Thumbs up for ultrasonic record cleaning

So i have had my electronic Record cleaner since August 2018, i have to say its amazing and competatively priced.

With a collection of over 5000 LPs,EPS,45s this has been a god send they clean up like new depending on the usage of the vinyl obviously

anyone who is looking to purchase one from the lovely gentleman i bought it from can knock one up for you.

For enquires please quote "SUPERSONIC1" to the following email address Cbaker@sky.com the is based in the UK

Hope that helps Happy cleaning

Yes, my Elma is a dual frequency device, but I rarely use 37 KHz. 45C is warm, all right - but I find that, with my machine and its temperature sensor, nothing goes wrong until 52C. The test mentioned above, finished at considerably more than that. Hence the warp.

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. 

@jtimothya

Hello JT. What I was trying to say is, not only is there no evidence of damage from US, there is evidence of no damage from US. Since the latter is a stronger statement, perhaps it is more accurate in some sense. That’s all. Both Slaw and I have done such tests.


From my post of March 6:

Methodology:
1. Wash both sides with VPI 16.5.
2. US clean both sides for 5 minutes.
3. Turn off the motor, so that one sector of the record remained in the US bath.
4. Cooked the record in US for an hour.
5. Removed the record from the bath, and rinse.
6. Play on a high end system, expecting a change every second or so.
7. Observed no change or difference of any kind.
8. Concluded that US does not damage vinyl.

Of course, after cooking in the hot bath for an hour, the record was warped - but that is a function of heat unevenly applied, not US energy.

My US cleaning process:
1. Rotate at 12 RPH.
2. Clean at 80 KHz with Elmasonic machine (German, lab grade).
3. Chemistry is 2.5% VersaClean from Fisher Scientific.
4. Temperature is 45C.
5. Rinse heroically.


I applied my usual US cleaning process for the test, except that the temperature began at 45C and rose considerably, and ceased rotation as noted.

Thanks for your interest.

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.

Jtim, I have set out to damage a record with excessive exposure and temperature. Other than warping the record, I failed. The record was undamaged after more than an hour's exposure to a lab grade machine.

I tested by first cleaning the record by rotating it in an US bath. Then I turned off rotation and let it cook for more than an hour, then rinsed. Any damage would have been clearly detectable upon playing. The damage would have cycled in and out every second or so. No damage was detected.

Therefore, your statement is not accurate. Not only is there no evidence of damage, there is positive evidence of no damage.

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

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?

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

@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!

For those following all the different "opinions" on 
what frequency works best etc I came across this site
from another forum.
Which shows in real world usage that
as ultrasonic frequency increases bubble size increases.
And as frequency decreases intensity/force increases.

Higher frequency may in fact not be the best after all.
 
https://techblog.ctgclean.com/2011/12/ultrsonics-number-and-size-of-cavitation-bubbles/
 

Hi Whart,
Thank you for the thoughtful and thorough feedback.

I like your idea of starting of with less fluid, then experimenting from there.

Also, I'll probably keep my Clearaudio Smart Matrix Pro cleaner, to address the tough-to-clean records.
Thanks again,
Labpro

@Labpro–– Although much of this thread is devoted to DIY methods, many of us have had the Audio Desk. I owned one before the "Pro" was introduced, and based on the recommendation of some early adopters, reduced the amount of "fluid" I put into the bath- not so much for cost-savings but to reduce the potential for fluid residue. Honestly, I could not hear artifacts from the cleaning on the original AD, at least when using just a capful, rather than a whole bottle of the fluid. (Robert Stein, the importer, may disagree, but he’s not a disagreeable person).
I have shared some records with a collector friend who has the "Pro" version, he loves it, and the records sound fine when played on my system, many states away from him. In a couple instances, I have done more intensive cleanings for him, but no rigorous comparisons of before and after. My take is that you should be satisfied with the performance of the AD, and there is some benefit to the ’no work’ approach.
There were some (ahem) issues with the early AD machines and most of us moved on. I bought the KL before AD introduced the "Pro" model, but the KL doesn’t allow for a surfactant. So, it’s trade-offs. Much of the attention on DIY is cost savings over the commercial US record cleaners, but some is getting better results than what those provide through a medical/lab grade US system, the use of surfactant, control of temp, frequency, de-gassing, filtration and other features or variables that you cannot control on the ready made for LP cleaning units.
My main issue with the AD when I owned it wasn’t the residue of the fluid, but that it didn’t do as good a job on problem records- I buy a lot of used, rare vinyl, some of it in less than pristine condition (not beat up copies, but ones that benefit from more intensive cleaning, combining manual cleaning, point nozzle vacuum and ultrasonic). Others may have a different view, but assuming you are dealing with new records or older records that were well maintained by audiophile types, you should not have any issues over cleaning quality.

Folks,
I'm new to this thread, but I just placed an order for a new Audiodesk PRO.

Knowing that the Audiodesk PRO does "not" do a clean distilled water rinse at the end of the cleaning cycle, am I getting all the benefits of sonic cleaning?

Also, should I expect to see residue on my wonderful EMT stylus?
Thanks,
Labpro 

Someone wanted this chart a page back...
https://myucsystem.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/effectiveness-of-particle-removal-relative-to-frequen...
The chart shows cleaning effectiveness versus particle size by ultrasonic frequency. From this chart, it would appear that 80kHz is an ideal frequency, while 120kHz is likely close.

@slaw

Further to the sticky o-ring problem:

Washed until the rings were sticky, about 3 or 4 cycles of 20 minutes at 45C. Then
1. Wiped rings with isopropanol - worse.
2. Dusted and rubbed rings with charcoal powder - better. But it made a heck of a mess, looked as if I had been fingerprinted.

Thing about charcoal is that it’s pretty inert, and a superb dry lubricant. I used medical charcoal from a capsule, maybe a quarter of a capsule for the 4 spacers of the vinyl stack. No obvious charcoal residue on records or labels.

Would not use talc.

@terry9 

I contacted McMaster-Carr with my (specific) issue with really no valid response. Actually, it seemed to be a response directed at their stock, and  I'd hopefully buy something.....

I've broken two lps recently that were on the VS overnight. These were 120gr/older lps that I thankfully have replacements for.

I'm glad to be reporting this to others before they have a more substantial issue, than I.

@slaw 

Yes, unfortunately I have experienced this too. What I have done is this:
1. reduce temperature to 45C (as you have done)
2. keep o-rings out of the bath
3. remove records promptly
4. pry records loose from the o-rings by holding at the edge of the record, twisting slightly to hook the spacer on the metal rod, and pushing  (while praying)
5. and eventually replace the o-rings. The good folks at Vinyl Stack will supply.

You have stimulated me to reconsider this, though. I wonder if an isopropanol wipe would help? Or, as you suggest, chemical resistant o-rings?

I expect to be doing more US cleaning next weekend - let's share results on this.

I put on Keb Mo "S/T" over the weekend. I've since been working on it. It's the Pure Pleasure version.

Prior to my "working on it" it was 'ticky' most of the way through.

It is now,  not 'ticky' at all.

My experience with Pure Pleasure is inconsistent quality in pressing quality and SQ. With some love, The Keb Mo is outstanding!

Another vote for cleaning records...and sometimes recleaning them!

@terry9 

I have a question specifically for you..

I'm currently experiencing the lps sticking to the O-rings on my vinyl stack, especially when/if I leave the lps clasped in it overnight.

Have you experienced this? Could it be a result of the Versaclean?

I've looked at McMaster-Carr for O-rings. Would one's that are chemical resistant be better? Any thoughts?

Thanks.

Oops...I did it again..

I left a brand new 180 gram lp in my 40khz cleaner set at 45 C for 50 minutes and forgot to plug in my Vinyl Stack. I put it on another 50 minute cycle w/ the VS plugged in and can hear no harm.


(After my experiences with my 40khz machine and reading others' experiences with their 60/80khz machines, I'm becoming convinced that the higher frequency machines may be superior in cleaning the vinyl grooves.)

Thank you. 

Air drying should work fine, especially if you perform a final rinse in DI water.

Anyone having good results by just air drying after US spin?

What solution?

I read somewhere about this approach but haven’t been able to find the info again.

Thank you.   

It seems the water should be drained from the bottom where released particles would fall, pass through the filter, then be pumped back in at the top.

I'm not an engineer but this doesn't look logical to me.

It seems there is a lot more thought than that which went into the Degritter. From the Degritter website:

"The active filtering solution works by circulating water through the filter and then back into the bath while your record is being cleaned. Water is pulled into the filter from the top of the tank in order to remove all floating dust and particles. Heavy particles that settle at the bottom will be pumped out to the external water tank, which has a dedicated sediment section."

It looks like they have all issues covered.

prof, not your doing but it looks like they designed the Degritter filtering system backwards.  It seems the water should be drained from the bottom where released particles would fall, pass through the filter, then be pumped back in at the top.

I'm not an engineer but this doesn't look logical to me.

I have a KLaudio and a Loricraft
i have never heard any issues with sonic degradation

I have cleaned a large amount of my rare collection of records. They only sound more refined with enhanced sonics


only better resolved low level resolution, removed tics pops static noise floor, separation of instruments etc

as for the ’hypothetical’ issue
Klaudio did extensive 9 hour continuous tests with yellow vinyl and found no traces of vinyl shavings

I have had the KL since 2013
it has been incredibly reliable
The machine was heavily researched, patented ultrasonic array, etc. F

I don’t find a salesman in a white coat to dismiss a viable urc Using fear of 'improper' variables to sell his wares. Especially when some of his comments are the opposite of physics

hopefully he sells a great urc at a good price

Well, I put my money where my laziness is...and ordered the upcoming Degritter Ultrasonic RCM!

Interacting with the folks at Degritter (as well as reading beta user reports) has given me confidence in their product and in their character, so it seems like worthwhile gamble. If it works as advertised it would be the perfect record cleaner for me.

It’s supposed to ship in September. Whenever it arrives, I’ll let people know my impressions.

More info here, with some demos:

http://degritter.com/

FYI: Just a couple days left to get in on the first batch. 

Michael Fremer reinterviewed Mr. Kirmuss at the Munich show. A lot to think about after hearing the interview.  https://www.analogplanet.com/content/if-charles-kirmusss-record-cleaning-machine-and-regimen-correct...  

The higher the frequency, the smaller the bubbles, hence the better to clean small spaces and crevasses.

One of our big problems with vinyl is grease (fingerprints, etc.). It's hard to see plain water being very effective at removing that, irrespective of frequency. I use a lab grade detergent (Versaclean from Fisher Scientific) for surfactant, and  chemistry at 45C.

But this requires a rinse or three.

They explain the 120kHz on their web site.

As I remember, it's something about the 120kHz making the process more amenable to using simple water and keeping it the right temperature.  They use more power than other machines to approach the cleaning action of the lower frequency machines. 

Yea, I saw that 120kHz and did a double take but you would hope they know what they are doing....

About the degritter-120 Khz?  Totally opposite of other record cleaners on the market.  It is difficult from the site images to tell whether the US is aimed directly at the record or in the bath beneath it.  Good operating temperature and filter system.  Made in Estonia. Not actually local to me-expensive to ship for repairs.

prof

I have a pal who always takes the cheaper way out, always looking for a bargain, buying second hand etc. We have different approaches - he is always willing to spend time and effort to save a buck; I am always willing to spend some bucks to save time and effort.

But when I see the record cleaning efforts he goes through, I just know I’d never be in to that. It would annoy me.

For me, given records now play such a major role in my listening and will for many years, spending a couple thousand to keep them sounding great, and improve the sound of many records I would buy, is almost a no-brainer. I have spent far more than that on any number of equipment "upgrades" over the years and record cleaning seems at least as important and relevant to the listening experience

That’s pretty much where I’m coming from. I jumped on what I think was the first consumer vacuum cleaning machine - the Nitty Gritty - back around ’81. This is before they used the felt cleaning strips. It was way ahead of its time and I still have it. While it can be very effective, it’s such a messy and tedious nuisance that I never used it as much as I could have.

I bought a Klaudio last year and it’s so convenient that now there’s just no good reason to ever play anything but a perfectly clean LP. Yes, it’s pricey. But considering what I’ve spent on a phono system - turntable, pickup arm, cartridge, equipment stand, phono preamp, cables, alignment tools - it’s not quite crazy.

Prof
I completely agree on the effort and lengths some go to here to achieve near pristine vinyl. Sorry but takes the enjoyment out of the music for me.
I am likely going to give the Kirmuss a whirl, $800 I can deal with in my mind.
Now I know my attitude towards vinyl cleaning would make appear to not be a true audiophile in some eyes and if that is the case then so be it.

I love the sound of my vinyl and the process involved EXCEPT the full on cleaning bit. Our LRS has invested in a large ultrasonic cleaner so a lot of his recent acquisitions have already been cleaned which is a huge bonus to me.


And yes being English I have some of that "cheapskate" blood coursing through my veins.
Well maybe more like a sedentary amble nowadays but you get my drift.

Certainly the older I have got the more I have eyed up jobs balancing money saved against effort expended. Can't remember the last time I worked on my own cars tbh, just not worth my time and effort when you also consider everything that could go wrong while attempting a home repair.
So I can make an analogy with record cleaning for sure.

 uberwaltz,

I certainly get that reaction. But...I AM that lazy ;-)

I have a pal who always takes the cheaper way out, always looking for a bargain, buying second hand etc.  We have different approaches - he is always willing to spend time and effort to save a buck; I am always willing to spend some bucks to save time and effort.

But when I see the record cleaning efforts he goes through, I just know I'd never be in to that.  It would annoy me.

For me, given records now play such a major role in my listening and will for many years, spending a couple thousand to keep them sounding great, and improve the sound of many records I would buy, is almost a no-brainer.  I have spent far more than that on any number of equipment "upgrades" over the years and record cleaning seems at least as important and relevant to the listening experience.

I do not think I have seen that one mentioned anywhere Prof
But $2600?
Yikes!
I am lazy too but not THAT lazy...lol

Having jumped in with both feet recently back in to vinyl, including purchasing a nice turntable, I’ve been starting to investigate record cleaning.

My problem is I’m lazy. Or, at least, uninterested in adding record cleaning as a chore.

I enjoy everything about taking out an album and putting it on - part of the experience. But almost every single record cleaning technique I’ve looked at has been off-putting, an chore added to the experience, and I’m not into vinyl for adding more chores to my life.

Hence...my interest in some of the do-it-all ultrasonic cleaners.

I don't now if this new US cleaner has been mentioned somewhere in this thread, but I have a feeling one of these are in my future:

http://degritter.com/

So far, stellar reviews from beta testers.

I really like the drop it in, push a button, walk away and it cleans/dries the record aspect. That’s something I’m willing to pay for.

No idea why they would have the temperature that high. The Kirmuss unit does not have heater at all. As for the 35 khz,  most units designed for vinyl are between 35 and 40 khz, klaudio and audio desk are good examples. There is a lot of debate on how many khz are required to clean vinyl properly without doing any damage to the record. Like I said earlier I am happy with the Isonic unit,  I think it does a find job cleaning the vinyl.

benjie-Why do you think Isonic chose such high temperatures?  They would warp the record and melt the grooves at 5 minutes at 140 degrees or thereabouts.  Maybe Kirmuss is smarter by lowering his temps.  Also, other's have commented that 35Khz is too low and that it should be 80Khz.  My friends tell me that lower is better...  This is making a decision more complicated.   I'm almost ready to buy a Monks or Loricraft record cleaning machine which I've used and liked but were too expensive prior to my purchasing the VPI.

@slaw Just curious if you think Photo-Flo really adds anything to the party.  I eliminated it after shifting from IPA to Versaclean.  Versaclean's principal ingredient is Linear Alcohol Ethoxylate, an excellent surfactant.  Photo-Flo would seem to be redundant. 

I don't have a Kirmuss US cleaner, I have an Isonic Motorized US Vinyl Cleaner. From the pictures that Kirmuss provides it appears that they are using an Isonic US system with their own top to hold the records. 

The Isonic Vinyl system is an excellent machine at a very reasonable cost in my opinion. I purchased my system on Amazon. Here is a link to the Amazon site and also the Isonic site.

https://www.amazon.com/iSonic-P4875II-4T-MVR-Motorized-Ultrasonic/dp/B077HP494C/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&a...

http://www.isonicinc.com/motorized-ultrasonic-vinyl-record-cleaner

The Isonic is an industrial grade ultrasonic cleaner. You can clean up to 5 albums at a time. There is plenty of space between your albums to allow for proper cavitation. There are other systems out there that have the albums so close together that I feel hinders the cleaning process. No way can the ultrasonic bubbles get to the vinyl surface for proper cleaning. You can heat the water during the cleaning process. If the Isonic has one flaw it is this. The lowest temp setting is 122 degrees, which is way too hot for vinyl. What I do is turn the heater on for about 10 minutes to warm the water before I start cleaning then turn the heater off when I start cleaning records. The water temp is about 85 to 90 degrees. The Isonic can be set anywhere from 5 to 30 minutes for cleaning cycles. That should be enough for most records. The unit is fairly quiet so it won't disrupt the family. I purchased my machine in February of this year and have cleaned over 500 record with the Isonic with excellent results. I think this is a well built and designed machine. I would highly recommend this machine.

BTW, the sonic difference between a 30 minute/45 minute bath is noticeable and welcome in my way of doing things.

It’s been a while since I looked hear. Glad to see the continuation of this thread!

Here’s my current method. As you all may have noticed, I go in steps so I can evaluate things better.

(1) Use Audio Intelligent (Down With Dirty) mixed at 1&1/2 oz per 16 oz of distilled water...spread onto a lp. Then steam off. Both sides.
(2) The US bath.... Eight oz. of Versa-Clean, 1 & 1/2 tsp. of Photo-flo, to the 2 gallons of distilled water in my 6 quart tank. (40Hz)
(3) 45 minute bath at 45C
(4) Rinse at my sink with the sprayer with hot tap water. Then a final once over with a bottle of distilled water
(5) Vacuum on my 16.5 after the lp is dried manually.

Right now, I don’t think I need a 40:1 tank solution as I do the pre-steam method above. Time will tell.

@phil0618 

You're welcome. Happy listening!

I would like to hear from some experienced US user of the Kirmuss cleaner as well.

https://www.audiogon.com/listings/lis8ifj4-kirmuss-audio-ka-rc-1-ultrasonic-vinyl-cleaning-system-cl...

Anybody have any experience with this Kirmuss cleaner?
I know a lot here prefer their DIY method but at this price?

Wow, I had no idea when I gave a general thumbs up to US cleaning that this would turn into such a long and educational thread.

First, my thanks to those who contributed to my efforts and in particular
@terry9 @slaw @whart

FWIW I took a slightly different slant with my efforts which I’ll mention here.

Our hobby tends to be an obsessive, but in this case my obsession took a slightly different tack. While most of you/us are concerned (quite rightly) with the science and the SQ, I became obsessed with how I was going to get through my entire collection in some reasonable period of time and how my early, sloppy US cleaning might differ from the more refined efforts that came after input from this thread.

My early efforts WERE sloppy, I was putting 6 records on my Cleaner Vinyl machine and used a mix of alcohol, dish soap, photo flo and distilled water. Then I vacuumed the records dry with a Record Doctor and figured that was all I needed.

Then the coaching started on this thread and over time I switched to Versaclean, less overall chemicals, higher temps, 3 records at a time (arguably still less than optimal based on what I’ve read). And thought I was good.

Then the subject of "Heroic Rinsing" (love that) and steam cleaning came up and I got curious about that.

But introducing a rinse step was going to slow down the overall effort and that thought was killing me...

So, I bought a second tank (cheap one) and a second Cleaner Vinyl. To speed things up.

The new method is 15 min cleaning in a 6L tank at standard speed, using a solution of 1 ounce of Versaclean and an ounce of Photoflow followed by 5 min in a rinse tank with distilled water and an ounce of Photoflo.

Compared to my earlier crude efforts, I now used more refined chemicals but less of them. And I incorporated a rinse step which most agreed was a good/required step. I included Photoflo in the rinse step after trying to rinse a few with no additive and noticing that the water seemed to be pooling on the surface of the record and not penetrating the grooves.

Using two Cleaner Vinyl’s and vacuuming them dry allowed me set up a little assembly line where I was able to constantly clean, rinse and vac dry and move swiftly through my collection (it’s modest only about 1000 records). At the right pace I had two tanks going and some vacuuming all going on near simultaneously.

After I got through the rest of my collection using this new approach I then went back to the first group of albums I had cleaned sloppily and with no rinsing and did the following.

1. Set up two rinse tanks - both distilled water and 1 ounce of photo flow
2. Proceeded to rinse about 50 records 5 min at a time in each tank
(this group of records had been cleaned w alcohol and dish soap and had been vacuumed, by not rinsed)
3. Looked at the contents of the tanks

The first rinse tank was pretty "murky" and had noticeable particulate in it, while the contents of the second was reasonably clear.

4. Changed the solution
5. Rinsed 50 of recently cleaned and rinsed records in each tank
(recall that this group had been run through both a US cleaning step and a rinse step and also vacuumed)
6. Looked at the contents of the tanks

The first tank was reasonably clear, the second really clear.

You can draw your own conclusions, but mine were two.
1. Take it easy on the chemicals and be far more careful with cleaning solution than I was in the beginning.
2. Rinsing (or maybe some type of pre cleaning) seems essential.

So, if you are concerned like I was about the time and labor required to move swiftly through your collection I can recommend the two machine, vac dry / assembly line approach to speed things up.

But based on observations, (not listening) I highly recommend taking it easy on the chemicals and rinsing. If you want to go fast, but get even better results then it seems like better tanks with slower rotation speed might be a couple of valid steps up from what I did.

One last thing. I did incorporate a 1 micron filter into the cleaning tank. My observation is that it does a good job with the particulate, but the solution still looked murky to me even after letting the filter run for a while.

Thanks again to everyone contributing to my education on this and particularly those mentioned above.