Quote:
Originally Posted by Dmitryy
Thanks, B B. This is definitely handy for ordering pump/filter assembly parts.
My US unit is a L&R Quantrex 280, which is rated for 60 kHz, which is desirable; alas it does not have a heater. Reading this thread, I continuously see that heating the medium to 50*C is important. Is there a way to add an external heater to my unit?
Is this a Q280 model? The reason I ask is all the info online says this is a 43KHZ unit.
L&R Quantrex Ultrasonic Watch and Clock Cleaners
I bought on Ebay a silicon heater pad for around $30 bucks and added it to my cleaner. Wasn't too much of an issue to open up unit to attach.
You are right. I was mistaken in labeling it 60 kHz. It's 40 KHz.
I've been following this thread with interest and have just placed my order for a Sonix IV ST126H (60KHz) - the 10qu model which is 241mm wide, rather than the 152mm of the 'normal' 6qu model.
The extra width means that I can fit 8 LPs in the tank at a time - and still have more than an inch gap between them.
I was planning on buying one of Louis's Vibrato LLC 80KHz models but, unfortunately, after missing out twice on one-offs that came up in his Tindie store ... I gave up. That would've only been 6qu anyway - so I've traded frequency for size.
So now comes the process of tracking down:
* a suitable motor
* a spindle & label-protector setup, and
* a filter.
Andy
The extra width means that I can fit 8 LPs in the tank at a time - and still have more than an inch gap between them.
I was planning on buying one of Louis's Vibrato LLC 80KHz models but, unfortunately, after missing out twice on one-offs that came up in his Tindie store ... I gave up.
That would've only been 6qu anyway - so I've traded frequency for size.So now comes the process of tracking down:
* a suitable motor
* a spindle & label-protector setup, and
* a filter.
Andy
Andy, All Electronics may still have some of the 1/10th RPM 220 V 50 HZ motors left. I do not know if they ship over seas.
1/10 RPM SYNCHRONOUS MOTOR, 230 VAC | All Electronics Corp.
1/10 RPM SYNCHRONOUS MOTOR, 230 VAC | All Electronics Corp.
Actually, I bought 3 of these about 6 months ago, as a result of reading about them on this thread.
When they arrived I realised that (obviously! ) 1 revolution takes 10 minutes.Do you think that this speed is OK ... or is it too slow? I was thinking that maybe 5 or 6 minutes would be better?
Andy
When they arrived I realised that (obviously!
Do you think that this speed is OK
Andy
It's perfect.
B B
So, doing a back-of-the-envelope calculation, that means a section of vinyl could be in the solution for 4 minutes ... this is not too long?
Andy
This weekend has been a literal comedy of errors! I've finally got about 95% of the parts necessary to turn my Vibrato 60kHz unit into a record cleaning machine with fluid filter.
Friday night I emptied out the fluid in the pan and heard *THUNK*. I looked inside the unit as it felt imbalanced all of a sudden. Yup, one of the transducers fell off the pan! I sent an email to Louis as to how to re-attach the transducer so I'm just waiting to hear back. Hopefully I can just scrape the epoxy off and re-attach it myself.
So now that project is on hold. I figure at least my Little Giant pump will be delivered Saturday and the filter assembly comes Wednesday so I can get to work on that over the weekend. FedEx drops off the pump this morning. I open the box only to find that one of the blades is broken off the impeller fan. I can't win for losing!
Kevin T
Friday night I emptied out the fluid in the pan and heard *THUNK*. I looked inside the unit as it felt imbalanced all of a sudden. Yup, one of the transducers fell off the pan! I sent an email to Louis as to how to re-attach the transducer so I'm just waiting to hear back. Hopefully I can just scrape the epoxy off and re-attach it myself.
So now that project is on hold. I figure at least my Little Giant pump will be delivered Saturday and the filter assembly comes Wednesday so I can get to work on that over the weekend. FedEx drops off the pump this morning. I open the box only to find that one of the blades is broken off the impeller fan. I can't win for losing!
Kevin T
I wound up using a way simpler aquarium filter with a carbon filter and polishing filter. I even leave it running during cleaning. It's... OK. It gets rid of the more visible sediment that often got left behind when I've done cleaning in the past, but certainly won't be as effective as BB's beast. The biggest problem with my option, though, is that it greatly increases the amount of submerged surface area impacted by the ultrasonic. BB's option would certainly be much, much better. It's just a PITA to find the parts for cheap. :/
A couple of additional thoughts to factor in Dmitryy:
1) The key to the filtering in a URC setup is to get a filter that goes down to about 1 micron. In turn, to pump liquid through a fine filter like that requires a pump with a fair amount of oomph. Most aquarium filters aren't anywhere close to that fine. 70 - 100 micron filters are typical for your average aquarium filter. The good ones that polish down to 1 micron are way more expensive than the parts I used. I looked at aquarium filters and never found one that was as effective, but less expensive than my setup.
2) Also, since most well-made UC units have a drain built in, it's advantageous to use that drain so that you don't take up space in the tank with intakes/tubing, etc.
3) If you do insert an aquarium pump or intake inside the UC tank, the ultrasonic action, will over time, break down those parts that are in the bath and detract from the limited amount of energy available to clean the LP surfaces. No big deal if that's just a piece of plastic tubing, but it might be a consideration if more expensive or larger hardware ends up in the bath.
Cheers,
B B
My impression is that RO would be too slow and more expensive (both in cost of the hardware and the need to replenish the other components of the solution).
B B
"I open the box only to find that one of the blades is broken off the impeller fan. I can't win for losing!"
Kevin T[/QUOTE]
My pump arrived in exactly the same fashion with one blade broken off at the base. I used gel type super glue to reattach the broken blade. Even though I received a replacement blade, I have not made the switch. The repaired blade has been in service for a year now with no problems.
Kevin T[/QUOTE]
My pump arrived in exactly the same fashion with one blade broken off at the base. I used gel type super glue to reattach the broken blade. Even though I received a replacement blade, I have not made the switch. The repaired blade has been in service for a year now with no problems.
Is there evidence (not just theory) that a 60kHz or 80kHz cleaner is more effective/better at cleaning vinyl records than a 40kHz cleaner? I have read the information about how the higher frequencies are better at getting into tight crevices (small holes in metal, threaded parts, etc.), and in loosening smaller particles. Bit it is also stated that these frequencies are less powerful in their cleaning action than the lower frequencies like the much more common 40kHz used in most ultrasonic cleaners.
Since the minute grooves in a record are MUCH smaller than screw threads, I'm wondering if, for ultrasonic cleaning purposes, a record is more like cleaning a solid surface than cleaning threads or small holes in some metal component. It seems like record grooves are more akin to tiny surface scratches on a flat metal component than screw threads or holes in such a component. I wonder if we're making an unwarranted leap when we equate record grooves to screw threads, and assume that higher frequencies are better at cleaning them.
One reason I suspect that 40kHz might actually be better for cleaning vinyl records is that I was reading about the $4,000 KLAudio ultrasonic record cleaner, and in the FAQ, they say it "uses four x 50-Watt, 40kHz ultrasonic transducers placed perpendicular to the LP disc." I assume (which I know can be dangerous) that a company designing a high tech, very expensive, purpose-built ultrasonic record cleaning machine would select the best frequency for the purpose. They show a huge microscope with photos of highly magnified record grooves, before and after cleaning, so they appear to have access to high-tech measuring equipment. It looks like they put significant effort into designing this thing (it isn't based on some general-purpose ultrasonic cleaner). I would guess that if their testing showed that 60, 80, or 120kHz transducers produced better results, they would have used them.
Of course, this question is also driven by the fact that I don't want to spend the money on a higher frequency ultrasonic cleaner, so I want to believe that a 40kHz will work as well or better.
Since the minute grooves in a record are MUCH smaller than screw threads, I'm wondering if, for ultrasonic cleaning purposes, a record is more like cleaning a solid surface than cleaning threads or small holes in some metal component. It seems like record grooves are more akin to tiny surface scratches on a flat metal component than screw threads or holes in such a component. I wonder if we're making an unwarranted leap when we equate record grooves to screw threads, and assume that higher frequencies are better at cleaning them.
One reason I suspect that 40kHz might actually be better for cleaning vinyl records is that I was reading about the $4,000 KLAudio ultrasonic record cleaner, and in the FAQ, they say it "uses four x 50-Watt, 40kHz ultrasonic transducers placed perpendicular to the LP disc." I assume (which I know can be dangerous) that a company designing a high tech, very expensive, purpose-built ultrasonic record cleaning machine would select the best frequency for the purpose. They show a huge microscope with photos of highly magnified record grooves, before and after cleaning, so they appear to have access to high-tech measuring equipment. It looks like they put significant effort into designing this thing (it isn't based on some general-purpose ultrasonic cleaner). I would guess that if their testing showed that 60, 80, or 120kHz transducers produced better results, they would have used them.
Of course, this question is also driven by the fact that I don't want to spend the money on a higher frequency ultrasonic cleaner, so I want to believe that a 40kHz will work as well or better
.
Hi Doug,
KLAudio, or any company, designs products to a price point. (The higher frequency transducers, as well as the frequency generators needed, tend to cost more, since they aren't produced in as great a quantity as the run-of-the-mill 40k transducers.) It is highly unlikely they tested different frequencies as such lab work is very expensive, and I didn't find any discussion of frequency differences for record cleaning that predate this thread. KLAudio's machine was already designed before this thread began.
Cleaning Frequency is not just a theory discussion. There is LOTS of empirical data out there. For reference, this link reports the results of actual cleaning tests and particle removal as a function of frequency (reported as % removal of particles of a given size):
Ultrasonic Precision Cleaning
Furthermore, there are plenty of micro photos out there showing particles and contaminants IN the record groove, where only smaller cavitation bubbles can reach. This would indicate that the "solid surface" model would not match up with all of the real life contaminants found in record grooves. One example photo is attached. Particle removal isn't the only consideration here. Risk of damage to the soft vinyl in an LP should be high on your lists of concerns as well. Higher frequencies reduce this risk and give better energy distribution across surfaces to be cleaned.
Cheers,
B B
KLAudio, or any company, designs products to a price point. (The higher frequency transducers, as well as the frequency generators needed, tend to cost more, since they aren't produced in as great a quantity as the run-of-the-mill 40k transducers.) It is highly unlikely they tested different frequencies as such lab work is very expensive, and I didn't find any discussion of frequency differences for record cleaning that predate this thread. KLAudio's machine was already designed before this thread began.
Cleaning Frequency is not just a theory discussion. There is LOTS of empirical data out there. For reference, this link reports the results of actual cleaning tests and particle removal as a function of frequency (reported as % removal of particles of a given size):
Ultrasonic Precision Cleaning
Furthermore, there are plenty of micro photos out there showing particles and contaminants IN the record groove, where only smaller cavitation bubbles can reach. This would indicate that the "solid surface" model would not match up with all of the real life contaminants found in record grooves. One example photo is attached. Particle removal isn't the only consideration here. Risk of damage to the soft vinyl in an LP should be high on your lists of concerns as well. Higher frequencies reduce this risk and give better energy distribution across surfaces to be cleaned.
Cheers,
B B
Last edited:
BB,
Thank you for your reply and the link to the article. Interesting information. I don't mean to be argumentative, but I'm still not convinced that the increased effectiveness of higher frequencies discussed in the article translates from cleaning medical instruments and electronic components to a significant improvement when cleaning vinyl records. That is the part that still seems theoretical to me. It would be great to have someone perform a test by taking a uniformly dirty record, and cleaning half of it in a 40kHz machine, and the other half in a 60kHz machine and then comparing the results under a microscope, and, of course, by listening, to see if one side is actually cleaner and sounds better than the other.
Regarding the increased effectiveness at removing smaller particles, the article you linked states "At high frequency (60-70 kHz) ultrasonics, the detachment or the removal efficiency of one micron particles, measured in deionized water, was found to be 95 percent...versus 88 percent at 40 kHz." One micron is pretty small (several times smaller than the finest dust, according to "the internet"). So, it sounds like we only gain 7% in effectiveness (88% to 95%) in removing these ultra small particles when we move from a 40kHz to a 60-70kHz ultrasonic cleaner. That doesn't seem like a huge gain to me - maybe leaving the record in the 40kHz cleaner for an extra minute or two would close that gap (assuming this difference even exists when cleaning vinyl).
Your comment that KLAudio's product is produced "to a price point" seems like a stretch to me. People willing to pay $4,000 for a record cleaner, and thousands more for accessories ($2,800 for an accessory disk loader, $1,500 for a case to go around it to reduce the noise) are not very price-sensitive. I'm sure they would gladly pay the relatively tiny increase in cost of upgrading to 60kHz transducers if that would improve the performance of the product. I suspect that the cost of off-the-shelf components like the transducers makes up a very small part of the cost of this machine. I did a quick search for the cost of ultrasonic transducers in various frequencies, and it didn't look like there was much difference in the component cost - though I didn't find any direct comparisons (i.e., same brand and design in different frequencies). I did find 60kHz transducers for ultrasonic cleaners for about $25 each. However, I wonder if the increased cost of the higher frequency cleaning machines is more the result of there being less demand for them, resulting is fewer units sold. There is also less competition in that category.
You mention that testing different frequencies in the lab would be "very expensive." I don't think so. I'll bet they could try different frequency transducers in their machine pretty easily (from what I saw, many transducers of different frequencies look the same). And even if this is more difficult than I'm guessing, they could just test general-purpose ultrasonic cleaners in different frequencies on actual records to see which frequency is most effective (like the test I suggested above). They apparently have access to a high-tech microscope capable of examining and photographing record grooves. Given that they've designed and are manufacturing a complex, unique, and very expensive record cleaning machine and accessories, I'll bet that they did some research before deciding to use 40kHz transducers in it.
Regarding the risk of damaging the vinyl, I guess I would again trust KLAudio and others who use 40kHz machines successfully to clean records as pretty good evidence that it is safe for them.
I do understand your points, and you may well be correct in assuming that higher frequencies are better for cleaning records. I wish I had the time, money, and equipment to buy some identical new records, get them dirty with various common substances (dust, oil, etc. on different sections of each record), and then test various cleaning methods and machines on them to see which really does best (or maybe several work equally well). It would be interesting to know how wood glue, ultrasonic cleaners in various frequencies, and the various vacuum machines stack up against each other in a fair test.
Anyway, I've learned a lot here (I'm very new to this - I just bought my first turntable in about 30 years), so thank you for the information.
Doug
Thank you for your reply and the link to the article. Interesting information. I don't mean to be argumentative, but I'm still not convinced that the increased effectiveness of higher frequencies discussed in the article translates from cleaning medical instruments and electronic components to a significant improvement when cleaning vinyl records. That is the part that still seems theoretical to me. It would be great to have someone perform a test by taking a uniformly dirty record, and cleaning half of it in a 40kHz machine, and the other half in a 60kHz machine and then comparing the results under a microscope, and, of course, by listening, to see if one side is actually cleaner and sounds better than the other.
Regarding the increased effectiveness at removing smaller particles, the article you linked states "At high frequency (60-70 kHz) ultrasonics, the detachment or the removal efficiency of one micron particles, measured in deionized water, was found to be 95 percent...versus 88 percent at 40 kHz." One micron is pretty small (several times smaller than the finest dust, according to "the internet"
). So, it sounds like we only gain 7% in effectiveness (88% to 95%) in removing these ultra small particles when we move from a 40kHz to a 60-70kHz ultrasonic cleaner. That doesn't seem like a huge gain to me - maybe leaving the record in the 40kHz cleaner for an extra minute or two would close that gap (assuming this difference even exists when cleaning vinyl).Your comment that KLAudio's product is produced "to a price point" seems like a stretch to me. People willing to pay $4,000 for a record cleaner, and thousands more for accessories ($2,800 for an accessory disk loader, $1,500 for a case to go around it to reduce the noise) are not very price-sensitive. I'm sure they would gladly pay the relatively tiny increase in cost of upgrading to 60kHz transducers if that would improve the performance of the product. I suspect that the cost of off-the-shelf components like the transducers makes up a very small part of the cost of this machine. I did a quick search for the cost of ultrasonic transducers in various frequencies, and it didn't look like there was much difference in the component cost - though I didn't find any direct comparisons (i.e., same brand and design in different frequencies). I did find 60kHz transducers for ultrasonic cleaners for about $25 each. However, I wonder if the increased cost of the higher frequency cleaning machines is more the result of there being less demand for them, resulting is fewer units sold. There is also less competition in that category.
You mention that testing different frequencies in the lab would be "very expensive." I don't think so. I'll bet they could try different frequency transducers in their machine pretty easily (from what I saw, many transducers of different frequencies look the same). And even if this is more difficult than I'm guessing, they could just test general-purpose ultrasonic cleaners in different frequencies on actual records to see which frequency is most effective (like the test I suggested above). They apparently have access to a high-tech microscope capable of examining and photographing record grooves. Given that they've designed and are manufacturing a complex, unique, and very expensive record cleaning machine and accessories, I'll bet that they did some research before deciding to use 40kHz transducers in it.
Regarding the risk of damaging the vinyl, I guess I would again trust KLAudio and others who use 40kHz machines successfully to clean records as pretty good evidence that it is safe for them.
I do understand your points, and you may well be correct in assuming that higher frequencies are better for cleaning records. I wish I had the time, money, and equipment to buy some identical new records, get them dirty with various common substances (dust, oil, etc. on different sections of each record), and then test various cleaning methods and machines on them to see which really does best (or maybe several work equally well). It would be interesting to know how wood glue, ultrasonic cleaners in various frequencies, and the various vacuum machines stack up against each other in a fair test.
Anyway, I've learned a lot here (I'm very new to this - I just bought my first turntable in about 30 years), so thank you for the information.
Doug
Doug,
This is a DIY forum; people are spending their time, money and equipment actually testing different methods against each other in their own fashion and reporting their results. If you're unwilling to accept their input and feedback (even though you have no firsthand experience on this topic), and would rather trust a company trying to sell you a $4000 piece of equipment, that's your choice. But it seems odd that you discount the data of experts (e.g. Dr. Awad) that show actual results, and just "assume" KLAudio has done all the things you assume they've done and that they have your best interest at heart.
You are free to ignore the documented cleaning performance differences as a function of frequency. I choose to use that information to make a better DIY cleaning system, and share my results with the forum. I have nothing to gain economically, while KLAudio cleary does in trying to sell you a machine.
Good luck in your vinyl adventures,
B B
Last edited: