Thumbs up for ultrasonic record cleaning

It may be that our understanding of cleaning vinyl via ultrasonics is in its infancy.  That means there is probably a lot of misunderstanding about what combination of variables yield optimal efficiency.  Vinyl "safety", if you will, is part of optimal efficiency.  Over the years of various vinyl cleaning methods there has been some scare factor that is alway in play.  For example we still have remnants of fear that alcohol will cause damage to "my precious." 

What we haven't seen yet are studies of a) particle and groove size relative to frequency, and b) frequency and groove deformation and resilience. Of course there are other variables: time, temperature, chemistry and agitation.  I suspect such studies specific to vinyl records are not going to burst forth given the economics.  (Though you never know - there are enough quirky professors out there that some may be audiophiles and engineers and have grant money to burn.)
So ... in the meantime we need to pool information and experience based on our real world efforts.  That does not exclude USC system manufacturers, but some caution is warranted wrt marketing claims.
In the case of frequency alone, the relation between it and particle size is pretty much common knowledge.  (Fwiw, the chart often cited, and linked above, associates to cleaning perpendicular magnetic tape, not vinyl records, but it still makes the point.)  What is less discussed is the relation between frequency, particle size and time. 

From my experience multiple frequencies applied in sequence are more effective than a single frequency.  (Industrial cleaning often involves up to 7 different cavitation frequencies.)  Consider that dirt (for lack of a better term) can be layered in terms of particle size.

Duration is part of the equation. The longer you beat on something as hard as you can the more likely damage can occur. 

I've been cleaning at 37kHz for 10 minutes then 80kHz for 10 minutes.  I'm now thinking of varying that to something like: low for 5, high for 5, low for 5 and high for 5.  If I had a third higher frequency, I'd put that into the mix as well.  Can this make a difference?  I don't know, but its worth exploring. (FWIW I have zero evidence my current regimen causes any damage or downside - any change to it is out of curiousity, not concern.)   

Experimentation continues.  See more at The Vinyl Press.
If you try something or discover something, document it and speak up.

tima

Thanks, slaw.  I think I agree with your above post.

From my perspective, concerns about LP resilence in the face of cavitation bubbles generated at various frequencies is thus far groundless.  That doesn't mean the topic should not be discussed.

But I've yet to see any documented evidence of record cleaning damage at 40kHz up through 120kHz.  Speculation, yes, but no evidence, particularly no photographic evidence.  There are manufacturer claims as a part of an effort to seperate their product from others, but no documentation or evidence in support - at  least that I've seen.  If such evidence (beyond hearsay) is out there, please bring it forward.

On the other hand I've heard report after report of successful US cleaning and intact vinyl.  Given the continuous discussion of the topic on various fora for several years US cleaning appears viable.

Of course there are reasonableness factors.   How long is the LP exposed at a given frequency.  What is the water temperature.  What surfactants are used.  I'm confident someone could find a way to damage an LP using US cleaning if they set out to do so - but that's not oriented to success.  Nonetheless experimentation efforts to learn boundary conditions may be worthy.

In the meantime there is likely more damage from playing dirty records to both physical records and listening enjoyment.  When done right, imo, US record cleaning is at least as effective as any other technique, is probably the most time efficient method available today, and is largely available to the average vinyl collector. 

tima

Hi Terry - If you meant that my statement about trying to cause damage intentionally did not pan out in this instance, I have no problem being 'inaccurate' about that. :-).  I had not tried to damage a record in the way you described and was speculating.  You are to be congratulated for conducting the experiment and reporting on it!  Although it is a single test, it seems to be good news.

When you say  you "let it cook for more than an hour" I took that to mean you let the record simply sit in the USC subjected to constant cavitation

Was the ultrasonic frequency constant throughout?  What was the frequency?  And what was the water temperature?  I suspect the water temperature rose as the US machine operated.  Did you use only water or a solution?  Can you say what machine you used?

This seems to be relevant news and adds to what we're learning about cleaning records via a US machine.  I'd like to suggest you document your experiment and observations and present that here as a new post for more to see.  Thanks for the follow-up.

Thanks for that update, Terry.  I use an Elmasonic myself - v. nice machine.
Can you do dual-frequency?  If so, a similar test at ~38kHz would be equally as interesting and perhaps more profound.  45°+ is quite warm.