These articles are great! Thanks for sharing. So, according to this article, the threshold for static to become a problem is around 4kV. At this point you can get discharges. Below this point there are still some issues to contend with, eg dust attraction and even cartridge attraction, which increases the tracking force. The measured results from the Degritter clean were ~0.2kV suggesting essentially perfect static control. The Kirmuss, especially after hand drying with a cloth was sometimes around 4kV(!) and I could feel my arm hair standing up when waving my forearm over the record. Friction = static. With wet washing/blow drying that all goes away. I've measured both the Milty gun and the Furutech DeStat in the past and both effectively remove the static charges from records.
Being perfectly honest, records that are dirty (i.e. not new) are best pre-cleaned with more aggressive chemistry - be it enzyme or broad based detergent such as Alconox Liquinox. Ultrasonic is good, but for pre-clean without a rinse, they are limited. As you clean, the cleaner NVR increases because it now contain soil from the record; and this increase is (should) be the largest at the pre-clean step. But, w/o the tank being finely filtered and w/o a rinse, you are limited to what chemistry you can use. If there is any takeaway from this overall discussion I hope that you can appreciate the challenge with 'bath-management'; its a PITA. Industry uses the lower frequency (<200kHz) ultrasonic not because its great, but because it can handle inaccessible surfaces (of which the record has none) and high volume throughput that manual cleaning cannot approach. If you recall I addressed the Industry standard 4-bay 'clean/double cascade rinse/oven dry' console. This is for final clean only. For pre-clean there will generally be a parts-washer (high velocity spray); standard dishwashers can be very effective with the right parts/chemistry, or if using ultrasonic, a 6-bay unit where the 1st contains the pre-cleaner and the 2nd an ultrasonic rinse. In a small volume cleaner application such as vacuum-RCM, the cleaner can be overwhelmed depending on cleaner concentration and how dirty the record. And each clean/rinse step is only so effective - they are not 100%. But, for vacuum-RCM, it is very easy to perform multiple applications of the pre-clean step with different chemistries if needed. The benefit of vacuum-RCM is that it always uses fresh cleaner and not much of it, so you are not trying to manage a large bath of cleaner or rinse water. So, your results are not unexpected. You have a number of options open to you: -Get the best cleaning you can with a single device: vacuum-RCM wins -Get the most convenient cleaning with ease of use: a single clean/rinse/dry device such as Degritter wins -Get the best cleaning you can; you are limited only by your imagination, space/$$$; but vacuum-RCM pre-clean/rinse followed by finely filtered ultrasonic for final clean/rinse is a realistic cost effective approach. And to conclude on this, where does my low cost manual hand-clean multi-step cleaning process fall - that I will neither confirm nor deny. I am selling nothing; I judge no one, and I am here only to provide advice. Just some thoughts
@r.Din, do you have any follow-up with the LS54? What concentration are you using (how many drops) and are you still using IPA?
I have a bit more about the Tergitol. So far it seems like any stylus residue is much less. I did a thorough clean of my cantilever last night using up to 70X magnification to see properly. The top of the cantilever was thick with a white deposit that I first had to soften with some water (had a bit of Photo-Flo in it) and then scrape off using the quill of a parakeet feather! If you've never done it, look at your stylus/cantilever under high magnification. It will rock your world. I tell people who visit to not look at their hands under that magnification if they ever want to eat with their fingers again! lol So far I'm happy with the Tergitol but some of it may be mental. I've played a couple LPs cleaned this way and one Yes album that I haven't listened to in a long time sounded shrill to me. I wonder if the cleaning just opened up the high end more as Yes seems that way more so than less anyway. One other maybe thing, I had to turn down my preamp gain a click. Things just seem louder.
Sorry, not yet. I'm completely out of water, so all testing suspended. More should arrive tomorrow, pending delays due to recent snowfall. It did mean, however, that I could spend today enjoying the fruits of my recent labour and actually listen to (well cleaned) music for pleasure! I intend to use IPA and LS54 in the Kirmuss, aiming for detergency levels, assuming no adverse side effects. As to your previous post and best-methods, I'm thinking my routine moving forward will be: 5 minute enzyme soak on vacuum cleaner (I currently have velvet lips type, but am intending to pick up a loricraft when they resume production) 5 minute Kirmuss (IPA/LS54) 5 minute Degritter (distilled only) rinse and dry. That way, after the first record is cleaned, I can complete one record every five minutes for 30 minutes, after which the Kirmuss will need to cool down. This all hinges on being able to find an effective one-wash Kirmuss recipe. So my next testing will be with the LS54 in the Kirmuss and multiple wash cycles (Kirmuss/Degritter) to see how few I can get away with.
A simple UV light can also show a lot of particle details and evidence of oil, and you may also see how much glue was used to secure the stylus Like all things, the 'truth' can be a double edged sword. I have gotten to the point where I trust my cleaning process so what I hear is what's pressed into the record, and that is all I hear; warts, farts and all. I have some 'perfect' records - they can challenge digital for background noise and the sound on my system is from my perspective my 'perfect' baseline. Any time I start to question what I am listening to, I play one of those records to check whether its my system or the record. If the 'perfect' record plays 'perfect'; its the record pressing, otherwise, I have a system problem. I will hold my tongue on the amount of less than perfect new records.
Yes, that is a "Get the best cleaning you can". With that method you should absolutely trust your process to reveal what is pressed into that record and nothing more and nothing less
I take your point, and I've got files wayyyy back that show the difference betwen Okki and Degritter. It's why I have kept my RCM, though I'm considering potentially selling and just keeping my SpinClean for really filthy records. I'm buying far fewer records that are a mess these days, and Degritter is 100% perfect (for me) for everything I've got come into the house for the last half year or so, be they VG+ used or new out-of-pack. But (and this is in my vid...and reiterated by Degritter themselves) having two types of cleaners is actually recommended as per the above. That said, two different US cleaners does seem a bit mad to me, but I'm already off the deepend myself...
And I've discussed this as well, but this is key - the Degritter, for me, has provided a sense of finality. With the Okki I always thought, well, what if I ran it through an US? Now, post-degritter, I just accept the nature of some of these records as being what they are and can just listen to the music without too much neurotic obsession. These latest developments regarding different chemicals to add to the vat are not helping on that front.
I started a new tank and this time I reduced the Tergitol 15-S-9 to 2 drops and left the IPA at about 2.5% (38ml). The foaming seems to have been greatly reduced (90%?) while the wetting remains excellent. I put the additives in the DW while the tank is low during Degassing to allow for mixing when the tank refills. I've noticed that it take more mixing than that to get the wetting process really going.
As an aside, going back through my paper and notes, I just realized that I missed a decimal point which effects the calculated film thickness from residue. Based on what people hear, it now looks as if a surfactant film thickness of 0.1 micron could very well be audible. There are any number of explanation - one could be that if there is residue and it absorbs water, it's surface tension will be very low and the side-wall grooves could channel by gravity the solution to pool at the bottom of the groove. If that occurs, then it becomes plausible (it's a stretch) that this could cause a hydraulic wedge to form and the stylus would ride just a bit higher in the groove which could be noted as loss of some signal output. If the residue coats the side-wall ridge valleys, and it prevents the stylus from deflecting/tracing the full depth of the valley, then the high frequency signal would be reduced. If I can find some actual peak-to-valley heights such what it takes to produce a 15-kHz/10-dB signal, the resultant loss of 0.1 microns displacement should be quantifiable to a loss in dB signal output. Still trying to wrap my head around this that such a small film thickness could be audible.
I think you state this, if I understand properly, that you are looking for actual groove measurements for high frequency sound to compare with the 0.1 micron film thickness? Just intuitively, the stylus geometry is orders of magnitude bigger isn't it?
The stylus tip radius can be as small as 0.0002" = ~5 microns. Then 0.1 micron/5 microns = 0.02 = 2% change. However, I have been reading the Audio Cyclopedia https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Audio/Archive-Audio-Collection/Audio_Cyclopedia.pdf and I think it has to due with the groove modulation amplitude - which is the actual groove lateral/horizontal dimensional changes to produce the signal which should be less than the stylus dimensions. I did find this in an older The Broadcast Engineers' Journal, September, 1941 magazine and it states - "If the perfectly efficient magnetic cutter were used there would be 0.00008 inch amplitude at 10,000 cps." An amplitude of 0.00008 inch = 2 microns. If this is still applicable to the 33.333 LP, then 0.1 micron/2 microns = 5% - that could be audible.
See my edit; it 'may' get really small. I am trying to wrap my head around this. Edit - I am pretty sure I found the equation in an RCA Engineer Magazine written by a PhD. At the high frequencies and this has to do with the whole RIAA correction, it appears that the amplitude = (Groove velocity in dB)/[(2 x 3.14)(frequency Hz being reproduced)], so a 10kHz signal at 10 dB has an amplitude of (10)/(6.28)(10000) = 0.00015" = 3.81 microns. A 15kHz signal at 10 dB has an amplitude of (10)/(6.28)(15000) = 0.0001" = 2.54 microns. Pretty small. Note the above equation is not used at lower frequencies because the amplitude would get too large.
And my Jubilee claims it goes up to 60kHz at -3dB! Using your equation that would be 0.0000265 or 0.673 microns. A .1 micron film will really kill the high frequencies. That's a bit of a joke but even at realistic frequencies I can see the problem.
Just one correction, the equation holds at the lower frequencies, but they reduce the dB signal per the RIAA to reduce the amplitude.
Many of the problems I ran into with detergent took a minute or three to rear their ugly heads. It was almost as if residue was scraped from the walls and collected on the stylus.* I could lift the stylus briefly, and drop it again, and it would play decently for a minute or three, and then clarity would start to suffer again. I eventually got pretty good at rinsing, able to get consistent results, but it took longer than I liked and still produced occasional failures. *I have no way to substantiate this. Also, I was not using the detergents you guys are employing.
For those interested here is the RCA Engineer magazine - 1966-08-09.pdf (worldradiohistory.com); article Disc Phonograph Records, Dr. A. M. Max. I need to spend some more time with this article to make sure I am reading it right. But, fundamentally, to refresh what many people know, what the RIAA does is that the amplitude signal recorded on on the record is reduced at low frequencies to get long-play, but those frequencies are then amplified on play back to correct. The high frequency amplitudes are increased during recording to get the amplitude above imperfections/background noise that just part of the record material but then reduced during play back to correct.
Don't be - this site is the collective of about 50 yrs of knowledge (to the early 80's) containing over 1M pages of documentation and all copies of Audio magazine, RCA Engineer magazine and many others RADIO and BROADCAST HISTORY library with thousands of books and magazines (worldradiohistory.com). There are various search methods, but if you take some time you can figure out how to search/work the site. You really have to appreciate the science/engineering that went into developing the LP record. Whatever we are doing now, pales in comparison to the efforts of the past - but that type of Government/Corporate investment died with digital; but Long-Live-The-LP!!!
Tried to add a table - but not did not work; it will be in my paper; I was going to show that at the higher frequencies >1000 Hz, the RIAA equalization that has increasing dB as frequency increases applies a near constant amplitude increase varies from about 4 microns to 6.5 microns. However, the following is the microns/1dB at the very highest frequencies and those are the one likely to be affected by residue films. 5000 Hz - 0.81 micron/dB 6300 Hz - 0.64 micron/dB 8000 Hz - 0.51 micron/dB 10000 Hz - 0.40 micron/dB 12500 Hz - 0.32 micron/dB 16000 Hz - 0.25 micron/dB 20000 Hz - 0.20 micron/dB
