I've been reading this forum with intense interest because I want to find better ways to clean my vinyl records. The work here on ultrasonic options is most encouraging. I've seen how the systems have evolved going back to the beginning of the thread such that no short term negative impacts are now noted to an USC'ed vinyl record.
My inquiry also considers the long term impacts, however. So with this note, I wanted to ask the earliest adopters to comment on changes IF ANY, to records cleaned say 10 years ago, if folks have that long of a history. If not then I would like to know if your earliest US cleaned lps have shown any signs of change.
I ask because I am concerned that subjected to high frequency waves whether or not the surface of polyvinyl chloride, used to stamp records, is somehow compromised but the impacts are not manifest until later, perhaps years later. That manifestation may be in the form of oxidation, in spots deep in the grooves, leading to increased surface noise. I'm not saying it is, I'm just asking folks to comment on their experience and observations.
Pleas see this abstract:
"The use of high intensity ultrasound to promote a number of reactions at the surface of solid poly(vinyl chloride) is reported. Substitution reactions involving a range of compounds, including dyes, can rapidly be carried out from aqueous solution under labile conditions. Sonochemically enhanced treatment with strong aqueous base produces dehydrochlorination even at room temperature to produce a thin layer of conjugated material at the surface which can then be grafted with a number of compounds. Some speculation as to the mechanistic features of the process as well as its potential utility is made. (C) 1999 Society of Chemical Industry.
From:
Surface modification of poly(vinyl chloride) using high intensity ultrasound. Available from: Surface modification of poly(vinyl chloride) using high intensity ultrasound
I've asked the author today for a copy of the article.
Some of you have mentioned seeing a white substance in the grooves after USC. That could be from a chemical alternation of PVC at the surface, making it liable later to oxidation. I don't know, I'm just researching and I am not trying to throw cold water on the great results reported here using US to clean records. But I want to be careful since I adhere to the dictum, do no harm.
I've seen 1 micron filters too after say 75 to 85 lps have been cleaned. The filters are light brown and the natural assumption is that color is all from loosed dirt. But has anyone done a chemical composition test to see if it is not also PVC, some of which could be PVC dust that contaminated the pressed lp? That is the core of my inquiry. I want to make sure that USC of my record collection is completely safe. Unfortunately, as a scientist, I like proof.
Thank you in advance for letting me know you observations.
My inquiry also considers the long term impacts, however. So with this note, I wanted to ask the earliest adopters to comment on changes IF ANY, to records cleaned say 10 years ago, if folks have that long of a history. If not then I would like to know if your earliest US cleaned lps have shown any signs of change.
I ask because I am concerned that subjected to high frequency waves whether or not the surface of polyvinyl chloride, used to stamp records, is somehow compromised but the impacts are not manifest until later, perhaps years later. That manifestation may be in the form of oxidation, in spots deep in the grooves, leading to increased surface noise. I'm not saying it is, I'm just asking folks to comment on their experience and observations.
Pleas see this abstract:
"The use of high intensity ultrasound to promote a number of reactions at the surface of solid poly(vinyl chloride) is reported. Substitution reactions involving a range of compounds, including dyes, can rapidly be carried out from aqueous solution under labile conditions. Sonochemically enhanced treatment with strong aqueous base produces dehydrochlorination even at room temperature to produce a thin layer of conjugated material at the surface which can then be grafted with a number of compounds. Some speculation as to the mechanistic features of the process as well as its potential utility is made. (C) 1999 Society of Chemical Industry.
From:
Surface modification of poly(vinyl chloride) using high intensity ultrasound. Available from: Surface modification of poly(vinyl chloride) using high intensity ultrasound
I've asked the author today for a copy of the article.
Some of you have mentioned seeing a white substance in the grooves after USC. That could be from a chemical alternation of PVC at the surface, making it liable later to oxidation. I don't know, I'm just researching and I am not trying to throw cold water on the great results reported here using US to clean records. But I want to be careful since I adhere to the dictum, do no harm.
I've seen 1 micron filters too after say 75 to 85 lps have been cleaned. The filters are light brown and the natural assumption is that color is all from loosed dirt. But has anyone done a chemical composition test to see if it is not also PVC, some of which could be PVC dust that contaminated the pressed lp? That is the core of my inquiry. I want to make sure that USC of my record collection is completely safe. Unfortunately, as a scientist, I like proof.
Thank you in advance for letting me know you observations.
Hi Bend
That article has nothing to do with ultrasonic cleaning. They aren't cleaning, the authors are TRYING to change chemical and physical properties of PVC powder to find ways to color, dye or change the physical properties of PVC objects made from the PVC powder used in the experiments. They are looking for ways to manufacture PVC that would instill certain characteristics in the material that might be useful in different applications.
They are using naphthalene-or anthracene- containing compounds in attempt to graft compounds onto the PVC and change the surface characteristics through chemical reactions. The PVC was put in these very reactive, sonic baths for 1 hour at a time. Unless you're using naphthalene or anthracene in your cleaner, you have nothing to worry about.
I've been doing this for years without any issues.
Cheers,
B B
Thank you bbtx, and I thank you in particular for your pioneering work on USC DIY projects this forum thread features. That article I posted may not have been the best choice. I've done quite a bit of looking to ensure myself that no issues exist. I assume then that your oldest USC lps are pristine, or at least that is what I gather from your response.
In this piece, I see some discussion of changes that may or may not impact a vinyl record, but have impact to polyvinyl Chloride: http://scs.illinois.edu/suslick/documents/annrevmatsci.pdf.
This 1999 article is entitled, "Applications of Ultrasound to Materials Chemistry," by Kenneth Suslick and Gareth Price. Here is part of the conclusion...
Bubble collapse in liquids results in an enormous concentration of energy from the conversion of the kinetic energy of liquid motion into heating of the contents of the bubble. The enormous local temperatures and pressures so created provide a unique means for fundamental studies of chemistry and physics under extreme conditions.
Cavitation in liquids can have dramatic effects on the reactivities of both extended solid surfaces and fine-powder slurries. Microjet and shockwave impact (on large surfaces) and interparticle collisions (with powders) have substantial effects on the chemical composition and physical morphology of solids that can dramatically enhance chemical reactivity of both organic polymers and inorganic solids.
The extreme conditions inside collapsing bubbles produce highly reactive species that can be used for various purposes, for instance, the initiation of polymerization without added initiators. As another example, the sonochemical decomposition of volatile organometallic precursors in high-boiling-point solvents produces nanostructured materials in various forms with high catalytic activities.
Okay, so as I read that I see that ultrasonic energy can impact surfaces because the implosion involves, as a stylus does too, intense burst of heat and pressure. The article discusses the scale. But also, the research indicated that dramatic effects on reactivity was possible. Part of the reason is that the extreme conditions inside collapsing or as I say imploding bubbles produce highly reactive species. So the core inquiry relates to changes in chemistry of the PVC that may make it susceptible to chemical degradation, such as oxidant, over time.
There are newer articles that I have not read because I don't want to pay for them. One example is the article entitled, "Treatment of Polyvinyl Chloride Using Ultrasonic Irradiation" bu Hidetoshi Sekiguchi, Zuhaidi Bin Abdullah and Toru Ikezaki1 as published on May 1st, 2003 in the The Japan Society of Applied Physics. There are a number of articles too that deal with the impact to polyvinyl chloride in solution, where US energy breaks that molecular chains. But that is not likely an issue with the solid of an lp.
I'm likely worried about nothing, but I want to conduct my due diligence.
In this piece, I see some discussion of changes that may or may not impact a vinyl record, but have impact to polyvinyl Chloride: http://scs.illinois.edu/suslick/documents/annrevmatsci.pdf.
This 1999 article is entitled, "Applications of Ultrasound to Materials Chemistry," by Kenneth Suslick and Gareth Price. Here is part of the conclusion...
Bubble collapse in liquids results in an enormous concentration of energy from the conversion of the kinetic energy of liquid motion into heating of the contents of the bubble. The enormous local temperatures and pressures so created provide a unique means for fundamental studies of chemistry and physics under extreme conditions.
Cavitation in liquids can have dramatic effects on the reactivities of both extended solid surfaces and fine-powder slurries. Microjet and shockwave impact (on large surfaces) and interparticle collisions (with powders) have substantial effects on the chemical composition and physical morphology of solids that can dramatically enhance chemical reactivity of both organic polymers and inorganic solids.
The extreme conditions inside collapsing bubbles produce highly reactive species that can be used for various purposes, for instance, the initiation of polymerization without added initiators. As another example, the sonochemical decomposition of volatile organometallic precursors in high-boiling-point solvents produces nanostructured materials in various forms with high catalytic activities.
Okay, so as I read that I see that ultrasonic energy can impact surfaces because the implosion involves, as a stylus does too, intense burst of heat and pressure. The article discusses the scale. But also, the research indicated that dramatic effects on reactivity was possible. Part of the reason is that the extreme conditions inside collapsing or as I say imploding bubbles produce highly reactive species. So the core inquiry relates to changes in chemistry of the PVC that may make it susceptible to chemical degradation, such as oxidant, over time.
There are newer articles that I have not read because I don't want to pay for them. One example is the article entitled, "Treatment of Polyvinyl Chloride Using Ultrasonic Irradiation" bu Hidetoshi Sekiguchi, Zuhaidi Bin Abdullah and Toru Ikezaki1 as published on May 1st, 2003 in the The Japan Society of Applied Physics. There are a number of articles too that deal with the impact to polyvinyl chloride in solution, where US energy breaks that molecular chains. But that is not likely an issue with the solid of an lp.
I'm likely worried about nothing, but I want to conduct my due diligence.
Last edited:
In every study you’ve mentioned by name, the goal is to modify PVC raw material chemistry and/or physical characteristics, not clean finished goods. Ultrasound is used for lots of processes in materials science and material engineering other than cleaning.
An analogy would be saying you shouldn’t wash anything with water, because water jets under high pressure can cut through steel. No, you need to use the water the right way and there will be no problems.
Ultrasound used the right way is the same, it won’t cause problems in a mild cleaning application. To be safe, don’t use aggressive, reactive chemicals, don’t leave the records in the bath for an hour, and don’t use too much power at frequencies below 35k or so. The desktop machines that most everyone is using in this thread aren’t terribly powerful and no one I’ve seen is using oxidative chemicals or reagents like naphthalene.
BB
An analogy would be saying you shouldn’t wash anything with water, because water jets under high pressure can cut through steel. No, you need to use the water the right way and there will be no problems.
Ultrasound used the right way is the same, it won’t cause problems in a mild cleaning application. To be safe, don’t use aggressive, reactive chemicals, don’t leave the records in the bath for an hour, and don’t use too much power at frequencies below 35k or so. The desktop machines that most everyone is using in this thread aren’t terribly powerful and no one I’ve seen is using oxidative chemicals or reagents like naphthalene.
BB
Last edited:
I called them yesterday. They no longer have this option, don't stock it, could not tell me if they would ever get them again.
Vibratto has 60K for sale. Vibrato 60KHz 6 Quart Ultrasonic Cleaner from VibratoLLC on Tindie
Thank you. That is my option number one. But no drain. So I'm considering a larger tank model, 60 kHz, but with a drain.
Has anyone made the filter system work on a model with no drain?
Because we are frying records!!!
Thanks for that suggestion. I was hoping to get to 1 micron filtration.
Anyone with the Vibrato care to chime in on this wonder Christmas Eve?
Bend
Check with these guys and see if they have any of the 60 khz models left:
ST136 Ultrasonic CleanerMedical Center Supply
They or you will have to check the nameplate on the actual machine, as I believe Sonix switched to 40khz transducers somewhere along the way, but kept the same model number for a while.
Cheers,
B B
Thank you. Yes, I called them a few days ago. They told me that model was not available even though they show it on their website. They said they need to update the website but have not gotten around to it. So this source for the 60 kHz machine is not longer available, despite the link to them.
Sonix IV shows a series 60 kHz models on the product list. Yet all are "not available". Ever since Sonix took manufacturing to China, the 60 kHz option has gone the way wild things go.
I wrote to Louis at Vibrato and he quickly responded the other day to say they have both 60 and 80 kHz machines in 6 liters. When I followed up asking about a drain since I could not see one and they are not mentioned in the website write up, he has not come back to me. But later in my research, I found out that Vibrato does not have a drain. That is why I've asked users here to comment on how they effected 1 micron filtration on a Vibrato.
I've also checked TruSonik and SharperTek. TruSonik machines are 40 kHz. SharperTek are also 40 kHz for desktop models.
Beijing Ultrasonics shows a 6 liter machine with different frequencies, up to and beyond 60 kHz. I wrote to them and they politely informed me that for 6L machines only 40 kHz was available and the website was in error. The 60 kHz desk top USC they make is 10 liters minimum.
I see also mentioned Elmasonic or Elma USC that have dual frequency machines, 37 kHz & 80 kHz. You have commented on those in the pejorative, about how those frequencies are generated or so I have read. Also, one user elected to return one since he did not believe the 80 kHz cycle worked (or may be it does, but given how much smaller the cavitation bubbles are it takes a lot longer to get an lp clean).
My preference is to use a 60 kHz or higher frequency even in the face of overwhelming evidence by many that 40 kHz is adequate. I'm still looking for options. And that brings me back to the Vibrato and my inquiry if anyone has one who has also figured out a way to use the filtration system you have designed. Maybe its as simple as sticking the water feed hose into the tank bottom from the top.
I think you misread my view on Elma. I think highly of their machines that I have seen in the past, and were I to start over again from scratch today, I'd probably buy one of their units.
Message 609
Message 1198
Message 1513
Message 1546
Cheers,
B B
Thank you for that clarification. I read the entire thread last week. Somewhere I thought I saw you provide a caveat about dual frequency machines. My bad.
A few posts ago I asked if any early adopters had experienced any issues whatsoever on parts of their vinyl records cleaned with an ultrasonic machine. Specifically, I want to know if lps cleaned five or more years ago are just as awesome now with no signs of degraded vinyl in spots.
If those of you in a position to comment will, I would be most grateful. I know what I want in a USC set up and I'm ready to pull the trigger, but I'm still doing my final due diligence, with your help hopefully. To be sure, I'm not trying to be provocative or to discredit the fine work done by many of you.
My concerns have been on short-term erosion and long-term chemical impacts to vinyl from USC. I believe short-term impacts are adequately addressed by use of a high quality 40 kHz machine or better (60 or 80 kHz), optimized cleaning solution and rinsing procedures, limited/controlled US exposure, and filtration in real time to remove dislodged particles from the cleaning solution. All of this is well documented in this forum by bbtx and the hard work he and others have done.
The possibility of surface chemistry damage, however remote, that may manifest over a longer time frames remains an area of my investigation and inquiries. To that end, I've written to Clearaudio and VPI about their intentions to build an ultrasonic cleaner for records. I don't expect to hear from VPI to be frank. A few years ago on their Facebook page they indicated that USC was detrimental to vinyl, but I see now that Harry Weisfeld is making a US cleaning system.
Clearaudio responded to my note today. They believe damage can occur to vinyl records from USC. That is why they have not built one for sale and have gone in a different route. In fact, the Clearaudio Smart Matrix Professional Sonic machine ($5,500) is what they have developed, using vibration during a cleaning cycle to help dislodge embedded dirt, but not ultrasonic.
Here is Clearaudio's response:
"Thanks for...your interest for our cleaning machine Double Matrix Professional Sonic."
"Indeed we deliberately decided to use the less energetic sonic vibration instead of an ultra-sonic option. According to our founder and former CEO Mr. Peter Suchy the ultra sonic effect is harmful for records if you use it over and over again."
"Dirt and dust particles will be accelerated very fast with ultra sonic energy and may damage the delicate grooves if they “shoot” against them and “flatten” the contour. It’s not like that your record will get visible fissures etc. but sound brilliance will get lost."
"That’s the idea behind our approach of the cleaning technique of the Double Matrix Professional Sonic."
"Regarding the cleaning fluid we offer both a alcohol based fluid (Pure Groove) as well as a non-alcohol based one (Pure Groove Zero). Looking at the cleaning result/sound after cleaning I think the alcohol based fluid is the most effective version."
"Since I see your point in looking at the composite of the vinyl as such, I can assure to you that the non-alcohol fluid will perform very good as well."
My read of their response tells me that USC may not damage lps if used sparingly, not repeatedly, from erosion as cleaned detritus may hit lp grooves. As I noted, I think bbtx has come up with tactics to eliminate or greatly minimize that issue. That said, in the earlier pages of this forum, at least one US user noted changes to "sound brilliance" as he described it on one of his records. For the most part, that change was never understood.
The composition of vinyl Clearaudio noted above is my primary concern because chemically 'vinyl' is not at all uniform. Instead, vinyl records are made of thermoplastic resin that consists predominately of copolymers of vinyl chloride (PVC) and vinyl acetate (PVA). The typical ratio used is 2 parts PVA copolymer to one part PVC monopolymer. The total vinyl polymer mix ranges from 75% to 96% of the record weight. The other 4% to 25% are additives critical to the production, color, performance, and stability of the mixed product. Most of these additives are not covalently bound; they are merely incorporated within the polymer matrix and therefore may be leached out or damaged. Some folks eschew alcohol as a cleaner for that reason. But vinyl is not a uniform homogeneous product; the wide differences in vinyl chemistry are company specific and date of manufacture specific.
See this link: Composition of vinyl records - Vinyl Engine.
This excellent article on "vinyl" provides a few cautions that in my opinion may apply to USC. One is the use of alcohol (keep the concentration low) and heat that at a minimum can (not "will") remove lubricants or other chemicals from vinyl. From Wikipedia, "(ultrasonic cleaning) creates compression waves in the liquid of the tank which ‘tear’ the liquid apart, leaving behind many millions of microscopic ‘voids’ or ‘partial vacuum bubbles’ (cavitation). These bubbles collapse with enormous energy; temperatures and pressures on the order of 5,000 K and 135 MPa are achieved; however, they are so small that they do no more than clean and remove surface dirt and contaminants. The higher the frequency, the smaller the nodes between the cavitation points, which allows for cleaning of more intricate detail." These machines, however, were and are designed to clean metal, not vinyl.
These very forces that create the potential to alter the surface chemistry of vinyl is the subject of my investigation. We can dismiss these issues if we elect to, or in my case, do as much investigation as possible to understand the potential for damage. Since virtually no one has tested this, I think it reasonable to ask, how do we know?
My primary concern is how incorporated but non-bonded additives in vinyl behave long-term to USC. To my knowledge, no one has studied this. My focus has been on the potential for surface chemistry disturbance from the powerful forces of cavitation that may (not "will") eventually show signs of surface oxidation, for example, in spots. Obviously, that is not a good outcome for a record. Unfortunately, it may take time for these changes to manifest, up to five or more years.
I know one person who tested USC on vinyl records when the first ultrasonic record cleaning machines were introduced. I do not know what he did exactly, machines used, frequencies (likely 40 kHz), duration (he said 3 minutes), or solutions. But he shared this, after his experiments he paid a university lab to examine the lps; they showed instances of surface chemistry disturbance. His USC test records today show signs of surface oxidation in some spots (I don't know if he also had a control section or lp). I'm not sure what to make of that, but once I read the material on what is vinyl, I wondered if the additives can be subject to later oxidation once exposed to ultrasonic impacts.
For that reason, I ask the early adopters here to please comment. I am 99.8% convinced that USC of vinyl records, if done with the procedures and solutions developed over time by folks on this forum, will have no short or long-term detrimental impacts to records. But given that I have some 6,000 lps waiting for a cleaning, I want to be sure.
Help me get over the last hump.
If those of you in a position to comment will, I would be most grateful. I know what I want in a USC set up and I'm ready to pull the trigger, but I'm still doing my final due diligence, with your help hopefully. To be sure, I'm not trying to be provocative or to discredit the fine work done by many of you.
My concerns have been on short-term erosion and long-term chemical impacts to vinyl from USC. I believe short-term impacts are adequately addressed by use of a high quality 40 kHz machine or better (60 or 80 kHz), optimized cleaning solution and rinsing procedures, limited/controlled US exposure, and filtration in real time to remove dislodged particles from the cleaning solution. All of this is well documented in this forum by bbtx and the hard work he and others have done.
The possibility of surface chemistry damage, however remote, that may manifest over a longer time frames remains an area of my investigation and inquiries. To that end, I've written to Clearaudio and VPI about their intentions to build an ultrasonic cleaner for records. I don't expect to hear from VPI to be frank. A few years ago on their Facebook page they indicated that USC was detrimental to vinyl, but I see now that Harry Weisfeld is making a US cleaning system.
Clearaudio responded to my note today. They believe damage can occur to vinyl records from USC. That is why they have not built one for sale and have gone in a different route. In fact, the Clearaudio Smart Matrix Professional Sonic machine ($5,500) is what they have developed, using vibration during a cleaning cycle to help dislodge embedded dirt, but not ultrasonic.
Here is Clearaudio's response:
"Thanks for...your interest for our cleaning machine Double Matrix Professional Sonic."
"Indeed we deliberately decided to use the less energetic sonic vibration instead of an ultra-sonic option. According to our founder and former CEO Mr. Peter Suchy the ultra sonic effect is harmful for records if you use it over and over again."
"Dirt and dust particles will be accelerated very fast with ultra sonic energy and may damage the delicate grooves if they “shoot” against them and “flatten” the contour. It’s not like that your record will get visible fissures etc. but sound brilliance will get lost."
"That’s the idea behind our approach of the cleaning technique of the Double Matrix Professional Sonic."
"Regarding the cleaning fluid we offer both a alcohol based fluid (Pure Groove) as well as a non-alcohol based one (Pure Groove Zero). Looking at the cleaning result/sound after cleaning I think the alcohol based fluid is the most effective version."
"Since I see your point in looking at the composite of the vinyl as such, I can assure to you that the non-alcohol fluid will perform very good as well."
My read of their response tells me that USC may not damage lps if used sparingly, not repeatedly, from erosion as cleaned detritus may hit lp grooves. As I noted, I think bbtx has come up with tactics to eliminate or greatly minimize that issue. That said, in the earlier pages of this forum, at least one US user noted changes to "sound brilliance" as he described it on one of his records. For the most part, that change was never understood.
The composition of vinyl Clearaudio noted above is my primary concern because chemically 'vinyl' is not at all uniform. Instead, vinyl records are made of thermoplastic resin that consists predominately of copolymers of vinyl chloride (PVC) and vinyl acetate (PVA). The typical ratio used is 2 parts PVA copolymer to one part PVC monopolymer. The total vinyl polymer mix ranges from 75% to 96% of the record weight. The other 4% to 25% are additives critical to the production, color, performance, and stability of the mixed product. Most of these additives are not covalently bound; they are merely incorporated within the polymer matrix and therefore may be leached out or damaged. Some folks eschew alcohol as a cleaner for that reason. But vinyl is not a uniform homogeneous product; the wide differences in vinyl chemistry are company specific and date of manufacture specific.
See this link: Composition of vinyl records - Vinyl Engine.
This excellent article on "vinyl" provides a few cautions that in my opinion may apply to USC. One is the use of alcohol (keep the concentration low) and heat that at a minimum can (not "will") remove lubricants or other chemicals from vinyl. From Wikipedia, "(ultrasonic cleaning) creates compression waves in the liquid of the tank which ‘tear’ the liquid apart, leaving behind many millions of microscopic ‘voids’ or ‘partial vacuum bubbles’ (cavitation). These bubbles collapse with enormous energy; temperatures and pressures on the order of 5,000 K and 135 MPa are achieved; however, they are so small that they do no more than clean and remove surface dirt and contaminants. The higher the frequency, the smaller the nodes between the cavitation points, which allows for cleaning of more intricate detail." These machines, however, were and are designed to clean metal, not vinyl.
These very forces that create the potential to alter the surface chemistry of vinyl is the subject of my investigation. We can dismiss these issues if we elect to, or in my case, do as much investigation as possible to understand the potential for damage. Since virtually no one has tested this, I think it reasonable to ask, how do we know?
My primary concern is how incorporated but non-bonded additives in vinyl behave long-term to USC. To my knowledge, no one has studied this. My focus has been on the potential for surface chemistry disturbance from the powerful forces of cavitation that may (not "will") eventually show signs of surface oxidation, for example, in spots. Obviously, that is not a good outcome for a record. Unfortunately, it may take time for these changes to manifest, up to five or more years.
I know one person who tested USC on vinyl records when the first ultrasonic record cleaning machines were introduced. I do not know what he did exactly, machines used, frequencies (likely 40 kHz), duration (he said 3 minutes), or solutions. But he shared this, after his experiments he paid a university lab to examine the lps; they showed instances of surface chemistry disturbance. His USC test records today show signs of surface oxidation in some spots (I don't know if he also had a control section or lp). I'm not sure what to make of that, but once I read the material on what is vinyl, I wondered if the additives can be subject to later oxidation once exposed to ultrasonic impacts.
For that reason, I ask the early adopters here to please comment. I am 99.8% convinced that USC of vinyl records, if done with the procedures and solutions developed over time by folks on this forum, will have no short or long-term detrimental impacts to records. But given that I have some 6,000 lps waiting for a cleaning, I want to be sure.
Help me get over the last hump.
Last edited:
BendBound, if you are considering chemical effects of alcohol in the vinyl cleaning process as part of your investigation, you may want to consider looking at other cleaning methods that also use this substance, as well. There should be a much larger population of examples from which you can get information.
One of the considerations in choosing to go for US is the supposed "contact-free" aspect. As you have pointed out, there will be some impact by the dirt particles, for one, and possibly the cavitation process. One then has to ask: is there a truly a contact-free cleaning method? And if the amount of contact is relative, what level of contact is benign?
IMO, your biggest problem with such an investigation will be the reliability of the information. Already you have a 50% split of opinion from manufacturers. Then there is the anecdotal evidence from a community that I would not consider to be among the reliable (due to the nature of the audio/hi-fi world).
I respect your resolve, and I support your effort. Good luck with it.
One of the considerations in choosing to go for US is the supposed "contact-free" aspect. As you have pointed out, there will be some impact by the dirt particles, for one, and possibly the cavitation process. One then has to ask: is there a truly a contact-free cleaning method? And if the amount of contact is relative, what level of contact is benign?
IMO, your biggest problem with such an investigation will be the reliability of the information. Already you have a 50% split of opinion from manufacturers. Then there is the anecdotal evidence from a community that I would not consider to be among the reliable (due to the nature of the audio/hi-fi world).
I respect your resolve, and I support your effort. Good luck with it.