I don't claim to be a guru. But show me some actual evidence of a cleaner record at 60kHz. There is currently none. Now very happy to accept there is a gigantic placebo amongst 60kHz owners...
To date the only direct comparison of the effectiveness of different US frequencies for record cleaning, that I have found, was by Zg925 in post #1317. Zg prefered his 60khz sonix to the vibrato 80khz and found both better than a 36khz chinese crap. Maybe 60khz is the sweet spot but, as they say in statistics, a sample of one does not a population make.
View attachment 535107 View attachment 535108 View attachment 535109
Have a look at these electron micrographs. I selected these three images as they all have scale bars. The particles appear to cover a size range from about 3um to 20um with the most common size being 10-15um. As you cannot fit an entire record into an electron microscope a small section is cut off, the method of cutting may create extra particles eg. sawing rather than shearing. A good microscope opperator would be aware of this and avoid contaminating their sample.The particles visible in these grooves are probably typical of normal record contamination.
View attachment 535093
Now have a look at bbs graph of effectiveness of particle removal. I assume that the size scale is logarithmic as 0.3um would be a strange lable otherwise. If this is the case then the point at which the 40khz and 80khz lines cross would be 3um. Even if the scale is linear the point at which the lines cross is only 5um. This suggests to me that a 40khz cleaner should be more effective at removing dust particles than an 80khz unit.
Are we falling into the trap of beleiving that the higher the number the better? We are human afterall.
However dust is not the only contaminant. A 80khz unit may be more effective at removing finger grease and mold release agent. It might be that a 40khz cleaner is best at reducing clicks and pops and 80khz at giving that extra bit of "air". Maybe 60khz would be the best compromise. On a value for money front 40khz has got to be the winner.
Or am I trying to convince myself that 40khz is better so I can save some cash? I believe I'm objective, but then don't we all.
Niffy
View attachment 535107 View attachment 535108 View attachment 535109
Have a look at these electron micrographs. I selected these three images as they all have scale bars. The particles appear to cover a size range from about 3um to 20um with the most common size being 10-15um. As you cannot fit an entire record into an electron microscope a small section is cut off, the method of cutting may create extra particles eg. sawing rather than shearing. A good microscope opperator would be aware of this and avoid contaminating their sample.The particles visible in these grooves are probably typical of normal record contamination.
View attachment 535093
Now have a look at bbs graph of effectiveness of particle removal. I assume that the size scale is logarithmic as 0.3um would be a strange lable otherwise. If this is the case then the point at which the 40khz and 80khz lines cross would be 3um. Even if the scale is linear the point at which the lines cross is only 5um. This suggests to me that a 40khz cleaner should be more effective at removing dust particles than an 80khz unit.
Are we falling into the trap of beleiving that the higher the number the better? We are human afterall.
However dust is not the only contaminant. A 80khz unit may be more effective at removing finger grease and mold release agent. It might be that a 40khz cleaner is best at reducing clicks and pops and 80khz at giving that extra bit of "air". Maybe 60khz would be the best compromise. On a value for money front 40khz has got to be the winner.
Or am I trying to convince myself that 40khz is better so I can save some cash? I believe I'm objective, but then don't we all.
Niffy
Great pics, Niffy.
While we want an ultrasonic cleaner to clean well ... cleaning effectiveness is not the only issue here. The 'elephant in the room' is ... is the ultrasonic cleaning process doing any damage to the HF modulations in the groove?
From what I have read, the bubbles are smaller in size as frequency increases - so they are smaller at 80KHz than 60KHz, and smaller at 60KHz than 40KHz.
There is at least one view I have read that states he heard something was definitely missing, in terms of HFs in one particular section of an LP that had been cleaned with an ultrasonic machine - hence my desire for a machine that has more than a 40Khz operating frequency, to minimise any damage.
Andy
While we want an ultrasonic cleaner to clean well ... cleaning effectiveness is not the only issue here. The 'elephant in the room' is ... is the ultrasonic cleaning process doing any damage to the HF modulations in the groove?
From what I have read, the bubbles are smaller in size as frequency increases - so they are smaller at 80KHz than 60KHz, and smaller at 60KHz than 40KHz.
There is at least one view I have read that states he heard something was definitely missing, in terms of HFs in one particular section of an LP that had been cleaned with an ultrasonic machine - hence my desire for a machine that has more than a 40Khz operating frequency, to minimise any damage.
Andy
Hi Andy
I've not personally found any reports of damage to vinyl using lower frequency ultrasonic cleaners. Earlier in this thread someone posted a report about destruction testing using a 40khz unit. A record was subjected to being left the cleaning solution for 200hrs with the ultrasonics being switched on for 70hrs of these. No deterioration was reported until the record was accidentally damaged whilst trying to photograph it.
The other test, I don't recall the source, involved cleaning a blue record for 20hrs straight and then examining the bottom of the tank for any blue deposits. None were found and the record played perfectly.
I don't think damage is going to be an issue with a 10 to 15minute cleaning cycle.
Cheers
Niffy
I've not personally found any reports of damage to vinyl using lower frequency ultrasonic cleaners. Earlier in this thread someone posted a report about destruction testing using a 40khz unit. A record was subjected to being left the cleaning solution for 200hrs with the ultrasonics being switched on for 70hrs of these. No deterioration was reported until the record was accidentally damaged whilst trying to photograph it.
The other test, I don't recall the source, involved cleaning a blue record for 20hrs straight and then examining the bottom of the tank for any blue deposits. None were found and the record played perfectly.
I don't think damage is going to be an issue with a 10 to 15minute cleaning cycle.
Cheers
Niffy
If you phrase it 'I'd love a 60Khz unit but cannot currently afford one', which is my situation then you don't have to worry about that
I read a thread on that on the VPI forum today whilst trying to see if there was any research on the topic. vpiindustries.com/forum • View topic - Record cleaning
Now this is the view of Harry, who I assume is Harry Weisfeld. After 20 pages he decides that as long as its a single 5 minute cycle he can't hear any change. Sadly no measurements.
Just to be clear: I am happy for there to be evidence that 60kHz does get out more grot. Just that getting that evidence requires access to equipment most of us lack.
Harry W. has good ears. But a test record with measurements before and after would be a good idea.If you phrase it 'I'd love a 60Khz unit but cannot currently afford one', which is my situation then you don't have to worry about that
I read a thread on that on the VPI forum today whilst trying to see if there was any research on the topic. vpiindustries.com/forum • View topic - Record cleaning
Now this is the view of Harry, who I assume is Harry Weisfeld. After 20 pages he decides that as long as its a single 5 minute cycle he can't hear any change. Sadly no measurements.
Just to be clear: I am happy for there to be evidence that 60kHz does get out more grot. Just that getting that evidence requires access to equipment most of us lack.
I doubt there are any measurable or audible effects at all---other than reduced noise---but that's just my suspicion. When you load expectation bias effects into a before-and-after test, the most likely result is to believe you hear a difference. If you look at the forces exerted when you drag a stylus through a groove, and compare this to the effects of relatively low-level solution-borne ultrasound, it seems an unlikely effect.
I had someone ask me if I would be willing to connect a grounded-cathode supertriode stage to someone's 5 kilobuck MC cartridge, because of the measurable grid current. I said sure, but I also would anticipate the cartridge owner saying that the cartridge never sounded the same afterwards. It's just human nature.
Whereas I'm happy to believe a 60Khz unit doesn't get out more grot ... but is gentler to the grooves.
Another advantage of the higher operating frequency is that you can put more LPs in the tank:
* at 40Khz, you need 1 1/2" clear either side of an LP, for maximum cleaning effectiveness (1 wavelength).
* at 60Khz, you only need 1"clear - so you can get more LPs in the tank.
* 80Khz is even better, in this regard.
Andy
If you phrase it 'I'd love a 60Khz unit but cannot currently afford one', which is my situation then you don't have to worry about that
I can run with that
Another advantage of the higher operating frequency is that you can put more LPs in the tank:
* at 40Khz, you need 1 1/2" clear either side of an LP, for maximum cleaning effectiveness (1 wavelength).
* at 60Khz, you only need 1"clear - so you can get more LPs in the tank.
* 80Khz is even better, in this regard.
Except a larger 40khz cleaner (or even 2 of them) is still cheaper than a 60khz one. I do get your point though, I am planning to only clean two records at a time in a 40khz, 6lt tank. That is if I don't go 60khz.
Niffy
I can run with that
Another advantage of the higher operating frequency is that you can put more LPs in the tank:
* at 40Khz, you need 1 1/2" clear either side of an LP, for maximum cleaning effectiveness (1 wavelength).
* at 60Khz, you only need 1"clear - so you can get more LPs in the tank.
* 80Khz is even better, in this regard.
Except a larger 40khz cleaner (or even 2 of them) is still cheaper than a 60khz one. I do get your point though, I am planning to only clean two records at a time in a 40khz, 6lt tank. That is if I don't go 60khz.
Niffy
I bought the wider Sonix unit - the 126. What I also bought (haven't got it all working, yet) is the motor/motor support and Dryer Cube, from David at ULTRASONICRECORDS.COM - Home ... so I can be cleaning the next 5 LPs whilst the first 5 are drying.
Andy
Andy
Using the same information as presented above, I concluded that 60kHz would probably offer the best compromise. But bear in mind that it is gets more difficult to achieve equivalent acoustic propagation and power the higher you go in frequency. Also, 60kHz and 80kHz transducers are at the same time less common and more expensive than the 40kHz type. As with everything in DIY, though, we have the freedom of choice. We can put together whatever system we desire (for the most part). We are only constrained by our imaginations and budget.
40kHz may not be the best frequency, but it is the most economical and most accessible for our purpose... and it works! (Let's not forget that!).
40kHz may not be the best frequency, but it is the most economical and most accessible for our purpose... and it works! (Let's not forget that!).
Is there a good reason why two different-frequency assemblies cannot be designed into a single machine,
and either one selected for use?
Last edited:
It is possible, but you will find that a particular transducer is most efficient at one specific frequency, so you'd probably need two. There are US cleaners that use multiple frequencies (or at least more than one frequency), but it is not like a loudspeaker driver which has a relatively broad pass-band... a US transducer will have a principle frequency at which it is most efficient, then a few other harmonically-related peaks, usually at much reduced efficiency.
The circuits used to drive these are also usually highly-tuned to the operating frequency, so a less efficient way of driving would need to be adopted to accommodate the wider operating range.
However, I did find one manufacturer (fellow forumite) who made an ultrasonic power amplifier based on class D technology for the purpose of driving ultrasonic transducers directly.
Louis from Vibratto is a wealth of knowledge as he worked for US company before forming his own. BBFTX has also been a great resource with all the articles he has shared as well as his own exploits with making a US RCM.
My experiences have led me to believe a cleaner in the 60 KHZ range may be the most opimal for general cleaning of records from swap meets, yard sales, thrift stores etc. The 80 KHZ cleaners are more optimal for an already cared for record such as one cleaned by a VPI, Knitty Gritty or other RCM's. (Again my opinion) I also believe number of records cleaned at once, heat and cleaning fluid coctail have as great an influence on the final outcome besides the frequency differences.
I also like the larger tank 9" x 12" x 6" deep which holds 9 liters. The smaller 6 liter units are ok but in the long run the larger tank wii be more beneficial.
I should add that I currentl own a Sonix IV 12 x 12 x 6 60 KHZ tank and a Vibrato 12 x 6 x 6 80 KHZ tank. The 36 KHZ Chinese tank I returned.
My experiences have led me to believe a cleaner in the 60 KHZ range may be the most opimal for general cleaning of records from swap meets, yard sales, thrift stores etc. The 80 KHZ cleaners are more optimal for an already cared for record such as one cleaned by a VPI, Knitty Gritty or other RCM's. (Again my opinion) I also believe number of records cleaned at once, heat and cleaning fluid coctail have as great an influence on the final outcome besides the frequency differences.
I also like the larger tank 9" x 12" x 6" deep which holds 9 liters. The smaller 6 liter units are ok but in the long run the larger tank wii be more beneficial.
I should add that I currentl own a Sonix IV 12 x 12 x 6 60 KHZ tank and a Vibrato 12 x 6 x 6 80 KHZ tank. The 36 KHZ Chinese tank I returned.
Last edited:
One trap that some folks fall into is equating 40khz machines with low cost and 60khz machines being high cost.
There are lots of cheap, crappy 40khz cleaners out there. And, there are some really good 40khz cleaners that, generally, cost more. The cheapies tend to have only 2 or 3 star reviews on Amazon and similar places. There are several reports in this thread of people returning cheap 40khz units. The price premium for a really good 60khz machine is not that much higher than a really good 40khz machine. But I fully understand that different people have different budgets. And different folks might interpret differently the extensive engineering writing regarding frequency choice in ultrasonic cleaning.
I'll also point out one additional factor that is important to me personally. I can easily stand being in the same room for an extended cleaning session on my 60khz machine. I've been around many, many noisy 40khz machines that make me feel like I'm chewing aluminum. This may not bother some people, but it's one feature of the higher frequency machines that I find to be a big advantage.
Good luck all,
B B
There are lots of cheap, crappy 40khz cleaners out there. And, there are some really good 40khz cleaners that, generally, cost more. The cheapies tend to have only 2 or 3 star reviews on Amazon and similar places. There are several reports in this thread of people returning cheap 40khz units. The price premium for a really good 60khz machine is not that much higher than a really good 40khz machine. But I fully understand that different people have different budgets. And different folks might interpret differently the extensive engineering writing regarding frequency choice in ultrasonic cleaning.
I'll also point out one additional factor that is important to me personally. I can easily stand being in the same room for an extended cleaning session on my 60khz machine. I've been around many, many noisy 40khz machines that make me feel like I'm chewing aluminum. This may not bother some people, but it's one feature of the higher frequency machines that I find to be a big advantage.
Good luck all,
B B
My parts list includes earplugs for this very reason.
It is difficult to ascertain what the actual quality of the different machines actually is. Some of the cheapest seem to get the best reviews and the more expensive ones not so good. Most of the 6lt Chinese machines look to be pretty much identical other than the case and controls.
I feel that 60khz probably is the sweet spot for record cleaning but is likely to be only marginally better than 40khz.
Niffy
Can anyone explain, from a mildly technical standpoint, why one US machine would function better than another (e.g. two 40kHz or two 60kHz machines)? What I mean is a comparison between two machines operating at the same frequency. The basics of a US machine seem pretty straightforward, and I'd think the only issues would be the bonding of the transducer to the tank and possibly the transducer's ability to propagate the frequency.
Is the generator and amplifier potentially part of the problem (if they don't generate a sufficient wave at the right frequency, I suppose that could affect things)? How about the tank material and thickness?
I'm sure there's a lot I don't know, so I'd love to hear some explanation. I too would hate the noisy machines, but I suppose if they are only in operation for a relatively short while, maybe I could live with it.
Finally, anyone wear ear protection when cleaning? If so, what?
Is the generator and amplifier potentially part of the problem (if they don't generate a sufficient wave at the right frequency, I suppose that could affect things)? How about the tank material and thickness?
I'm sure there's a lot I don't know, so I'd love to hear some explanation. I too would hate the noisy machines, but I suppose if they are only in operation for a relatively short while, maybe I could live with it.
Finally, anyone wear ear protection when cleaning? If so, what?
Last edited:
Hi carlp,
From what I can gather, from a mildly technical standpoint, the main difference between differences machines appears to be reliability and tuning. The cheaper units seem to have their generators built with components with little safety margin, eg using a 5watt resistor, in a location where the circuit is drawing 4watts, rather than a 10watt. I have found a couple of online repair agents who upgrade the components in the generators to improve reliability. Apparently the transducers themselves are not a major reliability concern.
This bit is conjecture. From what I gather each transducer is driven by a separate generator. A 6lt unit has 3 transducers and 3 generators, a 9lt unit has 4 transducers and 4 generators. If the generators are not tuned to exactly the same frequency you will get a beats interference between the different transducers. I believe that it is this interference that can make some units so grating on the nerves.
I have only heard 40khz units in operation and they can be unpleasant. I plan on using the in the ear earplugs as they are more comfortable than the headphone style ear defenders. I don't think that the sound is damaging to the hearing, just unpleasant.
Niffy
From what I can gather, from a mildly technical standpoint, the main difference between differences machines appears to be reliability and tuning. The cheaper units seem to have their generators built with components with little safety margin, eg using a 5watt resistor, in a location where the circuit is drawing 4watts, rather than a 10watt. I have found a couple of online repair agents who upgrade the components in the generators to improve reliability. Apparently the transducers themselves are not a major reliability concern.
This bit is conjecture. From what I gather each transducer is driven by a separate generator. A 6lt unit has 3 transducers and 3 generators, a 9lt unit has 4 transducers and 4 generators. If the generators are not tuned to exactly the same frequency you will get a beats interference between the different transducers. I believe that it is this interference that can make some units so grating on the nerves.
I have only heard 40khz units in operation and they can be unpleasant. I plan on using the in the ear earplugs as they are more comfortable than the headphone style ear defenders. I don't think that the sound is damaging to the hearing, just unpleasant.
Niffy
I have had my Sonix running with my cat sleeping on the chair nearby, and the cat wasn't bothered at all. It's also much quieter when there's records in the bath than when it's just fluid. I don't know what the 40kHz machines would be like, but I imagine that it would be pretty irritating.