I've recently been noticing on some albums what seems to be something like a scorch mark on one side of the record. I suspect if it's from when I insert the record into the bath, with the line forming from the side of the record rotating up and away from the heated solution (I don't go higher than 105F). Perhaps the TergiKleen is a factor, or other solutions that I've tried that perhaps I shouldn't have (Simple Green Crystal, Sporicidin Enzyme Mold Cleaner). Perhaps letting it drip dry before my rinse/vacuum pass on my Okki Nokki is a factor.
Or perhaps the 5RPH motor is just too slow. I'm not sure. I've been tempted to try one of the faster, commercially available motors, but they're annoyingly expensive (CleanerVinyl One: $189, Vinyl Stack Ultra Sonic Spin Kit: $275). I know that bbftx's original idea with the super-slow motor was to provide a more effective cleaning by keeping the grooves submerged for a longer period of time without them drying out, but has anyone tested slow rotation against faster rotation to find a sweet spot?
Or perhaps the 5RPH motor is just too slow. I'm not sure. I've been tempted to try one of the faster, commercially available motors, but they're annoyingly expensive (CleanerVinyl One: $189, Vinyl Stack Ultra Sonic Spin Kit: $275). I know that bbftx's original idea with the super-slow motor was to provide a more effective cleaning by keeping the grooves submerged for a longer period of time without them drying out, but has anyone tested slow rotation against faster rotation to find a sweet spot?
It's not the temperature you're using (105 degree is just above body temp), it's not time in the bath.
It's the chemicals you've used. Simple Green Crystal contains citric acid which is not fully compatible with PVC. As temperature rises, citric acids have more detrimental affect on PVC. Simple Green in general is not a great choice because it's not designed for ultrasonic cleaning and it contains colors and fragrances. The regular version also contains chelating agents that I don't see any compatibility data on.
I'm not familiar with the Sporicidin cleaner you used, but a problem with a lot of the anti-bacterial and anti-mold products is that they are designed to leave a film residue on the surface to fight mold and bacteria for several months. I for one, think that's a bad idea on an LP. Keep the record dry and free of contaminants that mold and bacteria feed upon, and you won't have a problem.
One of the benefits of ultrasonic cleaning is to get away from all the chemicals that are used in contact cleaning. The cavitation of the ultrasonic is what provides the cleaning action instead of chemicals.
Cheers,
B B
The Simple Green CRYSTAL specifically does not have color or fragrance. Thus the "Crystal". Beyond that, though, your point is valid. And the Sporicidin just seems a poor choice for the ultrasonic tank, despite being listed as being compatible. Still potentially usable with the vacuum RCM for really stubborn, grungy beasts, but minus heat. Hasn't seemed to have done much beyond the ultrasonic cleaning for some of my stubborn albums. I've set those aside for a Revirginizer peel, but that's so tedious that I haven't attempted it yet.
Ultrasonic with TergiKleen followed by rinse/vac does do a great job for the most part (even beyond the results that I got with Isopropyl & Photo Flo alone), but I still end up with the occasional stubborn pop (confirmed to not be groove damage, since it seems to move from one cleaning to the next). I've contemplated what others have tried in a squirt of cheap 2-in-1 shampoo/conditioner in the ultrasonic bath followed by RCM rinse, but that still seems weird.
And no, I'm not interested in the "just buy another copy" argument, as some of the records I'm PLANNING to clean are filthy but not replaceable. I'm also frustrated by the "too many steps" cleaning process, as I'm really tired of having to re-clean certain albums so many times for that one remaining pop or patch of crud. :/
Ultrasonic with TergiKleen followed by rinse/vac does do a great job for the most part (even beyond the results that I got with Isopropyl & Photo Flo alone), but I still end up with the occasional stubborn pop (confirmed to not be groove damage, since it seems to move from one cleaning to the next). I've contemplated what others have tried in a squirt of cheap 2-in-1 shampoo/conditioner in the ultrasonic bath followed by RCM rinse, but that still seems weird.
And no, I'm not interested in the "just buy another copy" argument, as some of the records I'm PLANNING to clean are filthy but not replaceable. I'm also frustrated by the "too many steps" cleaning process, as I'm really tired of having to re-clean certain albums so many times for that one remaining pop or patch of crud. :/
My hobby is converting vinyl to mini-lps CDRs (w/ complete artwork), so ultrasonic cleaning with its magnificent "like a new component" results is the number one draw. Up to now, I use a VPI17. Still, after a RCM cleaning, I hear an egregious pop now and again. What I have found useful is to put on a hobby magnifying visor, shine a strong light on the face of the lp, and armed with a stout pointed and wet wood toothpick, find the spot of the pop, then gently dislodge it from the groove or two it occupies. Frequently, the culprit just pops off, other times it requires a bit of gentle persuasion. Requires a bit of finesse and patience so as to not further damage the lp.
Consider that tactic instead of a total recleaning.
I have a Sonix IV 10l, 60kHz US tank (bought several years ago) - with drain - so if Louis now offers one ... I would recommend you buy it over the 6l one. (I only bought a Sonix because, back then, Vibrato didn't offer 60kHz.)
At 60kHz, you need a gap of 1" between LPs and between the end LPs on a spindle and the tank side walls (you need more of a gap at 40kHz). The extra width of a 10l tank enables you to clean 6 LPs at a time - so much more efficient than a 6l tank!
I find a drain is essential because I have rigged up a 1 micron cartridge filter (and 10lpm, 12v DC pump) to take the crap blown out of the grooves ... out of the cleaning solution.
Andy
Last edited:
Does anyone know the theoretical minimum distance that the LPs should be apart for a 40kHz machine? What exactly is this distance based on? Is it based on the the wavelength or the amplitude of a 40kHz wave in water? What are the wavelengths and amplitudes of a 40kHz wave in water? I keep hearing about the necessary gap you need between the LPs, but where is this information coming from?
Record Spacing
HI Ketchup,
A number of different issues come into play on spacing. The science involved is not just frequency and wavelength-related, but also has to do with the power capabilities of the ultrasonic cleaner, boundary effects of the tank walls, compliance of the material being cleaned, etc. Because of these interacting factors, basic theories can give guidance, but empirical observations of the cleaning action in the tank support what spacing works and what doesn’t.
The wavelength of a 40khz sound wave in water is about 1.5”. When that sound wave travels up from the bottom of the tank between records, the length of the path between the records (about 4”) is fairly long relative to the wavelength. That makes it more difficult for the sound energy in the wave to propagate .The closer the records are spaced together, the more wave cancellation there will be from reflections between the record surfaces and more attenuation per unit volume of the medium (the water) because you have more surface area in the same volume of water. PVC absorbs a fair amount of the energy in this arrangement.
The desktop ultrasonic cleaners most everyone is using are of modest power, and therefore you can’t load too many LPs in the tank and expect them all to get clean.
In my opinion, the best indicator of what works and what doesn’t is to observe the excitation of the water surface between LPs at different spacing. Start with 1 LP and note the surface agitation around that LP as it’s cleaned. Add a second LP so that the space between LPs and the side wall are roughly equal. Repeat by adding another LP. As the gap closes, you’ll see reduced agitation between the LPs, an indication that the sound waves are not delivering as much cleaning power to the LP surfaces.
I first posted about this effect early in my experimentation with ultrasonic cleaning using my 60 khz Sonix unit. At 1” (~ equal to 60khz wavelength in water) spacing, I still have good agitation between LPs. Adding another LP (a 4th) really diminished the cleaning action.
Here are links to some of the earlier messages related to spacing. You can use the “Search this Thread” tool to find others, but these provide the highlights of the different considerations for spacing:
Empirical Observations: Message #9
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/anal...on-ultrasonic-record-cleaner.html#post3137691
Theortetical wavelength answer: Message #798
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/anal...ultrasonic-record-cleaner-80.html#post4115967
Rule of Thumb Power answer: Message #44
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/anal...-ultrasonic-record-cleaner-5.html#post3159186
Tank wall distance reference: Message #1326
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/anal...ltrasonic-record-cleaner-133.html#post4650907
Good luck,
B B
HI Ketchup,
A number of different issues come into play on spacing. The science involved is not just frequency and wavelength-related, but also has to do with the power capabilities of the ultrasonic cleaner, boundary effects of the tank walls, compliance of the material being cleaned, etc. Because of these interacting factors, basic theories can give guidance, but empirical observations of the cleaning action in the tank support what spacing works and what doesn’t.
The wavelength of a 40khz sound wave in water is about 1.5”. When that sound wave travels up from the bottom of the tank between records, the length of the path between the records (about 4”) is fairly long relative to the wavelength. That makes it more difficult for the sound energy in the wave to propagate .The closer the records are spaced together, the more wave cancellation there will be from reflections between the record surfaces and more attenuation per unit volume of the medium (the water) because you have more surface area in the same volume of water. PVC absorbs a fair amount of the energy in this arrangement.
The desktop ultrasonic cleaners most everyone is using are of modest power, and therefore you can’t load too many LPs in the tank and expect them all to get clean.
In my opinion, the best indicator of what works and what doesn’t is to observe the excitation of the water surface between LPs at different spacing. Start with 1 LP and note the surface agitation around that LP as it’s cleaned. Add a second LP so that the space between LPs and the side wall are roughly equal. Repeat by adding another LP. As the gap closes, you’ll see reduced agitation between the LPs, an indication that the sound waves are not delivering as much cleaning power to the LP surfaces.
I first posted about this effect early in my experimentation with ultrasonic cleaning using my 60 khz Sonix unit. At 1” (~ equal to 60khz wavelength in water) spacing, I still have good agitation between LPs. Adding another LP (a 4th) really diminished the cleaning action.
Here are links to some of the earlier messages related to spacing. You can use the “Search this Thread” tool to find others, but these provide the highlights of the different considerations for spacing:
Empirical Observations: Message #9
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/anal...on-ultrasonic-record-cleaner.html#post3137691
Theortetical wavelength answer: Message #798
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/anal...ultrasonic-record-cleaner-80.html#post4115967
Rule of Thumb Power answer: Message #44
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/anal...-ultrasonic-record-cleaner-5.html#post3159186
Tank wall distance reference: Message #1326
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/anal...ltrasonic-record-cleaner-133.html#post4650907
Good luck,
B B
I was recently asked if it was possible to modify one of the Chinese-made 40KHz Ultrasonic Cleaners to function at a higher frequency.
I posted my findings here:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/vendor-s-bazaar/303153-ultrasonic-record-cleaning-6.html#post5332463
Sincerely,
Louis Steele
I posted my findings here:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/vendor-s-bazaar/303153-ultrasonic-record-cleaning-6.html#post5332463
Sincerely,
Louis Steele
I wanted to check some advice on this as distilled water, is it pure enough?
Distilled Water 99.99% Ultrapure CHOOSE your size 50ml-25 Litre **High Quality** | eBay
Specification
Molecular Formula: H2O
Molecular Weight: 18.02
Boiling Point: 100 deg C
Refractive Index: n20/D 1.34(lit.)
Conductivity: Resistivity: >1MΩ.cm
pH: 5.8-7.5
Nitrite (NO2):
Nitrate (NO3):
Silicon (Si): <0.04gm/L
Silcates (SiO2): Sodium (Na): Chloride (Cl): TOC: < 0.15 mg/L
Endotoxins: TVC (2 Days): 0 cfu/ml
TVC (3 Days): 0 cfu/ml
I also bought Tergikleen, I just do not know enough about the various recipes i see online to trust I am doing a good job so this seems to have good reviews and only gripe seems to be the price. IM sure it is really expensive if you have knowledge of how to mix and make this stuff yourself but I am just an end user who just wants the best results.
TERGIKLEEN™ Record Cleaning Solution with Tergitol™ Professional Record Cleaning | eBay
Distilled Water 99.99% Ultrapure CHOOSE your size 50ml-25 Litre **High Quality** | eBay
Specification
Molecular Formula: H2O
Molecular Weight: 18.02
Boiling Point: 100 deg C
Refractive Index: n20/D 1.34(lit.)
Conductivity: Resistivity: >1MΩ.cm
pH: 5.8-7.5
Nitrite (NO2):
Nitrate (NO3):
Silicon (Si): <0.04gm/L
Silcates (SiO2): Sodium (Na): Chloride (Cl): TOC: < 0.15 mg/L
Endotoxins: TVC (2 Days): 0 cfu/ml
TVC (3 Days): 0 cfu/ml
I also bought Tergikleen, I just do not know enough about the various recipes i see online to trust I am doing a good job so this seems to have good reviews and only gripe seems to be the price. IM sure it is really expensive if you have knowledge of how to mix and make this stuff yourself but I am just an end user who just wants the best results.
TERGIKLEEN™ Record Cleaning Solution with Tergitol™ Professional Record Cleaning | eBay
AIUI, the essential issue is ... was it made by evaporation (ie. boiling tap water) ... or pushing cold water through a membrane?
The former is the way to go.
Andy
That water is horrendously overpriced. And the specs don't make any sense. If it really is only "99.99% pure", that means it would have 100 ppm (parts per million) of dissolved solids. That's fine to use for a record cleaning solution, but true distilled water should be about 1ppm. Tap water is typically 300 to 500 ppm.
Purified water is 10 ppm or less and is more than good enough for this application. Here in the US, I buy either purified or distilled, whichever happens to be cheaper in bulk (i.e. 1 gallon or larger jugs) at the local grocery store. 88 cents per gallon is the going rate for distilled right now at the nearest store.
Buying any kind of water online and having it shipped really doesn't make sense because transporting water by post is very expensive.
Good luck, but there is no need to pay so much for water. If deionized water is cheaper and more readily available in the UK, it will work very well too.
B B
Last edited:
For ultrasonic tank fluid, there's not much point in using anything more expensive than CVS distilled water.
If you're going to use TergiKleen, only use 10 drops per gallon of regular distilled water, and you MUST rinse & vacuum it off afterward, which is where lab grade water could potentially be helpful as a final rinse. First rinse with regular distilled water is fine, to get the bulk of remaining chemicals out of the groove. Whether the second rinse with lab grade water really makes a difference, I'm honestly not sure, but I'm paranoid about leaving any chemicals in the grooves. If you do go the lab/reagent grade water rinse route, I wouldn't go more expensive than this: Ricca 9150-1 Water, ACS Reagent Grade, ASTM Type I, ASTM Type II, in plastic containers, 4 L: Amazon.com: Industrial & Scientific and again, the actual usefulness of that is debatable.
I can't say that this is better or worse than bbftx's no-vacuum approach with Isopropyl, but I'm paranoid about the effects of Iso, and I had tendencies for a pop or two developing when using his approach, so now I just use the ultrasonic as the first/main cleaning step.
Last edited:
AIUI, the essential issue is ... was it made by evaporation (ie. boiling tap water) ... or pushing cold water through a membrane?
The former is the way to go.
Andy
Thanks I will make sure to ask this before buying anything.
I found some engine water for around $5 for 5L which is DeIonized which I am going to get to test but I still want distilled so I can try that also.
Halfords Battery Top-Up Water 5L
I was going to buy one of these just to allow me to test both and see what works to my ear
Distilled Water - Buy from the UK's leading B2B chemical suppliers, ReAgent.
Thanks for the TergiKleen tip. I had no idea how much to use so that is great.
What would be really awesome is to pull together an FAQ on cleaning not sure if that exist yet but I am willing to gather as much info as I can and have people correct me if I am talking rubbish to help complete n00bs like myself
Last edited:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/anal...ltrasonic-record-cleaner-144.html#post4862154
That's just one person's experiences.
This thread is insane, but has a lot of different experiences throughout.
I would advise against using De-Ionized water, as it will pull ions out of the stainless steel tank !
-Louis
I do not think that DI water presents any issues, but in fact would be preferred.
Questions and answers about Ultrasonic Cleaning
Questions and answers about Ultrasonic Cleaning
Here's the deal on deionized water. It does want to absorb ions from wherever it can. It readily does this from the air (CO2 and dust). Unless you're running a URC that is a closed system not exposed to the atmosphere, you will not have any problems in a stainless tank.
Even if the DI water absorbs ions from the steel instead of the air, it takes very, very, very little ionization to reach equilibrium. Equilibrium happens in minutes, rather than hours. The water will still be more than clean enough for record cleaning, at less than 1ppm of TDS, and your open air stainless tank will be unharmed.
Numerous studies support the use of stainless steel (particularly 316 stainless) for piping and tanks holding DI water, even for months at a time. Note the high compatibility ratings of stainless in these references:
Graco Chem Guide for DI
NASA Research
Where DI water can cause problems in stainless steel systems is where there are stainless steel welds that aren't done the proper way. This is why some people think DI water cannot be contained in stainless --- because the welding issue was misinterpreted to be a general stainless steel issue. Unless your tank has welds exposed to the DI water, there will not be issues.
Your goal is to get clean water for your bath. Whether it's DI, or distilled, or purified; any of these options will work and given the intermittent service conditions, you won't have any problems in this application. I suggest one uses whichever is most economical in your area.
Cheers,
B B
Even if the DI water absorbs ions from the steel instead of the air, it takes very, very, very little ionization to reach equilibrium. Equilibrium happens in minutes, rather than hours. The water will still be more than clean enough for record cleaning, at less than 1ppm of TDS, and your open air stainless tank will be unharmed.
Numerous studies support the use of stainless steel (particularly 316 stainless) for piping and tanks holding DI water, even for months at a time. Note the high compatibility ratings of stainless in these references:
Graco Chem Guide for DI
NASA Research
Where DI water can cause problems in stainless steel systems is where there are stainless steel welds that aren't done the proper way. This is why some people think DI water cannot be contained in stainless --- because the welding issue was misinterpreted to be a general stainless steel issue. Unless your tank has welds exposed to the DI water, there will not be issues.
Your goal is to get clean water for your bath. Whether it's DI, or distilled, or purified; any of these options will work and given the intermittent service conditions, you won't have any problems in this application. I suggest one uses whichever is most economical in your area.
Cheers,
B B