovatech in the US 973-913-9735

Made the top frame from 2" aluminum angle brackets.

It would be fantastic if people could record a couple tracks before and after and post them so we can all be the judge of the effectiveness of various cleaning approaches.
Hi CB, Your setup looks great! Nice metal work!

My version 2 setup, which is almost complete, is similar in that it uses aluminum angle stock to create a removable frame. I received a number of messages inquiring about a setup that didn't require one to drill holes in the ultrasonic cleaner. I am using 1.5" aluminum angle stock, along with 5/8" channel stock that fits over the lip of the cleaner and helps hold the assembly in place. I am also using rivets, like you, as they are excellent for holding thin metal sheet together. [One of my favorite tools is a hydraulic air rivet tool that works very well and makes riveting a breeze!]
Pictures to follow once I complete the last details.

I have designed both a fixed motor housing setup that one could use with quick-connect spindles, and a movable arm setup on my revised design. I will be going with the modified arm setup for my use. For the pivot, I am using a bracket used for legs on a folding table leg. (See attached photo.) These are very rugged brackets, which easily support the loaded weight of the arm. The brackets also lock in both the upright position and with the arm down. This results in a setup that is a little sturdier than my original PVC pipe based design.

I have been considering posting "before and after" recordings with URC-cleaned LPs. I have the A/D conversion hardware and software to do this, just haven't gotten around to it yet!
B B
Attached Images
File Type: jpg ez leg brackets 7594_1.JPG (24.0 KB, 494 views)

Last edited by bbftx; 30th December 2012 at 10:18 PM.
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I made myself a record cleaner Sclalars Analogue Source 228 5th June 2014 04:41 PM
My DIY record cleaner. mattjk Analogue Source 104 26th April 2013 09:10 PM
Ultrasonic Record Cleaner- any feedback Ianmac Analogue Source 7 13th November 2012 03:28 AM
diy ultrasonic cleaner, not using bought unit 3GGG Analogue Source 0 10th January 2011 09:28 AM
Ultrasonic Parts cleaner... DIY??? pk386 Everything Else 1 10th May 2004 06:55 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 02:11 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2