Record Cleaning Options - Kind of slowly losing my sanity*

I don't think the Cecil Watts products came out until the mid-60s and the ubiquitous Discwasher in the early '70s. Monks was one of the people who ran with Percy Wilson's experiments, claiming 1969 for a commercial product. I don't think Nitty Gritty and VPI showed up until 1981 or thereabouts.
A lot of times, with used records, what you are cleaning is contamination from a bad prior "cleaning." One thing to look for is dried liquid spotting in the deadwax.
The LP record wasn't all that old when Weiler wrote that booklet either- 1954? That was the same year the RIAA standard was adopted. Early days. A lot of what concerned Weiler was stylus wear, which he attributed in part to detritus on the surface that got ground into the grooves. At the time, he was also looking at the shed from needles--not all were diamond-- as a contributing factor to stylus wear.

 

Not familiar with the unit. The tank is not designed for records, here is an 8L tank of similar design - iSonic CS8.0 2.1 Gallon Professional Ultrasonic Cleaner with Basket - N (hsioutlet.com). This newer Isonic UT tank design does appear to have some improved features - the 8L is using three 80W transducers but they are down-rated at 110-120VAC. The three cooling fans gives some confidence of reliability. It seems that Isonic is a bit loose with the kHz - is it 48kHz or 49kHz? Either way not a big difference from the normal 40kHz.

As far as the CS6.1, it's a 6L tank, and the number of transducers - is it two or three 80W transducers? The spinner is obviously new and focused on cleaning records but there are a few issues. The spinner appears fixed at 10 rpm for cleaning and then variable for spin-dry. The 10-rpm is WAY too fast. For a lower kHz UT (<~65kHz), cavitation intensity is affected by flow in the tank; once it >50% tank volume/min, cavitation intensity drops fast. For a 6L tank (w/o filtration) my recommended max spin speed to clean 1-record is 3-rpm. With this 24VDC spinner and the spin-dry function there may not be the standard work-around which is to purchase a cheap variable VDC power supply - Amazon.com: JOVNO Universal Power Supply 3V-12V 5A 60W Adjustable AC/DC Adapter 100~240V AC to DC 3V 5V 6V 8V 9V 12V with LED Display and 14 Plugs 1 Reverse Polarity Converter Cable for LED Strips Motors Speaks : Electronics.

The spin-dry is a nice feature BUT, to use it you need to drain the tank, and if the cover is not ventilated it can complicate drying - where does the moisture go? The filter is at best a 1-micron nominal which is not bad, and it appears to be a knock-off of something similar sold by this company CleanerVinyl Ultrasonic Record Cleaning, but if at 1.5lpm, and you want maximum cavitation intensity, do not use while cleaning records, use it between cleaning cycles. BUT how recirculation filters work is not well understood at this consumer level. My book goes into detail, but a 1.5lpm pump and that 6L tank would take 14-min to filter the tank 96%.

Otherwise, sorry but I make no recommendations unless I am confident in the hardware, the technical documentation, operators manual, reliability and the warranty and support; with the Elmasonic P60H being my first recommendation - but that's $2000 fully configured with spinner, pump/filter, etc.

 

As noted earlier in this thread, a low wattage, low frequency array of transducers have a hard enough time with one LP. A session of two or more at a time will just run the LPs through a wet bath with, most likely, literally no effective cavitation action at all.

I have neither tried nor even seen this one, but on spec there is no hope of the thing working well at all. My opinion is that you should keep your money. What LP cleaning system are you already using?

 

Be careful with wattage and lower frequency. The power required for cavitation is proportionate with kHz. So, a 48kHz UT will require less power than a 120kHz UT. But the power/volume is inversely proportionate with tank volume, so a very small tank like the Degritter at 1.4L will need more power than say a larger 6L tank. It has to do with the ratio of the tank volume to the tank surface area.

Also, there is a limit to increasing power above which no additional benefit is obtained, and it's a curve not a diagonal line. And the quality of construction; how secure are the transducers to the metal tank, and the quality of the metal tank can affect the usable power. So, two UCM of the same size and power, can yield very different cavitation intensities, ergo different cleaning performance. From the experience of others, I know the Elmasonic P-series are very effective and its easily noted by how quickly the ultrasonics heat up the bath (it's all about conservation of energy) with no cover. To allow a Elmasonic P-120H to operate near continuously (high record cleaning throughput) a cooling radiator as part of the pump/filter system was necessary.

Take care,

 

This is one reason ($ being the other) I've chosen to stick to a more hands on approach to cleaning. There are just so many variables that affect how well an UCM does the job.

 

I never got satisfactory results until I got a vacuum cleaner. I just clean well with record cleaning solution, vacuum that off, then clean again with a separate brush with distilled water then final vacuum ( don’t overvacuum the final dry or you’ll get static buildup )

i spent roughly 50 bucks for all the supplies, one of the best “upgrades” to my system and also revitalized my interest in hunting used bins.

 

I basically do the same, but I've got two cleans before the rinse. I recently added the Squeaky Clean (a platter with a connection for a vacuum hose to attach) that makes it a little more streamlined.

 

Wow, these are all excellent points and I'm starting to see the equations necessary for a proper cleaning cycles.

On the Amazon site (where it sells for $915.89) it does state that a Step motor is controlled by program to run variable speeds for cleaning and drying, though it doesn't give the specs on speed. Yes, where does the moisture go when spin drying ... a mystery!

Thanks for your insights and recommendations!

 

Thanks for those points, it seems that the wattage really needs to be pumped up when adding multiple records.

Ha ... a Spin Clean and elbow grease!

 

In general yes, but as @pacvr has described in detail, there are several other factors to consider as well.

Your SpinClean, used correctly, does a great job. A SpinClean also, with most LPs, often allows you to do the cleaning and drying faster than than you can with an ultrasonic machine (albeit at the cost of doing the cleaning and drying manually). Whatever... the SpinClean works perfectly well for almost everything.

I get the impression from some audiophiles who've posted in other threads in the past that they regard the SpinClean as some sort of second class cleaning system. It isn't. It has served countless audiophiles well for decades - audiophiles with large LP collections notable for quiet surfaces and high fidelity.

 

This site UPC 850010088648 - iSonic CS6.1-Pro Motorized Ultrasonic Vinyl Record Cleaner for 10 LPs, with Filter and Spin Drying, 1.6 Gal/6L, 110V | Barcode Index implies that the cleaning speed is 10 rpm and maximum 600RPM for spin drying, so that the spin-dry speed is variable. Otherwise, what is implied is that the motor has a 60:1 turndown ratio with minimum speed of 10rpm. We will need to wait until Isonic publishes some technical details and maybe an operating manual of which I have not found any on the web.

 

Hi Neil,

It’s Andrew again.

It’s six months later and I’m deep in the process of cleaning, and enjoying the amazing sound of, my old record collection. Most of the records hadn’t been played in twenty years. It’s truly amazing that albums that I owned as a kid, and played regularly back in the day on uncalibrated turntables with whatever needle, had managed to survive the handling of an unaware youth. For the most part they still sound great. And the cleaning process is doing them, and my Ortofon 2M Bronze, lots of good.

I wanted to thank you for all the amazing advice… for sharing your deep wisdom and experience. It is truly amazing to have someone with like you to guide us in the process. I have followed your advice down to the type of spray bottles you suggested. It’s an excellent process and clearly makes a difference. Thank you.

And though that was truly my reason for coming out here, while reading other posts in the thread, I was inspired to ask a couple of other questions:

- What do you do to deal with superficial dust once you’ve deep cleaned?

- Also, how often should I change my brushes and the pads on the Okki Nokki arm?

- Considering that I am using the Okki Nokki, is there any need to further dry the records once I’ve done the Liquinox wash / Okki Nokki suction / DIW rinse/Okki Nokki suction / Final wash with polysorbate/ Okki Nokki suction / Final rinse with DIW/ Final dry with the Okki Nokki?

- Lastly… Is that too many passes with the Okki Nokki? I only fully dry the last time around as you suggested.

Andrew

 

Andrew,

-See the book Chapter VI. I use the Orbit Blower, the Kinetronics Tiger Cloth and the Teflon rod but I now use the rod with the record not spinning. I use the UV light (see Chapter IV) in left hand and the Teflon rod in the right hand to pick-up superficial dust. I then use the Kinetronics Tiger Cloth to wipe the lead-in and run-out groove area gently (no UV light for this) while the record is spinning. I use the Orbit blower to clean the stylus after each play. I no longer use any brush on the record - as I say at the end of Chapter VI, the only thing that belongs in the groove is the stylus, and if your record is clean, the only thing the stylus picks up is an occasional fiber (if that). Otherwise, once per day of play, I clean the stylus with the Ortofon carbon stylus brush lightly misted with DIW.

-I have no experience with this. Check with others to see what they do. You should be able to see deterioration of the pads, and I suspect the pads are the items that require more frequent replacement.

-No. The only thing you may consider if the record is not visible dry is if cleaning a stack of records, place the records in a drying rack and then every 3-6 record, stop and sleeve/package. Just be careful when drying, dry too long and you will produce static.

-No, it's a good pre-clean, rinse, final clean, rinse, dry process, and as you say, you are only final drying on the last step.

Take care,
Neil

 

You guys are crazy! I use a DIY ultrasonic and my old pro-ject to dry, using pure demineralised water. Works wonders and takes 15-20 minutes per 2LP's which I just leave to do their thing. Even that is enough to bore me to death! I tend to only clean the records I think sound like they need it. I recently scored an original A2/B2 DSOTM which was graded as NM, when I set the needle down it was snap, crackle and pop. One run through the ultrasonic and the difference is incredible, genuinely the best copy I've owned!

So maybe I've just convinced myself in this paragraph that I should clean all my records. Damn.

 

I was looking for an ultrasonic solution and came across this interesting piece from a company called sonic solutions. Does Ultrasonic Cleaning Work With Plastics? - Sonic Solutions Ltd
This is a snippet

As an ultrasonic cleaning company, it pains us to say that ultrasonics isn’t the best cleaning method for everything, and we have to hold our hands up and admit that generally for plastic materials, it doesn’t quite cut the mustard.
For the removal of light contaminants from hard plastics, it’s worth a shot but always be aware that you may be required to do some hand-cleaning to finish them off.

 

This is a misleading excerpt you've decided to quote, sure for plastics which are soiled with heavy contaminants such as oil or grease it may not be the best solution, but for dust and general build up of dirt over time and ultrasonic is more than capable and more efficient at this due to the high frequency waves penetrating the microscopic grooves which wouldn't be as efficiently cleaned say by hand or with a vacuum.

 

Of course it is, I’m hardly going to quote the boring part.

 

In my case, the thought of having to wait 15 to 20 minutes before listening to a record sounds painful. What usually… no, what always happens is: I am inspired to listen to a particular album so I go upstairs to get it; give it a clean; play it.

Being engaged with the cleaning process is actually part of the joy. I can witness the results of the work I’m doing. I will have to time the process, but it isn’t too long. I only do one vinyl at a time… The one I am about to listen to.

 

Thanks again, Neil.

I apologize… I don’t know why I didn’t think to simply go look in the book.

Considering that the only thing that should go in the groove is a stylus, is it a bad idea to clean records with a machine that sucks them towards, and holds them against, a brush that is the arm of the cleaning machine?

And what of the brushes I use to clean the record? Are they not damaging the ridges in anyway or are they too soft in comparison to the vinyl itself?

Andrew

 

Andrew:

No to all the above. The expression the only thing that belongs in the groove is the stylus has to do with Chapter VI, maintenance of cleanliness; not whether you are damaging the groove which for the cleaning process you are using there is no evidence of that occuring. My experience with every dry or wet-misted brush (carbon fiber and Thunderon), used for maintenance of cleanliness is that under UV light they leave more than take away.

Neil

 

Ultrasonic cleaner

For $200(that's what it was when I bought it) the above has transformed my listening experience. Probably the best $200 I've ever spent. I just use filtered water, some alcohol, a capful of Ilfoto and 3 drops of clear dawn dishwashing soap per tank. I use each tankful to clean 5 records at a time for about 20 records before draining it and refilling.

Works great. I don't believe a fancy $1,000 cleaner would be any better. Records that I have bought new basically have no clicks or pops.

 

I'm sorry to hear that, but that's interesting. Questions:

• I presume that this statement would apply to Discwasher/GrooveWasher-type cleaning brushes as well?
• Would you expect the Discwasher/GrooveWasher-type to be an even worse offender in this regard?
• Would your statement apply even in those instances where the use of a brush leaves a visible line of dust across the length of the brush?

Thank you.

 

I'm not Neil, but I think things largely boil down to where you're starting (how dirty is that record, and what constitutes the dirt?), and individual technique.

Follow me on a bit of a deductive reasoning journey here. If one approach to cleaning records was truly superior to all others (results-wise), and wasn't especially onerous or unsafe, it would seem to follow that most everyone would gravitate to that approach. Lots of people have tried various pads/brushes with a variety of chemistry, people have washed albums at the sink, they've smeared glue on them and then peeled it off. Still others have invested in vacuum record cleaning machines and now more and more of those people have started down the path of ultrasonic.

Many vinyl enthusiasts will champion their method or chemical du jour as the best, even making statements about how their records are "basically without surface noise, sound like new, can't get any cleaner than this." However, it isn't unusual to spot these same enthusiasts later extolling the virtues of their next approach. This has been especially true of those that have insisted everyone should follow their lead in procuring vacuum-based machines, only to later jump on the ultrasonic bandwagon. Why would anyone already possessing a collection of records that are "basically without surface noise, sound like new, can't get any cleaner than this" be investing in new hardware and telling us about the results of re-cleaning their collection?

If I'm right, if no one method is really superior to all others in offering a one-and-done solution, then perhaps an iterative approach is best. In "iterative," I mean cleaning more than once, and using different approaches (depending especially on what is contaminating that specific record groove). In my collection you'll find a good # of jazz records that were played (a lot) in a hair salon decades ago, when shellac-based hair spray was common. Those records required a different approach than, say, some classical records that were played 1-2 times and otherwise kept in their protective clothing.

I don't want to talk for Neil, but I'm hoping he was saying that the brushes/pads don't remove everything, not that records are more dirty after their use, than before. Because if the latter were the case, I think absolutely nobody that has ever tried them would continue their use. And this is an area where individual technique plays a roll, certainly some try products like the GrooveWasher and immediately move on. Others seem to be able to get their records cleaner/quieter with the exact same product.

Anyway, getting back to your original question which wasn't even put to me, I'd say that in my experience pads and/or brushes whether misted or not, leave stuff behind.

But, I don't know of a single approach that doesn't also leave some dirt behind.

The key is being open to an iterative approach, where the dirt left behind is reduced by some amount on each subsequent cleaning. Just like taking a ten year old car to the car wash or a detail shop will do wonders on the first go, subsequent washes or detailings will certainly yield even better results.

Anyways, sorry for the lengthy post.

 

Everyone has different expectations as well, and often use hyperbole to describe their results. One person’s “cleaned to perfection” may be another person’s “it’s better, but still needs more cleaning”.

We all have different hi-fi rigs and varying levels of hearing deterioration as well. I’m 63 and what passes for perfect in my house with my rig may fail in a 30 year olds house with an uber-deluxe rig.

And to further, it may indeed play perfect right after doing whatever one did for cleaning, but after it was put in the sleeve, and played again next month, it may have accumulated whatever is in their house, pet hair, pollens, etc, etc.

 

Historically, my approach since about 1976 when I got my first decent component stereo system had been the old discwasher brush/pad with fluid lightly smeared along one edge. I did this every time I played a record. It was only in the 2010s that the idea of a serious cleaning of a record as we do now even entered my mind. When I went back to clean those old records I have had for 40 years they were surprisingly clean. (I cleaned them anyway for the sake of consistency)

Now it is still very difficult for me not to pick up a brush and dry clean as the turntable begins to spin. But I fight the urge. After all they have been well cleaned and stored. But if by some chance a few visible particles are observed as I put on the turntable, perhaps an open door stirred up particles and they landed there? I do take out a dry brush and remove those particles. I suppose it is a trade off, if it's big enough to see it's going to affect playback, but in doing that do I add enough particles the eye can't see on to the record to the point it affect playback?