Nice job, BB. I like the solidity and cleaner lines of this version. Nice construction job, too. I like the ingenuity and accessibility of your original PVC pipe design, but given the cost of even the cheapest ultrasonic machines, I agree that a sturdier solution is worthwhile for the rotisserie part. This is a nice one.
Parts list for BB's Rotating Arm URC, Version 2
Greetings,
Attached is a parts list for Version 2 of my Ultrasonic Record Cleaning (URC) system.
The is an economical and sturdy setup to clean vinyl LPs using ultrasonic cleansing action.
Doing a quick add-up of the costs, it looks like I spent about $115 for parts, above and beyond the cost of the ultrasonic cleaner.
Adding the pump and filter detailed earlier in this thread adds about $50 in parts cost.
I'm happy to answer any additional questions about the setup.
Cheers,
B B
Greetings,
Attached is a parts list for Version 2 of my Ultrasonic Record Cleaning (URC) system.
The is an economical and sturdy setup to clean vinyl LPs using ultrasonic cleansing action.
Doing a quick add-up of the costs, it looks like I spent about $115 for parts, above and beyond the cost of the ultrasonic cleaner.
Adding the pump and filter detailed earlier in this thread adds about $50 in parts cost.
I'm happy to answer any additional questions about the setup.
Cheers,
B B
Audio Sample Before and After Ultrasonic Cleaning
Below is a link to a video with audio demonstrating some of the beneficial effects of ultrasonic record cleaning. The video is about 15 seconds long, and includes a 5 second clip of Streisand before ultrasonic cleaning and the same 5 seconds after the LP was cleaned in my URC machine. The left channel waveform is included in the video so you can "see" what you're hearing as the clip plays.
This is a typical result. The album is not a high quality pressing -- it's a run of the mill, circa 1980 pop LP. Before I recorded the "BEFORE" clip, I cleaned the LP with a discwasher brush. The album looked clean.
BEFORE: There are at least 12-14 audible clicks in the clip before ultrasonic cleaning.
AFTER: Only about 2 clicks remain after ultrasonic cleaning and I suspect they are probably damage to the vinyl that can't be removed by any cleaning method. Again, this is a pretty typical result in my experience so far. Good pressings that have been well cared for will have very few clicks to begin with, and the URC will remove each and every one!
Link to video:
Vinyl LP Before and After Ultrasonic Cleaning - YouTube
I've also attached to this post a picture of the left channel waveform before and after ultrasonic cleaning. Before is on top, After cleaning is below. Even without listening, you can see some of the benefits of URC cleaning.
Cheers,
B B
Below is a link to a video with audio demonstrating some of the beneficial effects of ultrasonic record cleaning. The video is about 15 seconds long, and includes a 5 second clip of Streisand before ultrasonic cleaning and the same 5 seconds after the LP was cleaned in my URC machine. The left channel waveform is included in the video so you can "see" what you're hearing as the clip plays.
This is a typical result. The album is not a high quality pressing -- it's a run of the mill, circa 1980 pop LP. Before I recorded the "BEFORE" clip, I cleaned the LP with a discwasher brush. The album looked clean.
BEFORE: There are at least 12-14 audible clicks in the clip before ultrasonic cleaning.
AFTER: Only about 2 clicks remain after ultrasonic cleaning and I suspect they are probably damage to the vinyl that can't be removed by any cleaning method. Again, this is a pretty typical result in my experience so far. Good pressings that have been well cared for will have very few clicks to begin with, and the URC will remove each and every one!
Link to video:
Vinyl LP Before and After Ultrasonic Cleaning - YouTube
I've also attached to this post a picture of the left channel waveform before and after ultrasonic cleaning. Before is on top, After cleaning is below. Even without listening, you can see some of the benefits of URC cleaning.
Cheers,
B B
Last edited:
Thanks bb; another great contribution to this thread! What hardware/software did you use?
In addition to "fixing" pops (or at least converting them to soft ticks), improvements in timbre, sound staging, and uncovering subtle performance details etc. are not-so-subtle benefits of URC. It's not easy to "see" these in the waveform plots. Perhaps expanding the time axis would reveal something. Otherwise, these effects are best revealed through playback on a quality system.
Before and after photomicrographs of the same section of grooves might be another way to display objectively the effects of URC.
In addition to "fixing" pops (or at least converting them to soft ticks), improvements in timbre, sound staging, and uncovering subtle performance details etc. are not-so-subtle benefits of URC. It's not easy to "see" these in the waveform plots. Perhaps expanding the time axis would reveal something. Otherwise, these effects are best revealed through playback on a quality system.
Before and after photomicrographs of the same section of grooves might be another way to display objectively the effects of URC.
How about running the audio files through ClickRepair and seeing how many corrections it makes? I'd be willing to to this as I recently bought the software (can't afford to build a cleaner yet but I'm am fascinated with this thread!)
Audacity and Click Repair
I use Audacity and Click Repair for digitizing. Click Repair works well and can remove more or less every click if you spend the time to edit each click and each recording so as to not wipe out some of the music. But that discussion probably is best left to another sub-forum, since this is the Analogue Source discussion!
I use Audacity and Click Repair for digitizing. Click Repair works well and can remove more or less every click if you spend the time to edit each click and each recording so as to not wipe out some of the music. But that discussion probably is best left to another sub-forum, since this is the Analogue Source discussion!
Quick Connect Spindles
Here is a post for those that want a quick connect and quick disconnect spindle for use on their URC, and who have access to a lathe.
There aren't many fittings for the small shaft sizes associated with record spindles. Some folks are using 1/4" stock for spindles, some, like me are using the spec. 9/32 size, for which there are almost no fittings commercially available.
It's relatively straight-forward to use a set screw in the spindle to hold onto the motor shaft. (The Herbach & Rademan synchronous motor I'm using has a flat on the motor shaft.) But, if you're using a bronze bushing as a bearing, the set screw won't fit through the bearing, as the shortest set screw available protrude outside the diameter of the 9/32 spindle.
So, you can leave your spindle on the URC and simply load and unload it with LPs. That is what I'm doing most of the time. But, I also have made a few quick-connect spindles that can be loaded and unloaded off the URC machine. This can be handy if you set up a drying station or a separate rinsing station if you're so inclined.
A photo of my quick disconnect spindle is attached to this post. There are two components.
First, my spindle has an offset pin that I machined. The hole for the motor shaft is drilled in the end of the spindle first (equal to length of motor shaft). Then, the spindle is offset from center in the lathe, and the pin is machined by turning down part of the spindle. The pin is half the length of the motor shaft.
The second component is a small disc, whose width is half the length of the motor shaft. Two holes are machined in this disc. The first is in the center and matches the diameter of the motor shaft. The second hole is offset from center and is machined to accept the offset pin on the spindle. A small set screw is used to hold the disc onto the flat of the motor shaft.
To use the the quick-connect spindle, you simply slide the end through the bushing / bearing and then match the spindle hole to the motor shaft and insert the offset pin in the offset hole on the disc. The second photo shows the quick connect spindle in place on the URC.
Cheers,
B B
Here is a post for those that want a quick connect and quick disconnect spindle for use on their URC, and who have access to a lathe.
There aren't many fittings for the small shaft sizes associated with record spindles. Some folks are using 1/4" stock for spindles, some, like me are using the spec. 9/32 size, for which there are almost no fittings commercially available.
It's relatively straight-forward to use a set screw in the spindle to hold onto the motor shaft. (The Herbach & Rademan synchronous motor I'm using has a flat on the motor shaft.) But, if you're using a bronze bushing as a bearing, the set screw won't fit through the bearing, as the shortest set screw available protrude outside the diameter of the 9/32 spindle.
So, you can leave your spindle on the URC and simply load and unload it with LPs. That is what I'm doing most of the time. But, I also have made a few quick-connect spindles that can be loaded and unloaded off the URC machine. This can be handy if you set up a drying station or a separate rinsing station if you're so inclined.
A photo of my quick disconnect spindle is attached to this post. There are two components.
First, my spindle has an offset pin that I machined. The hole for the motor shaft is drilled in the end of the spindle first (equal to length of motor shaft). Then, the spindle is offset from center in the lathe, and the pin is machined by turning down part of the spindle. The pin is half the length of the motor shaft.
The second component is a small disc, whose width is half the length of the motor shaft. Two holes are machined in this disc. The first is in the center and matches the diameter of the motor shaft. The second hole is offset from center and is machined to accept the offset pin on the spindle. A small set screw is used to hold the disc onto the flat of the motor shaft.
To use the the quick-connect spindle, you simply slide the end through the bushing / bearing and then match the spindle hole to the motor shaft and insert the offset pin in the offset hole on the disc. The second photo shows the quick connect spindle in place on the URC.
Cheers,
B B
Sorry I should have been more clear. In Ishmail's post (#244) it sounded like he was wanting to see some more information as to the benefit of URC.
I meant to use click repair as a measurement tool to see how much of a difference ultrasonic cleaning makes. Run it on the "before-cleaning" audio and the "after-cleaning" audio and compare the number of corrections it makes.
I meant to use click repair as a measurement tool to see how much of a difference ultrasonic cleaning makes. Run it on the "before-cleaning" audio and the "after-cleaning" audio and compare the number of corrections it makes.
Click Repair Error Count Before and After
Now I hear you optogy. Makes sense, sure. Here are the Click Repair results on a typical, short, 5 second clip. Same settings used in ClickRepair both pre and post cleaning.
Precleaning: 397k samples taken, 3500 repaired. 1 out of every 191 samples in left channel needed repair; 1 out of 279 on the right channel needed repair.
Post-URC cleaning, the results are better, as should be expected:
400k samples taken (roughly equal to pre number), 1516 repaired. Only 1 out of every 424 samples on left channel needed repair; 1 out every 700 samples in right channel needed repair.
Overall, I think the sound actually improves more than those stats indicate. In other words, a lot of the sheer number of samples repaired in either pre- or post- aren't really audible, but they still run up the count. I think a higher percentage of the audible stuff is removed by ultrasonic cleaning. This is readily apparent when I listen to the "Noise" track in Click Repair ---- the clicks and crackle are much,much more apparent on the pre-cleaning track.
Cheers,
B B
Now I hear you optogy. Makes sense, sure. Here are the Click Repair results on a typical, short, 5 second clip. Same settings used in ClickRepair both pre and post cleaning.
Precleaning: 397k samples taken, 3500 repaired. 1 out of every 191 samples in left channel needed repair; 1 out of 279 on the right channel needed repair.
Post-URC cleaning, the results are better, as should be expected:
400k samples taken (roughly equal to pre number), 1516 repaired. Only 1 out of every 424 samples on left channel needed repair; 1 out every 700 samples in right channel needed repair.
Overall, I think the sound actually improves more than those stats indicate. In other words, a lot of the sheer number of samples repaired in either pre- or post- aren't really audible, but they still run up the count. I think a higher percentage of the audible stuff is removed by ultrasonic cleaning. This is readily apparent when I listen to the "Noise" track in Click Repair ---- the clicks and crackle are much,much more apparent on the pre-cleaning track.
Cheers,
B B
Hi all, I've been following this forum since December '12, and am very enthused at the genuine team spirit and non-condescending replies from gurus BBFTX, Shaun, VinylAddict, Ishmail, kgturner, and others, to enquiries of naive startups (adding myself).
I have a motely collection of about 300 LPs since 16 years when I came to Canada, and have not played even a single one in all these years (!). I bought a Linn Sondek LP12 then, also not used. My reasoning is that since I want to record the LPs to CD/DVD with the best quality, I would wait until the technology is available to convert the music as losslessly as possible. I have settled on Blaze Audio and Audacity for the software portion. However, I believe that any cleaning process prior to recording from LPs must not involve any friction, even from brushes.
I thought of building my own US cleaning unit, but could not figure out how to keep the labels dry without clamping the LPs with label-clamps and immersing the entire LP in the medium, one at a time.
Thanks to the genius of the above named people (and also thosee included by way of "etc."), I like the idea of vertical immersion AND slow rotation of upto 3 LPs at once.
I have most parts but am awaiting delivery of the 3 rpm motor, the 12v pump and new antistatic inner sleeves.
I am using the central post and the cranked rack of a Giottos photo tripod to raise/lower the motor & spindle. Will post pics when thr unit is ready.
I would like to share an excellent way to save the labels - using the Moen Basket Strainer Gasket (M8910) from the plumbing supplies at Home Depot. Each is a set of 1 black rubber gasket and 1 plastics white friction washer. The rubber is very good quality and is actually meant to provide a seal. Cost is about $2.xx per pack, and 6 are needed to face up to 3 LPs. I bought 12 inch sheets of cork from the dollar store and cut 20x 4.25 inch discs to form 4 sets of spacers for the LPs.
By the way, I am also going to use a -type vacuum made by converting a cheap Technics DD turntable, to extract the last traces of moisture after the US cleaning cycle.
Hope I have not caused drowsiness in any of you, and I hope my suggestions of using a camera tripod raising/lowering mechanism and the Moen rubber rings will be useful to someone who is keen on customising a new build.
I have a motely collection of about 300 LPs since 16 years when I came to Canada, and have not played even a single one in all these years (!). I bought a Linn Sondek LP12 then, also not used. My reasoning is that since I want to record the LPs to CD/DVD with the best quality, I would wait until the technology is available to convert the music as losslessly as possible. I have settled on Blaze Audio and Audacity for the software portion. However, I believe that any cleaning process prior to recording from LPs must not involve any friction, even from brushes.
I thought of building my own US cleaning unit, but could not figure out how to keep the labels dry without clamping the LPs with label-clamps and immersing the entire LP in the medium, one at a time.
Thanks to the genius of the above named people (and also thosee included by way of "etc."), I like the idea of vertical immersion AND slow rotation of upto 3 LPs at once.
I have most parts but am awaiting delivery of the 3 rpm motor, the 12v pump and new antistatic inner sleeves.
I am using the central post and the cranked rack of a Giottos photo tripod to raise/lower the motor & spindle. Will post pics when thr unit is ready.
I would like to share an excellent way to save the labels - using the Moen Basket Strainer Gasket (M8910) from the plumbing supplies at Home Depot. Each is a set of 1 black rubber gasket and 1 plastics white friction washer. The rubber is very good quality and is actually meant to provide a seal. Cost is about $2.xx per pack, and 6 are needed to face up to 3 LPs. I bought 12 inch sheets of cork from the dollar store and cut 20x 4.25 inch discs to form 4 sets of spacers for the LPs.
By the way, I am also going to use a -type vacuum made by converting a cheap Technics DD turntable, to extract the last traces of moisture after the US cleaning cycle.
Hope I have not caused drowsiness in any of you, and I hope my suggestions of using a camera tripod raising/lowering mechanism and the Moen rubber rings will be useful to someone who is keen on customising a new build.
Rack and Spur Gears
Hi Edwin,
I can't wait to see photos of your completed setup. I like the gasket idea and the crank rack method of raising and lowering the spindle!
If anyone is interested in buying rack and spur gears to build such a setup from basic parts instead of using an old tripod, McMaster Carr has a good selection of plastic racks and gears at reasonable prices.
McMaster-Carr Molded Nylon Spur Gears and Racks
Cheers,
B B
Hi Edwin,
I can't wait to see photos of your completed setup. I like the gasket idea and the crank rack method of raising and lowering the spindle!
If anyone is interested in buying rack and spur gears to build such a setup from basic parts instead of using an old tripod, McMaster Carr has a good selection of plastic racks and gears at reasonable prices.
McMaster-Carr Molded Nylon Spur Gears and Racks
Cheers,
B B
i would also like to know as i can have Stainless Steel tanks made up to any shape or size i want.
For the size of tanks most are using here, 3 actuators mounted on the bottom surface is typical. Some might have one more or less. My Gemoro cleaner has 3 actuators mounted in a row, each on a circular protrusion (when viewed from outside the tank) that is formed into the bottom of the tank. Presumably, the protrusions stiffen the floor of the tank and are intended to tune the overall dynamic response of the ultrasonic system.
It might have been earlier in this thread or perhaps a different one, but one poster advised against building your own ultrasonic device because it would require careful tuning of the whole system for efficiency and to get an even power distribution throughout the bath. The tuning must cover the dynamic response of the tank, the water in it, the actuators themselves, the attachment of the actuators to the tank, and perhaps more. Getting all this right might not be so easy to diy. I tend to agree with this advice unless you have special expertise in this area or would enjoy the exercise for its own sake.
By the way, welcome to the recently joined posters.
It might have been earlier in this thread or perhaps a different one, but one poster advised against building your own ultrasonic device because it would require careful tuning of the whole system for efficiency and to get an even power distribution throughout the bath. The tuning must cover the dynamic response of the tank, the water in it, the actuators themselves, the attachment of the actuators to the tank, and perhaps more. Getting all this right might not be so easy to diy. I tend to agree with this advice unless you have special expertise in this area or would enjoy the exercise for its own sake.
By the way, welcome to the recently joined posters.
Kodak Photo Flo 200 alternatives
Amazon no longer carries Kodak Photo Flo 200, and bhphotovideo.com is sold out at the moment. On the other hand, freestylephoto.biz was sold out, but now has more of the Kodak product available. I don't know whether all this is a fluke, or a sign that Photo Flo will become increasingly difficult to obtain in the wake of the Kodak bankruptcy. If a shortage does develop, freestylephoto.biz offers a photo flo clone at a slightly lower price called LegacyPro 200 Wetting Agent. This appears to be a suitable substitute, but I have not tried it.
I'm currently exploring alternatives to the Alconox detergents I've been testing to date (I'll post more on these later --- they have strengths and weaknesses). Of course one of the options is the Photo flo + IPA formula that most folks on this thread are using. The MSDS for Photo Flo 200 reveals that its main ingredients are the surfactant, Triton X-114 (CAS 9036-19-5), at 5-10% and propylene glycol (used for de-icing airplanes among other things) at 25-30%. I'm not sure what the propylene glycol's intended function is in the photography application (possibly a stabilizer), but I think the Triton X-114 is the ingredient we're most interested in. If anyone has information to the contrary, please let me know.
You will mostly find positive reports around the web from people who use Photo Flo for record cleaning, but there are some who claim it should never be used because it leaves residues that either compromise sound or even damage vinyl over time. While it's true that these ingredients have very slow evaporation rates, and this implies some form of residual film, I'm not convinced that anyone has demonstrated any negative effects in practice, especially at the very low concentrations proposed in this thread. On the other hand, getting Triton X-114 without the propylene glycol (described as a sticky liquid at room temp.) would seem to be a good thing. A product called Arista Flo Wetting Agent, also available at freestylephoto.biz in 4oz and 16oz bottles, provides exactly this. The Arista Flo MSDS only lists Triton X-114 at 20-30% concentration, and it contains no propylene glycol. I think this product should be of interest to followers of this thread who use the no-rinse approach to ultrasonic cleaning.
In fact, I was on the verge of ordering the Arista Flo product, but then was tempted to try the Library of Congress recipe based on Tergitol 15-S-7. This surfactant is not readily available unless you're associated with a lab or a suitable business. If I'm unable to obtain it, I'll order some Arista Flo instead.
Amazon no longer carries Kodak Photo Flo 200, and bhphotovideo.com is sold out at the moment. On the other hand, freestylephoto.biz was sold out, but now has more of the Kodak product available. I don't know whether all this is a fluke, or a sign that Photo Flo will become increasingly difficult to obtain in the wake of the Kodak bankruptcy. If a shortage does develop, freestylephoto.biz offers a photo flo clone at a slightly lower price called LegacyPro 200 Wetting Agent. This appears to be a suitable substitute, but I have not tried it.
I'm currently exploring alternatives to the Alconox detergents I've been testing to date (I'll post more on these later --- they have strengths and weaknesses). Of course one of the options is the Photo flo + IPA formula that most folks on this thread are using. The MSDS for Photo Flo 200 reveals that its main ingredients are the surfactant, Triton X-114 (CAS 9036-19-5), at 5-10% and propylene glycol (used for de-icing airplanes among other things) at 25-30%. I'm not sure what the propylene glycol's intended function is in the photography application (possibly a stabilizer), but I think the Triton X-114 is the ingredient we're most interested in. If anyone has information to the contrary, please let me know.
You will mostly find positive reports around the web from people who use Photo Flo for record cleaning, but there are some who claim it should never be used because it leaves residues that either compromise sound or even damage vinyl over time. While it's true that these ingredients have very slow evaporation rates, and this implies some form of residual film, I'm not convinced that anyone has demonstrated any negative effects in practice, especially at the very low concentrations proposed in this thread. On the other hand, getting Triton X-114 without the propylene glycol (described as a sticky liquid at room temp.) would seem to be a good thing. A product called Arista Flo Wetting Agent, also available at freestylephoto.biz in 4oz and 16oz bottles, provides exactly this. The Arista Flo MSDS only lists Triton X-114 at 20-30% concentration, and it contains no propylene glycol. I think this product should be of interest to followers of this thread who use the no-rinse approach to ultrasonic cleaning.
In fact, I was on the verge of ordering the Arista Flo product, but then was tempted to try the Library of Congress recipe based on Tergitol 15-S-7. This surfactant is not readily available unless you're associated with a lab or a suitable business. If I'm unable to obtain it, I'll order some Arista Flo instead.
Ethylene glycol is used in anti-freeze in your car. Propylene glycol is used in food all the time. Either one has a fairly high viscosity so I am not sure why you would use them and they are both sticky and oily but would work as a lubricant. I would think that there are any number of surfactants that could be used to break the surface tension of the dirt you are trying to remove. DI water and alcohol at a low concentration would be the rest of the solution. If I remember correctly one of the surfactants used in dish washer detergent is a little bit of cyanide.
I directed them over here from the Blowtorch II thread, I hope you don't mind. And I hope that we can keep on topic, this thread has been excellent so far - as Esaldanha so correctly points out above.
BTW, I agree on the BUY vs DIY on this. I really wanted to build the ultrasonic tank from scratch to save money, but looking at the cost of the parts there was no point. Has anyone found otherwise?