Cleaning records

I have owned a VPI 16.5, Pro-ject VC-S2 and a Spinclean. To be very honest, they are all imperfect methods of cleaning records and I finally told myself to hell with it, that I would plunk down the money for an Audiodesk ultrasonic cleaner. I decided to watch some videos about how it worked and what it does. After watching the videos, it seems to me that the unit has many of the same flaws of all of the previous cleaning methods that I have used. It reuses the fluid, the brushes can become contaminated, the wipers can become contaminated, high replacement cost of brushes, air drying the record can put contaminants directly back onto the records (I understand it uses some sort of filter, but let's be real, it not a HEPA filter). Not to even mention that the ultrasonic cleaning itself may damage the records themselves (I realize that these manufacturers claim that it is safe, but then why did Audiodesk change to lower frequency/lower energy bubbles?). The only real benefit to the ultrasonic cleaners that I can see is the novelty that it is hands off. This is at the cost of taking significantly more time to clean a record, let alone the cost! Am I looking at this incorrectly? Am I missing something here?

 

Yes. In the years I've used ultrasonic for cleaning, I've experienced no damage.
I've owned the Audio Desk and the KL- both purpose made. I have friends who still rely on the Audio Desk- they usually get a good deal to trade in a machine that is problematic after time toward a new unit, at least in the U.S. (The unit was, and still is, to the best of my knowledge, distributed by the same folks who brought you The Cable Company).
Ultrasonic cleaning brings something a little different to the table than conventional cleaning. I use it in complementary fashion with a Keith Monks (Omni), sort of the granddaddy of all record cleaning machines, though my example is relatively new. I've gotten better results, particularly with problematic records, by combined methods and a rinse step using high purity water than either method alone.
One advantage of ultrasonic is that you could conceivably do it on the cheap, though a number of DIY set ups are just as costly as the purpose built units but offer a larger feature set and can be more flexible. Filtering of the bath for contaminants is just one feature that is often added, and at fairly low cost. If you followed any of the threads (DeGritter, or any where Neil Antin has weighed in @pacvr) you will see some pretty deep discussions of chemistry and sequence of steps. (Neil actually explains what filtering water does and what the various grades of water filter accomplish--offhand, I don't know there has been as much discussion of filtering the forced air on the purpose built machines, but if are DIY, you may not even use forced air to dry, but instead, a vacuum machine --the Monks is a point nozzle so there is even less likely contamination if that is seen as an issue).
There's a lot of information here on the subject, but I think I answered your questions, at least initially.

 

Look into a DeGritter. It addresses some of the concerns you have with an Audiodesk.

 

I used to wash them in the sink!

 

Me still does!

 

Honestly I think the cleaning process it over thought. There are a few does and don't that if you adhere to you will get the same result whether you are cleaning by hand, using an ultra sonic, or something in between. If the album has surface damage it doesn't matter what you do you aren't going to fix it by cleaning. If the album has contaminates in the grooves cleaning it will remove the pops and crackles and brighten the sound.
Don't- use tap water, air dry, put glue on it, spray it with 409 / WD 40 etc, or do anything that common sense tells you is stupid (including spending crazy amounts of money).
Do- use distilled water, rinse, vacuum, iso alcohol, detergent and use your common sense. Also change out basin water, clean brushes, etc, regularly.

 

VPI 16.5 is all I need.

 

Nothing wrong with that method...if done correctly.

 

My first rinse is in the sink. This comes after I use a cleaner, hand clean and use a camel hair brush on my vinyl. I don't use a lot of cleaner, just enough to get the job done.

Than it’s off to the sink for a long, pressure rinse. After I believe I’ve rinsed off any residual cleaner and any debris, than I switch to a nice distilled water rinse. I put the distilled water in a nice spray bottle.

I than finish with my AT 6012 cleaner and felt brush.

My results are pretty good.

 

Here is some information on ultrasonics (from the book you can download - for free - at the end of this article Precision Aqueous Cleaning of Vinyl Records-2nd Edition - The Vinyl Press)"

1. The lower the ultrasonic frequency, the larger the cavitation bubble that is created. A 35-40 kHz UCM (Audiodesk & KL Audio) will produce bubbles about 75 microns diameter. These are not going to get into the record groove. A 120 kHz UCM (Degritter) will produce bubbles about 20 microns (and more of them) and these can get into the groove. But the larger bubble 'can' produce more energy when it collapses/implodes (cavitation) so there is fluid agitation around the collapsing event that can provide cleaning. How violently the bubble collapse is determined by the amount of power provided by the ultrasonic transducers but only up to point above which more power has no benefit. The KL Audio is 100W/side @ 40kHz. The Degritter is 150W/side @120kHz.

2. Further complicating the effectiveness of ultrasonics is the fluid boundary layer. The fluid flow at the record (or any) surface develops a static layer that is separate from the bulk fluid that is moving. The boundary layer thickness is dependent on the ultrasonic frequency (high kHz = thinner boundary layer), acoustic energy, and fluid properties (viscosity & density). To get the most effective cleaning, the cleaning process has to penetrate the boundary layer to remove the soil and particles that are contained within it. At 35-40-kHz, the boundary layer can be as thick as 5 microns, while at 120-kHz, the boundary layer can be as thick as 2 microns.

3. 35-40 kHz ultrasonics are good for general cleaning; while 120 kHz are good for smaller particles. Both the KL Audio and Degritter position the ultrasonic transducers horizontally so they fire directly at the record; and this is optimum. But for cleaning more than 1-record at a time, industry standard UT tanks with bottom firing transducers are used by the DIY crowd, and the better units such as the Elmasonic P-series are not cheap. Do it right with a slow speed spinner and a good pump/filter system and the price can escalate pretty fast. All depends on your threshold - how far do you want to take it.

4. Is the Degritter perfect- no; but for the overall convenience, ease of use and performance it obtains for cleaning one record at a time, its the best available. A few items to note about the Degritter:

-The 120kHz 300W ultrasonics (four 75W transducers/two on either side) directly facing the record and a volume of only 1400 mL, its a powerful UCM. The 120kHz will be pretty quiet and the high kHz targets very small particles better than the more common lower frequency 35-40kHz.

-It has a pretty complex pump/filter system. During operation it acts as a near-surface skimmer; and then at the end of the cleaning cycle - it pumps down for drying and then refills for the next cleaning. However, because of the how the pump functions (and its likely a simple centrifugal pump with limited pump head) it is very susceptible to foam. The Degritter cleaner fluid is nothing more than a dishwasher low foaming rinse aid.

-The Degritter filter is a small cylinder of reticulated foam at best 100 pores/in = 0.254 mm = 254 microns. It is not a very fine filter. So, after say 25 records which is when Degritter recommends refreshing the cleaning fluid, the last records are not seeing clean fluid. Also, they appear to put the filter on the pump suction which while it protects the pump (not that it needs it), it impacts the pump and amplifies the foaming issue.

-But, the Degritter has easily replaced tanks, and many use a 2nd tank for DIW rinse only which only minimally affects the convenience. Otherwise, since many people already had a vacuum-RCM and then added a Degritter a number of people use a vacuum RCM for preclean and then use the Degritter with DW only for final clean/dry.

5. The 'book' does in Chapter XIII detail a cleaning process (and specific chemicals) that can and has been used to good effect for vacuum-RCM; and the chemicals are reasonably cheap; Alconx Liquinox @ 0.5% for pre-clean (Amazon.com: Alconox - 1232-1 1232 Liquinox Anionic Critical Cleaning Liquid Detergent, 1 quart Bottle : Health & Household) and Tergitol 15-S-9 @ 0.05% for final clean (this is not Tergikleen) purchase here: Tergitol 15-S-3 and 15-S-9 Surfactant | TALAS (talasonline.com) .

Hope this is of some help.

 

Same here