|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
98.176.86.49
I've generally been pretty unhappy with the results of record cleaning. Despite using a VPI 16.5 and Disk Doctor solutions and tools, and cleaning records multiple times, probably 30-40% are definitely better (although rarely like new), 20-30% are hardly better at all, and the rest are somewhere in the middle.
Nevertheless I saved all those "unlistenable" ShadedDogs, 2- and 6-eye Columbias, Deccas, Londons, etc over the years because I hoped some day that I would find something that would unlock the glorious sound hidden in those grooves by cleaning them out.
I read the Vinyl Asylum and VPI forum several months ago about diy ultrasonic cleaners, and bought a 9L tank, Vinyl Stack Ultra Spin Kit and a Topfin10 filter. The results have FAR exceeded my hopes. Virtually everyone of my "difficult" records, all of which have been cleaned at least 4-5 times, are not a little better, but WAY WAY WAY better. Probably 10-20% still have too many snap, crackles and pops, but I've saved a large number of really good records. Of the ones that are now listenable, 30-40% sound brand new: as in like new good vinyl. The rest are very acceptable. And the sound is amazingly better, even on the too crackly disks: MUCH more transparent, clear, detailed, dimensional and warm. To be honest, I really have a hard time believing how much better these records sound, separate from getting rid of the crackles.
Biggest improvement to my system in 30 yrs. And this from a skeptic.
If you wish to learn more, read HW's thread on the VPI forum.
http://vpiindustries.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=2289
Follow Ups:
This is the best kit that I have found. look @ the video, it has a very nice fit and finished. I'm gonna buy one for my birthday from me to me ;-)
Works fine so far!
Despite angering (why? I don't know.) some of the folks...i'm glad to hear you were skeptical about US. And I'm glad to hear the results were so dramatic.
It's going to be my next investment before I upgrade my turntable.
Amen! Instead of messaging the keyboard do what he says, read the forum, and you will learn how to clean a record microscopically clean and dry for less than $1K.
I have done all the work with all the machines and a host of cartridges, this system is the best, period!!
HW
Ultrasonic cleaning is not some new, unproven technology. Just the use in record cleaning is sorta new. The OP compares it with a VPI machine and reported that on some discs that the VPI couldn't get the job done, ultrasonic cleaning did. Yet some replies seem to say "Get thee a VPI 16.5 and that's all you'll ever need". Guess what guys, time marches on. Something is bound to come along that does it better. I have a few LP's from a seller on eBay who uses US to clean the albums he sells and they look so clean they could pass for new and they sound great. If you're skeptical, a great way to test this out is to have a couple of records cleaned ultrasonically. One disc that sounds good and one that sounds unlistenable to you. A clean record sounds better than a dirty one so to me, the cleaner the better.
... that the price of US cleaners is going to come down. Economics of scale and all that. How much cheaper we'll just have to see.
cleaning the drafting instruments called rapidographs used for drawing with ink on mylar (archival quality docuemnts). Before CAD took over. The superthin rapidographs would get clogged easily by the india ink, and some of them where less than a mm thick. (These are necessary for the thinnest lines which makes all the difference in line weights- basic good drating) The ultrasonic worjed on these delicate instruments every time. I would think this is the best way to clean records, too bad the prices are so crazy. An ultrasonic cleaner for rapidographs back then might cost a few hindred $$$, and it was small, about the size of half a shoebox. The new luxury market is just crazy.
Probably much thinner than 1 mm. was the center pin of a rapidograph's tip. Actualy it was so thin that it couldn't stay straight when it was out of the channel surrounding it. The space in between got filled with ink and the pin could slide inside the channel as the ink made its way to the bottom.
at least some of us with LP's that were either new or very clean when we bought 'em don't feel a need for more than the VPI offers. Is that really hard to grasp? It doesn't mean we're poo-pooing ultrasonic for inmates who have lots of LP's that *do* require more. Wanna buy an ultrasonic? Knock yourself out. But I fail to see why I need to hear about time marching on from you.There are sure as hell plenty of products available that would make for a better playback setup than what you own. If you were to post saying you're happy with the sound you're getting I wouldn't feel compelled to post saying you're gear is inferior and you're in denial.
Edits: 05/19/15
I wish I lived in a world where every great recording was available on LP in clean condition and did not require cleaning.
My best-ever hi-fi purchase was a VPI 16.5 back in 1993. I've had many years of improved listening quality as a result. But when even the maker of my great machine says a well-designed ultra-sonic cleaner does a better job, especially when used in conjunction with a final rinse/vacuum with my VPI 16.5, well it gets my attention.
Glad you're happy with your system, but most of us don't live in the same world you seem to be in.
"Knowing what you don't know is, in a sense, omniscience"
"I wish I lived in a world where every great recording was available on LP in clean condition and did not require cleaning."Ahh, please point out where I said anything remotely like that. Why would I own a 16.5 if my LP's didn't need any cleaning at all? Ya know some of us see an LP that contains music we'd like to listen to but is in bad shape and choose to pass. I didn't realize most inmates hoped to accumulate "every great recording" regardless of the shape its in.
"Glad you're happy with your system, but most of us don't live in the same world you seem to be in."
I didn't mention my system either, let alone say anything about how happy I am with it. I simply said I don't feel the need for an ultrasonic RCM.
Most of us don't live in a world in which decisions about spending priorities are the norm? Most who own 16.5's feel the need for better cleaning? Doesn't seem like it from the posts I read.
HW's post talks about coming up with an ultrasonic cleaner for around a grand. 'Course I could be wrong, but I'd actually guess most owners of 16.5's (or similar RCM's) do live in a world similar to the one I live in, in which they likely prefer keeping their 16.5 or similar RCM and spending $1,000 or more on something other than an ultrasonic RCM. That's the impression I get reading the posts. Dunno about you, but in my world a grand ain't chickenshit.
Its true that a number of inmates rap about thrift shop/garage sale finds that may be pretty damn dirty. Dunno, maybe an ultrasonic would be advisable for them (and you?) if whatever LP cleaning regimen they currently use ain't satisfactory, and especially if they don't already own something like a 16.5. I said zilch that implied that nobody should get an ultrasonic, or that it'd be a waste of money, or that everybody is or should be satisfied with something like a 16.5.
I'm 67, have been buying LP's since I was 13, have taken good care of 'em, have had access to several very good sources of used LP's in NYC where I bought lottsa used records in damn good shape - hundreds at $3-5 or under, and bought a number LP's while traveling on the road that were/are also in damn good shape. I suspect quite a few inmates have had similar experiences with record buying, and of course plenty haven't. Dunno how you determined what the experience of "most" of us is.
I didn't post to give anybody grief about deciding to either spend thousands on a commercially available ultrasonic or make one for a grand as HW suggested. Those of us who do not feel a need for that also don't feel a need to be told we're Luddites.
Edits: 05/19/15
Dylan Thomas, that is (obscure song reference). That Dylan said "we share the barrier of a common language". Sometimes things are interpreted differently than we mean. When I said "happy with your system" I meant happy with your cleaning system! I have no intent to impugn your playback system, but I thought you were unduly critical of the O.P. for pushing the ultrasonic cleaning system & his cleaning agenda.
I take your point that if you always buy clean or new LP's, and take care of them, you don't need the latest, greatest (sic) cleaner to enjoy your music. My point was you can't always get clean copies of the music you like unless you are lucky, or wealthy or both.
You and I are of the same age, with similar proclivities. I find I can listen through bad recordings (and bad vinyl) for a great performance. But I do buy based on performance more than condition, so in my world, many of my acquisitions will benefit from a better cleaning than my VPI can give them. I'm on a fixed income and have to watch my pennies, so I won't invest lightly. Something has to be really good before I'll spring for it. A grand is serious money to me too! Yet I would gladly invest in something that really works on records that my VPI leaves still noisy.
And it appeared to me that you were implying that the original poster was incapable of appreciating the improvement given the crappy equipment he uses. I think "clean" is a goal we can all appreciate, and you might be surprised at the improvement this cleaning regimen can offer when applied to records that you already consider clean. Hoping you can approach this with an open mind, and an interest in trying something new.
On the other hand, I am curmudgeonly enough myself to resent those who tell me I'm an antediluvian old fart who doesn't appreciate all the goodness that technology can bring. Hey, we all listen to vinyl, right?
By "modern" standards, we must ALL be living in the dark ages...
Best regards
"Knowing what you don't know is, in a sense, omniscience"
the OP's system wasn't "resolving" enough to hear an improvement. Nor was I impugning ultrasound cleaning or anyone who chooses to get a US RCM. I just don't care about it, 'cause I'm satisfied with the cleanliness of my LP's even if an ultrasound could get 'em cleaner. I'd rather spend a grand or more on something else. The thread shows I'm not alone.
Hey, maybe if my 25 year old 16.5 ever dies........
People have brain washed themselves ... don't use cloth, just pushes the dirt back in the groves... bla bla bla
Incorporate usage of micro fibre cloths in RCM routine, don't be afraid to use a little force ... records will be cleaner and sound better
The cleaning fluid is important too ... but another day on that...
Has anyone actually tried an A-B test between a record first cleaned by a VPI or similar record cleaner (conventional) and an ultrasonic? Listened closely to a record after cleaning on a "conventional" record cleaning machine then after cleaning with an ultrasonic using the EXACT SAME CLEANING FLUID?
The ideal test would use several cartridges with different stylus profiles after each cleaning.
As a back-up test, it would be interesting to first clean a record with the ultrasonic, listen, then clean with the conventional machine and listen to see if there is any difference
I'm not convinced that there would be much, if any, difference. But that is just the "scientific skepticism" that has bewen ingrained in me for the last 60 years or so.
A few years back at RMAF we were cleaning records for people with an AudioDeske and a guy brougnt a brand new record he had just bought. It was a double album that they used in their room as a reference and he had me clean one of the albums. This was saturday afternoon and sunday morning he came back and had us clean the other album begrudgingly saying the differences were not subtle.
I know mold release... yada yada and maybe another cleaning method may have netted similar results....
Does anybody have any thoughts on the 40kHz vs 80kHz frequency of the cleaner?
dave
Hi Dave,
we made comparisons with 40, 60 and 80 khz machines in a laboratory. We cut a shaded dog into 3 parts and checked the results with a professional microscope. The result? The part of the record cleaned with a 40 khz machine was o.k., but there was some visible dirt left. With the 60 khz machine nearly all of the dirt was gone. But the winner was the 80 khz machine, we couldn't see any dirt at all.
Unfortunately 80 khz machines are not that common and if you find one they are expensive.
Uwe from Belgium
Uwe,
Could it be that the 40 kHz machines simply need more time?
The ultrasonicrecords.com machine is 40 kHz.
Do you (or does anyone) know what the US speed is of the $4000 AudioDeske?
Mel
Mel,
in my experience the longer you clean a record ultrasonically the better the results are. But with the same time the higher frequency was better.
Uwe
I can't answer your question directly, but HW reports that there is no discernable difference between 40 kHz and 60 kHz.
Hearsay. Cite your source so that we can verify your claim. Not that you can't be trusted, but, well....
There's a lot of testimonial evidence on this board, and particularly on other boards in support of US. I don't know what more you would like.
It's not useful to talk about the exact same cleaning fluid, for much less is used for US. For example, HW recommends two drops of liquid soap and 2 drops of photoflo in 9 liters of distilled water. Others use a small amount of alcohol.
If you believe that it cannot all be done with chemical reaction and there must be a physical process, then know that no brush can reach deep into the record groove of an LP record where the stylus plays, certainly not the brush that comes with a VPI machine. Various velvet-like "brushes" have been offered, but in my experience they cannot fully dislodge what may be deep in the groove.
You are welcome to believe or disbelieve what you wish.
I just asked for a simple A-B comparison. Same record, one cleaning process followed by listening, then a second process followed by listening. Then a possible reversal of the cleaning sequence to see if there really is a difference. Is that so difficult?
The defensive nature of your response seems to indicate a problem with an objective comparison. What have you got to hide?
It's been done. Do a search. Here and elsewhere. Try using Google!
Do you think people are here to work for you?
Thanks for all your contribution. Just don't know what forums like this would do without helpful contributors like you. You've certainly set a standard to which we should all aspire when communicating with you.
Opus 33 1/3
You can do it on the relatively cheap.
A very well made device that spins 4 record slowly in a US machine is sold on ebay for $290. A 6 liter US machine (the smallest that will work) is $160. Add an $11 Walmart fishtank filter. That's less than a VPI machine.
The final rinse in distilled water can be done in a small home made tank, a small plastic fish tank or on a conventional record cleaning machine. Drying can be done on a machine. Or it can be done with microfiber cloths after rinsing with distilled water and shaking well. I would not leave them out to dry.
Or you can spend $1500 - $4000 on a commercial machine.
Or you can wait a few years until VPI comes out with a combo US - vacuum on both sides machine.
I think it's only a matter of time before someone makes a combo vac/US if they aren't already prototyping they are asleep.
If they price the thing in the 300 to 500 range, I believe they would sell lots of them. If they go 4 figures, it will just be another piece of audio porn only the select few will actually own.
These guys only used distilled water and a small percentage of alcohol for the cleaning solution, so they didn't need a rinse cycle. Both the ultrasonic cleaning and follow up vacuuming were motorized and timed. It worked beautifully.
no text
Ah yes! I had seen pictures and assumed it was someone's very advanced DIY project. I just now noticed that everything around it is in Japanese (not that that means it couldn't be DIY if it 's Japanese!)
The "set it and forget it" part is what probably would make it more complicated what with having to write code (probably an adruino project) etc. A manual solution could probably be marketed for a reasonable cost. Assuming some assembly required.
that I saw in Taipei in 2000. The unit in the link below was actually manufactured in mainland China, but the Taiwanese designer may have been involved. It simply looks like a polished version of the prototype.
Yeah well at 1600 bucks I'll probably endure the hassle of a DIY solution or keep using my spin clean and glue on select records I really want to deep clean.
controlled or computer controlled. This machine was just outside their record store, which I visited often while working in Taipei. The language barrier made it difficult for me to find out any details.
I am not sure that electronics piece next to it is related, but it does appear that one of those black cords does extend from the electronics component to the ultrasonic/vacuum unit.
This picture does not clear up the operation, but it shoes the record in the vacuum position after cleaning in the ultrasonic bath.
Well, at present such a machine is $4000, and they are selling.
Also, many people are currently spending $650 to $1000 for a VPI machine PLUS $600 or more for US apparatus so the market is there.
You can't argue taste in porn!
do you then "rinse" the LP surface with pure distilled water? I got noticeably better results with my VPI machine when I started doing that. I use deionized, distilled water plus isopropyl alcohol plus a nonionic detergent for the cleaning step, all lab grade reagents, not rubbing alcohol and Photoflo. Apparently, my cleaning concoction can leave a residue that is immune to the vacuum cleaner of the VPI, leaving a residue in the grooves. Rinsing with pure water cures the problem, in any case.
Enzymatic cleaners work well with the VPI, too. But that gets tedious.
Yes. I always used Disk Doctor brushes with either VPI cleaning solution or Disk Doctor solution, followed by distilled water rinse X2. I also changed the VPI suction wand between rinses.
I purchased an Audiodesk US record cleaner about 6 months ago, now you couldn't pull it from my hands. Very easy, very convenient, and does a better job that my 16.5 ever did.
The solution it uses is actually a water thinner, this allows it to make smaller bubbles. I read up on US and how it works, very impressive concept - bravo to whoever invented it.
This has brought on a new "craze" I've gotten into, $3 and $5 used albums from the local record store. I am amazed at what I am getting out of these records after a pass through the Audiodesk. I buy around 10 to 20 at a time and find several gems every time (gem: good music, good recording, good vinyl).
Detergents (both ionic and nonionic) lower the surface tension of water, allowing it to be "wetter", which permits it to enter into the grooves more effectively. This also makes it a more effective solvent. This is no big secret. There are probably other chemical classes that have a similar effect on the surface tension of water, like maybe glycerols (I'd have to look it up).
uS is THE way to really clean a record and is non-invasive to the vinyl grooves. yes, you can spend 4k (great if you can afford it) but there are ones that are $1500 and less. and some of those can clean multiple discs at once.
at THE Show Newport last year, there were 2-3 vendors at the low priced uS spread as well as the 4k units. of the pricier ones, i would go for the KL, it only uses distilled water rather than a solution. i would invest in uS before the big vac units and just for quick listen, for cleaning a new to you used LP, the Spin Clean can be effectively used.
that's my story and i'm sticking to it.
...regards...tr
Seriously, it gets right in there and pulls out all the crud at a fraction of the cost of other methods.
if you can count the LPs in your collection on your fingers and toes and only buy 1 new LP a year.
But if you want to clean 5 or 10 per session ... forget the wood glue (it takes up too much time).
BTW, there's also an Aussie product called "ReVirginator" which is similar - except light blue, not white.
Andy
Had already tried that on most of my "unlistenable" records. Just didn't want to admit to it!
A friend of mine make a VPI vacuum cleaner clone from a vacuum cleaner and an old turntable. He uses Disc Doctor cleaner. His results are as good as mine using the same cleaner with a VPI 16.5.
IMO, a commercial cleaner like what is available from The Disc Doctor is more than adequate for 99.99% of our records. That 1 in 10,000 record that requires special treatment probably has more wrong with it than just dirt.
long embedded dirt pressed into the groove by the stylus can benefit from the help of Ultrasonic IMO. That with the fact that the OP has been cleaning with good stuff a long time and noted much better results w/ the ultrasonic is pretty good data. It is also not the first time I have heard this from long time vinyl fanatics.
E
T
I do like to read about people's experience with their RCM's, however, I would be hard pressed to find a machine that can clean better than my Keith Monks machine. I use the discOvery cleaning solution and a distilled water rinse. The records that I buy come out sounding perfectly listenable 80% of the time, with 5% or so of those sounding absolutely amazing.
If the new ultrasonic machines make your records sound the way you want them to sound, I say go for it.
Just to throw some wood on the fire. I will use my Sonic Care tooth brush with a worn out brush whilst the lp is spinning on my VPI. I don't do this on every lp, but the tough nasty ones certainly benefit from the added treatment. If someone opines that I'm destroying high Frequency retrieval, I won't argue, as my hearing max is 7200 cycles.
Thanks, I have been debating getting this ultra sonic setup from eBay. I have a vacuum record cleaner but it's noisy and time consuming. I was looking for something to use when hand cleaning isn't enough.
Some people have reported a loss of highs after USC, have you noticed anything like that?
Chad
Yes, I have. But I'm not sure if the record has actually lost high frequencies, or the cleaning removed grunge that was causing an artificial enhancement of high frequencies. (You can see the grunge at the bottom of tank after cleaning, and the water is murky too. The filter takes the fine stuff out.) Most of the records, once cleaned by US, have almost an inky black "quiet" that, from a noise standpoint, reminds me of digital.
In any case, it's such a HUGE overall sonic improvement compared to hand-washing that for me, it's a trade off that I'm definitely willing to accept.
No desire to spend big bucks for cleaner than clean.
Opus 33 1/3
Distilled water, isopropyl alcohol, and a couple of drops of Photo-flo for the solution, a home made vacuum set-up, and a Disc Doctor wet cleaning brush. No ill-effects and clean records for next to nothing.
Do not throw your cigarette butts on the floor. The cockroaches are getting cancer.
Edits: 05/18/15
Please don't throw cigarette butts in the urinals. Makes 'em soggy and hard to light.
Opus 33 1/3
I agree my VPI 16.5 is going strong and works perfectly.
nt
The idea of ultrasonic cleaning to me does not seem practical for everyday use. Most of the time I clean one or two records a day perhaps.
Do you guys mix up a new batch of cleaning fluid each time you clean records? Or does the same cleaning solution sit in the tank for several cleaning sessions? What is the routine regarding the fluids? Other users please chime in as well. Thanks.
For me, ultrasonic cleaning is far more practical than cleaning on the VPI 16.5. The ultrasonic cleaner cleans 4 records at a time. I set it for 20 min, then put on a record and relax. When the record side is done, so is the US cleaning. It then takes 5-10 min to rinse all 4 on the VPI and vacuum them dry. I listened to probably 10 records yesterday and cleaned 30 records! FAR easier and more pleasurable than hand cleaning. Of course, YMMV.
Yes, I leave the cleaning solution in for maybe a week at a time. In the last week, I've cleaned 70-80 records.
Jeez, does that mean you bought 70-80 LP's last week, or recently bought a even more and hadn't cleaned them all? I can't imagine cleaning 70-80 records in a week.
I currently have at least 300 LPs bought over the last 10 years that I've never got round to cleaning - so haven't been able to listen to them. :-((
This is despite owning a Nitty Gritty for 20+ years ... I never have the time.
So I will be purchasing a Sonix IV US machine (the wider, 10quart one) soon, to try and get through this backlog. :-))
Andy
Over the last 2 weekends and 2 evenings in between. I know it's probably hard to believe that record cleaning can be easy, but US cleaning IS so easy to do while listening to records, it doesn't even feel like work. Plus, if you listen to the records right after cleaning (like I do), they sound SO good that it's motivation to clean more!
Remember, I'm working through a BIG stack of "unlistenable" records I had accumulated over many years, so I have quite a few more to go thru. I fed my addiction for many years when I only lived 10 min from the Princeton Record Exchange.
nt
I also have a ultrasonic cleaner, I hardly ever use it, hand clean a record isn't that complicated at all, it seems to have even better result. the key is to use cleaning solution, the fabric that use to clean and dry the record has to be good.
I mix my own low alcohol cleaning solution, keep it in a spray bottle. A second spray bottle with distill water to rinse. Several pieces of 3M microfiber cloth to clean and dry my records. that is.
...the cleaning solution, which is distilled water, remains in the machine.
These machine do a pretty good job, and automatically clean and dry the record in about 4 minutes.....all for only $4000!
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: