Go Back   Home > Forums > >
Home Forums Rules Articles diyAudio Store Blogs Gallery Wiki Register Donations FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Analogue Source Turntables, Tonearms, Cartridges, Phono Stages, Tuners, Tape Recorders, etc.

My version of an Ultrasonic Record Cleaner
My version of an Ultrasonic Record Cleaner
Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 26th February 2015, 06:22 PM   #1001
Packgrog is offline Packgrog  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Philadelphia area
Interesting... if the Sonix IV tanks use lower power transducers, would it follow that only 2 records should really be done at once? Or is the ST136 a newer product than from when you worked there (it's listed as Input Power 180 Watts/1.5 Amp)? Proper spacing based on frequency has been discussed a bit, but not as much about transducer power.
  Reply With Quote
Old 26th February 2015, 09:34 PM   #1002
bbftx is offline bbftx  United States
diyAudio Member
 
bbftx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Austin, TX
Quote:
Originally Posted by Packgrog View Post
Interesting... if the Sonix IV tanks use lower power transducers, would it follow that only 2 records should really be done at once? Or is the ST136 a newer product than from when you worked there (it's listed as Input Power 180 Watts/1.5 Amp)? Proper spacing based on frequency has been discussed a bit, but not as much about transducer power.
Pack, sorry if my shorthand at the unit level, and Louis' interesting insider detail at the part level, has created confusion. The ST-136 has plenty of oomph to clean 3 records. I was providing rules of thumb based on the stats that a consumer sees: Average input power for the unit and number of transducers. The marketing material for Sonix specs "180W input power." Divided by the 3 transducers that's 60 watts input power for the whole unit, per transducer. Louis would have details of the actual part used and he was kind of enough to specify. There's additional power dissipation in the unit besides what the transducers deliver to the tank, which I attempted to mention in passing.

So, when a consumer is searching for options, and looks on the web at the available units for sale, he generally won't be able to see what specific transducer, and it's power rating, is in the unit. He'll generally see total input power, peak power and, usually, number of transducers. That is the frame of reference in which my note was written.

T.M. Associates has a good writeup written along similar lines, with its own set of guidelines based on total input power, rather than specific parts specs:
Questions and answers about Ultrasonic Cleaning
It too should give you comfort around 3 records in the ST-136.
Cheers,
B B

Last edited by bbftx; 26th February 2015 at 09:50 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 3rd March 2015, 02:56 PM   #1003
VibratoLLC is offline VibratoLLC  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Charleston, SC.
Default Power Ratings

When I worked for Sonix IV, I measured the output to the transducers themselves. Here were my findings at that time:
Voltage Output to Transducer= approx 600v
Current Output to Transducer=approx 60mA
Total Power Output to Transducer= approx 36 Watts

I say approximate because with a working ultrasonic, the waveforms and voltages jump around quite a bit, so these are averages.

Note: It is unknown if they have changed their design since I left.
-Louis

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbftx View Post
Pack, sorry if my shorthand at the unit level, and Louis' interesting insider detail at the part level, has created confusion. The ST-136 has plenty of oomph to clean 3 records. I was providing rules of thumb based on the stats that a consumer sees: Average input power for the unit and number of transducers. The marketing material for Sonix specs "180W input power." Divided by the 3 transducers that's 60 watts input power for the whole unit, per transducer. Louis would have details of the actual part used and he was kind of enough to specify. There's additional power dissipation in the unit besides what the transducers deliver to the tank, which I attempted to mention in passing.

So, when a consumer is searching for options, and looks on the web at the available units for sale, he generally won't be able to see what specific transducer, and it's power rating, is in the unit. He'll generally see total input power, peak power and, usually, number of transducers. That is the frame of reference in which my note was written.

T.M. Associates has a good writeup written along similar lines, with its own set of guidelines based on total input power, rather than specific parts specs:
Questions and answers about Ultrasonic Cleaning
It too should give you comfort around 3 records in the ST-136.
Cheers,
B B
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th March 2015, 09:30 PM   #1004
doublenaught is offline doublenaught  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Default VPI ultrasonic.

I just bought a new turntable and have been hanging out at the VPI forum. Harry Weisfeld has also been experimenting with ultrasonic cleaners. He believes in US cleaning with Photo-flo and detergent (no alcohol) followed by an ultrasonic distilled water rinse with a final vacuuming. He also prefers the Vinyl Stack style of record rotation.

00
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th March 2015, 07:20 PM   #1005
strader61 is offline strader61  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Washington state
Does the center label get wet also as the album rotates a full 360 ?
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th March 2015, 08:16 PM   #1006
doublenaught is offline doublenaught  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by strader61 View Post
Does the center label get wet also as the album rotates a full 360 ?
Hi strader61, If you're asking about Harry's set up, he's using the Vinyl Stack which has rubber o-rings protecting the labels. I believe he is also working on a double vacuum adapter.
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th March 2015, 08:45 PM   #1007
bbftx is offline bbftx  United States
diyAudio Member
 
bbftx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Austin, TX
Quote:
Originally Posted by strader61 View Post
Does the center label get wet also as the album rotates a full 360 ?
Hi Strader,
Label protection is prudent. This can be accomplished through a combination of design considerations.
First, slow rotation (as slow as 1 rev per 10 or 12 minutes), allowing most of the cleaning solution to fall off the record surface quickly as it rotates out of the bath. Second, a combination label protector and spacer that covers each label on both sides of the LPs. There are many DIY options for this part using items that have 4-⅛ to 4- inch diameter: large cork stoppers, round electrical covers with neoprene gaskets, coasters, rounds cut with a 4.5" hole saw from rubber or neoprene foam, acrylic disks, etc.
Cheers,
B B

Last edited by bbftx; 8th March 2015 at 08:56 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th March 2015, 04:05 PM   #1008
Packgrog is offline Packgrog  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Philadelphia area
I have not really needed label protection, given the slow rotation speed and addition of surficant (PhotoFlo in my case). The fluid rolls off or evaporates before it ever gets high enough to roll onto the label, thanks also in part to the vibration from the bath itself. I only ever notice beads of fluid after removing the records from the bath, and can easily touch those with a paper towel to soak them up away from the playing surface.

It WOULD be nice to have some better spacers, though. The large cork stoppers from the UK are cheap until you factor in the obscene shipping cost. :P
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th March 2015, 04:33 PM   #1009
Sprinter1104 is offline Sprinter1104  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Hi Packgrog, If you're trying to source the cork spacers from the US, they are available at Widgetco with $4.00 shipping on orders under $40.00.

Size 56 Jar Cork Stoppers, Standard
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th March 2015, 04:50 PM   #1010
Packgrog is offline Packgrog  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Philadelphia area
SWEET! Thanks for that! I'd tried looking for something domestic a while back but failed and ultimately forgot about it. $20 still seems like kind of a lot, but I believe is still better than what it would have been from that UK source last I checked. Cheers!
  Reply With Quote

Reply


My version of an Ultrasonic Record CleanerHide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ultrasonic Record Cleaner surfactant multirock Analogue Source 6 9th October 2017 11:30 PM
DIY Ultrasonic Record Cleaner - What Frequency to Use? DougB59 Analogue Source 4 9th July 2015 10:47 AM
ultrasonic record cleaner help j2d2 Everything Else 2 1st April 2015 10:42 PM
Looking to build ultrasonic record cleaner ErikPSmith Introductions 1 12th January 2014 07:18 AM
Ultrasonic Record Cleaner- any feedback Ianmac Analogue Source 7 13th November 2012 04:28 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:12 PM.


Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Resources saved on this page: MySQL 14.29%
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2018 diyAudio
Wiki