My version of an Ultrasonic Record Cleaner

Tom,
On the pump/filter setup, I still use my surplus LittleGiant pump.

If I was buying now, I'd probably go with an RV water pump. These are generally 12V DC pumps that provide the right amount of flow and head capacity that would work fine in a URC setup. They make sense if you have a convenient way to supply 12V power.

Aquarium and coffee filters in general just aren't fine enough to do much filtering in a URC setup. There are a variety of sub-1-micron canister filters available now that are great options. I've seen 1, 0.5 and even 0.35 micron filters available. You just have to make sure your pump has adequate oomph to push water through the fine filters. I still use a 1-micron filter that fits in a 5" canister.

Best,
B B
 
Another pump/filter option to consider is the one used by Tima, especially his filter (cf. tima’s DIY RCM – follow-up #2: Compelling Changes - Improved Results - The Vinyl Press). The filter he uses goes down to .35 microns, which may be overkill but certainly is miles ahead of aquarium/coffee units.

As to the pump, you want something that can handle hot or at least warm water, and solar hot water pumps are ideal. This is the one I ordered for my build, at $24.50 - bayite BYT-7A015 DC 12V Solar Hot Water Heater Circulation Pump with DC Power Supply Adapter Low Noise 3M Head 8LPM 2.1GPM - - Amazon.com.

waldemar
 
I'm not able to test this myself yet, but a search in this thread for bayite indicates that wrinklestex and packgrog are using the same unit (that's how I became aware of it).

It seems to be best practice to run the filtration between cleanings, as the water flow is likely to (or confirmed to - can't remember which) disrupt the ultrasonic activity. bbftx does it that way, as I recall.
 
Since the option of pumps and filtration has come up anew, I might suggest folks read the post I made on page 197. I have followed Tima's build, using at first the same USC machine and his newly suggested 0.35 micron filtration system.

That filter system is the 10" Pentek housing with 3/8" in and out fittings, and the Flow Max FM-0.35-975 2-1/2" x 9-3/4" pleated filter. If I had it all to do over again, I would get the 1/2" in and out fittings.

The pump I use, highly recommended by the local aquarium shop, is magnificent and reasonably priced. It is the widely available Sicce Syncra Silent 0.5 pump moves 185 GPH. Using exactly the same set up as Tima, this pump moved the cleaning solution through the finer filter with absolute ease. No leaks, silent running. I also really liked how easy it was to put on the 1/2" hoses and to remove them. BTW, the local aquarium shop recommended this pump over the Eheim I was considering.

If not available at your local aquarium shop, this pump can be purchased here Syncra Silent 0.5 Pump (185 GPH) - Sicce - Bulk Reef Supply or on Amazon, where they secure a 4 star review, better than most pumps. The cost is $42 or so.

I looked into duplicating the exact pump and parts that Tima and other DIY'er have used. The drink dispenser pump is no longer available, and the NOS ones selling on eBay are outrageously priced.


The RV filter options I have not tried and those may be even better.
 
Last edited:
Thank you, BendBound - I think I found Tima's build info from your posting.

My concern with using any aquarium pump has to do with the water temperatures. Since does not seem to publish max temps (checked their website, cut sheets, etc.) but since most aquatic biosystems tend to stay relatively cool (below 100ºF/~39ºC) the pumps are not specced much beyond that, at least for all the ones I examined at my local aquarium shop. That's why I've chosen to go with a solar hot water recirc pump, specced to 212/100º through and 122/50º immersed. BTW, that also suggests that this pump, mentioned a few posts back, will handle a fair bit of heat dissipation on its own for continuous running, as long as it isn't immersed in water (high thermal transfer coefficient) that is itself too hot.

Again, this may be overkill, as you, Tima, and bbftx (and many others) are successfully using aquarium pumps. However, at this price ($24.50) and with these specs I'm happy to over-engineer things!

I think most RV filters don't get down to the sub-micron level. I'm using one here (we're currently teaching/working in Indonesia - our tap water comes from what WHO rates as the most polluted river in the world (and certainly top 10 when it's "clean"). I use an RV filter (Amazon.com: Camco TastePURE Inline Water Filter, Greatly Reduces Bad Taste, Odors, Chlorine and Sediment in Drinking Water (2 Pack) (40045): Automotive) to clean water for filling a Japanese sitting bath for my wife, and it only gets to 20 microns. And the water in the bath is green a day later...

For drinking water I use the Sawyer filters - .1 and .02 microns - with supplemental Katadyn activated charcoal filtration, and our water is clean and tastes good.
 
Hi Bendbound

Have you been running warm water through the pump? Did you check the gpm with the filter installed? The pump is close to 3 gpm.

Also is the .35 a big advantage over the 1 micron filter?Going to order the setup this weekend, figured I would get as much feed back as possible.

Thanks Tom
 
TomWh: Yes I am. I heat water to ~31-33°C. Sometimes the heat gets to 35°C.

I've experienced no issues with the pump I am using with a heated cleaning solution. The local shop that sold them had them on sale for $21. I actually purchased two at that price, one for a backup.

As far as the 0.35 micron filter, I cannot comment on the differences with a 1.0 micron option. I've only used the 0.35 micron option. But I was very pleasantly surprised at how effective the Flow Max filter is. That noted, the 1.0 micron filter is cleanable, and the 0.35 technically is not. I rinsed it anyway.

About two weeks ago, I cleaned 50 lps in one sitting. The liquid I mixed up stayed remarkably clear, no floating or suspended debris at all. After that cleaning, as noted in my earlier post, I was somewhat surprised at what was filtered out and remaining in the Pentek tank. This filter is effective. Tima has measured TDS and found it to be on the order of a few PPM. That is better in my option than filtering on commercial options, such as the block filter on the ADS or the smaller barrel filter on the newer "S" model Klaudio. But this is a DIY site and folks have been filtering for years.

If I were starting now, and a 0.1 micron filter option was on my radar, I would go that route. Given that level of filtration, one does not need to worry about particulates in the liquid. But given how much crap came off of 50 lps, I wonder how long such a filter would last.

Also, what I don't know is if Ilfotol will be filtered out at that level, highly unlikely but I don't know. Also, other adopters would need to comment on the effectiveness of pump options pushing the cleaning liquid through a 0.1 micron filter.
 
Last edited:
My RC set up

USC for the first run (1um filter/pump for maintenance every 5 Records) and immediate drying with the vacuum arm setup (no extra fluids applied)
 

Attachments

  • IMG_3872.JPG
    IMG_3872.JPG
    102.7 KB · Views: 461
  • IMG_3874.JPG
    IMG_3874.JPG
    86.4 KB · Views: 425
  • IMG_3875.JPG
    IMG_3875.JPG
    95.3 KB · Views: 427
The other day, a question surfaced from forum members about the operating temperature for a small aquarium pump that I use in my USC set up. I did not know the answer so I wrote to Marine Depot, a vendor. However, I framed the question at the temperatures I am comfortable using, up to 35°C. Here is their response:

Hello, Mike,

Thank you for your email.

Yes, the Sicce Syncra Silent 0.5 pump is safe to operate with liquids at those temperatures.

Please let us know if you have any other questions or concerns. Have a great day!

Felicia M.
Customer Support
www.marinedepot.com
1-714-385-0080
 
Last edited:
USC for the first run (1um filter/pump for maintenance every 5 Records) and immediate drying with the vacuum arm setup (no extra fluids applied)

Hah! Hadn't thought that attaching the pump DIRECTLY to the output would be feasible in the event of different thread pitch. That's hilarious, but presumably works just fine. I MIGHT be a little concerned about vibrations and direct heat transfer causing issues down the line, but hey, these pumps are cheap, so whatever works for you!
 
Recently there has been discussion here about temperature of the cleaning solutions used for USC of vinyl records. I wanted to share recent experience in my set-up. My USC system is a Vibrato 10-L 80kHz machine, a Vinyl Stack for 4 lps per session, a Sicce non-submersible aquarium pump (~175 GPH), and a Pentek 10" tall filter kit with Max Flow 0.35 micron filtering.

Based on the experience of others, and knowledge that cleaning is improved with higher temperature, I was setting my solution temperature to 30°C. Since temperature is a by-product of USC, the temperature rises further during cleaning, something I've monitored.

One batch of lps the solution temperature reached 34°C. In that batch was a VG copy of Quicksilver Messenger Service, original Capital Rainbow label lp, a garage sale find.

It warped. And three attempts at increased process time on a Vinyl Flat were unable to remove the warp. Since I have another better copy of the lp, the loss is minor, $1.00. But the experience serves as a lesson for how I will work to USC lps in the future.

I began to post on this forum quite late, December 2017 (see post #1822 on page 183). At the time I had consumed a massive amount of information about USC cleaning of lps. My primary concern about USC was to not damage records in my collection, for I knew the benefits of USC but also the risks in damage to the vinyl. See a series of posts and forum replies on my issue as I explored the option further. Ultimately that lead me to use an 80kHz machine because the smaller cavitation bubbles that in theory would be gentler on vinyl. At this point, I've cleaned well over 100 records with terrific results.

Bill Hart, owner of The Vinyl Press, notes (post #1991) that he published an article I wrote in early September on the history of the ultrasonic application to cleaning vinyl records. As I was researching USC of records for myself, I keep a record and notes of my searches. I ended up communicating with numerous important parties going back decades on the application of ultrasonic on vinyl records. I even solicited comments from some notables on this forum. Simply I got interested in the process and history, wondering why USC took so long to catch on. To keep my findings straight, I put it together in a narrative.

Most of the commercial machines to clean records have been around for less than a decade and really the bulk of them came to the market in just the last few years. One aspect I noticed is that even given the number of options, virtually no one was performing head-to-head comparison of machines, most of which are prohibitively expensive. That is why we all pursued a DIY option, right.

Eventually, I showed a draft of my findings to a few folks who remarked that it was a fascinating story. Bill Hart got a draft and asked me if I was willing to publish a tarted up version on The Vinyl Press. As you can see, he did just that. In my article, I tabulate in an Excel spreadsheet a list of all of the commercial and prototype options that I could find. With the assistance of Tima, who has three articles on USC of records on The Vinyl Press, I improved the spreadsheet. The information in it (see the article) I pulled together what I could find, no doubt quite incomplete. One aspect I noticed right away, however, was that no commercial option has a cleaning solution heating option.

Now I know way. Heat may clean records better but if you are not careful it can permanently damage your records. I've seen this commented on in other forums, perhaps this one as well.

Now I set my temperature to 28°C and if the temperature climbs to 31°C, I allow the pump to circulate the solution until the temperature declines to what I believe is a safe level.

Some of you undoubtedly have experience that you could share. The thread is now 200 pages long, and while I've read every single post, I can't recall who learned what. Anyway, that is my experience and it has informed my new cleaning protocol.
 
Last edited:
Most of the commercial machines to clean records have been around for less than a decade and really the bulk of them came to the market in just the last few years. One aspect I noticed is that even given the number of options, virtually no one was performing head-to-head comparison of machines, most of which are prohibitively expensive. That is why we all pursued a DIY option, right.

Member Golucid on the Audio Aficionado site did some head-to-head comparisons of several commercial machines:

Vinyl Cleaning: VPI + Audio Desk + Klaudio - AudioAficionado.org

One aspect I noticed right away, however, was that no commercial option has a cleaning solution heating option.

The KLAudio RCM actually has a small radiator (made by Koolance) and fan to cool the water if it gets too warm from the US cleaning process.
 
A post I made in early August (#1963), on page 197, I write, "Later on I will mention some issues I encountered with a USC machine made overseas." Today, I needed to process, so I typed out my experience as a form of catharsis.

Is anyone interested in a handful of lessons learned from ordering directly from an overseas vendor? If so, let me know by forum mail or directly here.
 
A 80kHz 10L USC: Why I Would Not Recommend Buying Directly From China.

Lessons learned:

1. PayPal, if you paid that way, on international orders over $750 requires confirmation receipt from the seller prior to reimbursement under their protection program. Full stop. No exceptions. PayPal also requires on international orders over $750 that the buyer pay for return of the product.

2. UPS, FedEx or DHL return shipping to China for a 25 pound shipment the size of a 10L machine with confirmation receipt costs between $500 and $600. If warranty work is being done, expect to pay at least another $160 to $200 return to you.

3. USPS completely loses tracking ability once the shipment enters China.

My experience, from my perspective. The seller may have a different version of what occurred.

Early this year, as I looked for a 10L 80kHz ultrasonic cleaner to build an lp cleaning set up, I evaluated every option I could find and narrowed the set down to three: Beijing Ultrasonic, Vibrato and Elmasonic. Some options folks discussed here were no longer available. Several US based firms no longer offered an 80Khz machine in 10L size. A few took manufacture to China. The Beijing Ultrasonic is obviously from China, the Vibrato is in the US and the Elmasonic is from Germany.

Considering budget, I was motivated by perceived value supported by reputation. After reading an USC article in The Vinyl Press on experiences with a Beijing Ultrasonic unit, I decided to contact the company. The price was ideal, according to the article, $350 delivered. The USC had variable output capability, temperature control and a drain valve. Based on a photo on the company’s website, build quality looked great.

I knew someone using the machine to get success. He purchased one last August directly from Beijing Ultrasonic. The transaction was smooth and easy. So I reached out to the company, asking for a price quote on exactly the same machine. The quote was $760 delivered ($596 for the machine, $164 for shipping). I replied saying the online price was listed at $368. The company owner responded that the $368 price was for a 40kHz machine, the 80kHz option was more expensive. The fellow I knew confirmed his machine was 80kHz, cost him $350 delivered. But I ignored this first red flag because even at $760, this unit was ~$280 cheaper than the next option, which did not have variable output capabilities. After settling a host of details, I ordered the Beijing Ultrasonic machine, using PayPal to complete the transaction.

The owner of Beijing Ultrasonic guaranteed date-certain delivery in late March. The machine did not arrive. With the order, I asked for but did not receive a tracking number. I never did get a tracking number for that segment of shipping. Weeks later the company owner emailed that his shipper made a mistake, the machine went to a vendor in Ohio. Then he asked me if I had a UPS account. He wanted to use it to reship the machine to me. Combined that was red flag #2 and #3. I declined to provide that saying it was his responsibility to get me the machine. Finally, the unit arrived several weeks later but no where on the package could I see anything about it coming from Ohio.

When I opened the box, I was greeted with a fabricated, welded tank that looked nothing like what my friend received and not at all like what was pictured on line in its nicely molded tank. The drain valve that the company specified at 3/8” was in fact 1.0”, not a significant issue once the right fittings are obtained. However, the tank’s drain was a welded, 1” diameter open hole. Obviously, build quality was an issue, red flag #4. Yet the machine did work. Later in an internet search, I learned that using distilled water in a welded tank eventually causes welds to fail. But at the time, I was blissfully ignorant of that.

It took a month more to get the Vinyl Stack (4 lp) stand since they were out of stock. But once I had that kit I put my system together and readied it to clean the first batch of records. Now came the real shocker. The internal tank dimensions was specified by Beijing Ultrasonic as 300mm. The absolute minimum had to be 298.5mm. What I received in this fabricated welded tank was 293mm. The stack of lps could not be immersed in the tank to clean them as designed. Critical red flag #5. The full weight of quality control issues crashed home in a machine I could not use.

The company owner had been quick to communicate with me up to this point, but when I told him we had a critical QC issue, I did not get a response right away and when I did, he offered absolutely no solution or dismay. I pointed him to our earlier correspondence and the fact that my only intended purpose for the cleaner was clearly laid out in advance of the order. Red flag #6 sent me to PayPal to file a dispute.

Once PayPal got involved, the owner eventually offered me a larger machine, way to big for my work space. But he required I pay to have it shipped, another $180 to $200. I said I would only accept a machine of the dimensions and built quality we agree to in March and still shown on his website. No response.

PayPal requires on any international transaction greater than $750 that the buyer pay for return shipping back to the vendor. I was not aware of that value trigger, but I knew I had to pay it to get reimbursed. I priced UPS, FedEx and DHL. I was floored, the quotes ranged from $505 to $595! Then it dawned on me. In effect, I had no real product warranty since the cost to simply return the machine was the same as the price of the machine. That sent me to USPS; that shipping option with insurance, tracking and postcard – not electronic – receipt verification was $156.

PayPal rules require also a confirmation receipt if the transaction value exceeded $750, mine was $760. And I had to pay for the return on an international transaction. It took PayPal several tries to get Beijing Ultrasonic to provide a return shipping address. When I saw it, I called PayPal. The address was not to Beijing Ultrasonic or the company owner, it was to an individual somewhere in the heart of Beijing that I never did business with and did not know. But it got worse, when I asked FedEx for a quote for shipping to that address, they could not find it. They used two computer systems to try to find that address and could not. I was advised that under the circumstance, they would not ship the machine. That sent me to USPS. USPS also could not find the address in their system but said they would ship it anyway, only once in China they completely lose tracking control. Again, I called PayPal customer service. Red flag #7.

This time I got a PayPal rep in the US. After explaining this surreal situation, I was told that I had to ship the machine back to the address the vendor provided. I pointed out that by so doing meant the shipment was being returned to someone I did not know, did not do business with, and had no contact information for. They acknowledged but said I had to do that anyway and suggested I take photographs of the shipment once labeled and addressed up. That done, the machine went back to China in late July and arrived about a week later.

Just as USPS said, tracking went into a black hole. Three weeks later, PayPal denied my claim because it was not received by the addressee. None of my calls to customer service gave me a better outcome: PayPal stuck to their policy that if a shipments’ value exceeded $750, confirmation receipt was paramount to settling the case in favor of the buyer. Red flag #8. I sure wish I knew that going in but it was my fault. Now I felt skinned for $916 and I did not have the USC.

Since I insured the shipment with USPS, I filed a claim, on-line. That process took another three weeks but eventually USPS denied my claim. In tracking the shipment for the claim, USPS learned the shipment was held up in Chinese Customs. USPS informed me that per Chinese law, the recipient or their agent was required to move the shipment through customs. That is why UPS, FedEx, and DHL charge so much to ship; they work to get the shipment through customs, something USPS does not do.

Armed with this new information on the shipment’s whereabouts, I asked PayPal to reopen the case. They did. Then in a brief to the point correspondence to PayPal, I pointed out that I had an issue that only PayPal could solve. Chinese Customs told USPS that I had to contact the recipient to tell them to clear the unit through customs so that the Chinese Postal Service could complete delivery. The issue was simple: PayPal provided me with an addressee I did not know, did not do business with, and had no way to contact. I added in my correspondence that Beijing Ultrasonic had no economic incentive to retrieve the machine, the address remained suspect, in my opinion, and at the hands of PayPal Beijing Ultrasonic was not the recipient anyway. And I asked PayPal to review the recorded conversation with the PayPal rep from the time of shipment. Several days later PayPal again closed the case in favor of the vendor since I could not show the delivery receipt. Red flag #9. Catch-22.

Now I am angry. When I tried to call PayPal, all I could get was a recording that said I had no case, it was closed. I found online a phone number for PayPal customer service and called that one. I got a rep in the Philippines. I made my point over and over again that PayPal had me trapped in a classic Catch-22. I told them it was a Catch-22 because of their rule that they will only pay a claim over $750 when a confirmation receipt was secured, but I could not get a confirmation receipt because of PayPal. I pointed out that PayPal provided the address and name of the recipient who I never did business with, did not know, and had absolutely no way to contact. Every time the PayPal rep tried to escape to the $750 rule and delivery receipt, I returned to this one salient point. How was PayPal going to solve that? The shipment will never be received, the vendor has no economic incentive to secure the shipment, and PayPal would not acknowledge that they unwittingly set me up to lose my money. So I put it to the PayPal rep point blank: if you are telling me that PayPal will never help me to get out of this situation, that PayPal washes its hands of my case, that PayPal will not deal with the vendor, just tell me that now so that I can move on.

That got me to a supervisor. I said the same thing to them, and I moved up the authority line. To their credit, they all seemed to understand my point and could see the circumstance for what it was. Eventually I got to a top manager in the call center. That manager got it. And said, this needed to go even higher up within PayPal. Finally, I’m talking to a manager in the US. Once there, I asked him simply to review the first three paragraphs of the note I had sent several days earlier. He got it. Once he saw that the machine was in Chinese Customers, he said this was no longer my problem. I had done what was required. We now know the addressee had elected not to retrieve the shipment and it was in China. PayPal had notified Beijing Ultrasonic (for the last time a day prior actually) to pick up the machine held in Chinese Customers. “Give me a few minutes”, he said, "PayPal is going to reimburse you." And they did. This exercise was a gut-wrenching, frustrating, bizarre, if not surreal exercise in near futility, but I was relieved. I was reimbursed.

Perhaps the core issue here was me seeking a “better" price. I purchased a manufactured ultrasonic cleaner directly from China. I now know better. I now know the costs involved to ship equipment, for example, in event of a warranty claim. I now know that if you go this route and there are issues and other costs, you are going to pay again and it may not end well. I know now that there are more to costs than stated up front. I know now what PayPal requires. My eyes are now open and I wanted to pass on to you my experience ordering a machine from a foreign vendor.

Several weeks ago, I purchased the US manufactured (it does have a Chinese made case) Vibrato 80kHz 10L USC. It's awesome.
 
Last edited:
What a sad story. The behaviour of the Chinese vendor was unacceptable - but PayPal's would appear to have been pretty bad too. :(

Can you tell me more about this troubling idea that using distilled water in a welded tank eventually causes the welds to fail? What are we supposed to use, then - tap water?

Thanks,
Andy
 
Andy: I read it the other day, but now I cannot find it. So it is quite possible I misread the paper.

Most tabletop ultrasonic tanks are stamped out, not welded together. Stainless steel is a great material, while if the weld has nickel in it, it may be more susceptible to erosion.

Distilled water is considered a preferred liquid for cleaning in an ultrasonic tank. Water is a terrific solvent.

The reason why this came up was I was researching if having welds in the US tank was an issue. I found a statement in my search that led me to believe it could be. As I mentioned, I cannot now find that citation.