BB's URC Filter
I have added a working filter setup that should essentially let one clean as many records as they can imagine with a single batch of cleaning solution in a URC. The pump and filter can be operated between ultrasonic cleaning cycles or even while the URC is being operated!
The key components are:
•a nice little fan cooled, very quiet, inline, centrifugal pump originally designed for use in beverage dispensers. $15 from SurplusCenter.
•heavy duty 4x4x4 electrical junction box used as a pump housing $10
•1 micron polypropylene 2.5"x5" filter used in small home water systems $3
•5" filter housing used in small home water systems $12
With fittings, cords, and tubing, the setup cost about $50 in parts. A little more than I envisioned originally, and probably only worth it if you're going to clean LOTS of records and want to save money on your cleaning solution. But it's a fun project for a tinkerer like me.
I first considered using a small aquarium pump and filter combination. But I soon found out that the inexpensive filters used in aquariums are usually 50 to 120 micron foam filters, which wouldn't trap ANYTHING that we'd clean off an LP! And once you start looking at finer filters, in the 1 micron range, you need a more powerful pump that can deliver more pressure.
While the specs for my pump claim almost 1 gallon per minute flow rate or more if the pump is working against 5 ft of head or less, I'm finding the flow rate in my setup is about 1/2 gpm. This is plenty for the 5 or 6 quarts of liquid in my URC system. It only takes about 3 minutes to pump 6 quarts of fluid through the filter. I will point out that the added volume of the filter housing and tubing require about 2.5 cups of additional volume of your cleaning solution. The pump's liquid temperature limit is stated as 120°F, which is coincidentally, also the max limit I've set for the solution in my system.
I drilled vent holes in my pump box to feed cool air to the motor cooling fan. Along, with a picture of the pump and motor, one of the accompanying photos shows the holes being drilled in the pump box.
I've also filmed a 30 second video which will show you my setup, give you an idea of the flow rate achieved, and will let you hear how quiet this particular pump is. The pump intake receives cleaning solution from the ultrasonic cleaner tank drain via the blue tubing. The pump outlet connects to the filter intake. The filter outlet goes through flexible tubing back into the tank.
The video is on Youtube at:
URC Filter Demo
I'll update my parts list in the near future to provide details on the parts I used for this setup.
[Side Note: One could conceivably use activated carbon filter made for the same filter housing I'm using, which would adsorb (not absorb) chemicals that a mechanical filter like the polypropylene filter I am starting with, can't. However, there is a higher pressure drop across an activated carbon filter, and I'm doubtful the pump I'm using could handle that. A carbon filter wouldn't be appropriate for some record cleaning solutions. Example: a carbon filter would strip out most detergents in a detergent-based record solution. However, it should let isopropyl alcohol in water pass, as well as the tiny bit of Photo-Flo I use, which is essentially propylene glycol. I'll probably buy a carbon filter for this setup and see how it works.]
Cheers,
B B
I have added a working filter setup that should essentially let one clean as many records as they can imagine with a single batch of cleaning solution in a URC. The pump and filter can be operated between ultrasonic cleaning cycles or even while the URC is being operated!
The key components are:
•a nice little fan cooled, very quiet, inline, centrifugal pump originally designed for use in beverage dispensers. $15 from SurplusCenter.
•heavy duty 4x4x4 electrical junction box used as a pump housing $10
•1 micron polypropylene 2.5"x5" filter used in small home water systems $3
•5" filter housing used in small home water systems $12
With fittings, cords, and tubing, the setup cost about $50 in parts. A little more than I envisioned originally, and probably only worth it if you're going to clean LOTS of records and want to save money on your cleaning solution. But it's a fun project for a tinkerer like me.
I first considered using a small aquarium pump and filter combination. But I soon found out that the inexpensive filters used in aquariums are usually 50 to 120 micron foam filters, which wouldn't trap ANYTHING that we'd clean off an LP! And once you start looking at finer filters, in the 1 micron range, you need a more powerful pump that can deliver more pressure.
While the specs for my pump claim almost 1 gallon per minute flow rate or more if the pump is working against 5 ft of head or less, I'm finding the flow rate in my setup is about 1/2 gpm. This is plenty for the 5 or 6 quarts of liquid in my URC system. It only takes about 3 minutes to pump 6 quarts of fluid through the filter. I will point out that the added volume of the filter housing and tubing require about 2.5 cups of additional volume of your cleaning solution. The pump's liquid temperature limit is stated as 120°F, which is coincidentally, also the max limit I've set for the solution in my system.
I drilled vent holes in my pump box to feed cool air to the motor cooling fan. Along, with a picture of the pump and motor, one of the accompanying photos shows the holes being drilled in the pump box.
I've also filmed a 30 second video which will show you my setup, give you an idea of the flow rate achieved, and will let you hear how quiet this particular pump is. The pump intake receives cleaning solution from the ultrasonic cleaner tank drain via the blue tubing. The pump outlet connects to the filter intake. The filter outlet goes through flexible tubing back into the tank.
The video is on Youtube at:
URC Filter Demo
I'll update my parts list in the near future to provide details on the parts I used for this setup.
[Side Note: One could conceivably use activated carbon filter made for the same filter housing I'm using, which would adsorb (not absorb) chemicals that a mechanical filter like the polypropylene filter I am starting with, can't. However, there is a higher pressure drop across an activated carbon filter, and I'm doubtful the pump I'm using could handle that. A carbon filter wouldn't be appropriate for some record cleaning solutions. Example: a carbon filter would strip out most detergents in a detergent-based record solution. However, it should let isopropyl alcohol in water pass, as well as the tiny bit of Photo-Flo I use, which is essentially propylene glycol. I'll probably buy a carbon filter for this setup and see how it works.]
Cheers,
B B
Last edited:
Updated Ultrasonic Record Cleaner Parts List
Glad you liked the filter implementation, addict. Thanks.
Attached is an updated parts list for the ultrasonic record cleaner project, including parts for the filter system.
I'm also including a couple of photos showing how I used PCB adhesive mounts to install the pump in the pump housing.
B B
Glad you liked the filter implementation, addict. Thanks.
Attached is an updated parts list for the ultrasonic record cleaner project, including parts for the filter system.
I'm also including a couple of photos showing how I used PCB adhesive mounts to install the pump in the pump housing.
B B
Ultrasonic Record Cleaner Loading and Operation Video
I put together a less than 2 minute video to show the loading and operation of my Ultrasonic Record Cleaner. It's on YouTube at this link:
URC Loading and operation - YouTube
B B
I put together a less than 2 minute video to show the loading and operation of my Ultrasonic Record Cleaner. It's on YouTube at this link:
URC Loading and operation - YouTube
B B
My sincere thanks to bbftx
Don't know how I came across this thread but I am glad I did.
Once I read through it my records seem to be noisier than ever!
Funny how knowing there is a solution to a problem makes you more sensitive to the ticks and pops.
Read through it again and decided to jump in. Ordered a machine (due tomorrow) the corks from the UK and the motor from the source you specified.
THANKS for your work on this. I have tried all of the record cleaning schemes, well, not a KEITH MONKS, but ... this one makes the most sense to me along with being affordable.
Can't wait to hear some clean records.
Also, looking forward to hearing more about your detergent experiments.
I have some diskdoctor cleaner which I have been using with George Merrill's water jet method. Do you think this could work with the ultrasound - have you tried it?
So for someone starting out what do you recommend - ALCONOX, TRITON x, or ....
Thanks, again.
Don't know how I came across this thread but I am glad I did.
Once I read through it my records seem to be noisier than ever!
Funny how knowing there is a solution to a problem makes you more sensitive to the ticks and pops.
Read through it again and decided to jump in. Ordered a machine (due tomorrow) the corks from the UK and the motor from the source you specified.
THANKS for your work on this. I have tried all of the record cleaning schemes, well, not a KEITH MONKS, but ... this one makes the most sense to me along with being affordable.
Can't wait to hear some clean records.
Also, looking forward to hearing more about your detergent experiments.
I have some diskdoctor cleaner which I have been using with George Merrill's water jet method. Do you think this could work with the ultrasound - have you tried it?
So for someone starting out what do you recommend - ALCONOX, TRITON x, or ....
Thanks, again.
Cleaning Solutions
Hi Rick,
As far as cleaning solutions go, I'm convinced at this point that "less is more." Water alone works OK, but the cleaning is improved a lot with just a little pure isopropyl, which leaves no residue, and a bare minimum of a surfactant or detergent. I think Photo-Flo, Triton-X, Alconox, or Liqui-nox (liquid version of Alconox), are probably all fine, but I'd use as little as possible of any of those. A few drops is generally optimal. I think the optimal amount may depend a little bit on the water you use.
I have only used photo-flo, and too much of that, like anything, will leave a residue I think. But at the recommended dilution amount or below (200:1 on the bottle, or 1500:1 in my current mixture) there is no residue. At least, that's what the photographic film folks say, and they are probably even more sensitive to the residue issue (messing up photos) than audio folks.
Liquinox has a shelf life of a year, so it may be best to use Alconox powder if you go that route. But I'd use a lot less than what someone might use for cleaning medical instruments in an ultrasonic cleaner, for example. A strong detergent mixture just isn't needed for cleaning the typical LP.
Another reason to not use much surfactant or detergent is to possibly eliminate the need for a rinse step. Again, the photo guys will tell you that even distilled water rinses can leave spots (i.e. residue!). Whether the spots are the result of impurities that come in the water (nothing is "pure"), or whether air dust is attracted to the distilled water drying on the surface, I don't know. But a little surfactant, just a little, allows most of the solution to run off the record, and what remains evaporates quickly, miniming dust attraction while the LP is wet.
I think the addition of a filter is also probably required if you're not going to do a rinse step. That's a big reason why I added my filter setup.
Disc doctor cleaning fluid is just an expensive version of what I'm mixing myself. Disc Doctor is pure water, some surfactant, and propanol.
As far as noise, recognize that nothing is a cure-all. There are some noisy records out there that no amount of cleaning will completely fix. A record cleaning system can reduce surface noise and ticks or pops from dust particles on the record, but it can't fix scratches, and it can't fix LPs that were recorded with lots of tape or electrical noise in the background. I've found a few records that are still disappointingly noisy after a run through the URC, but I'm convinced that it's not because there are any impurities left on the LP. But the vast majority of my records are definitely improved by this cleaning method.
Hi Rick,
As far as cleaning solutions go, I'm convinced at this point that "less is more." Water alone works OK, but the cleaning is improved a lot with just a little pure isopropyl, which leaves no residue, and a bare minimum of a surfactant or detergent. I think Photo-Flo, Triton-X, Alconox, or Liqui-nox (liquid version of Alconox), are probably all fine, but I'd use as little as possible of any of those. A few drops is generally optimal. I think the optimal amount may depend a little bit on the water you use.
I have only used photo-flo, and too much of that, like anything, will leave a residue I think. But at the recommended dilution amount or below (200:1 on the bottle, or 1500:1 in my current mixture) there is no residue. At least, that's what the photographic film folks say, and they are probably even more sensitive to the residue issue (messing up photos) than audio folks.
Liquinox has a shelf life of a year, so it may be best to use Alconox powder if you go that route. But I'd use a lot less than what someone might use for cleaning medical instruments in an ultrasonic cleaner, for example. A strong detergent mixture just isn't needed for cleaning the typical LP.
Another reason to not use much surfactant or detergent is to possibly eliminate the need for a rinse step. Again, the photo guys will tell you that even distilled water rinses can leave spots (i.e. residue!). Whether the spots are the result of impurities that come in the water (nothing is "pure"), or whether air dust is attracted to the distilled water drying on the surface, I don't know. But a little surfactant, just a little, allows most of the solution to run off the record, and what remains evaporates quickly, miniming dust attraction while the LP is wet.
I think the addition of a filter is also probably required if you're not going to do a rinse step. That's a big reason why I added my filter setup.
Disc doctor cleaning fluid is just an expensive version of what I'm mixing myself. Disc Doctor is pure water, some surfactant, and propanol.
As far as noise, recognize that nothing is a cure-all. There are some noisy records out there that no amount of cleaning will completely fix. A record cleaning system can reduce surface noise and ticks or pops from dust particles on the record, but it can't fix scratches, and it can't fix LPs that were recorded with lots of tape or electrical noise in the background. I've found a few records that are still disappointingly noisy after a run through the URC, but I'm convinced that it's not because there are any impurities left on the LP. But the vast majority of my records are definitely improved by this cleaning method.
I would concur with BB on the mixtures with less being more. When I first started I was using way too much Triton X and was actually getting suds which of course left a bit of a residue. My current mixture is 100ml of 99% IPA and about 6 drops of Triton X. With the 500+ albums I have cleaned with my machine, I have played with all sorts of mixtures including tap water vs filtered tap water vs distilled and I use different combinations based on what I am cleaning and how grungy the records are (i.e. garage sale finds).
Another really important step is to make sure you are degassing before running your records through a cleaning cycle. I usually run a 15 minute degassing cycle with my particular machine.
Welcome to the club and let us know how you make out!
Another really important step is to make sure you are degassing before running your records through a cleaning cycle. I usually run a 15 minute degassing cycle with my particular machine.
Welcome to the club and let us know how you make out!
I'm wondering about the importance of the temperature of 120 degrees. While I do have many vinyls I wish to clean (including some Sheffield Labs direct-to-disc recordings), I also have 8,000 78 RPM "shellac" records. 78s cannot handle sudden temperature changes. Recommended change is about 10 degrees per hour to prevent delamination. Alcohol dissolves their surface but I have found that a very dilute Dawn dishwashing liquid doesn't hurt them. Have you tried your system on 78 RPM records -- pre-1940s era or even 1912 era? My guess is "no" but if I go with this system I'll probably try some junk sacrificial records. But my main question is the importance of the higher temperature.
Hi 78RPM,
The elevated temp helps the cleaning action. Is it required? No, but it definitely helps whatever cleaning solution you're using work better in the URC.
I haven't cleaned any 78s. And I'd be reluctant to do so. They're just a whole different animal, and I don't know anything about cleaning them, other than avoid all alcohol. I do have some Edison Diamond Discs from my grandfather, but I know you can't get those wet.
BB
Last edited:
Filtration
Hi Freax,
A filter solves these issues. See post #121 in this thread.
Cheers,
BB
Hi Freax,
A filter solves these issues. See post #121 in this thread.
Cheers,
BB
It was a bit of trial and error for me to get my mixture dialed in and by reducing the Triton X to only 6 drops I do not get any residue that I can see with the naked eye, nor more importantly hear. Distilled or ultrapure lab water seems to give me the best results and I use this when cleaning my "nice" records. Duplicates and particularly grungy garage sale finds get filtered tap water. Of course YMMV.
So when you say rinse ...
do you mean another cycle in water, alone, in the ultrasonic machine?
Seems like this could not hurt.
I wonder if one could get away with more than three records in a rinse cycle?
If so, that would make it less frustrating.
My US machine was just delivered. Can't wait to give this a try this evening.
Thanks again for your guidance,
do you mean another cycle in water, alone, in the ultrasonic machine?
Seems like this could not hurt.
I wonder if one could get away with more than three records in a rinse cycle?
If so, that would make it less frustrating.
My US machine was just delivered. Can't wait to give this a try this evening.
Thanks again for your guidance,
Don't worry, I do not expect miracles!
I am sorry my expectations sounded so unrealistic - I know that there is no way to make a old, heavily played record pristine - especially since pressing defects are a large part of the noise.
You did not oversell the technique and I should have tempered my words.
Made a rudimentary setup last night and cleaned some records and there is no question this does a much better job than any of the other techniques I have tried. Noise is reduced, certainly not eliminated, but there is a leap in transparency that will make listening to my records a new experience.
Can't wait to get the motor and install it and be able to walk away while the cleaning takes place.
Also thinking that with repeated cleaning there could be further gains. Simply cleaning the records you intend to listen no matter if they have been previously US'ed should be worthwhile.
Thanks, again,
I am sorry my expectations sounded so unrealistic - I know that there is no way to make a old, heavily played record pristine - especially since pressing defects are a large part of the noise.
You did not oversell the technique and I should have tempered my words.
Made a rudimentary setup last night and cleaned some records and there is no question this does a much better job than any of the other techniques I have tried. Noise is reduced, certainly not eliminated, but there is a leap in transparency that will make listening to my records a new experience.
Can't wait to get the motor and install it and be able to walk away while the cleaning takes place.
Also thinking that with repeated cleaning there could be further gains. Simply cleaning the records you intend to listen no matter if they have been previously US'ed should be worthwhile.
Thanks, again,
Rick,
I actually think it would be a pain to change out the URC fluid, reload records and run another cycle in the URC with plain water for a rinse.
And, plain water might indeed hurt. It leaves spots and can attract dust while drying. Hence products like photo-flo.
Consider the formulation for Disc Doctor Quick Wash. It was designed as a no-rinse cleaning solution. What's in it? Purified water, propanol, and surfactant --- the same components talked about in this thread.
Everybody has their own favorite cleaning process that works for them, and I wouldn't demand anyone use mine. I'm just trying to lay out my rationale for not doing a rinse. Perhaps I'm just too lazy to do a 10 step cleaning process!
Cheers,
B B
I actually think it would be a pain to change out the URC fluid, reload records and run another cycle in the URC with plain water for a rinse.
And, plain water might indeed hurt. It leaves spots and can attract dust while drying. Hence products like photo-flo.
Consider the formulation for Disc Doctor Quick Wash. It was designed as a no-rinse cleaning solution. What's in it? Purified water, propanol, and surfactant --- the same components talked about in this thread.
Everybody has their own favorite cleaning process that works for them, and I wouldn't demand anyone use mine. I'm just trying to lay out my rationale for not doing a rinse. Perhaps I'm just too lazy to do a 10 step cleaning process!
Cheers,
B B
Clean LPs / 2nd Cleaning
Awesome, Rick. Glad you were able to start cleaning a few LPs!
I haven't experimented much with more time in the cleaning cycle so I don't know if longer times yield more benefit or not. There are a few LPs I've run through the cleaning cycle 2 times. I didn't notice much, if any, change after the second cycle. Certainly nothing compared to the improvement after the first cycle through. These weren't the best LPs though, so my results aren't exhaustive, for sure.
I think this might be a case of rapidly diminishing returns. For me, I'm thinking my time is better spent cleaning other LPs the first time, rather than running records through a second time. But it might be worthwhile running some of your favorites through a second time if you suspect further improvement might be had. It is certainly worth more experimentation.
Good luck with the rest of the setup,
B B
Awesome, Rick. Glad you were able to start cleaning a few LPs!
I haven't experimented much with more time in the cleaning cycle so I don't know if longer times yield more benefit or not. There are a few LPs I've run through the cleaning cycle 2 times. I didn't notice much, if any, change after the second cycle. Certainly nothing compared to the improvement after the first cycle through. These weren't the best LPs though, so my results aren't exhaustive, for sure.
I think this might be a case of rapidly diminishing returns. For me, I'm thinking my time is better spent cleaning other LPs the first time, rather than running records through a second time. But it might be worthwhile running some of your favorites through a second time if you suspect further improvement might be had. It is certainly worth more experimentation.
Good luck with the rest of the setup,
B B
Last edited:
Ultrasonic Cleaning
Hi,
This is my first post ever to a forum.
I have just finished the unit as per the pictures and would dearly like to correspond with someone else that has gone down the same route.
I made some assumptions before I started - 1. One at a time (see 6). 2. Brushes to help clear the debris away. 3. 50 degrees Celsius. 4. One RPM. 5. Cheap Chinese unit @ 40kHz as other frequency units too expensive here and this one can be maintained by the local (South Africa) agents. 6. To have a separate rinse / vacuum unit which is almost finished.
So far the results have been superb. In every case the LP's washed had been done on both a VPI unit and later with a SpinClean and all of them showed a big improvement. One record was after cleaning by the other two still almost unplayable and is now virtually pristine.
Fluid used was a very dilute Iso Propyl alcohol / filtered water mix with a few drops of Pluronic 6200 surficant. Very little to dry as the fluid runs off as the LP is lifted out of the bath.
This weekend I intend to try a detergent use in dish washers as I found it worked very well in the SpinClean but it needs to be rinsed afterwards.
More later but a comment I read about drying. Any dirt that is dissolved in the cleaning solution plus any dissolved and suspend solids will re-deposit if air drying is used as in the Audio Systeme cleaner or the SpinClean.
Regards to all
Chris
Hi,
This is my first post ever to a forum.
I have just finished the unit as per the pictures and would dearly like to correspond with someone else that has gone down the same route.
I made some assumptions before I started - 1. One at a time (see 6). 2. Brushes to help clear the debris away. 3. 50 degrees Celsius. 4. One RPM. 5. Cheap Chinese unit @ 40kHz as other frequency units too expensive here and this one can be maintained by the local (South Africa) agents. 6. To have a separate rinse / vacuum unit which is almost finished.
So far the results have been superb. In every case the LP's washed had been done on both a VPI unit and later with a SpinClean and all of them showed a big improvement. One record was after cleaning by the other two still almost unplayable and is now virtually pristine.
Fluid used was a very dilute Iso Propyl alcohol / filtered water mix with a few drops of Pluronic 6200 surficant. Very little to dry as the fluid runs off as the LP is lifted out of the bath.
This weekend I intend to try a detergent use in dish washers as I found it worked very well in the SpinClean but it needs to be rinsed afterwards.
More later but a comment I read about drying. Any dirt that is dissolved in the cleaning solution plus any dissolved and suspend solids will re-deposit if air drying is used as in the Audio Systeme cleaner or the SpinClean.
Regards to all
Chris
Hi Chris,
Great first post! Welcome to online discussion and thanks for showing your beautiful project.
Nice looking unit you've built! It's elegant enough to leave it sitting out, right beside your audio gear!
I will say that I don't understand putting scrubbing brushes in an ultrasonic bath. I haven't found ANY medical instrument or jewelry applications where this is done.
People use ultrasonic cleaners in applications where brushes for scrubbing aren't adequate for some reason. The tip of a brush bristle can't reach as deep in a record groove as an ultrasonic cavitation bubble, so what's the point of the brush? Ultrasonic cleaning either works or it doesn't. The brush is superfluous.
Another reason you don't find brushes in an ultrasonic bath is that an ultrasonic cleaner can only handle so much surface area before cleaning effectiveness drops. The general rule of thumb is that you shouldn't load a unit with more than about 230 sq. inches of surface area per gallon of tank capacity. Brushes and the structures to hold them present a LOT of surface area in the bath and reduce cleaning effectiveness of the ultrasonic process.
If you're getting good results, that's great. But I don't think it's because of the brushes...
Regarding redeposition --- filtering is a good solution. It can even pay for itself by reducing the consumption of cleaning solution over time. Even without filtering, dilution of impurities in over a gallon of fluid would make any redeposition a tiny, tiny fraction of whatever was originally on the record. I wouldn't over-worry about that.
B B
Great first post! Welcome to online discussion and thanks for showing your beautiful project.
Nice looking unit you've built! It's elegant enough to leave it sitting out, right beside your audio gear!
I will say that I don't understand putting scrubbing brushes in an ultrasonic bath. I haven't found ANY medical instrument or jewelry applications where this is done.
People use ultrasonic cleaners in applications where brushes for scrubbing aren't adequate for some reason. The tip of a brush bristle can't reach as deep in a record groove as an ultrasonic cavitation bubble, so what's the point of the brush? Ultrasonic cleaning either works or it doesn't. The brush is superfluous.
Another reason you don't find brushes in an ultrasonic bath is that an ultrasonic cleaner can only handle so much surface area before cleaning effectiveness drops. The general rule of thumb is that you shouldn't load a unit with more than about 230 sq. inches of surface area per gallon of tank capacity. Brushes and the structures to hold them present a LOT of surface area in the bath and reduce cleaning effectiveness of the ultrasonic process.
If you're getting good results, that's great. But I don't think it's because of the brushes...
Regarding redeposition --- filtering is a good solution. It can even pay for itself by reducing the consumption of cleaning solution over time. Even without filtering, dilution of impurities in over a gallon of fluid would make any redeposition a tiny, tiny fraction of whatever was originally on the record. I wouldn't over-worry about that.
B B
Last edited:
Rinsing with distilled water could have some advantage. The surfactant in the US cleaner decreases the surface tension of the water, so the water "wets" the PVC and goes in the grooves. However water drops (that contain residue) remain in the grooves after US cleaning, and they dry in. Pure distilled water has high surface tension, so water drops run off the disc after rinsing, and ideally no drying would be needed.