Doug has a point. On one of the other DIY ultrasonic threads someone did run a record for some weeks at 40KHz with no damage, so there is currently no evidence of difference. The fact that 60KHz is more effective at small particle removal is not under debate, what is being questioned is whether anyone has a way to test if anything is left behind on a 40KHz clean that a 60KHz will remove.
there are a number of us who cannot justify a 60KHz machine, esp in europe where they are a lot more expensive. I am one of those! Sadly the only before and after pictures I can find are from KLaudio so not really good for comparison.
there are a number of us who cannot justify a 60KHz machine, esp in europe where they are a lot more expensive. I am one of those! Sadly the only before and after pictures I can find are from KLaudio so not really good for comparison.
BB,
I'm not discounting the experience you and others have had and shared at all - I appreciate it. I will look for posts by Dr. Awad and see what his experience was. I've searched the forum and read quite a bit, but I'm sure there is much valuable information I still haven't seen. If someone has done a test, or even has experience, comparing the performance of 40mHz cleaners to 60mHz cleaners when used on vinyl records, that would be very interesting to me.
People have all kinds of equipment and systems that they use for cleaning records, and it seems that once they build or buy a high-end system (be it ultrasonic, vacuum, or whatever), they tend to be pretty happy with it. I think it is human nature that once we invest significant time and money in something that works well, we stick with it and don't particularly want to hear that some competing system might work as well or better - especially if it is at lower cost. Using wood glue seems to be the extreme example of this - those who use it seem very happy with the results, while those with high-end record cleaning machines think it is completely insane.
Bill,
Thanks - you summarized my thoughts very succinctly and accurately. It sounds like we are in the same boat with regards to our record cleaning budget. I recently bought a turntable and cartridge and am looking forward to listening to (and copying) some old records I've had for years - including some Spanish-language music I purchased while I was living in Chile back in the 1970s and 80s that I can no longer replace in any format. I want to clean them well, but I can't justify spending more on a record cleaner than I did on my turntable and cartridge.
I'm not discounting the experience you and others have had and shared at all - I appreciate it. I will look for posts by Dr. Awad and see what his experience was. I've searched the forum and read quite a bit, but I'm sure there is much valuable information I still haven't seen. If someone has done a test, or even has experience, comparing the performance of 40mHz cleaners to 60mHz cleaners when used on vinyl records, that would be very interesting to me.
People have all kinds of equipment and systems that they use for cleaning records, and it seems that once they build or buy a high-end system (be it ultrasonic, vacuum, or whatever), they tend to be pretty happy with it. I think it is human nature that once we invest significant time and money in something that works well, we stick with it and don't particularly want to hear that some competing system might work as well or better - especially if it is at lower cost. Using wood glue seems to be the extreme example of this - those who use it seem very happy with the results, while those with high-end record cleaning machines think it is completely insane.
Bill,
Thanks - you summarized my thoughts very succinctly and accurately. It sounds like we are in the same boat with regards to our record cleaning budget. I recently bought a turntable and cartridge and am looking forward to listening to (and copying) some old records I've had for years - including some Spanish-language music I purchased while I was living in Chile back in the 1970s and 80s that I can no longer replace in any format. I want to clean them well, but I can't justify spending more on a record cleaner than I did on my turntable and cartridge.
Where to buy Sonix IV
Dear All,
I also made my own US project.
Thanks to all for the information found in this thread.
My friend gave me his US cleaner to check how its working.
It is 28-32 kHz machine and it works fine.
Now I'm looking for Sonix IV 60kHz machine.
Then I can check difference between them.
Next month I'm going to visit United States, PA on a business trip and I'd like to buy it there.
I found some Sonix IV retailers and contacted directly to SonixIV.
Minimum price I found is about $800 include shipping in the USA.
Is it real price for today?
Where Sonix IV owners bought their machines?
Dear All,
I also made my own US project.
PHP:
My friend gave me his US cleaner to check how its working.
It is 28-32 kHz machine and it works fine.
Now I'm looking for Sonix IV 60kHz machine.
Then I can check difference between them.
Next month I'm going to visit United States, PA on a business trip and I'd like to buy it there.
I found some Sonix IV retailers and contacted directly to SonixIV.
Minimum price I found is about $800 include shipping in the USA.
Is it real price for today?
Where Sonix IV owners bought their machines?
variable frequency redux
Again I would suggest that a swept frequency cleaner could be optimized for a range of particle sizes. What hampers this is that many of the transducers depend on a strong mechanical resonance to be efficient in transducing electrical energy to mechanical energy---so a viable variable-frequency part may be non-stock and a challenge. But if we consider the fractional bandwidths of audio, where a given driver may span octaves, it's maybe not impossible.
What would be interesting: for a given particle size, given that you hit precisely on its resonant frequency, how long would it take to dislodge it? I suspect not very long. So a sweep might not have to be all that slow, nor the driving power all that great.
Again I would suggest that a swept frequency cleaner could be optimized for a range of particle sizes. What hampers this is that many of the transducers depend on a strong mechanical resonance to be efficient in transducing electrical energy to mechanical energy---so a viable variable-frequency part may be non-stock and a challenge. But if we consider the fractional bandwidths of audio, where a given driver may span octaves, it's maybe not impossible.
What would be interesting: for a given particle size, given that you hit precisely on its resonant frequency, how long would it take to dislodge it? I suspect not very long. So a sweep might not have to be all that slow, nor the driving power all that great.
Hi Dmitry,
As of now, try this site for about $675 incl. heater and shipping.
ST136 Ultrasonic Cleaner
B B
They where the first company I contacted.
They no longer sell the cleaners from Sonix IV.
The only ones who responded to my request were collinsdentalequipment.com with $800 offer for 220V version. All the others, to whom I wrote did not even reply.
Doug, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I invite you to inspect the surface of an ultrasonic bath above a region which has baffles closer than the wavelength, e.g. closer than 1.5 inches for 40 KHz. You will find it calm. Now remove the baffles. You will find it turbulent. This is a direct demonstration of the energy present in large spaces and absent in small spaces.
Now apply this information to the matter at hand, and decide how large your cleaning tanks need to be. Don't forget that records are not perfectly planar, and are rarely perfectly normal to the axis, so you need an even larger tank to accommodate real world devices (I did forget, and am now re-cleaning, to amazingly good effect).
Good luck. And as for people paying an arbitrarily large sum for equipment, just ask about the proportion of nude Vishay resistors, or how many vacuum caps, may be found in the premium "statement" gear of choice. I suspect that the only way to get the best sound is DIY, and I really do mean only.
Now apply this information to the matter at hand, and decide how large your cleaning tanks need to be. Don't forget that records are not perfectly planar, and are rarely perfectly normal to the axis, so you need an even larger tank to accommodate real world devices (I did forget, and am now re-cleaning, to amazingly good effect).
Good luck. And as for people paying an arbitrarily large sum for equipment, just ask about the proportion of nude Vishay resistors, or how many vacuum caps, may be found in the premium "statement" gear of choice. I suspect that the only way to get the best sound is DIY, and I really do mean only.
That's the one, Studley. I find comfort in the fact that it's reliable, stable, and properly calibrated. And, it can run for 12 consecutive hours, anytime. And further, the controls feel good and the valve turns down to 1 litre per hour, for easy filtration. Good equipment is just inherently worth having, IMO.
Buy the optional stainless steel basket for jewelry and other small items. I didn't really expect to use it, but I end most record cleaning runs with a few household items, just to extract the last benefit of the cleaning fluid.
Buy the optional stainless steel basket for jewelry and other small items. I didn't really expect to use it, but I end most record cleaning runs with a few household items, just to extract the last benefit of the cleaning fluid.
Aurora,
While not in the EU, All Electronics in the USA has these 220v 50hz motors. They also have a counter clockwise version. According to their site they ship internationally. The very inexpensive price should make up for whatever shipping cost would be. I use a 120v version of the motor (no longer available) which runs very quiet and cool.
1/10 RPM SYNCHRONOUS MOTOR, 230 VAC | All Electronics Corp.
While not in the EU, All Electronics in the USA has these 220v 50hz motors. They also have a counter clockwise version. According to their site they ship internationally. The very inexpensive price should make up for whatever shipping cost would be. I use a 120v version of the motor (no longer available) which runs very quiet and cool.
1/10 RPM SYNCHRONOUS MOTOR, 230 VAC | All Electronics Corp.
I have no doubt it's a great machine, and no doubt 40hz isn't as good, but £123 vs £1000 . . . . .
never found that one..I am using a stepper motor salvaged from a laser printer and a controller board from eBay gives me a slow rotation that is reversible and with high enough torque. I am using it like an idler drive against the edge of the record.
The stepper motor is very controllable and runs from a usb power supply...plus the controller has a remote!
It's a cheapo 40kHz machine with heater and timer that I got from eBay. I will try to dig out the details later if you are interested.
Until now I have just turned the records by hand, a quarter of a turn per minute or so. That works fine, but it means that I have to be next to the machine most of the time. Having the motor spinning slowly means I can set the machine running and walk away from the teeth grinding noise (still not as bad as a Moth vacuum machine though).
I've been watching this thread for awhile now and have some basic questions. I assume to get any thorough cleaning a surfactant is necessary in the bath, and then a water bath to remove that surfactant, otherwise I would expect the surfactant to attract more dust.
Do you clean the vinyl every time you play it or is a cleaning like this good for a number of playing cycles? If you don't clean them every time how often do you need to go through this process of US cleaning and rinsing?
Do you clean the vinyl every time you play it or is a cleaning like this good for a number of playing cycles? If you don't clean them every time how often do you need to go through this process of US cleaning and rinsing?