Thumbs up for ultrasonic record cleaning

@totem395 - Tomtem- i think you misstated the article which (correctly as I understand it) says that higher frequency = smaller bubbles. The theory, so far as record cleaning goes, is those smaller bubbles may do more to get into the grooves. But they are less powerful than the larger bubbles generated by lower frequencies when they implode.
I think the folks on the DIY Audio site have experimented to some degree with cleaning effectiveness of different frequencies. I like the idea of having a machine that provides alternate frequencies. It is a good article in talking about frequency and power. Thanks!

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

In thinking about all of this again...

There seems to be a concern for the lp to withstand the US bursts from 80hz above, even though it’s obvious that say, 120hz, which creates smaller blasts, gets into the grooves better. Yet we still play vinyl records. This consists of dragging a diamond through a plastic groove...over and over and over. BTW, this creates heat.

I’m trying to figure out the hesitancy that keeps many from the US cleaning method?

BTW, @jtimothya, I enjoyed your article. Very though and insightful. Thanks to @whart for publishing it.

Another thought, I realize some are searching for the ultimate effects of US cleaning. OK. Does it really matter. In our lifetime? Just think of all of the gems we search for in the record shows that who knows how they've been cared for (Ha!), whether it be previously played on a suitcase record changer, maybe with a penny, dime, or nickel taped to the head shell…. yet we bring it home and clean it with a US cleaner and all is fine. I think you're getting my point?

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