My version of an Ultrasonic Record Cleaner

Jump to Latest
#982
Packgrog said:
Further emphasizing my surprise with the results, have a look at these. The first one shows the recording that had been done after cleaning the record multiple times with the KAB EV-1 using the AIVS No 15 and Ultra Pure water. My regimen was obnoxious: 3 minute scrub with Listener Select brushes per fluid per side (1 minute clockwise with light circular scrubbing, 1 minute counter-clockwise with light circular scrubbing, 1 more minute clockwise just going with the grooves), followed by about a minute vacuuming, one rotation counter-clockwise, then reversed. I got good results doing this, but I suspect you can see why I'm sick of it, and jumped head-first into this ultrasonic project.

The second image shows the same passage of the same exact record after the ultrasonic cleaning. The ultra-sonic noise haze is visibly reduced on this later waveform, which certainly reinforces my assertion about improved clarity in the sound. What's both interesting and kind of annoying is that I seem to have MORE clicks after the ultrasonic bath. Much of it is just that the quieter ones are no longer obscured in the noise haze. It's certainly disappointing that the majority of these clicks didn't go away as I'd hoped. That said, perhaps tools like ClickRepair will have less of a negative audible impact so that I can use that instead of having to declick the recordings by hand with iZotope. I can certainly hope!
Click to expand...

Thanks a lot for sharing these measurements, the first I've seen for before and after U/S cleaning. Do you by any chance have audio samples from before and after?
 
#986
135khz Transducers

PMEL324X0 said:
Louis, does this question (post989) mean that you can get 135khz transducers?
Click to expand...

Yes. I have 135khz transducers. I bought a supply of them as a replacement for the larger, heavier 80khz transducers, but it turned out these were the same size and weight (they were supposed to be smaller and lighter but it was a misprint on the manufacturers website). I developed a new mounting procedure for these heavier transducers (80khz and 135khz), but don't want to waste inventory if there is no need/demand for the higher frequency.

-Louis
 
#987
Zg925 said:
Very cool BB! Did the neoprene spacers work? I couldn't tell from your video.
Click to expand...

Hey zg,
I'm still looking for a better, no-hassle spacer. I thought I had a neoprene / eva foam product, but what was advertised as a 4" disc was actually smaller, and wouldn't completely cover the record label.

I have one other "4 inch" neoprene product I'm investigating. Also, I've had success using a large hole saw -- 4-½" --- to cut neoprene or eva foam spacers. But this isn't practical for folks that don't have a drill press or mill. That large a hole saw requires more power to cut with than the typical ⅜" hand drill can supply.

For now, the large cork stopper spacers are the best ready-cut solution. (Their only downside is the small floating cork particles that some people get over time from putting them on/taking them off the spindle.
Cheers,
B B
 
#988
Louis, I don't think anyone here has tried a 135 khz as there really isn't anyone making one in a 6 L size that would be affordable. There were earlier discussions in this thread about using higher frequencies because of the relationship of bubble to groove width. I would suspect an extremly dirty record with caked on dirt might need a prewash before using a 135 khz unit. BBFTX had some thoughts on higher frequencies. Posts 53 & 65 there may be others.
 
Last edited:
#992
My 80kHz UC arrived the other day from China... surprise, surprise! a few weeks early. So now, it sits unused until I can procure the other parts. Specifically, I need the motor as I think I can whip up the other parts to at least get up and running. I was holding out for the 1/10rpm motor from All Electronics but I'm losing faith that it'll be back in stock anytime soon (I thought someone mentioned that it would be available this month...?). I suppose I could just order one from Herbach & Rademan as per bbftx's suggestion (Big Thx!) but does anyone know of anything else available? Thanks!
 
#994
No worries Steven. I was referring to an older post than your recent one. The motor you posted (#988) isn't what I'm looking for as I would prefer a 1/10rpm/6rph one but I'm sure someone can find a use for it. I wasn't expecting the UC to show up so soon and am just getting antsy to try it out on some vinyl.
 
#995
I have a question about the differences in these ultra-sonic units. I see the questions abut the different frequency units and there effectiveness at cleaning a groove. Now whether the higher frequency units can clean better or reach deeper into a small space due to wavelength what I don't see is, perhaps I missed it, is the actual output strength of the units. I can imagine two different units working at the same frequency but where is the information about the maximum output energy? How are you comparing one unit from one company to another besides the reference frequency?
 
#996
drtool said:
Has any body cleaned any 78's. I see about 500 or so in my future.
Click to expand...
"78" covers a lot of ground. I've cleaned a few with my homemade vacuum system (old turntable, shopvac, handheld nozzle made from PVC pipe).

I think the "standard" mass-produced 78s may be okay in an ultrasonic tank (and again, NO ALCOHOL), but there are types (I think usually the AudioDisc or similar on-off recordings) made on a paper/cardboard core, and you don't want any liquid to touch the edge, lest they start peeling apart. There's also aluminum core, and I don't know if its edges are liquid-safe.
 
#997
Kindhornman said:
I see the questions abut the different frequency units and there effectiveness at cleaning a groove. Now whether the higher frequency units can clean better or reach deeper into a small space due to wavelength what I don't see is, perhaps I missed it, is the actual output strength of the units. I can imagine two different units working at the same frequency but where is the information about the maximum output energy? How are you comparing one unit from one company to another besides the reference frequency?
Click to expand...

Ultrasonic transducers are generally rated by their input power requirements. In the frequency ranges we're talking about, most of the transducers are 60 watts each. They actually output something less than that into the cleaning solution of course. The rules of thumb for the small tank sizes we're using is that you want total transducer power of 80 to 120 watts per gallon. The Sonix IV ST-136 has three 60-watt transducers for a total of 180 watts into 1.5 gallons. So that's at the upper end of the power range needed (180watts /1.5 gal. = 120 watts/gallon).
Assuming the total transducer power is appropriate for the tank size, the other rule of thumb is you can clean just under approx. 2 sq inches of surface area per watt of input power at any point in time. So that's about 350 sq. inches of surface area in the tank, max., or 3 albums (6 album sides) with about ⅓ of each album immersed at any given instant. That just happens to work out to be about 1 album per 60watt transducer.

Be careful when looking at power stats for UCs. They often quote "Peak Power" which is startup power draw, and that usually includes the heater wattage too! What's relevant for the cleaning capability is just the ave. transducer power only, not at peak, and not including the heater.
Cheers,
B B
 
#998
BB,
Thank you very much for that clear and concise answer. I do have old vinyl that has actually been sitting unplayed for over 20 years now, it would be nice to listen to it again. I don't want to count on a brush on the stylus to clean them and that is why I have been following this thread. My only experience with ultrasonic cleaning was an old technical pen cleaner I had to clean my drafting pens back in the day we drew in ink.
 
#1,000
bbftx said:
Ultrasonic transducers are generally rated by their input power requirements. In the frequency ranges we're talking about, most of the transducers are 60 watts each. They actually output something less than that into the cleaning solution of course. The rules of thumb for the small tank sizes we're using is that you want total transducer power of 80 to 120 watts per gallon. The Sonix IV ST-136 has three 60-watt transducers for a total of 180 watts into 1.5 gallons. So that's at the upper end of the power range needed (180watts /1.5 gal. = 120 watts/gallon).
Assuming the total transducer power is appropriate for the tank size, the other rule of thumb is you can clean just under approx. 2 sq inches of surface area per watt of input power at any point in time. So that's about 350 sq. inches of surface area in the tank, max., or 3 albums (6 album sides) with about ⅓ of each album immersed at any given instant. That just happens to work out to be about 1 album per 60watt transducer.

Be careful when looking at power stats for UCs. They often quote "Peak Power" which is startup power draw, and that usually includes the heater wattage too! What's relevant for the cleaning capability is just the ave. transducer power only, not at peak, and not including the heater.
Cheers,
B B
Click to expand...

When I worked for Sonix IV, Corp from 2005 to 2012, they were using "wafer" piezo transducers from Sunnytec (#SCP-S44-37.2*6) which are 35 watts each, not 60 watts. These wafers were epoxied to an aluminum load plate, then epoxied to the tank. They are not under pressure like langevin transducers which can range in power from 20 watts, up to 100 watts. Langevin transducers use two wafer piezos sandwiched between two metal plates under pressure (usually 300 foot pounds).
View attachment 468397

View attachment 468398
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom