My version of an Ultrasonic Record Cleaner - Page 25 - 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 7th January 2013, 08:42 PM   #241
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Nice job, BB. I like the solidity and cleaner lines of this version. Nice construction job, too. I like the ingenuity and accessibility of your original PVC pipe design, but given the cost of even the cheapest ultrasonic machines, I agree that a sturdier solution is worthwhile for the rotisserie part. This is a nice one.
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th January 2013, 07:52 PM   #242
bbftx is offline bbftx  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Austin, TX
Default Parts list for BB's Rotating Arm URC, Version 2

Greetings,
Attached is a parts list for Version 2 of my Ultrasonic Record Cleaning (URC) system.
The is an economical and sturdy setup to clean vinyl LPs using ultrasonic cleansing action.
Doing a quick add-up of the costs, it looks like I spent about $115 for parts, above and beyond the cost of the ultrasonic cleaner.
Adding the pump and filter detailed earlier in this thread adds about $50 in parts cost.

I'm happy to answer any additional questions about the setup.

Cheers,
B B
Attached Images
File Type: jpg URC-v2-top-10A_8788.jpg (69.9 KB, 1543 views)
Attached Files
File Type: pdf BBs URC parts list (version 2).pdf (53.4 KB, 774 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 16th January 2013, 04:50 AM   #243
bbftx is offline bbftx  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Austin, TX
Default Audio Sample Before and After Ultrasonic Cleaning

Below is a link to a video with audio demonstrating some of the beneficial effects of ultrasonic record cleaning. The video is about 15 seconds long, and includes a 5 second clip of Streisand before ultrasonic cleaning and the same 5 seconds after the LP was cleaned in my URC machine. The left channel waveform is included in the video so you can "see" what you're hearing as the clip plays.

This is a typical result. The album is not a high quality pressing -- it's a run of the mill, circa 1980 pop LP. Before I recorded the "BEFORE" clip, I cleaned the LP with a discwasher brush. The album looked clean.

BEFORE: There are at least 12-14 audible clicks in the clip before ultrasonic cleaning.

AFTER: Only about 2 clicks remain after ultrasonic cleaning and I suspect they are probably damage to the vinyl that can't be removed by any cleaning method. Again, this is a pretty typical result in my experience so far. Good pressings that have been well cared for will have very few clicks to begin with, and the URC will remove each and every one!

Link to video:
Vinyl LP Before and After Ultrasonic Cleaning - YouTube

I've also attached to this post a picture of the left channel waveform before and after ultrasonic cleaning. Before is on top, After cleaning is below. Even without listening, you can see some of the benefits of URC cleaning.

Cheers,
B B
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Waveform Before and After ultrasonic cleaning.jpg (230.2 KB, 1371 views)

Last edited by bbftx; 16th January 2013 at 04:53 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 17th January 2013, 05:20 AM   #244
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Thanks bb; another great contribution to this thread! What hardware/software did you use?

In addition to "fixing" pops (or at least converting them to soft ticks), improvements in timbre, sound staging, and uncovering subtle performance details etc. are not-so-subtle benefits of URC. It's not easy to "see" these in the waveform plots. Perhaps expanding the time axis would reveal something. Otherwise, these effects are best revealed through playback on a quality system.

Before and after photomicrographs of the same section of grooves might be another way to display objectively the effects of URC.
  Reply With Quote
Old 23rd January 2013, 01:30 AM   #245
optogy is offline optogy  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ishmail View Post
Thanks bb; another great contribution to this thread! What hardware/software did you use?

In addition to "fixing" pops (or at least converting them to soft ticks), improvements in timbre, sound staging, and uncovering subtle performance details etc. are not-so-subtle benefits of URC. It's not easy to "see" these in the waveform plots. Perhaps expanding the time axis would reveal something. Otherwise, these effects are best revealed through playback on a quality system.

Before and after photomicrographs of the same section of grooves might be another way to display objectively the effects of URC.
How about running the audio files through ClickRepair and seeing how many corrections it makes? I'd be willing to to this as I recently bought the software (can't afford to build a cleaner yet but I'm am fascinated with this thread!)
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st January 2013, 04:55 PM   #246
bbftx is offline bbftx  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Austin, TX
Default Audacity and Click Repair

Quote:
Originally Posted by optogy View Post
How about running the audio files through ClickRepair and seeing how many corrections it makes?
(can't afford to build a cleaner yet but I'm am fascinated with this thread!)
I use Audacity and Click Repair for digitizing. Click Repair works well and can remove more or less every click if you spend the time to edit each click and each recording so as to not wipe out some of the music. But that discussion probably is best left to another sub-forum, since this is the Analogue Source discussion!
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st January 2013, 05:19 PM   #247
bbftx is offline bbftx  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Austin, TX
Default Quick Connect Spindles

Here is a post for those that want a quick connect and quick disconnect spindle for use on their URC, and who have access to a lathe.

There aren't many fittings for the small shaft sizes associated with record spindles. Some folks are using 1/4" stock for spindles, some, like me are using the spec. 9/32 size, for which there are almost no fittings commercially available.

It's relatively straight-forward to use a set screw in the spindle to hold onto the motor shaft. (The Herbach & Rademan synchronous motor I'm using has a flat on the motor shaft.) But, if you're using a bronze bushing as a bearing, the set screw won't fit through the bearing, as the shortest set screw available protrude outside the diameter of the 9/32 spindle.

So, you can leave your spindle on the URC and simply load and unload it with LPs. That is what I'm doing most of the time. But, I also have made a few quick-connect spindles that can be loaded and unloaded off the URC machine. This can be handy if you set up a drying station or a separate rinsing station if you're so inclined.

A photo of my quick disconnect spindle is attached to this post. There are two components.
First, my spindle has an offset pin that I machined. The hole for the motor shaft is drilled in the end of the spindle first (equal to length of motor shaft). Then, the spindle is offset from center in the lathe, and the pin is machined by turning down part of the spindle. The pin is half the length of the motor shaft.

The second component is a small disc, whose width is half the length of the motor shaft. Two holes are machined in this disc. The first is in the center and matches the diameter of the motor shaft. The second hole is offset from center and is machined to accept the offset pin on the spindle. A small set screw is used to hold the disc onto the flat of the motor shaft.

To use the the quick-connect spindle, you simply slide the end through the bushing / bearing and then match the spindle hole to the motor shaft and insert the offset pin in the offset hole on the disc. The second photo shows the quick connect spindle in place on the URC.
Cheers,
B B
Attached Images
File Type: jpg quick-connect-spindle-DSC_8196.jpg (177.3 KB, 1217 views)
File Type: jpg Bearing-and-QC-Spindle-DSC_8203.jpg (94.8 KB, 1168 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd February 2013, 02:44 PM   #248
optogy is offline optogy  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Sorry I should have been more clear. In Ishmail's post (#244) it sounded like he was wanting to see some more information as to the benefit of URC.
I meant to use click repair as a measurement tool to see how much of a difference ultrasonic cleaning makes. Run it on the "before-cleaning" audio and the "after-cleaning" audio and compare the number of corrections it makes.
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd February 2013, 09:07 PM   #249
bbftx is offline bbftx  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Austin, TX
Default Click Repair Error Count Before and After

Quote:
Originally Posted by optogy View Post
Sorry I should have been more clear.
I meant to use click repair as a measurement tool to see how much of a difference ultrasonic cleaning makes. Run it on the "before-cleaning" audio and the "after-cleaning" audio and compare the number of corrections it makes.
Now I hear you optogy. Makes sense, sure. Here are the Click Repair results on a typical, short, 5 second clip. Same settings used in ClickRepair both pre and post cleaning.

Precleaning: 397k samples taken, 3500 repaired. 1 out of every 191 samples in left channel needed repair; 1 out of 279 on the right channel needed repair.

Post-URC cleaning, the results are better, as should be expected:
400k samples taken (roughly equal to pre number), 1516 repaired. Only 1 out of every 424 samples on left channel needed repair; 1 out every 700 samples in right channel needed repair.

Overall, I think the sound actually improves more than those stats indicate. In other words, a lot of the sheer number of samples repaired in either pre- or post- aren't really audible, but they still run up the count. I think a higher percentage of the audible stuff is removed by ultrasonic cleaning. This is readily apparent when I listen to the "Noise" track in Click Repair ---- the clicks and crackle are much,much more apparent on the pre-cleaning track.
Cheers,
B B
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd February 2013, 09:34 PM   #250
optogy is offline optogy  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Very cool! No looking back now, I'm building a machine. BB, your work has been truly inspiring. I can't thank you enough for sharing with all of us!

Take care
  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 09:56 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