I use a brush to eliminate any static electricity that may be there. There really shouldn’t be any dust.
After cleaning I only zap the LP with a Zerostat gun to eliminate static and then blow off any stray dust before playing. JMO but I think brushes just push the dust around and may grind it back into the grooves. If I start getting any pops ord clicks on previously cleaned vinyl, after multiple plays, I reclean it on my RCM.......YMMV
Glad you started this thread @Josquin des Prez. I've been using US cleaning for quite a while now, started with the original AD, eventually bought a KL and found that my best results on old records came from combining more conventional cleaning, using various fluids, vacuum and pure water rinse (Reagent Grade I for the rinse) with US. I'm very happy to see that the DIY movement has taken hold since I think you can get a better feature set, not necessarily much cheaper than AD or KL, using the bigger Elma, a recirculating pump and filter and experimenting with your chemistry. I do think you get better results vac drying the ultrasonically washed record than using the forced air drying. KL warns against removing a wet record from their unit (even though you can zero out the drying function). The point nozzle machines do a better job in my estimation than the wand machines, but even before I had the Monks point nozzle, I was able to get some records that still would not play cleanly after a cycle in the AD to a high state of playability using an old VPI and AIVS No. 15 plus lab water. For brand new records, the US alone probably works fine unless the record is a mess out of the sleeve. For KL owners I found a neat rubber tipped "steam tweezer" that I'm going to try next time I have to clean the tank. I use these clean room lab wipes made out of polyester- non-impregnated- and they don't leave any lint. I'll get some grey-black dust in the tank from cleaning new records straight into the KL, but no residue if the records have been pre-cleaned. I had various issues with the ADs, including water spotting. I gather the newer Pro version has resolved most of those, but I did reduce the amount of proprietary fluid because I didn't want to leave a fluid residue on the record (which forced air drying wouldn't necessarily remove). I think the combined methods have gotten me great results and I really like the effect of the US as a step. I've gotten a little OCD about inner sleeve lint- almost all of them seem to shed. I've switched to the MA Records sleeve which seems to shed less. Those old style rounded bottom inners seem ok too, I just don't like handling them. I resleeve outside of the jacket, to minimize friction and wear and tear on the record and jacket. This also seems to minimize creation of any additional static. (When the records come out of cleaning they are static free). I haven't used the current AD Pro so I'm not sure I have any tips especially for that-- the wipers were a pain. The filter wasn't really very fine and the whole thing seemed very complicated in action with the roller system, but it does work. I was able to prolong the life of the rollers by rinsing them out in lab water- it's been a while since I had an AD so I'm sure I'm forgetting something. Here's to pristine vinyl! (Having a really good light both at your cleaning station and at the turntable makes a big difference). I keep a Giotto Rocket Blaster handy in both locations as well as near my record flattening machine, just to get those little dust motes off the surfaces. Call me compulsive, but man, the records play really cleanly. And in a few cases, I've been able to salvage records I thought were trashed by groove chew with multiple cleanings using different methods.
They are a game changer on so many levels, some expected and some a bit of a surprise: The records come out as clean as they are gonna get. In some cases noticeably cleaner than my Okki Nokki got them. It has rendered some early 50's used jazz LP's from acceptable to almost as good as new. The records emerge statically inert. The process is about as hands off as you can get. With the Okki Nokki it was two step process including manually dispensing and cleaning and drying each side. You had to count revolutions for the drying part. I also often had to hit the LPs with a zerostat and or an anti-static brush before getting to the Okki Nokki part. Instant Gratification. With my Okki Nokki there was the extra 15 minutes spent waiting for one side to dry. With the UCM I can get home with a new or used record and be listening in 10 minutes. Multi-tasking: The more hands off nature of the process allows me to multi-task. I can clean and catalogue my records at the same time. Or I can clean records and be doing some other task at the time. The Okki Nokki was a good machine, but the process was getting old. I was about 100 LP's into the 800 LPs I had to clean and I was not so thrilled with the process anymore. There were several times I wouldn't listen to LPs because the music I was in the mood for was on records I hadn't cleaned yet. @Josquin des Prez was right on when he said a UCM was a game changer and it is right up there with the best money I have spent on my system.
BTW welcome aboard Matt. I have a humidifier on my HVAC system so my house doesn't get wicked dry in the winter. The records come out of my UCM statically inert and stay that way. I have a Zerostat but since getting my UCM, I have not had to use it. So for me: I keep a carbon fiber brush next to the turntable, but I often play a cleaned album 3 or 4 times before I even think about using the brush. In fact I have added a record sweeping brush to the equation and it tracks along with the tonearm's pace. It takes care of any stray dust that may have settled on the record surface from out of the air, meaning the carbon fiber brush will see less use.
I just bought a UCM and started to thinking of what water purification system I should use. As I have a distiller I was thinking of using that type of water. But I have a audiofile friend that say: "ro-water (=reverse osmosis=demineralised) is cleaner than distilled water." I that doesn't like pure statements without any fact backing it up. If you say and your friends say the same all the time then you start to take it as a fact.. So I found chemists that compare the two different water purification techniques. Distilled Water vs. Demineralised Water | ReAgent Chemicals Ltd So to straighten this out ones for all. Distilled water is more pure than ro-water. And not only in one way but at least in a two different ways. Yes there is also different puyifipurifi classes for ro-water. But distilled water can also be double distilled. We should compare apples to apples. So let us start using a new mantra that is true: "Distilled water is more pure than ro-water." The bad thing is that I sent this link to my audiofile friend. And I got a reply back stating: "Ro-water is more pure" !!?? Did he really read the article at all? Or I'm missing something here??
There are multiple steps to get to higher purity. Here's a chart I've posted before from a company that makes the equipment to produce lab grade water. It explains what each process does.
Thanks for the link! Yes distilled water is the oldest and longest used lab grade water! And they are little bias when they sell the stuff
What they are selling is very elaborate lab/hospital/equipment to make the water. And it goes through all those processes to get to the highest grade. The main issue is minerals and solids; the other processes deal w/ bacteria and other stuff you don't want in medical cultures. I use the fancy water for rinsing and mixing fluids, but use distilled now in my ultrasonic, i was going through cases of reagent grade I - i concluded it was not worth it.
Thanks for the replies about dust after cleaning. When I see people talking about US cleaning as merely a "step" in the cleaning process it's almost off-putting. I'm spending thousands on a machine to not merely be one "step" but for the whole point of doing the process for me with minimum fuss. If I were to add any more steps to the cleaning, such as using some other machine or manual method in addition, it would defeat the purpose. I understand of course this is always a personal call - some people want to go further in cleaning, and maybe they don't mind the extra fuss as I would, so they view US as merely a step in a longer process. I figure I should be happy using US cleaning only. I'm already very happy with the sound of most of my records as it is, with a mere brushing. It's just that there are occaisional records where it seems debris remains and I'm presuming an US cleaning, while not resulting in perfection, will tend to go somewhat further in results vs just a record brush. Also, I really enjoy the aesthetics of new-looking vinyl, so I like the idea of even visually clean looking records.
The way I look at, ultrasonic cleaning is the best single process cleaning method, especially if the machine has a drying cycle. However, at times the ultrasonic cleaning isn't sufficient to remove certain things from the record. In those cases I will do a hand cleaning first and then use the ultrasonic. If you are satisfied with the ultrasonic cleaning then there's nothing else you need to do.
I use my Okki Nokki for a presoak that includes an enzymatic formula for records with stubborn dirt that is caked on, and doesn't come off with US alone. I follow that with the US cleaner. US isn't a panacea, but it does the job on its own most of the time.
Great to hear of your experience! I also think it is not worth it. Most of the time we are wired the way that we think bigger, pricier and cleaner is always better. Thanks.
I was pretty blown away when I got my first US machine. The extra cleaning steps are really only necessary for some problem old records, so your cleaning process won't be more complicated or time consuming than a vacuum RCM type for most records and in most cases, will be easier and if not faster, less work. And you'll be pretty impressed with the sonics on the vast majority. For the problem records, to me, it is worth the extra work since they are typically not easy or cheap to replace. My bet is you'll be happy.
Is there clicks and pops of different reasons? Or more specific is there clicks and pops that UCM NEVER can remove (or any other type of cleaning type for that matter)? I am NOT impressed now initial by this UCM. Setup: As I said I just got a new 6l 180w 40kHz DIY. Distilled water plus wetting agent and 40°C. Washing time 10 min. In my opinion the setup above should be more or less consensus and enough. As a single UCM cleaning action. The issue: I bought this UCM with just one specific record in mind. The record that I bought brand new was good as it should. But during the course of time it slowly develop more and more clicks and pops. And I am only playing it with nice shibata and eliptic stylus with recommended settings. And this issue with degradation of SQ is more or less only experienced on this record. I have tried during a course of time different cleanings methods without any luck. So I thought that maybe the "dirt" is further down in the grove and my spin clean, and other methods didn't reach down to the bottom of the grove to be able to remove the dirt. And UCM will certainly do that I was thinking.. Result: So after that that record has gone through the setup above. The clicks and pops are still there and maybe there are even more of them or a illusion because it may be little more silent in-between them so they seams to be worse in contrast. It doesn't matter the bottom line is that UCM did NOT remove any clicks and pops of this "type". One theory is that there is of course different "types" of "clicks and pops". If some kind of dirt is pressed into the vinyl during playback and then is not able to be removed. Another theory is that it is that this type of clicks and pops are some kind of wear and tear of the groove that is also not washable. In theory no2 I am thinking if it is something working together with composition of this particular compound vinyl that has been used in the pressing plant. Softer compound mix or something. Because I haven't experienced this degradation in my other records. Anyway my conclusion is that UCM is not able to remove all "types" of clicks and pops. And of course "clicks and pops" that is due to wear and tear (if that is the reason?) of the groove will never be removed by any type of washing regime.
I might suggest taking this record to a record cleaning service in your area that uses UCM machines. Or perhaps there is a store that sells a UCM and they let you clean a disk to try out their machine. So far my UCM has dealt with all clicks and pops on new vinyl. I have some used vinyl that has some ticks and pops remaining after cleaning. But I attribute this to physical damage. Audio Desk makes a point about using their brand cleaning solution because it is optimized for the frequencies they use for cleaning. I don't know if this is just hype/scare tactics to get you to keep buying their cleaning solution. Perhaps a different cleaning solution might help.
This is great info, I’ve been using an Okki Nokki for a short while and just realized I really need something to curb the static I’ve been noticing, mostly when I first set the stylus down.
I use a Kirmuss US for the dirty work and the KLAUDIO for the rinse cycle. I’ve been experimenting with the Kirmuss. If I have a dirty used record, I’ll work AVIS 15 fluid into the LP with a brush and let it sit for a few minutes and then will do a 7-10 minute rinse and follow it up with the Kirmuss surfactant and another 5 minute rinse. I’ll dry the record lightly using the cloth that comes with the Kirmuss machine and then the LP goes into the KLAUDIO for 2 rinse cycles of 5 minutes each, followed by a 3 minute drying. It’s not perfect but the method seems to clean my records nicely, although I still get gunk on my stylus from time to time. If I do hear noise it’s due to the condition of the pressing. Unfortunately an US can’t eliminate hairlines.
I think that the gunk on your stylus is telling us that you only wash your records on the surface and not down in the grove. There the stylus is working. There can be two reasons: 1. your cleaning regime is wetting up the dirt or and just smear it to different locations in the grove. And the stylus is your last cleaning step by draging it in the grove and pick up the gunk. 2. You maybe press in the dirt into the groove during cleaning. I have made no 2 my self. By using IPA (Isopropyl) AND microfiber cloth! Do not never use IPA and microfiber cloth. The microfiber cloth consists of nylon and the Isopropyl dissolve the microfibrers of nylon. I did not see it or noticed it but I damage the microfiber cloth and lay down into the groves melted nylon! But I saw it on the stylus when white gunk were accumulated on it. Then I knew that I had done something sub optimal..
No, you’re wrong. I go through multiple cleanings. It’s not just cleaning on the surface. Please. Ive been cleaning my records for a long time. I know what I’m doing. Thanks for the advice though.
If you have dust in your house, and you do, then you'll likely wind up with some dust on your record at some point, especially if you're having a dry spell (likely in Canada) and static is more of an issue. But we're talking about a quick brush at most and it shouldn't require a re-clean.
New to this discussion, and fairly new to the forum, but regular US user (home brew) and I worked as a Tech Manager for many years dealing with PVC formulations, although not for LPs. I'll be posting my thoughts and experiences over the next few weeks, but wanted to cover some basics. Your ultimate album cleanliness is going to be limited by your environment. - Its already been noted that in low humidity you will increase static, which can pull dust and other debris to the record surface. - If you ever have to dust your listening room or your record cleaning area then you have contamination sources and need to deal with them - Your records won't get any cleaner than your cleaning fluids. I like the US external filters. I like final rinses (I have an old Nitty Gritty). - If you are cleaning dirty records that have dirty packaging, the packaging (covers, sleeves) can be a source of mold, mildew, dust, etc. - If you have pets, dander is a bigger problem than pet hair. I have done a number of basic fixes to improve my cleaning process. I have added thin HEPA filters to my heating/cooling vents. Normally this is not recommended since it puts a greater load on the HVAC fans, but for one or two rooms the result is cleaner air and slightly less control over temperature. I also use the better system particulate filters. Where I live the humidity is too high in the summer and too low in the winter, so I have both a humidifier and a dehumidifier. I also have an old canister room HEPA filter. I run it regularly when I am not using my listening room to reduce overall particle levels. When cleaning a dirtier record I isolate both the sleeve and the album cover. I clean them (as necessary) outside. If they are worth saving I can always put them in a sealed plastic outer sleeve. Whether the cleaned album goes back into the album cover - almost always in a new MOFI or equivalent sleeve - depends on my confidence that the sleeve is really clean and as free from mold and mildew as possible. I am personally much more concerned about the music than the "complete package". So I don't have a problem tossing contaminated covers. I don't see a need to go beyond basic distilled water. It is convenient and inexpensive. We are talking a difference of only a few ppm of contamination (at most). And as a past chemist and chemical engineer, I know that reagent grade DI (de-ionized) water can be extremely corrosive in the wrong situations. I do utilize alcohol, although always diluted. I use a homemade mix with Triton X-100 as my surfactant. I sometimes use a bit of Hepstat 256, but partly because I've come across great albums that spent too long in damp garages or basements. If I come across horrendous condition but desirable albums, I have Aileen's glue that I dilute in distilled water. I paint the surface and let the glue dry. It is amazing how much crap you can remove from record grooves when you peel the dried glue layer away. Or how far you can extend your US liquid when the worst of the worst don't start their cleaning process there.
I have the kl and clean before first play, new sleeve and brush before each play. I am now considering brushing after play as well. Nice to see another Canadian on the forum.... Welcome
