Ultrasonic Record Cleaning, What a difference!

Discussion in 'Audio Hardware' started by Massproductions, Aug 13, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. mace

    mace Forum Resident

    Location:
    74107
    I think I will stick with my GEM Dandy clone, Spin Clean and DIY vacuum system. I have tried US, and they work fantastic, but my system works as good, or maybe a little better.
     
  2. Paully

    Paully De gustibus non est disputandum

    Location:
    Tennessee
    The only "lubricant" I am aware of is the graphite in records that makes them black, IF I understand it correctly. I don't think there is any spray on lubricant, or otherwise, that is put on a record that could be removed by a RCM. This is the first I have ever heard mention of it.
     
  3. Bill Hart

    Bill Hart Forum Resident

    Location:
    Austin
    I've posted on this subject before, so tune me out if I sound like a [fill-in blank]. I use both manual cleaning/vacuum and ultrasonic. Ultrasonic is actually easiest with new records, which don't require a deep clean using more 'hands-on' methods. The 'hands-on' is essentially AIVS No. 15 and lab water, soak, agitate and vacuum. This is a pre-clean step before any used record goes into the ultrasonic. It makes a huge difference on some older records, and the combination of both cleaning methods seems to work synergistically. I've written at length elsewhere about my particular methods- but the short version is separate brushes and vacuum wands for the enzyme/surfactant and water steps. The ultrasonic was a revelation when I first got it- no more back breaking work slaving over a noisy vacuum machine. But, I reverted to manual pre-cleaning with used/older vinyl. (Also, resleeve in rice paper and bag everything separately, which then goes into a bigger poly bag). I keep fine tuning my methods but that's where I am now, and it's good- I have very quiet vinyl surfaces and get a lot of information out of those grooves. Listened today to a UK first black EMI/Columbia of Jeff Beck's Truth. That particular pressing, clean and unmolested, heard over a good system is pretty amazing on a track like Superstition.
    PS: there is a separate thread here that has been focusing on friction, lubricants and the like: http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/vinyl-clicks-and-pops.370266/page-11#post-10905806
    Scroll about half way through and you'll see the discussion pick up about lubricants, starting with the WD-40 suggestion!
     
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2014
  4. chervokas

    chervokas Senior Member

    Any of these kinds of cleaners seem to increase stylus/groove friction. It make the vinyl squeaky clean like glass. Whether or not whatever release compounds are used when records are pressed decrease friction, I dunno. There definitely are lubricants out there, like George Merrill's GrooOve Lube, and things that claim to reduce stylus/groove friction (like Stylast), or record preservatives like Last, which I don't think counts friction reduction as, explicitly, one of it's attributes. The old Sound Guard was sold as a record lubricant. I think GruvGlide also. I just started playing around with GrooOve Lube this week. Jury's still out for me, I'm finding application very tricky.
     
  5. Paully

    Paully De gustibus non est disputandum

    Location:
    Tennessee
    Everything I have read makes it sound like people are using their sonic cleaners for old records and a quick vacuum for new records, if they use an RCM at all. I was under the impression that the people using them thought they provided the deepest cleaning available.
     
  6. Threshold

    Threshold Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Manchester NH
    I've had the Record Genie clean plenty of my older records w/great results. He usually comes to Audio Video Therapy in Nashua NH about once or twice a month. This past Sunday I gave him an old original Hot Buttered Soul by Isaac Hayes and it sounded like new. He uses 2 Record Desk and 2KI Audio machines plus a $2500 Furutech de-magnetizer. You also get new record sleeves.
     
  7. Bill Hart

    Bill Hart Forum Resident

    Location:
    Austin
    At first, I had the same belief- the ultrasonic is so simple, records come out very clean looking, no manual labor or hanging around and fairly quiet operation, at least compared to most vacuum machines. Just pop it in and voila, several minutes later, a clean record.
    But, I buy a lot of old vinyl- not garage sale stuff necessarily, but stuff that has been around for decades. Shortly after I got an ultrasonic, and sidelined the VPI with all the bottles, brushes and assorted paraphernalia, I cleaned an early UK Vertigo swirl and it still sounded lousy- it was supposed to be a M- record, it looked clean, but playing dredged up all kinds of stuff (which is pretty rare for me). I then went to work on it manually. Enzyme soak, vacuum, lab water rinse, vacuum, then back into the ultrasonic. Now it played much better, no crap on the stylus. (You might conclude that the ultrasonic loosened up the deeply-seated foreign matter so that the stylus could more easily dredge it out- i don't know). Another example- another old Vertigo- Gracious!- pretty rare record these days. After initial clean (even using combined methods), it still had a lot of fuzzy distortion, the kind you usually associate with grooves that have been chewed up by kludgey arms/bad stylus. Often, that's irreparable. I could have returned it, but with the seller's agreement, did a little work on it, using the pre-clean methods described briefly above, with longer soak times and agitation. The record got to a level that was almost noiseless with the exception of three short passages where that fuzzy distortion remains. Not perfect, but, in my estimation, about as good as I'm gonna get on this record, short of finding one that is truly mint, at a crazy price. I suppose you could reverse the sequence and clean in ultrasonic first and then clean with manual methods and vacuum, but that would defeat the ease with which you can clean new records by relying solely on the ultrasonic, and deprive you of at least one additional benefit--
    -- By pre-cleaning the old records, dirty records don't pollute the water that is in the ultrasonic bath which ordinarily gets reused on other records (unless you are changing the ultrasonic water constantly, which defeats the convenience factor). The records are 'clean' when they go in. The alternative -to empty the bath much more frequently, is then not as necessary. I still change out the water more frequently than factory recommended, even with pre-cleaned records or new ones at 70 records/water change.
    With new records, unless they were very sloppily handled during manufacture, I usually don't pre-clean. (I know some folks who do, particularly for 'new old stock' stuff like sealed Classic Records). Sometimes, there is paper detritus from a factory liner, or the odd mark or fingerprint, which the ultrasonic can take care of.

    Final benefit of my approach- no static issues at all when the last step is the ultrasonic with forced air drying (rather than vacuum).
    I can't speak to why others may choose the opposite approach and confine ultrasonic to old records and vacuum new ones in light of my experience, but vinyl cleaning is probably just another area where different people have different preferred approaches, with different results. Hope that helps.
     
    dharmabumstead likes this.
  8. Retrofunk

    Retrofunk Forum Resident

    I have been following this thread and thought I give my 2c on the subject.....and it's my first post!
    I have used pretty much everything to clean my records; spin clean, vpi, keith monk and ultrasonic. My experience is that going from a vpi to ultrasonic definitely yields results especially for older records, blue note, prestige etc. However I acquired a Keith Monk RCM recently....to be blunt I have stopped using the ultrasonic. The keith monk is hands down the best RCM I have ever used, yes it's expensive, but if you are serious about your collection, it's a decision worth considering.
     
    Robert C and Bill Hart like this.
  9. reidc

    reidc Senior Member

    Location:
    Fitchburg, Mass
    I have used David's (Record Genie's) services previously as well- usually at Vinyl Destination in Lowell, or at some of the area Record shows.
    In most cases his ultrasonic cleaners were able to make me a happy man wit one listen! I have had a VPI 16.5 for a number of years- and have tried a few different things to get some noisy pressings cleaned up- most of them had a tremendous difference after Davids cleaning.

    In the cases of the 2 or 3 with no difference- hows the saying go- you can put lipstick on a pig...? I had a Steely Dan Can't Buy a Thrill that was really clean looking with a perfect early jacket- but never came clean. Pressing quality I guess.

    I'll continue to use Davids services as I find those "gotta haves".

    Chris
     
  10. Bill Hart

    Bill Hart Forum Resident

    Location:
    Austin
    I'm considering a Monks. The one issue I'm uncertain of is whether, given its high spinning speed, you can use a liberal amount of enzyme/surfactant, stop the motor to let it soak in and hand-agitate, and then start up the motor again without it flinging liquid everywhere. I would not use the built-in liquid dispenser, but apply the fluids manually and brush/agitate manually. I also want to stay with a two-step manual process- cleaning, followed by lab water soak and vacuum, and I need to make sure the Monks will work with my regimen. Did you get a Ruby or the Omni?
     
  11. theron d

    theron d Forum Resident

    Location:
    Baltimore MD
    Someone is going to make an Ultrasonic cleaner that will be more affordable one of these days. Only a matter of time....
     
    mikeyt likes this.
  12. rob303

    rob303 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Denver, CO
    I used this video as a guide to setup my cleaning station. I am essentially doing the same thing, except I sprung for a much larger 8-transducer unit. I'm no physicist, but the idea is the increase in transducers should increase sonic bombardment of the vinyl, thus allowing for less clean time (barring the increase in water volume is not nullifying this assumption).

    http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/vinyl-cleaning-methods.283421/#post-8743001

    When done right and for adequate times depending on how soiled the vinyl may be, this is hands down the best way to go.
     
  13. ssmith3046

    ssmith3046 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Arizona desert
    I think an ultrasonic RCM would be great and I hope an affordable one, at least what I consider affordable, will be released one day. Until that day comes I will happily continue to use my Okki Nokki.
     
  14. TubularBell

    TubularBell Forum Resident

    Location:
    Finland
    Is that how you promoted the idea of buying an RCM to your wife? :D
    I too wash all of my records with Okki Nokki and would love to have few of those ultrasoniced. Just to see what the O.N. leaves behind.
     
  15. Wngnt90

    Wngnt90 Forum Resident

    just playing a record creates a static charge.
     
  16. Wngnt90

    Wngnt90 Forum Resident

    How does one go about demagnitizing a vinyl record? There's nothing magnetic in a vinyl record. Sounds like he is selling some serious snake oil with that.
     
    mikeyt likes this.
  17. alexpop

    alexpop Power pop + other bad habits....

    What about Zerostat?
     
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2014
  18. eurekaiv

    eurekaiv Active Member

    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    I have one, doesn't really do a whole helluva lot in my experience.
     
  19. Wngnt90

    Wngnt90 Forum Resident

    Best anti static fighter is higher humidity in your listening room.....don't know the ideal percentage though. Maybe a topic for a thread of it's own?
     
  20. GreatTone

    GreatTone Forum Resident

    Location:
    Falls Church, VA
    Best anti-static solution is available for around $50 or so on ebay or the like: an industrial ionizer from the semiconductor industry. The desktop models that run on AC are fantastic, and you'll never have a problem with static again. New they are costlier, but there are lots of inexpensive used ones around. A couple of seconds on each side in front of the blower is all it takes. Also, I leave it on blowing over my RCM as I vacuum, and it kills the static instantly. You could buy the $400+ Furutech that runs on batteries, or just get one of these powerful babies and forget about static for the rest of your life. I've discovered that a great deal of noise in records is from static, or the dust it attracts. I never clean new records anymore -- just hit them with the machine and wipe the dust off with a cloth. My vacuum RCM is now reserved for used records with fingerprints and the like. I have been intrigued with ultrasonic diy, but honestly don't think I need one anymore. This is the one I got, but there are lots of brands, including 3M:

    [​IMG]
     
    SandAndGlass and mojomojo like this.
  21. patrickd

    patrickd Forum Resident

    Location:
    Austin TX USA
    Yes, someone has made a cheaper model (still not as cheap as DIY but less than half the price of the Audio Desk or equivalent)

    http://www.ultrasonicrecords.com/
     
  22. Paully

    Paully De gustibus non est disputandum

    Location:
    Tennessee
    If I could find a sonic cleaner that could fit one record at 60khz for around $300 I would probably go ahead and build one. The $600 price tag, give or take, to experiment kind of stops me.
     
  23. eurekaiv

    eurekaiv Active Member

    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    I have a hard time with this thing. It looks like it was cobbled together from parts bought off Amazon and stuff found in the garage. Not exactly the kinda of thing that seems worth $1500.
     
  24. TommyTunes

    TommyTunes Senior Member

    I bought the Audio Desk Systeme machine about 3 years ago and can say that it cleans records better than any other cleaner I've used.
    If you have a large collection of collectible LP's it certainly is the way to go.
     
  25. patrickd

    patrickd Forum Resident

    Location:
    Austin TX USA
    I hear ya, but every time I start to think about building one myself, I am not sure I could make one that looks any better, and most likely would look a lot worse. I saw one in action at the Rocky Mountain Audio Fest last year and while it certainly lacks the professional looks of the Audio Desk or the KIAudio models, it seems to clean much the same with the advantage of handling multiple records at a time. Given the fact that the guy has built them, tested them and offers some kind of back up, his pricing is not ridiculous and makes me realize how easily I am influenced by looks. Still not bought one though, LOL.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine