I have found the Ilford equivalent which I use (instead of Photo Flo) makes the liquid run off the surface of the LPs better (than without it), when I lift the spindle (with 6x LPs on it) out of the tank after 10 minutes of US cleaning. As you might expect a surfectant to do.
That is a very interesting observation. I thought the accepted wisdom (aka the "sales pitch") was that the higher the Khz ... the smaller the cavitation bubbles ... the better into the grooves the bubbles got?
Andy
Phantom....
The suds are coming from the 3ml of photo flo. You added 3ml of what is essentially a very weak detergent into a blender. You should only use a few drops from an eye dropper.
In the days of old when I had a darkroom, I would use 2 drops in my Calumet print washer and that was plenty.
Cut way back on the photo flo.
As for stuff being stuck to the albums, what do you have floating around in the air? My guess would be airborne shmutz landing on the surface of the water. Put an air ionizer in the room, shut the door and let it run for a day or so. Wipe out the tank, fill it and give it another shot.......with only a couple of drops of the foto flo instead of 3ml.
The suds are coming from the 3ml of photo flo. You added 3ml of what is essentially a very weak detergent into a blender. You should only use a few drops from an eye dropper.
In the days of old when I had a darkroom, I would use 2 drops in my Calumet print washer and that was plenty.
Cut way back on the photo flo.
As for stuff being stuck to the albums, what do you have floating around in the air? My guess would be airborne shmutz landing on the surface of the water. Put an air ionizer in the room, shut the door and let it run for a day or so. Wipe out the tank, fill it and give it another shot.......with only a couple of drops of the foto flo instead of 3ml.
Well I lowered the Photo Flo to 3 drops and it still foamed a little on the first couple of washes...it seemed to totally dissipate after that....I still found it beneficial to do a quick single rotation wash on my Okki before and after the bath.
So far so good...once you get into the swing of it you can get a nice production line going!
Can i assume the fluid can be kept and reused until you consider it needs changed? (ie. after 60-90 records depending on how clean they originally were). I don't want to dump it if I can keep using it for a few days.
So far so good...once you get into the swing of it you can get a nice production line going!
Can i assume the fluid can be kept and reused until you consider it needs changed? (ie. after 60-90 records depending on how clean they originally were). I don't want to dump it if I can keep using it for a few days.
Hi Phantom, Did you clean and rinse the ultrasonic tank before mixing the new batch of fluid? You really need to do that after every session. You don't want foam.
I don't like keeping fluid overnight. Particularly after 60 records, you'll have a fluid containing fair amounts of oils, lipids, dirt, etc. This provides food for bacteria and fungus to grow. Given the modest amounts of IPA used (3-5%) in the blend, I'm not sure there's enough anti-bacterial activity to maintain freshness of the fluid.
I filter my cleaning solution with a very fine 1 micron filter after almost every cycle. Even doing that, 60 records is about the max I go with a batch of fluid. Without a filter, I don't think I'd want to go more than about 40 records.
Cheers,
B B
I didnt do a rinse with distilled water...it was cleaned but by hand...will do that in future!
ok...thanks for the tips!
Can you tell me what filter this is, B B?
I'm using an aquarium filter atm - which works fine but its filtering pads are foam discs and I never see any residue coming out of the foam when I remove them for rinsing. So maybe the filter isn't "catching" anything?
Thanks,
Andy
Hey Andy,
Aquarium filters aren't fine enough to catch anything. They are typically in the 100 micron range. You need a 1 micron filter, and even that won't capture everything from a record cleaning bath.
I use a water filter housing that is 5"x2.5" (e.g. Hydronix brand):
Water Filter Housing 5" x 2.5"
with a 1 micron 5" filter:
1 micron filter for 5" Housing
Then you need a pump, and associated tubing to connect it all together. This is why a drain in the tank is important to have. I used a surplus Little Giant beverage pump in my build. They were $15 but not available now. This is an alternative, although I haven't fully tested one of these. You need enough pressure to push water through a 1 micron filter and all the tubing and back into the URC tank.
Small brushless pump
While the title says this pump is "submersible" it's not. Don't try putting it in the URC tank! That's a bad Chinese translation which should say the pump is not self-priming. It can't be located at a height above your URC tank. When you open the drain on the URC, the water needs to flow to the pump inlet by gravity --- the pump can't create a vacuum to draw the water into the pump outlet on its own.
Let me know if that's not enough to answer your question.
Cheers
B B
Aquarium filters aren't fine enough to catch anything. They are typically in the 100 micron range. You need a 1 micron filter, and even that won't capture everything from a record cleaning bath.
I use a water filter housing that is 5"x2.5" (e.g. Hydronix brand):
Water Filter Housing 5" x 2.5"
with a 1 micron 5" filter:
1 micron filter for 5" Housing
Then you need a pump, and associated tubing to connect it all together. This is why a drain in the tank is important to have. I used a surplus Little Giant beverage pump in my build. They were $15 but not available now. This is an alternative, although I haven't fully tested one of these. You need enough pressure to push water through a 1 micron filter and all the tubing and back into the URC tank.
Small brushless pump
While the title says this pump is "submersible" it's not. Don't try putting it in the URC tank! That's a bad Chinese translation which should say the pump is not self-priming. It can't be located at a height above your URC tank. When you open the drain on the URC, the water needs to flow to the pump inlet by gravity --- the pump can't create a vacuum to draw the water into the pump outlet on its own.
Let me know if that's not enough to answer your question.
Cheers
B B
Thank you for that great info, B B.
Yes, I had a feeling that the good 'ol aquarium filter wasn't good enough - even though some folk down under have seen black sediment in their foam filter pads, when cleaning them after an LP cleaning session.OK, I'm afraid I have some Qus:
1. Yes, that Hydronix filter seems good. I see they have several models ... is there one you would rather have than the one you have got?
2. That 12v DC pump looks great - thanks!
3. Looking at the link you gave for the filter cartridges ... they are 2.5" OD and 4 7/8" long. So the ' 5" ' mentioned in the filter housing is the length, not the width, right?
4. When you say the pump "can't be located above the URC tank":
- given my Sonix IV tank does have a drain tap at the bottom, and
- the tank sits on the floor of my bathroom (which is where I do US cleaning!
) , if the pump also sat on the floor ... will it work?5. How do you know when you need to replace the filter cartridge?
Thanks,
Andy
Andy, There's not much to a filter housing. It holds a filter and has an inlet and outlet. This one works fine.
Correct. 5" is more or less half-size. The more common size is 10" long, but that's too big a filter for this application. You fluid batch size needs to be larger with a filter system, to account for the solution that is in the filter housing and tubing in addition to the level you want in the URC tank.
Yes, that works -- as long as the pump is lower than the top of the water level in the URC tank, gravity will allow the fluid to get to the pump inlet.4. When you say the pump "can't be located above the URC tank":
- given my Sonix IV tank does have a drain tap at the bottom, and
- the tank sits on the floor of my bathroom (which is where I do US cleaning!
It will look dirty. The filters are designed to clean thousands and thousands of gallons of drinking water. A filter will last a looooong time in this application.
When you're done with a cleaning session, you should open the filter housing drain it and let everything dry. If you leave a wet filter in a wet housing with nothing moving through it, you'll start growing your own little biosphere.
Cheers,
B B
Thanks for all your help. I'm just waiting for a reply from a friend - to see if he wants a set too - and then I will order.
BTW (and apologies if you covered this some pages back - it's a very long thread!), I suspect that after US cleaning, if I just let the LPs air dry ... then I hear an HF hiss when I play them.
Whereas if I put the wet record on my (manual) NG and vacuum it dry ... then the LP is silent. Have you found this?
Regards,
Andy
Drying is probably the key thing to any wet cleaning method due to both static and residues. Spin dry and Vacuum are both non contact methods removing water, not vapour. Sometimes I wonder if wet cleaning of records inc US is mostly about static removal, at least when it's only dust not jam.
Mmmm, I suspect you haven't used a wet/vac or a US RCM, Tt ... otherwise you wouldn't make that statement?
Removal of static is a byproduct - the main game is removing the crud from the groove, so you get a much more silent LP.
Andy
haha guilty as charged, jez trolling. My diy US cleaner was a failure. I'm thinking of buying a decent power supply for it. works great on wet brush and spin dry...
Any opinions on this one?
Ultrasonic Generator 0- 600W adjustable 20-40KHz optional cleaning application e | eBay
I suspect there may be a minimum water depth, any ideas what this might be? I have a horizontal pan with about 50mm water depth and full immersion of a single rotating LP mounted on a bearing. Diameter of pan is just over 300mm. Vol of water 3.5 Lt. The transducer is bolted on the bottom.
Thanks for any input.
Hi Guys,
This is my second post to diyAudio. My first post was two years ago:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/anal...ultrasonic-record-cleaner-61.html#post3897701
If you are following this, re-reading that post may help you to follow my update here. There are also pictures attached to that post.
I’m going to repeat a few of the comments I made before for clarity.
I changed from a 5 RPH motor to a 6 RPH one, so cleaning is done in 10 minute increments (one revolution of the record).
I am using the 80 KHz / 37 KHz Elmasonic P60H cleaner. It has been bulletproof. Three records per cycle. I have increased the cycle time to 30 minutes and this seems optimum for new records or records that appear as new. For dirty records I either do two cycles or something in between. I do not think that going beyond 60 minutes is beneficial.
I sometimes use 37 KHz for 10 minutes and then change to 80 KHz for 20 minutes instead of 30 minutes of 80 KHz. This seems to help on dirty records.
I previously said: “Currently I’m using distilled water with about four ounces of Everclear (190 proof grain alcohol [yes, I read about not using ethanol]) and a few drops of Photo Flo.
“What I have not read much about here is record cleaning solutions. I’d like to bring this up because I am using the ultrasonic as a pre-cleaner before cleaning the records on my Loricraft record washer. Records are cleaned very thoroughly by the ultrasonic, but there is still loose “material” on the record. Also, and much more important in my opinion, records can sound much better and more like the real experience if cleaned with the right fluid. I am currently using L’Art du Son, mixed as directed and then further diluted 50:50 with additional distilled water. It is a great product when used like this.”
I changed my secondary dilution to 45% L’Art and 55% water. It does make a difference that you can hear (and one bottle makes over two gallons of fluid).
Because I am using the Loricraft, I don’t worry too much about “floaters” in the US, or about spotless drying. I am using the one micron filter that was recommended here between batches. I blot the records dry when they come out of the US, and then wipe them in a circular pattern with a quilted micro-fiber towel before putting them on the Loricraft.
I can clean records on the Loricraft simultaneously with doing the ultrasonic, so the time required for two steps is only slightly increased.
I noticed a number of posts here about retaining the records on the “spit.” I use a “Fastlock Shaft Collar” from Stock Drive Products: http://sdp-si.com/ss/pdf/81004014.pdf
Part Number S25FLY-0250. It’s fast and effortless and it holds firmly. No threads required.
Until recently, I have had a problem with cooling the water in my Elmasonic. I start my cycle by using the built-in heater to raise the water temperature to 38 degrees C. I then turn off the heater, but by the end of my 30 minute cycle the temperature has risen to 46 C. I don’t like to go over about 47 degrees so I have tried several things to cool it down and start over at 38 degrees. Nothing worked well until now.
I purchased the parts for a water-cooled computer upgrade. There is a copper radiator with fans, and a new higher flow pump. It’s great. Cools the fluid down by 10 degrees C in less than a minute. The pump is not self-priming so you can see that both the pump and filter are mounted below the drain of the Elmasonic. Pictures are attached.
I am curious if Bill Hart, http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/anal...ltrasonic-record-cleaner-135.html#post4708826 , or anyone else, has compared their results to either the $$$ Audio Desk or KL record cleaners. I suspect that many systems here are much better because they are:
More flexible, therefore potentially better results
Filter capacity is much greater
No brushes
No brushes to clean or replace
What do you think?
Thanks,
Don
This is my second post to diyAudio. My first post was two years ago:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/anal...ultrasonic-record-cleaner-61.html#post3897701
If you are following this, re-reading that post may help you to follow my update here. There are also pictures attached to that post.
I’m going to repeat a few of the comments I made before for clarity.
I changed from a 5 RPH motor to a 6 RPH one, so cleaning is done in 10 minute increments (one revolution of the record).
I am using the 80 KHz / 37 KHz Elmasonic P60H cleaner. It has been bulletproof. Three records per cycle. I have increased the cycle time to 30 minutes and this seems optimum for new records or records that appear as new. For dirty records I either do two cycles or something in between. I do not think that going beyond 60 minutes is beneficial.
I sometimes use 37 KHz for 10 minutes and then change to 80 KHz for 20 minutes instead of 30 minutes of 80 KHz. This seems to help on dirty records.
I previously said: “Currently I’m using distilled water with about four ounces of Everclear (190 proof grain alcohol [yes, I read about not using ethanol]) and a few drops of Photo Flo.
“What I have not read much about here is record cleaning solutions. I’d like to bring this up because I am using the ultrasonic as a pre-cleaner before cleaning the records on my Loricraft record washer. Records are cleaned very thoroughly by the ultrasonic, but there is still loose “material” on the record. Also, and much more important in my opinion, records can sound much better and more like the real experience if cleaned with the right fluid. I am currently using L’Art du Son, mixed as directed and then further diluted 50:50 with additional distilled water. It is a great product when used like this.”
I changed my secondary dilution to 45% L’Art and 55% water. It does make a difference that you can hear (and one bottle makes over two gallons of fluid).
Because I am using the Loricraft, I don’t worry too much about “floaters” in the US, or about spotless drying. I am using the one micron filter that was recommended here between batches. I blot the records dry when they come out of the US, and then wipe them in a circular pattern with a quilted micro-fiber towel before putting them on the Loricraft.
I can clean records on the Loricraft simultaneously with doing the ultrasonic, so the time required for two steps is only slightly increased.
I noticed a number of posts here about retaining the records on the “spit.” I use a “Fastlock Shaft Collar” from Stock Drive Products: http://sdp-si.com/ss/pdf/81004014.pdf
Part Number S25FLY-0250. It’s fast and effortless and it holds firmly. No threads required.
Until recently, I have had a problem with cooling the water in my Elmasonic. I start my cycle by using the built-in heater to raise the water temperature to 38 degrees C. I then turn off the heater, but by the end of my 30 minute cycle the temperature has risen to 46 C. I don’t like to go over about 47 degrees so I have tried several things to cool it down and start over at 38 degrees. Nothing worked well until now.
I purchased the parts for a water-cooled computer upgrade. There is a copper radiator with fans, and a new higher flow pump. It’s great. Cools the fluid down by 10 degrees C in less than a minute. The pump is not self-priming so you can see that both the pump and filter are mounted below the drain of the Elmasonic. Pictures are attached.
I am curious if Bill Hart, http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/anal...ltrasonic-record-cleaner-135.html#post4708826 , or anyone else, has compared their results to either the $$$ Audio Desk or KL record cleaners. I suspect that many systems here are much better because they are:
More flexible, therefore potentially better results
Filter capacity is much greater
No brushes
No brushes to clean or replace
What do you think?
Thanks,
Don
A man after my own heart.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
I forgot to mention another issue I had: bacteria building up in the tubing.
I purchased an Anti-Bacterial .999 Pure Silver Kill-Coil. . .
https://modmymods.com/modmymods-anti-bacterial-999-pure-silver-kill-coil-mod-0013.html
. . . . and dropped it into the bottom of the filter.
Not enough time for results yet. Thoughts?
Don
I purchased an Anti-Bacterial .999 Pure Silver Kill-Coil. . .
https://modmymods.com/modmymods-anti-bacterial-999-pure-silver-kill-coil-mod-0013.html
. . . . and dropped it into the bottom of the filter.
Not enough time for results yet. Thoughts?
Don