Bend,
All anyone needs to see about Clearaudio's motivation to talk down ultrasonic cleaning is the first line you quoted:
"Thanks for...your interest for our cleaning machine Double Matrix Professional Sonic."
They're trying to sell you THEIR $5,500 cleaning machine! What do you expect them to say? None of the pseudo-science babble they threw out can be backed up by sound ultrasonic science, ultrasonic mechanics, ultrasonic chemistry, or actual research on surface effects. Not one word.
And as to your unnamed person who claims to have a university lab actually say the words "surface chemistry disturbance," I say B/S unless some real documentation is shown. And even if such documentation existed, how could that be attributed to ultrasonic cleaning if they didn't examine the records BEFORE the cleaning too?
Finally, there are many, many, many different kinds of "alcohol." Chemical compatibility of DIFFERENT alcohols with real life, actual PVC is well documented. Isopropyl is highly compatible and doesn't impart negative effects. Some other alcohols are NOT compatible with PVC and should be avoided at all costs. Examples abound. Here's a link to one:
Calpac Lab
All anyone needs to see about Clearaudio's motivation to talk down ultrasonic cleaning is the first line you quoted:
"Thanks for...your interest for our cleaning machine Double Matrix Professional Sonic."
They're trying to sell you THEIR $5,500 cleaning machine! What do you expect them to say? None of the pseudo-science babble they threw out can be backed up by sound ultrasonic science, ultrasonic mechanics, ultrasonic chemistry, or actual research on surface effects. Not one word.
And as to your unnamed person who claims to have a university lab actually say the words "surface chemistry disturbance," I say B/S unless some real documentation is shown. And even if such documentation existed, how could that be attributed to ultrasonic cleaning if they didn't examine the records BEFORE the cleaning too?
Finally, there are many, many, many different kinds of "alcohol." Chemical compatibility of DIFFERENT alcohols with real life, actual PVC is well documented. Isopropyl is highly compatible and doesn't impart negative effects. Some other alcohols are NOT compatible with PVC and should be avoided at all costs. Examples abound. Here's a link to one:
Calpac Lab
Last edited:
Spindle to Motor Connection Options
Getting back to some actual DIY, someone asked me about the spindle to motor connection I used in my Version 2 URC. Rather than just reply via Private Message, I thought I'd share the info in the forum in case anyone else was interested.
Some of the options you have for connecting the motor output shaft to the spindle that will hold the LPs include:
1) A coupling, with a bore on one side sized to accept the motor shaft and one on the other side sized to accept the spindle
2) A direct spindle to motor shaft connection, eliminating a part by not requiring a coupler (my favorite method if you like machining)
3) A magnetic setup like I used on Version 3 (my favorite operational method by far)
The question was about Version 2 of my cleaner setup. My motor for this setup had a ⅛" diameter output shaft with a flat on it (sometimes called a D-shaft). This lends itself to a set screw arrangement to press against the flat and hold the shaft in position. To mate with this motor shaft, I crafted a 9/32" spindle out of drill rod. On my lathe, I bored a ⅛" hole in one end of the spindle to accept the motor shaft. I also drilled and threaded a hole on the outside diameter of the spindle to intersect the spindle bore. An appropriately sized set screw can then be inserted to press against the flat on the motor shaft. Pictures attached.
Let me know if you have questions.
Cheers,
B B
Getting back to some actual DIY, someone asked me about the spindle to motor connection I used in my Version 2 URC. Rather than just reply via Private Message, I thought I'd share the info in the forum in case anyone else was interested.
Some of the options you have for connecting the motor output shaft to the spindle that will hold the LPs include:
1) A coupling, with a bore on one side sized to accept the motor shaft and one on the other side sized to accept the spindle
2) A direct spindle to motor shaft connection, eliminating a part by not requiring a coupler (my favorite method if you like machining)
3) A magnetic setup like I used on Version 3 (my favorite operational method by far)
The question was about Version 2 of my cleaner setup. My motor for this setup had a ⅛" diameter output shaft with a flat on it (sometimes called a D-shaft). This lends itself to a set screw arrangement to press against the flat and hold the shaft in position. To mate with this motor shaft, I crafted a 9/32" spindle out of drill rod. On my lathe, I bored a ⅛" hole in one end of the spindle to accept the motor shaft. I also drilled and threaded a hole on the outside diameter of the spindle to intersect the spindle bore. An appropriately sized set screw can then be inserted to press against the flat on the motor shaft. Pictures attached.
Let me know if you have questions.
Cheers,
B B
Shaun: Thank you. I agree. The reason why manufacturers of vacuum RCM have not jumped into USC may be–I am speculating–because of the "not invented here" syndrome. Then, given how fussy and opinionated audiophiles can be–not accusing all early adopters of USC of being audiophiles–if there were issues with USC, either short-term erosion or long-term chemical instability, we would have heard about it. We have not.
I'm just being cautious, that's all before I begin my DIY project. Conducting due diligence in all spaces, considering all facets and possibilities. I guess its my schooling and professional background as a geoscientist that brings that out. That and my love for vinyl records.
The long-term issue is not just alcohol. It is the fact that vinyl, while tough and resilient, is not a homogeneous slab. Vinyl as we know it is a mixture of chemicals, with up to 25% not bound up covalently. That means other additives are immiscible, not bound per se, and potentially subject to alteration by the powerful forces of heat and pressure that come from exposure to ultrasonic radiation.
As an example, we have all seen vinyl with multiple spots or areas on the surface that will not come off using a vacuum RCM, even if cleaned several times and with alcohol or other powerful solvents. Those spots may be dominated by carbon black, used to not only color a record but to make it more stable from static electricity. Those spots, as one example, could be altered by ultrasonic energy and that would over time permit oxidation in the site, leading to surface noise.
That is why I've reached out to the community, asking folks who have been at this for awhile to suspend judgement for a moment, to look, and report back here. I marvel at the creativity of some folks here and want to move in that direction. But I'm not prepared yet until my concerns disappear. I'm not particularly concerned about what one guy said, but if others have looked and listened, and are not seen anything, the last 0.2% of my concern will melt away, and I'll take the US plunge, as it were.
Thank you.
I'm just being cautious, that's all before I begin my DIY project. Conducting due diligence in all spaces, considering all facets and possibilities. I guess its my schooling and professional background as a geoscientist that brings that out. That and my love for vinyl records.
The long-term issue is not just alcohol. It is the fact that vinyl, while tough and resilient, is not a homogeneous slab. Vinyl as we know it is a mixture of chemicals, with up to 25% not bound up covalently. That means other additives are immiscible, not bound per se, and potentially subject to alteration by the powerful forces of heat and pressure that come from exposure to ultrasonic radiation.
As an example, we have all seen vinyl with multiple spots or areas on the surface that will not come off using a vacuum RCM, even if cleaned several times and with alcohol or other powerful solvents. Those spots may be dominated by carbon black, used to not only color a record but to make it more stable from static electricity. Those spots, as one example, could be altered by ultrasonic energy and that would over time permit oxidation in the site, leading to surface noise.
That is why I've reached out to the community, asking folks who have been at this for awhile to suspend judgement for a moment, to look, and report back here. I marvel at the creativity of some folks here and want to move in that direction. But I'm not prepared yet until my concerns disappear. I'm not particularly concerned about what one guy said, but if others have looked and listened, and are not seen anything, the last 0.2% of my concern will melt away, and I'll take the US plunge, as it were.
Thank you.
Last edited:
Nice, I'm also a geoscientist! The problem with high end audio/audiophiles is that nothing is ever actually tested, there is no science, and there are usually no experiments to back up what someone thinks. You basically have to just use your common sense as 99% of what you read on audio forums is just BS.
Not lost on me one iota, bbftx. I agree, and thank you. I thought their response was weak. I'm not going to buy their $5,500 machine. Yeah, show me the data. No one has. And the damage they allude to was erosion, which is eliminated in filtering.
I trust you will forgive me for being thorough, that is why I have put the proposition out here. I would not be down this road had I not been told by someone that they experienced issues. No paper, nothing to back that up. But it creates a small measure of doubt.
Is anyone willing to look at their earliest cleaned lps and tell all they are as terrific as the day they were first cleaned? That is all it takes to dispel the noise.
Last edited:
Hi Bend,
My early-URC LPs are as terrific as the day they were first cleaned, and one of them was played very recently.
I mentioned to you already in Message 1823 of this thread that I've been cleaning this way for years with no issues.
Cheers,
B B
My early-URC LPs are as terrific as the day they were first cleaned, and one of them was played very recently.
I mentioned to you already in Message 1823 of this thread that I've been cleaning this way for years with no issues.
Cheers,
B B
Bend, I say this with no malice but you're over thinking this. Since you seem to be investigating this down to the molecular level then you also need to bring in environmental and physical issues into play. Playing a record on a turntable without a cover where dust can alight and the stylus grinds it into the groove. The temperature and humidity of storage. Type of inner sleeve used and age of record with inner sleeve or no sleeve in a lot of cases. The quality of vinyl used in records especially older records where "recycled" pvc and whotnot were used. Pressing plant origin, previous cleanings, previous turntables played on etc.
Now for myself I have used Knitty Gritty, wood glue, power wash cleaning. All have been effective. I am sold on US cleaning. Been using it since I found this thread although I had been curious since early 2000's. I have had no issues with the records I have cleaned. Although I may employ several steps depending on the cleanliness of the record. Really dirty smutzy records still get a physical brushing as US at frequencies we are using will not get rid of chunks of smoo. Also dirtiest last with the possibility of a second cleaning with refreshed fluid.
One other note, I believe US cleaning also helps getting rid of some the vinyl flashing caused by scratches. The imploding bubbles can knock off some of the bits caused by scratches or scuffing. I would also like to point out that the US cycle ends once the record is out of the tank no residual process is continuing unless some invasive chemical used. I use 100% IPA, distilled water and a drop of Triton 100.
Equipment I have:
60 khz Sonix IV 6 & 9 QT cleaners
60 & 80 Khz 6 QT Vibrato cleaners
Knitty Gritty
Now for myself I have used Knitty Gritty, wood glue, power wash cleaning. All have been effective. I am sold on US cleaning. Been using it since I found this thread although I had been curious since early 2000's. I have had no issues with the records I have cleaned. Although I may employ several steps depending on the cleanliness of the record. Really dirty smutzy records still get a physical brushing as US at frequencies we are using will not get rid of chunks of smoo. Also dirtiest last with the possibility of a second cleaning with refreshed fluid.
One other note, I believe US cleaning also helps getting rid of some the vinyl flashing caused by scratches. The imploding bubbles can knock off some of the bits caused by scratches or scuffing. I would also like to point out that the US cycle ends once the record is out of the tank no residual process is continuing unless some invasive chemical used. I use 100% IPA, distilled water and a drop of Triton 100.
Equipment I have:
60 khz Sonix IV 6 & 9 QT cleaners
60 & 80 Khz 6 QT Vibrato cleaners
Knitty Gritty
Last edited:
Zg925: Thank you, no malice taken. I've realized for some time that my inquiry may be deemed ridiculous by those folks who have found the light, or the frequency, as the case may be. But I have done some investigating, inquiries, and ask folks I trust. For one, the cost to assemble the bits and pieces is more money than I ever considered spending to clean lps. I have a VPI17 that I purchased used 12 years ago. Now I considering spending more than double that on a different technology that I know little about. The few folks who believe they have seen issues, I have taken seriously, thus my follow up. So I thank you and bbftx and others for the "hand holding", I do really appreciate it.
Sonix IV no longer markets a 60 kHz machine in either size you note. I have called several sources, prior suppliers, and they tell me it is no longer available. Sonix IV shows on their website the machines, but beneath the image it says, either out of stock or no longer available. I suspect that since the company has shifted manufacture to China, those models were, at least for now, sacrificed. 40 kHz machines are available, an industry standard, while I'm looking at 60 or 80 kHz.
I've also communicated with Louis at Vibrato on their machines, as you show. The 6 L machines do not have a drain. Only the 10 L machines have a drain. As a result, I've asked folks here who own them whether or not they use a filtering system. Since there is no drain, how do they handle that. No one has responded yet. Do you use filtering, if so how on a machine without a drain?
Sonix IV no longer markets a 60 kHz machine in either size you note. I have called several sources, prior suppliers, and they tell me it is no longer available. Sonix IV shows on their website the machines, but beneath the image it says, either out of stock or no longer available. I suspect that since the company has shifted manufacture to China, those models were, at least for now, sacrificed. 40 kHz machines are available, an industry standard, while I'm looking at 60 or 80 kHz.
I've also communicated with Louis at Vibrato on their machines, as you show. The 6 L machines do not have a drain. Only the 10 L machines have a drain. As a result, I've asked folks here who own them whether or not they use a filtering system. Since there is no drain, how do they handle that. No one has responded yet. Do you use filtering, if so how on a machine without a drain?
Last edited:
Hi BB, a couple of comments related to your issues.
1) A siphon system will work easily to allow a filtering system to work - drain or not. Millions of aquariums filter the water in this fashion.
2) With regards to the concern over damage from US technology, consider that no record cleaning fluid has been tested except possibly the one from the Library of Congress. The vast majority of those fluids were formulated at the kitchen sink so-to-speak. No manufacturer has tested their fluids in regards to damage over the long term. They just put their fluids out there with wild advertising claims. (I happen to use the LoC formula for just the above reason).
Something like this even does surface skimming.
1) A siphon system will work easily to allow a filtering system to work - drain or not. Millions of aquariums filter the water in this fashion.
2) With regards to the concern over damage from US technology, consider that no record cleaning fluid has been tested except possibly the one from the Library of Congress. The vast majority of those fluids were formulated at the kitchen sink so-to-speak. No manufacturer has tested their fluids in regards to damage over the long term. They just put their fluids out there with wild advertising claims. (I happen to use the LoC formula for just the above reason).
Something like this even does surface skimming.
Last edited:
A drain could easily be added by installing a bulkhead on the bottom if there's room or low on one of the sides. I am actually thinking about adding a return to my machine instead of dangling a tube over the top.
Cleaning Solution
You may want to check out a cleaning solution marketed as "TergiKleen", designed specifically for Vinyl Records. It popped up on my Instagram feed one day. Here is the link on Amazon:
Amazon.com: Clean Vintage Vinyl Records Like A Professional Archivist With TergiKleen™ Tergitol-based Fluid Concentrate: Electronics
-Louis
You may want to check out a cleaning solution marketed as "TergiKleen", designed specifically for Vinyl Records. It popped up on my Instagram feed one day. Here is the link on Amazon:
Amazon.com: Clean Vintage Vinyl Records Like A Professional Archivist With TergiKleen™ Tergitol-based Fluid Concentrate: Electronics
-Louis
Thank you Louis. Your 6 L machine is high on my list, while I'm beginning to think 10 L with a drain is the ticket. But for the record (no pun intended) since some folks seem to think its the cleaning solutions that trouble me, its not that at all.
The issue–real or imagined–brought to my attention was the longer-term impact of ultrasonic waves on non-covalently bound elements of "vinyl" that over time, allow areas on the surface of the record to oxidize. The surface disturbance by USC (with any solution, including water) alters the chemistry of the record surface, manifest in a time frame of 4 plus years, or so it has been claimed. I'm not concerned about the cocktail.
The truth is I have zero proof, only know what I was told. One data point; that's all. On this forum, however, I recognized that dozens for individuals have been US cleaning their lps, some as a business venture, for years, with absolutely no reported incidents of the same.
I'm rapidly getting over the caution and moving on to what parts I need for a set up. Still, I've made the inquiry here and a few folks have responded. No issues have surfaced on their earliest US cleaned lps.
But the TergiKleen cleaning option looks like an interesting product.
The issue–real or imagined–brought to my attention was the longer-term impact of ultrasonic waves on non-covalently bound elements of "vinyl" that over time, allow areas on the surface of the record to oxidize. The surface disturbance by USC (with any solution, including water) alters the chemistry of the record surface, manifest in a time frame of 4 plus years, or so it has been claimed. I'm not concerned about the cocktail.
The truth is I have zero proof, only know what I was told. One data point; that's all. On this forum, however, I recognized that dozens for individuals have been US cleaning their lps, some as a business venture, for years, with absolutely no reported incidents of the same.
I'm rapidly getting over the caution and moving on to what parts I need for a set up. Still, I've made the inquiry here and a few folks have responded. No issues have surfaced on their earliest US cleaned lps.
But the TergiKleen cleaning option looks like an interesting product.
Last edited:
The cleaning system in use at my house is the Vibrato, LLC unit Louis sells with distilled water and Turgiclean. It does an excellent job. Most albums cleaned this way are very quiet indeed. That being said there are a few records that have been run through several times with little to no improvement after a point, so I’m looking for an add on device or cleaning solution for those extra stubborn records.
I’ve never considered filtering the cleaning solution/water as that would require more things to fiddle with, the need to store the solution, and various other minor inconveniences I’m unwilling to fool with. After a cleaning session simply drain the ultrasonic cleaner tank with an aquarium pump then wipe it dry. Even a siphon would do the job just fine if you had the cleaner on a counter and a bucket on the floor.
An easy way to build out the system for me was to buy the Vinyl Stack record holder/label protector. They are great quality and do protect labels perfectly.
I’ve never considered filtering the cleaning solution/water as that would require more things to fiddle with, the need to store the solution, and various other minor inconveniences I’m unwilling to fool with. After a cleaning session simply drain the ultrasonic cleaner tank with an aquarium pump then wipe it dry. Even a siphon would do the job just fine if you had the cleaner on a counter and a bucket on the floor.
An easy way to build out the system for me was to buy the Vinyl Stack record holder/label protector. They are great quality and do protect labels perfectly.
Hi mystic,
Not all record noise is related to the presence of dirt or impurities. There are noisy recordings, noisy pressings, and low quality vinyl that no amount of cleaning will fix.
Worn or damaged grooves will also result in noise that cleaning will not repair.
Based on my experience, if you've run a record twice through your cleaner, and the cleaner otherwise seems to give you good results, it's highly unlikely additional cleaning or an "add-on" device will improve things on that LP. It will always be a noisy record.
Good luck,
B B