2. analog
  3. 126670-635

Rushton's DIY approach to ultrasonic record cleaning published by Positive Feedback

Over the past several months I’ve invested a fair amount of time exploring ultrasonic cleaning because I’ve fallen way too far behind in my record cleaning. With over 6000 LPs, I needed a faster way to clean than my trusted multi-step manual wet/vac cleaning process. That manual process got the best results I’ve ever found, but I was not keeping up with my collection and it is just painful to me to play a record that I’ve not cleaned.

In exploring ultrasonic cleaning, my hope was to find that I could complete multiple LPs in a single US cleaning cycle and greatly speed up my rate of cleaning records. My goals were to FIRST do no harm and then SECOND see how close I could get to the results of my manual cleaning regimen.

My past experiences with ultrasonic cleaning demonstrations were completely underwhelming. What I heard did not approach the excellence I was achieving with my multi-step wet/vac cleaning regimen.

What I’ve learned, and now apply in my new ultrasonic cleaning regimen, are multiple elements to the cleaning process that must be used in combination to achieve the best possible results. And these results have far exceeded my expectations.

I’d thought of posting here on Audiogon the summary of what I’ve learned and am now applying as my new record cleaning regimen, but the inability to post images and to apply formatting here caused me to send my summary to David Robinson at Positive Feedback who has graciously published my comments as a guest essay. Please read that essay, and then come back here to Audiogon with comments and to share your experiences:

http://positive-feedback.com/audio-discourse/rushton-paul-diy-approach-ultrasonic-cleaning-lps/


I look forward to some further discussion and sharing of experiences.

.


128x128rushton
terry9
931 posts
 
Hello Rushton. 50 C came from a challenge on the DIY forum, in which I posted that 37 KHz sometimes worked better than 80 KHz. The OP asked me if that was possibly an artifact of temperature. I tested, and it was.

This led me to try higher temperatures, and warp a few. I have had a mint, lovely Elizabethan lute record under glass for a year (eyes crossed)! Then I discovered how much hotter the chemistry could be in the interior of the tank, and took appropriate countermeasures, i.e. stirring and degassing and 80 KHz. Now I warp only a few, less than 1%, and those are mostly operator error.

I am committed to getting the last iota of grunge out of the grooves because:
1. one can hear it;
2. the grunge is an ideal grinding compound, consisting of more or less equal parts of diamond dust, grease, and fluff, which is ready and able to reshape the stylus;
3. my cartridge is a very, very expensive re-tip.

terry9
931 posts
 
About warpage, I try to cool the record uniformly and quickly by rapid immersion in cool water. This may also play a part in my good (for the most part) fortune.
rushton's avatar
rushton OP
2,430 posts
 
Thanks, DG and Terry! Very helpful additional information. I see that I have some more experimentation ahead of me.

Which model(s) of the Elmasonic tanks are you using? 
oilmanmojo
468 posts
 
Terry, great thoughts, especially the relationship between spacing and wavelength. My approach was a little more experimental as i tested several parameters including spacing, temperature, etc but come up with similar experience. ALso agree on the importance of clean water. I live now in indiana where the water hardness is horrible. Even with the softener system there still is a ton of solids (ie, sodium instead of Calcium). Water quality will make a big difference on the rinse
terry9
931 posts
 
Rushton, I am using a FisherBrand model 11203, which is a rebranded Elmasonic P60H. Even the color scheme and the manuals are identical. I have a sentimental attachment to Fisher Scientific, that's all. Also, as a scientific supply company, Fisher sells the real goods, like Elmasonic, and detergents that really work as advertised, like VersaClean, which is specially formulated for plastics and is recommended for US.

After using the Elmasonic for 3 years, I have no issues with the unit per se - it's well engineered, reliable, excellent features, specs you can trust, just a pro unit period. The only slight issue when using the P60H for records is that one has to be a little careful to place the records high enough. The tank length is exactly the same as the record diameter, which does not allow for eccentricity. That's all; for what it is (the best), it is highly cost effective, and an optimal record cleaner. Worth it's cost in stylus replacement.

If you have more than a few thousand records to do, you might want to consider the larger model, the P180H. It's twice the price but has a tank length of 13 inches, and should do four or five records at a time. I consider my collection of 3000 records to be the tipping point, but could not justify the purchase since I already owned the P60H.
More to discover