Kuzma Ltd, a Slovenian turntable producer, sells a Kuzma RD Ultrasonic Record Cleaning kit:
I'm sure that the brochure, manual and suggested list of ultrasonic cleaners are interesting read, although there's not much that hasn't been discussed in this thread.
KUZMA RD ULTRASONIC KIT BROCHURE 150205
SUGGESTED ULTRASONIC CLEANER'S LIST 150304
INSTRUCTION MANUAL RD ULTRASONIC RECORD CLEANING KIT 150301
I have no idea what the international price is, locally it is advertised as 500 EUR for frame kit and 500 EUR for a recommended ultrasonic cleaner.
I'm sure that the brochure, manual and suggested list of ultrasonic cleaners are interesting read, although there's not much that hasn't been discussed in this thread.
KUZMA RD ULTRASONIC KIT BROCHURE 150205
SUGGESTED ULTRASONIC CLEANER'S LIST 150304
INSTRUCTION MANUAL RD ULTRASONIC RECORD CLEANING KIT 150301
I have no idea what the international price is, locally it is advertised as 500 EUR for frame kit and 500 EUR for a recommended ultrasonic cleaner.
Very inspirational thread! I'm ready to start building one of these.. I've built a DIY Loricraft RCM in the past and it works well but i'm not a fan of contact being made to the surface of my records.
A quick and simple question for BBFTX. How are you connecting the stainless steel chain sprocket to the 1/4" shaft? Is it just pressure fitted or is there a set screw in the sprocket? I'm looking at the part # you provided in the PDF..
Thank you so much for these plans. This is excellent!
A quick and simple question for BBFTX. How are you connecting the stainless steel chain sprocket to the 1/4" shaft? Is it just pressure fitted or is there a set screw in the sprocket? I'm looking at the part # you provided in the PDF..
Thank you so much for these plans. This is excellent!
Hi JMCzaga,
You can go either way with that sprocket - press fit or set screw if you have the tools to do it. It didn't come with a set screw, but I drilled and threaded a hole in it to take a set screw. There are lots of alternatives to using that particular part, so don't feel wedded to it. you just need a good steel surface of some sort for the magnet to latch on to.
Cheers,
B B
Thanks.. I found another steel sprocket with the set screws already tapped.
I did something similar with the arm of my DIY loricraft. I press fitted a magnet on the shaft of the arm that i could move it freely. It works really well. I just hate the time it takes to clean on that type of RCM.
I'm really looking forward to putting this together. I just ordered the SonixIV ST136H and the motor. Thanks for the thread BB!
-jay
I did something similar with the arm of my DIY loricraft. I press fitted a magnet on the shaft of the arm that i could move it freely. It works really well. I just hate the time it takes to clean on that type of RCM.
I'm really looking forward to putting this together. I just ordered the SonixIV ST136H and the motor. Thanks for the thread BB!
-jay
1. why the automatic rotation is need it? a friend claims that he got BETTER results without any automatic rotation, I mean he left the disc at time later rotate manually etc... on 45grades each 10 min and he complete the 360 manually, make sense to me!!!! I feel the ultrasonics cleaning more than automatic rotations, I feel a more direct contact.
2. also he have small tank and just put the record a little inclined, I also don't see the problem on that, small tank = less price machine.
what do you think guys?
2. also he have small tank and just put the record a little inclined, I also don't see the problem on that, small tank = less price machine.
what do you think guys?
oh! also why NOT buy and use a pro liquid like this: Engagement rings, Diamonds, and fine Jewelry at Wholesale prices.
or this: Limpiador Ultrasonidos - Aparato de Limpieza por Ultrasonidos - Productos - Tierra Tech
I know DIY liquids but come on! are not expensive and I prefer avoid the risk of the machine exploids! for use a wrong quantity of liquids or wrong liquids.
any other liquids to BUY?
or this: Limpiador Ultrasonidos - Aparato de Limpieza por Ultrasonidos - Productos - Tierra Tech
I know DIY liquids but come on! are not expensive and I prefer avoid the risk of the machine exploids! for use a wrong quantity of liquids or wrong liquids.
any other liquids to BUY?
yes well make sense for the 1st link, the second my friend use this two from the 2nd link:
http://www.tierratech.com/files/productos/ULTRASONIC-A.pdf
http://www.tierratech.com/files/productos/ULTRASONIC-7.pdf
but well please to resume a little bit, some questions:
1. whats the DIY fluids formula?
2. where buy the machines?
this $150 is good, 6L???
I know is 40khz but...
6L 6 L Ultrasonic Cleaner Drainage System Labor Saving for Home Use Great | eBay
thanks
Spat, the reason for a continuous turning motion is that most microwave cleaners have regions of high and low energy. If one part of a record spends all its time at low energy, it will not be cleaned; if it spends all its time at high energy, it might be damaged. Best is to average this out, and that is accomplished by a continuous turning motion.
Cleaning fluids have been discussed just a few comments back.
Cleaning fluids have been discussed just a few comments back.
oh yes I was think on that and now you confirm! I was think "mmm maybe put direct can get damage" thank you
please anyone! do a video tutorial step by step of a full way to make DIY machine and show liquids links etc... etc... yes this forum helps but it would be amazing see a video, why? by example I suggest this: http://ebay.to/1zHAmj4 but anybody say something "is good" "is bad" etc...
Obviously you mean ultrasonic cleaners!
I've been wondering as I've followed this thread about the spindles of several LPs I've seen in tanks. Do the inside LPs get as clean as the one on the outside, especially their "exposed" sides? Is the wave energy as strong between the records as it is coming directly from the container side with the transducer(s)?
I'd like to see an objective test of LP cleaning ability. Does anyone have any ideas on how to do that?
YEs, Benb, quite right. I did mean ultrasonic - interesting though, the wavelengths turn out to be comparable!
The speed of sound is about 5,000 fps in water, or about 60,000 inches per second. Therefore, at 40 KHz, the wavelength is 1.5 inches. That means that at least 1.5 inches is required for the wave to develop. Factor in warpage in records, and that means at least 2 inches between records, or between the records and the side of the tank. At 80 KHz, halve that distance.
I made the mistake of assuming absolutely parallel records, and spaced accordingly. The records became much cleaner, much clearer sounding than previously, but when I increased the spacing to 1.5 inches at 80 KHz, the results were positively spectacular. On my system.
Additional benefit is reduced abrasion to the stylus, so that a high quality 80 KHz cleaner may actually pay for itself over the life of an expensive cartridge. One line summary, "Don't buy a Koetsu without one."
The speed of sound is about 5,000 fps in water, or about 60,000 inches per second. Therefore, at 40 KHz, the wavelength is 1.5 inches. That means that at least 1.5 inches is required for the wave to develop. Factor in warpage in records, and that means at least 2 inches between records, or between the records and the side of the tank. At 80 KHz, halve that distance.
I made the mistake of assuming absolutely parallel records, and spaced accordingly. The records became much cleaner, much clearer sounding than previously, but when I increased the spacing to 1.5 inches at 80 KHz, the results were positively spectacular. On my system.
Additional benefit is reduced abrasion to the stylus, so that a high quality 80 KHz cleaner may actually pay for itself over the life of an expensive cartridge. One line summary, "Don't buy a Koetsu without one."
esls,
It seems you are equating the frequency of the ultrasonic frequency with linear wavelengths, I don't think that holds true? Reflective surfaces just mean the waves bounce around not that they can't be produced without a minimum distance from the oscillator. That doesn't mean that your observation isn't correct that the higher spacing between the records isn't allowing for more energy between the surfaces.
It seems you are equating the frequency of the ultrasonic frequency with linear wavelengths, I don't think that holds true? Reflective surfaces just mean the waves bounce around not that they can't be produced without a minimum distance from the oscillator. That doesn't mean that your observation isn't correct that the higher spacing between the records isn't allowing for more energy between the surfaces.
Spacing and Objective Results
Hey Benb:
Here are my answers to your questions:
Spacing: 1" record spacing in a 60khz machine provides excellent audio results for me. There appears to be no attenuation of the waves at this spacing. (Vibratory action in the water between the LPs can be observed before and after the LPs are placed in the tank. This action is noticeably attenuated when the spacing is dropped to ½", which is how I spaced the LPs in my first trials.)
Objective Test: I posted objective measurements of effectiveness in Message 243 in this thread. I recorded the same section of LP "before and after" ultrasonic cleaning in my setup. I show the waveform of the before and after, which clearly shows the clicks "before" and clicks remaining "after" cleaning. You can also hear for yourself from the linked youtube file (listen for changes in clicks and background crackle). And, by the way, this WAS an inside surface of the LP in question (facing another LP in the tank).
Before & After URC: Visual and Audio Results
The results displayed in that post are typical for the hundreds of LPs I've cleaned in my setup. Some improve even more, some bad pressings don't improve at all.
Cheers,
B B
Hey Benb:
Here are my answers to your questions:
Spacing: 1" record spacing in a 60khz machine provides excellent audio results for me. There appears to be no attenuation of the waves at this spacing. (Vibratory action in the water between the LPs can be observed before and after the LPs are placed in the tank. This action is noticeably attenuated when the spacing is dropped to ½", which is how I spaced the LPs in my first trials.)
Objective Test: I posted objective measurements of effectiveness in Message 243 in this thread. I recorded the same section of LP "before and after" ultrasonic cleaning in my setup. I show the waveform of the before and after, which clearly shows the clicks "before" and clicks remaining "after" cleaning. You can also hear for yourself from the linked youtube file (listen for changes in clicks and background crackle). And, by the way, this WAS an inside surface of the LP in question (facing another LP in the tank).
Before & After URC: Visual and Audio Results
The results displayed in that post are typical for the hundreds of LPs I've cleaned in my setup. Some improve even more, some bad pressings don't improve at all.
Cheers,
B B
Benb, for an objective test I would suggest cleaning two sets of 24 similar records. Then change the cleaning solution, and re-clean one set of 24. Measure the detritus removed. Change the cleaning solution again, double the spacing, and re-clean the second set of records. Measure the detritus removed.
Or, if you feel particularly scientific, you could replicate the above 5 or 10 times, and do statistics. A two-sample t-test would be appropriate.
Or, if you feel particularly scientific, you could replicate the above 5 or 10 times, and do statistics. A two-sample t-test would be appropriate.