The Ultrasonic vinyl cleaner owners thread

Discussion in 'Audio Hardware' started by Josquin des Prez, Mar 4, 2019.

  1. hammr7

    hammr7 Forum Resident

    Next major issue, is US transducer frequency important? And can certain frequencies ruin LPs? I'll answer these questions in a generic manner. I'll save each manufacturers "special sauce" (custom solutions and methodologies) for another post.

    A lot of hocus-pocus as far as manufacturers of US baths customized for cleaning records. Each one will submit Goldilocks arguments as to why competitors units are inferior (too large or too small) and their unit is the best (just right!). The reality is that they all are pretty much the same, although some have nicer enhancements.

    I have tried generic baths at all three typical frequencies (35 kHz, 40 kHz, and 80 kHz) and all of them can clean records. There are some differences. Lower frequencies mean longer lengths to get full standing waves, which implies greater minimum distances between LPs in a multi-LP unit to obtain optimal cavitation. However, cavitation is not a night-and-day kind of thing. If you put LPs too close together you will still get some cavitation. I can't say that cleaning will be completely uniform across an LP, but then I don't have the test equipment to tell if you get uniform cavitation across an LP once you have enough distance between two LPs (as implied by at least one US retailer).

    While lower frequencies might need more space between LPs to optimize cavitation, low frequencies do a better job at transferring energy to each typical cavitation. In other words, the implosions are more energetic. Since a major part of ultrasonic cleaning is shaking loose debris (that accumulates in the record grooves), up to a point more energetic cavitation should do a better cleaning job. Its like cleaning a dryer lint filter. tap it lightly and a bit of dust comes off. Tap it harder and you may see some bigger chunks of lint come off. Tap it enough and you can eventually get most or all of the lint off, regardless of whether the taps are soft or hard.

    For any given frequency more power (more transducers or running the transducers harder) has the potential to clean better. As frequency gets higher (up to a point) more power can compensate (with many more smaller cavitations) for the higher frequency. I haven't seen any evidence of whether side-mounted or bottom mounted US transducers are more efficient. I haven't seen any evidence of directional preferences within a US bath at US frequencies.

    So why not just get a unit with the lowest frequency and the most available transducers (power)? It turns out there are lower limits for frequency. As you further lower your US transducer frequency you can end up with a horribly noisy machine (half frequency standing waves which are sonic - we can hear them). At 35 kHz you are delving down to 17.5 kHz standing waves. They won't bother me, and high frequencies tend to be highly directional, but get lower and a bunch of people (plus OSHA and pets) can become annoyed.

    It turns out there are effective upper limits to power as well. LPs can have plastic deformation at relatively low temperatures, certainly below 80 C. Plastic deformation means if the PVC is deformed (stretched) it will not completely return to its original state. We all see this when records warp, especially if left in the sun. This is important because of the way LPs are made. A puck of hot plastic (above the melt temp of the PVC compound) is basically squished under high pressure between two cylindrical metal dies and forced outward beyond the perimeter of the dies in all directions. Once the hot dies are pressed to the thickness of the LP they are quickly cooled to freeze the LP (and the sound-carrying grooves) in place. The process locks in stresses that can be released if the vinyl gets heated again.

    The more power you put into a bath, the more concerned you have to be about how that power dissipates. And the main method of power dissipation is heat generation. Virtually all commercial US units will generate heat as they operate. Room temperature (~25 C) water will often warm to 40 C or higher under normal operating conditions. This heat is simply the friction of water molecules against each other, excited by the US transducers. At higher power levels (regardless of frequency) the temperature rise will be greater unless you add an external bath cooling unit.

    A related concern is what might happen at the grooved surface of an LP. It turns out most other materials can heat faster than water. You may get hot spots that heat faster than surrounding areas of the record. This can release micro-stresses on the vinyl surface, or cause micro-cracking from new stresses. So while you can run tremendous power into a metal de-greaser application (since metal is thermally stable at the boiling point of water), you need to be more careful with substrates like LPs. It turns out that most commercial US baths used for LPs are designed for relatively light use compared to industrial units. As long as you don't run them hot (either by running them continuously at max power or by using the auxiliary heaters) they should not be damaging record surfaces.
     
    Tommyboy and bluesaddict like this.
  2. Bill Hart

    Bill Hart Forum Resident

    Location:
    Austin
    I don't disagree with anything you wrote here or in your earlier post. The problem as I see it is there is no real independent lab testing of US cleaning as applied to LPs. The theory that sounds right to me about transducer placement is that the LPs themselves act as baffles and can effectively block the formation of the bubbles- totally apart from frequency, power, bath size and the number of records being cleaned. So, I guess ideally, the transducers, all else being equal (which it never is) would seem to support putting the transducers on the bottom of the tank, rather than the sides.
    The KL (which I'm currently) using claims a 40kHz operating frequency, but one person who contributed on Audiogon said he measured it at 35kHz. Does that make a difference? I dunno. The tool to do that measurement seemed very pricey to me, so I didn't go 'there' myself. I've been using the KL for 4 years and have experienced no evidence of damage.
    The smaller bubbles generated by higher frequencies theoretically might do a better job getting into the grooves, but you've got the impact of the larger v smaller bubble to contend with.
    I had the Audio Desk which as far as i know, didn't disclose the operating frequency of their transducers. It worked fine, but it was complex and I got fed up with it and moved onto the KL a while ago. The idea of not using a surfactant was appealing as well, not so much for cost but because I didn't want a residue of fluid left on the record after forced air drying. Thereafter, I spent some time talking to a manufacturer of factory line sized ultrasonic cleaning systems who convinced me that adding a surfactant immeasurably enhanced the cleaning effect. So, back to square one.
    The Elma, which is used in medical/dental/lab applications offers alternating frequencies, a power pulse feature, degassing and is built to a pretty high standard. That one is next for me.
    I do rinse in reagent grade 1 and use a Monks vacuum machine in combination with ultrasonic. I do agree that there is too little concrete info and a lot of market speak in this field.
    If someone wants to experiment using a cheap import tank and a spinner- home made or something like that Vinyl Stack, I'm all for it--I just don't want to deal with a badly made appliance that I'll replace in a year.
    I gather that even the Elma transducers burn out and aren't field replaceable. That's the nature of the beast. Do you know who makes the transducers?
    I've seen various articles about tuning the transducers-something I probably would not bother with.
    I also agree that a recirculating pump and fine filter- down to .35 microns-- is an easy and relatively cheap way to run one of these things with a surfactant and keep the water relatively clean. One fellow, Tim Aucremann, who contributed an interesting piece on water purity, found that adding Hepastat disinfectant to his solution significantly increased the measured total dissolved solids, using a cheap meter. His conclusion was simply to dump the water rather than worry about disinfecting it.
    Your input is refreshing. I'm not a materials scientist, I'm a retired lawyer who has taken a strong interest in getting to the bottom of some of this. In the process, I have gotten various contributors to write articles, including one on the history of US cleaning for records. Fascinating stuff in my estimation.
    Keep it coming!
     
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2019
  3. Optimize

    Optimize Forum Resident

    Location:
    EU
    Great thoughs in the latest posts.

    But surely there is no bubbles anywhere in this UC process. And when there is not any bubbles then there is no scrubbing of bubbles either.
    So we do not grow this misconception any more.
    I don't know where this is coming from. But sounds like some "marketing statement"?
     
  4. Bill Hart

    Bill Hart Forum Resident

    Location:
    Austin
    This may help illustrate the bubbles and cavitation effect: Video
     
    nelamvr6 and bluesaddict like this.
  5. Optimize

    Optimize Forum Resident

    Location:
    EU
    I see the transducers as a tweeter. That the frequency propagate trught the "water" (cleaning fluid) instead of air.

    So in a sine wave Of frequency X is a periodic oscillation. And liquid is a nearly incompressible fluid. That sine wave act on the record surface by pressing against it at the top of the sine wave and pulling at the bottom of the same.

    So maybe the importance of wetting agent is more apparent when we want to stay in contact with the dirt on the record so the incompressible fluid can make contact with the dirt that are in-between the record and the water.

    So now it could easier chip away the dirt/contamination bit by bit at X kHz.
     
  6. Optimize

    Optimize Forum Resident

    Location:
    EU
    Sorry but i do not see the why creating bubbles with electricity in a bath to do anything with "vibrating" liquid at X kHz..
    Like that a UCM does.
     
  7. Bill Hart

    Bill Hart Forum Resident

    Location:
    Austin
    I chose that video only because it addressed what bubbles caused by cavitation do in cleaning. I can find you multiple sources that show how ultrasonic frequencies generate those bubbles. Here is one explanation. There are many, many more.
     
    bluesaddict and Optimize like this.
  8. Optimize

    Optimize Forum Resident

    Location:
    EU
    I stay corrected. :)
    "Scrubbing bubbles" = cavitation
    Cavitation can happen in two ways: by superheating above its boiling temperature or by stretching below its saturated vapour pressure.

    The more specific question is. Is cavitation occuring in our UC machines?

    I do not think that any cavitation is occurring in my UCM anyway. :(
     
  9. Bill Hart

    Bill Hart Forum Resident

    Location:
    Austin
    This video explains how ultrasonic frequencies generate pressure waves causing cavitation the bubbles that result implode against the surface of an object to clean it.
    "The cavitation bubbles are formed by the tension portion of an ultrasonic wave in a fluid media and grow with time. The size that can be attained depends inversely on the frequency and the surface tension of the fluid. High frequencies (>60 kHz) give smaller bubbles and a higher bubble density. The ultrasonic wave is produced by magnetostrictive or electrostrictive transducers(s), which can be attached to the fluid-containing tank walls or immersed in the fluid in the form of a probe that can concentrate the ultrasonic energy into a small area. Typically, the transducers operate at 18–120 kHz...".
    From
    Donald M. Mattox, in Handbook of Physical Vapor Deposition (PVD) Processing (Second Edition), 2010 at 13.4.5 Ultrasonic Cleaning.

    The use of a surfactant in the bath reduces the surface tension of the water and enhances the cavitation effect: " ...traditional, single-tank ultrasonic cleaners most often use water with some type of surfactant to enhance the cleaning process. While the surfactants can't change the other characteristics of water, they at least can lower the surface tension to improve the formation of cavitation." See Ultrasonic Cleaning and Surfactants, Ask the Experts.
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2019
    Optimize likes this.
  10. Optimize

    Optimize Forum Resident

    Location:
    EU
    Thank you very much!
    I will give it another try and see if my UCM will remove pencil graphite on ceramic trick as in the video next time. To see if this machine works as it should..
     
  11. Bill Hart

    Bill Hart Forum Resident

    Location:
    Austin
    Try cleaning a record too.
     
  12. Optimize

    Optimize Forum Resident

    Location:
    EU
    I have tried..
    But I will try more than 10 minutes this time..
    I do not know what to do differently to increase the cleaning action.. I have bought the Triton® X-100 also. But it will take a while to arrive..
     
  13. Optimize

    Optimize Forum Resident

    Location:
    EU
    I think that it is not so crazy. I am leaning towards that the SQ is degraded also.
    I put 6 of my well known records into the UCM yesterday.
    I learned yesterday that USM uses cavatation "scrubbing bubbles". Cavatation is something that eat and destroy metal in pipes and boat propellers among other things (I think it is where it got its name from the cavaties that are seen in destroyed metal parts). With time they will be destroyed.
    How about plastic then?
    Yes they will also be effected as seen in this scientific paper:
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S004316481100384X

    So the bottom line is when cavatation occuring it is a bad thing.
    It will not only remove dirt it will also remove parts of the record. How much of the record is removed is depending on how long you time you cavate.
    If you do it a short amount of time you will with very high probability not notice the degradation in SQ.
    Also the particles will be so small so they are not able to be seen (like the bubbles that are not also seen by the naked eye when cavitation occur.
     
    5-String likes this.
  14. dminches

    dminches Forum Resident

    Location:
    Cherry Hill, NJ
    The manufacturers have done a lot of testing and have not found that this is the case. Have you looked at the grooves under a microscope before and after using an USC to prove this?
     
  15. ayrehead

    ayrehead Forum Resident

    Location:
    Mid South
    No, they would rather justify their use of vacuum cleaning machines by bashing ultrasonic machines. It's Interesting that Harry Weisfeld, inventor and maker of VPI turntables and vacuum cleaning machines has stated that ultrasonic machines clean better and make the record sound more like the master tape.
     
  16. dminches

    dminches Forum Resident

    Location:
    Cherry Hill, NJ
    That is true about Harry. In addition, he first made the statement that the USC process was affecting the high frequencies. He then backed off on that and said they weren't "when done properly."
     
  17. Optimize

    Optimize Forum Resident

    Location:
    EU
    As you see in my post I point out scientific research that shows what cavitation erosion do with different types of plastics.

    Just stop and think about those two words "cavitation erosion".. Certainly there can't come something good out of that?

    They have put far more resources and time to show us that cavitation is removing material. Then I ever can do.

    Maybe some day I will take the time to record a needle drop before and after UCM cleaning.
    It should be nice to compare the two files before and after in a audio computer program. But that is just for you interested in the community. (But I am not so handy with those things)

    And I believe there is no cavitation damage as in pipes and pumps. There cavitation is occurring more or less in a specific area because in the UCM it is designed to give a uniform cavitation trough out the whole bath. And therefore evenly distributed over the whole surface.

    It is rather ironically that most of the time we want to avoid cavitation as much as possible. In all other applications to prevent erosion of materials. But we here deliberately use cavitation on our records.
    I have just invested in a UCM, drive unit and water wetter among other things, because I believed in it.
    Why should I bash UCM when I just bought one. Please.
    We are here to learn from each other.
     
  18. hammr7

    hammr7 Forum Resident

    To presume that cavitation corrosion from a small US bath filled with DI cleaning an LP is the same as what happens to metal shafts under high stress (propelling a submarine) in a very corrosive environment (sea water) is to disregard a lot of scientific fundamentals. The matter of scale, for one. The specifics of the chemistry involved, for another. By such logic, the music we liste n to (air vibrations) should cook us all, the way a microwave oven does (air vibrations again, albeit at higher frequency and higher power). And this comparison doesn't even get into time lengths (a 10 minute LP cleaning vs. tens of thousands of hours moving a submarine around).

    I haven't yet discussed the chemical aspects of US cleaning, but I will soon. None of the recommended cleaning methods proffered by the various US bath retailers will do immediate and irreparable harm to LPs, as that would quickly defeat the goal of selling more units. There are, however, ways you could destroy LPs in a US bath.
     
    nelamvr6 likes this.
  19. ayrehead

    ayrehead Forum Resident

    Location:
    Mid South
    I apologize for coming across like a *********. I did not see that you had purchased a UCM. It just seems that we can't have a discussion about UCM's without having to talk about record damage. It's about as pointless as talking about whether cables make a difference.
     
    bluesaddict and Optimize like this.
  20. classicrocker

    classicrocker Life is good!

    Location:
    Worcester, MA, USA
    An interesting debate as I am thinking of buying a US cleaner come bonus time at work so I look forward to your analysis.

    I am still thinking of getting a Kirmuss due to the price but I am still waiting for a satisfactory explanation of why his surfactant creates the "toothpaste residue" after repeated cleanings. I saw his video with Fremer and not sure I buy his residue soap theory.
     
    latheofheaven and waterclocker like this.
  21. Optimize

    Optimize Forum Resident

    Location:
    EU
    Interesting.
    Yes of course time is a big factor. And a 10 min cleaning in each year because it is so convenient and good to keep it clean to reduce the wear of the needle.
    In 6 years will give you a hour. Of effective cleaning. Yes it may be little excessive but not unreasonable.

    Then put your favourite record in six times 10 minutes cleaning cycles. As like they do with accelerated ageing chambers so we simulate 6 years or maybe 12 years (a cleaning every second year instead).

    That was exactly what I did and I am sad to conclude that after that ageing simulation, the record shows "immediate and irreparable harm" to it.

    If ultra sonic cleaning and the cavitation process did not erode any material from the record surface. Then I should be able to run the USC all day long with out any SQ impact.
    But that is not the case! As we said time is a factor and each minute counts.

    The good thing is that if I would keep cleaning my records in 6 to 12 years down the road I then might think that each year the SQ got lost that it were due to wear and tear done by the stylus by all the times I played the recordings.
    When actually the cleaning regime were also a big factor in the SQ decrease. But I would never suspect that!

    And submarines have arranged with different models of propellers and some time double arrangements of propellers to get the submarines the trust they need without making cavitation. So they are as silent as they can be.

    But it would be interesting to know what/how we "Could destroy LPs in a US bath."
    I want to learn maybe I have done a fatal mistake in my test method. And as a new user of UCM I am disappointed on results I got as you can understand.

    Anybody else have done a accelerated ageing test? (Remember to let the transducers cool down in between so you don't run them continues)
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2019
  22. Bill Hart

    Bill Hart Forum Resident

    Location:
    Austin
    Unlike parts sitting in a US bath, records are rotated to avoid any concentrated impact. To my knowledge there are no independent scientific studies on US damage caused to LPs (your reference to that paper was interesting, but since I don't have a subscription to the service, I didn't feel like spending 18 dollars or whatever to download a copy of the paper to read it).
    Are you rotating your records using a rotisserie of some sort?
    My experience, which may mean nothing, is that using the commercial machines, like the AD and KL for the past 6 years(? - not sure of the date when I first got the AD, i could check) has not caused any discernible damage to the records based on playing. I could hear it if there was damage.
    I will see some black powdery residue left in the KL bath from cleaning brand new records fresh from the shrink. Any record that I have pre-cleaned --(using a mild cleaning solution designed for records and vacuumed, rinsed and vacuumed before insertion into the KL)-- leaves no such residue in the KL bath.
     
  23. 5-String

    5-String μηδὲν ἄγαν

    Location:
    Sunshine State
    I also remember the black particles residue left in my KLAudio bath after a few cleanings. I don’t remember whether it was only after cleaning new records or just after any records.
    Personally, I don't think that these particles were pieces of vinyl. It looked to me like dust and other foreign material, like manufacturing debris, etc.
     
  24. Optimize

    Optimize Forum Resident

    Location:
    EU
    Yes I am.

    I did not believe that it was cavitation="scrubbing bubbles" when I could not see any bubbles at all!

    And I do not see any particles residue but they can like the bubbles be so small so they floating around in the liquid and maybe at the most coulor the water unnoticeable very little.
     
  25. Jim0830

    Jim0830 Forum Resident

    @Optimize I am sorry you are having sound quality issues. I am not going to presume to tell you what you are hearing, I believe you are hearing degradation. I just don't know if the root cause is UC in general. This also is not criticism, just some possibilities that came to mind when reading your various posts. It seems like you may possibly be taking some of the things you have read and are applying them with a broad brush.

    Before I respond with my random observations, let me mention and article I read which was an interview with Reiner Glass the person who brought the Audio Desk Vinyl Cleaner Pro model to market. Sorry, but I looked around for this article off and on for several days and I could not find it to link here. He was being interviewed about his career and he mentioned that the AD UCM was a long time in development because his early efforts were creating some damage to the records. He experimented for a long time with time, power and frequencies before settling on the power and frequencies to use. I say frequencies because I recall him saying he does a sweep of frequencies.

    Observations:

    • The AD UCM most definitely produces cavitation (scrubbing bubble). On the AD RCM you can look down into the chamber when cleaning is taking place and there is a glow visible from the transducer. This glow acts like a back light under the water. You can clearly see a cloud of swirling milky looking water. You can't see individual bubbles just swirling cloud.
    • Any cleaning method when done the wrong way or done too much or done too long has the potential to cause damage in almost any material.
    • The report you cited, at least from the excerpt I was able to read, described a totally different process for UC intended for metal propellors. Unless the rest of the report covers UCM's made for vinyl LPs, I can't see where a process used for cleaning propellers even applies here.
    • I Googled the device you said you purchased: "6l 180w 40kHz DIY" and all I came up with was several versions made for cleaning products other than vinyl records. Many of these products this device is said to clean were harder than vinyl. Plus LPs are an extreme case because the grooves, particularly the high frequencies, are more vulnerable than just a slab of smooth vinyl. So if you are using a device that may not have been designed from the ground up to UC vinyl LP's, it is quite possible damage is occurring from the UC process employed by that machine or the way you might be implementing it.
    • Why not try getting a record cleaned on a dedicated UCM for LPs? Perhaps one you don't care about or a test subject you bought for the process. See if you hear this degradation coming from a different UCM.
    • Time. My AC UCM has an UC process that appears to last between 2 to 2 1/2 minutes. Even when you hold the button in for 5 beeps to extend the cleaning process for dirty records, it only adds about 2 to 2 1/2 minutes to the entire process in the worst case. You are describing 10 minute cleaning times. This seems rather long. You have done it several times to one record. The UC cleaning process has the by-product of generating heat. The longer you clean the more heat is generated. It occurs to me perhaps this is generating enough additional heat to start damaging the record.
    • Age Testing-Methodology. If the age testing you speak of doing occurs in rapid succession this will introduce in some additional variables (heat, recovery time) etc. that you won't run into in the real world. The cleanings would be a year apart. I would expect damage to occur if you ran it 6 times in a row due to the excess heat that would be produced. Running a UC all day isn't even a realistic consideration. Plus as I mentioned any cleaning process can be taken to extremes.
    • Annual cleanings-From what I can see with my records, an annual cleaning is not going to be needed. I have 1,000 LPs and I am 350 into the process. I would not want to do a yearly cleaning. I have several records that I have played 6-8 times since cleaning them on my UCM. They remain statically inert and my ZeroStat is gathering dust in the closet. I have had to give 2 records cleaned with the UCM a quick brush with my carbon fiber brush. But I recently added a tone arm style anti-static record sweeping brush to my cleaning routine. It picks up any dust or debris that have fallen out of the air and the stainless steel brush is grounded. One of the big attractions of the UC process was an intensive but easy and user friendly cleaning process with very little maintenance needed going forward.
    • At the price point of these machines, the potential owners fall into one or more camps. First is the person for whom $3,000-$4,000 is a HUGE financial outlay. They are going to expect excellent results. The second group would be made up of well-heeled individuals for whom this price point isn't a big deal. These folks probably own very high grade audio systems which would reveal every little flaw, The third camp is reviewers they aren't owners, but they are looking for trouble. If this issue you speak of was widespread, there would be a HUGE hue and cry demanding the heads of the people producing these cleaners. I did a lot or research before buying because I fell into the group for whom the upfront cost was a huge deal. My research turned up no complaints such as yours.
    • This is a long shot: But is the cause pyscho-acoustical? Is a lack of hiss and background noise in general fooling your brain into thinking it sounds like there is less treble present?
    I don't have a dog in this fight. My AD UCM is doing exactly what I want of it. The only differences I have heard have been improvements. Records that were cleaned with my Okki Nokki that were pretty clean to begin with have all sounded as good or slightly better. This better being absolutely black background and statically inert. Records that were dirty and emerged from one or more cleanings on the Okki Nokki with some remaining artifacts have typically been improved noticeably. Once again the better pressings often reach a silent background. Any noise I am still hearing I attribute to pre-existing groove damage.

    I couldn't be happier with my AD VCP purchase and it fits my needs perfectly. YMMV. I hope you find the answer to your quest.
     
    Levi's Tubs, Optimize and Subagent like this.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine