|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
76.160.113.186
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. 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've learned is that getting ultrasonic record cleaning right requires multiple elements to the cleaning process that must be used in combination. Once I got it right, the results have far exceeded my expectations.
Positive Feedback has graciously posted my essay summarizing what I've learned and what I'm now doing in my ultrasonic cleaning regimen to get THE BEST RECORD CLEANING RESULTS I've achieved in over 40 years of cleaning records. The link to my essay is below. Come back here with to share your experiences or questions. I look forward to our conversation about what is possible!
Follow Ups:
Even if you leave the solution in the tank all the time, at some point there will be a need to drain it and clean everything out. I found out the hard way that those nice, leakproof brass hose barb fittings don't like to let go of the rather soft tubing. The edge of the barb points dig in to the tube wall, and the only way to get them off is to slice the tubing on the barb and peel it off. The tubing is cheap, so it's easy enough to add extra when putting things together and then just slice about 1" off each time to get it off the fitting. But that offended my sense of world order and audiophile correctness. Couldn't find the couplings I wanted at Home Depot, but found these online (link below), and they work perfectly with no leaks. Now it's easy to pop things apart between tank, pump, and filter, and not have to resort to cutting up the tubing. My sense of order and proper engineering (as a non-engineer) has been restored. :)
Thanks, bcowen. I was looking for a quick disconnect solution but never could find one at a reasonable cost. This looks like the ticket!
When I worked in the semiconductor industry, I must have used 50 pounds of THESE, mostly in 1/4" and 1/2" sizes. No leaks when properly assembled. I used a BARB INSERT to prevent crushing the plastic tube.
Totally dis-assemblable and easy to maintain leak-free connections.
I would recommend using TEFLON tubing which ain't cheap, due to the nature of some of the chemistry I see bandied about.
Do the 1 micron filters come pre-wetted?
Too much is never enough
Rushton,
Another question (sorry): I noticed in your PF piece you're using ethanol rather than isopropyl alcohol. Does it matter whether it's denatured or not? With my 10th grade level of chemistry knowledge, about all I know is that denaturing adds chemicals to make it nasty to drink, and I assume that adding anything dilutes the purity and is therefore undesirable. But I can't seem to find un-denatured ethanol for a reasonable price -- seems that NOT adding nasty stuff jacks the price up. :) Any comment or perhaps a link to what you're using?
Thanks!
Bill
nt
nt
Very helpful thread. Thanks, alaskahiatt!
That is helpful. Thanks!
Your recollection about denaturing is exactly correct. Ethanol will ONLY be sold as denatured due to alcoholic beverage taxes. Your non-denatured alternative is 200 proof alcohol sold for consumption, like the 190 proof Everclear. The Science Company's ethanol is denatured with isopropyl, so it's safe for our vinyl given the limited contact for which we will use it. Be careful of ethanol sold for burning in stoves or candles, it may be denatured with chemicals harmful to even limited contact with the vinyl.The link you provide for the ethyl alcohol (ethanol) from The Science Company via Amazon is the cheapest price for high quality ethanol that I was able to find. Other sources were much more expensive due to shipping costs for a hazardous/flammable chemical.
Edits: 10/23/16
.
Nice write up, I have been using ultrasonic cleaning for years and have gone thru several units and chemicals, I have been using a 27L model with 12 transducers and found it way more effective than smaller units.
As for chemicals, have gone thru thru the gamut and finally settled on Dove 2 in 1 shampoo/conditioner in the tank. Pre rinse I use 50% pure white vinegar 45% Whole Foods water and 5% Sporicidin/Crystal Green. Let that sit for 5 minutes before putting in the tank.
Been using a Vinyl Stack since they came out and also use my VPI RCM once I pull the records out of the tank and rinse. I vaccuum then apply more whole foods water that is mixed with 2% Cynastat.
Don't waste your money on expensive chemicals it is totally not necessary..
PBTHAL
Thanks for adding to the discussion, overhyped! Sounds like you've been one of the early explorers whose experiences I've had the benefit of learning from in my research. As I said in my essay, I'm a late follower collecting and collating a lot of information shared in various forums. My contribution is assembling that information into a regimen that is working for me and then sharing it to ease the path for some others.Your experience that the larger capacity tank is more effective seems consistent with what I've learned about overloading the capacity of tanks. Very interesting.
Glad to know you've also found the Whole Foods water - I presume its the bulk dispense DI water - and that the VPI RCM for rinse and vacuum is part of your regimen.
The Vinyl Stack Spin Kit really makes for a simple and elegant solution to rotating records in the bath! I was pleased when I found it referenced in some of the audio forum threads I was researching to educate myself.
Edits: 10/22/16
At the last Capitol Audio Fest, there was a gentleman demonstrating his ultrasonic LP cleaner. He has a company located in Southern Virginia but for the life of me, I cannot recall the name. His apparatus is capable of doing up to 8 LPs at a time, and superficially it bears a close resemblance to your set-up. The whole shebang could be had for about $1500, very close to what you say you spent on yours. He cleaned two of my dirtiest, never-before-washed, LPs for me, to very good effect, but I cannot be certain the results were superior to what I could have gotten using my VPI HW17.
Then, he revealed to me that Harry Weisfeld uses one of his machines; I don't know what to make of that claim. Probably someone else here can come up with the name of the product and the company; I have some interest, so I probably have a business card somewhere.
But what are you doing with ethanol? It was my prior belief that ethanol and vinyl together might be a bad thing for the vinyl. Also, ethanol evaporates more rapidly than propanol, even moreso if heated. Thanks for the post.
Lew,
Just as a point of comparison, I have $469 in my setup:
Ultrasonic machine: $117
Vinyl Stack: $275
Pump: $25
Filter housing: $21
Filter (2): $9
Fittings and tubing: $22
The ultrasonic machine I bought has only a 6 liter tank, and while I can physically fit 4 records at a time I'm going to limit it to 2 due to the overloading thing. Not a problem for me, as 1) I don't have a massive collection that needs cleaned, and 2) with a 10 minute ultrasonic cycle, it takes me almost that long to rinse and vacuum the 2 records that were just cleaned. I suppose I could speed up the rinse process, but getting the record in the most pristine condition possible is my main motivation, and the time spent is not of primary concern. Again, that's just my personal approach to this.
I already had a VPI 16.5, so that cost is not factored into the above, and of course the chemical/solution cost is not included (I already had most of the stuff needed). But I likely wouldn't have jumped into this if the price of entry was $1500+. For less than $500, I couldn't resist. :)
Hi Lew, the person you met at CAF is David Ratcliff, his company is Ultrasonic Records and he calls his product "Ultrasonic V-8" because he does fit 8 records on a spindle in the same 10L tank I'm using for four records.If you're using a VPI HW-17 and a four step enzyme cleaning process, like Walker Audio Prelude , you will get better results in my opinion. This four step wet/vac cleaning process has been my gold standard for over 15 years. My experience with it is why I've always found the various ultrasonic demonstrations to be underwhelming because none of them came near to the results I got with this manual wet/vac cleaning and cleaning solutions.
In my essay, I try to make the point that outstanding ultrasonic record cleaning IS possible and that it CAN rival the best manual cleaning if we go to the same trouble to use a high purity rinse, vacuum dry (not air dry), good detergents in the cleaning solution, and very high purity water in both the tank solution and in the rinse.
Too many people assume the magic is in the ultrasonic. It's not. The magic is in the cleaning solution just as in manual cleaning. The ultrasonic cavitation is only your cleaning brush to help dislodge the contaminants that your cleaning solution is actually working on.
And, yes, Harry Weisfeld did purchase an Ultrasonic V-8 setup - one of three different ultrasonic setups he bought to try out. Harry currently uses a different ultrasonic tank with the Vinyl Stack Spin Kit [ see his post ] and with rinsing on one of his VPI RCMs (the Cyclone). He discusses his experiments and his journey in his Record Cleaning thread at the VPI Forums .
Good question about the ethanol! I use it in the final rinse with Type 1 Reagent grade water (3% ethanol by volume) precisely because it evaporates very quickly. It serves as a surfactant to get the final rinse into the grooves, as a binder to collect to itself any final contaminants, and as a drying agent.
Thanks for taking time to pose some good questions.
Edits: 10/22/16
I totally agree on the whys and wherefores. At the CAF, I spoke with David Ratcliff about the benefits of rinsing with pure water after the cleaning process. My experience suggests that this is worthwhile if only to remove any residue of the Triton X-100. Just sitting here, I cannot recall whether David recommends pure water in his ultrasonic tank, putting the onus for the cleaning effect on cavitation, or a blend of nonionic detergent and propanol with water, such as you (and I) use.
I do own the Walker stuff, but I confess I do not use it regularly, because it is so fussy. On my HW17, I clean with the water/detergent/alcohol in the backward and forward directions (HW17 is bi-directional), and then I rinse once with highly purified water to get rid of the cleaner, as mentioned. Using the VPI vacuum wand after both steps. The major attraction of David's apparatus to me is the capacity to do 8 LPs at a time, on both sides at once. Anything that makes the process less tedious and time consuming without sacrificing effectiveness is my cup of tea. I "only" own about 2500 LPs, and I only wash them once each, after purchase. Right now I probably have about 100 that need to be washed. I would think that one would end up wanting to have two tanks going, one for the wash process and one for the water rinse.
I suppose ethanol might have a surfactant property; I will have to check that out. But if it does, then so too does propanol.
Lew, the few folks I know who have the V-8 cleaner are not using any detergent (Tergitol/Triton) in their mix and they are air drying. As I've commented in my essay, my research strongly suggests that 8 LPs in a 10L tank overloads the tank and limits its effectiveness. Get a 15L tank for 8 records at a time and stick to 4 records in a 10L tank.I got into this to find a FASTER way to do my record cleaning, but also to get as close to the quality of the four step manual process as I could. This is faster than my manual process, even with the double rinse. With the cleaning solution I'm using in the tank followed by the double rinse and vacuum drying, I think it is as good a quality as my old regimen.
If you have the space to set up a rinse tank in which you can spin your records after coming out of the ultrasonic bath, rather than the manual rinse and vacuum drying, that might be faster still. But you miss the big advantage of the vacuuming.
Yes, the isopropyl will also act as a surfactant and could be used in the rinse, but it's not as fast drying. The ethanol just brings a bit better result.
Like you, I only wash a record one time. I've just got more to go.
Edits: 10/22/16
My sense of the chemistry was telling me that alcohols are not surfactants, but I was too insecure about it to make that assertion. Now I just looked up the topic of surfactants, and indeed nothing is said about alcohols as a class. Surfactants lower surface tension; I don't think alcohols do that, albeit pure alcohol probably has lower surface tension than pure water. If you add alcohol to water, I believe the alcohol would evaporate at a faster rate than water, but I am not sure that has much of an effect on the evaporation rate of the water per se. The nonionic detergent is a surfactant for sure, however.
FWIW, I had already decided that if I were to purchase David's apparatus, I would only wash 4 LPs at a time. I agree that 8 is pushing the system a bit too hard, in that size tank. Not so much because of the tank volume but because of the space between LPs when you load 8 of them (the thickness of David's space pucks). It looks too narrow to permit a good cavitation effect; I would use two spacers between LPs and load only 4 at a time. That's still way faster than I can go with the HW17.
Yes, I'm finding four records at a time to be faster than I can clean records on my HW-17. The HW-17 continues to be perfect for completing the rinse and vacuum dry steps while I have the next set of four records spinning in the ultrasonic bath.
Oh, and while the alcohol may not technically be a surfactant like the Triton and Tergitol, it does sufficiently reduce the water tension to allow the rinse to flow into the record grooves rather that staying stubbornly in little balls on the surface of the record. During the first rinse, there's enough detergent residue on the record to allow the water to flow as it mixes with the residue. But that second rinse is a real bear without the alcohol.
Good luck with what you choose to do! I'd love to hear about your experience if you choose to move along this path.
that's why I use 5% of it in my final rinse. Without it, the distilled water rinse will not spread out, much less go into the grooves. What alcohol does not vacuum off will evaporate quickly.
The link below is an informal experiment that I did back in 2002.
nt
Rushton,
Your excellent and freely shared detail on the setup and process (at another forum) gave me the itch to take the plunge. And as coincidences go, your post and my tank both appeared today. :) Received the Vinyl Stack earlier this week, and while it's a little more expensive than the 3-D printed Cleaner Vinyl unit I looked at, I'll say I'm very pleased with the execution and quality of it (plus the Cleaner Vinyl unit didn't appear to have adjustable speed). I have the parts for a filter setup similar to bbftx's, but the pump he used is no longer available for a sane price, so I bought another cheap one. Not sure if it will work, but it was only a $25 risk. Already had the Triton X-100 to mix formula for my VPI 16.5, so all I need is some Hepastat. Hope to get everything set up this weekend and give it a try. Again, many thanks for all of your posts and shared experience on this -- would have been a perilous stumble in the dark otherwise.
Bill
Hi Bill, thanks for your kind comments. I'm delighted for you that you were able to invest a bit more and get the Ultra Stack Spin Kit . I think you'll find that it works extremely well. Good luck in your efforts! Please tell us how it goes.
Rushton,
When you're done with a cleaning session, do you leave the fluid in the tank, or empty into a container and save it? If the former, do you have any concern about the alcohol concentration over time (as it will evaporate faster than the water)?
Thanks!
Bill
Good question. I leave the cleaning solution in the tank and cover the tank. Certainly might be an even better practice to drain the solution through a filter into a sealed container, but that's not time efficient for me since I'm typically cleaning some records every several days.
I've not worried about the isopropyl evaporating so much that it would have any material impact on my results. And so far I've not been able to hear any impact.
I filter my tank water in between each batch of records using an inline pump and 1 micron filter - the water simply cycles back into the tank. The goal is to keep the tank solution scrupulously clean. I'm finding that I can keep the same tank of solution for 30-50 records, depending on how dirty the records are. After this number of records, I dump the tank solution and mix a fresh batch.
There is some solution loss over time both through what lifts away with the records when pulled from the tank and a bit of evaporation; and I'm sure you're right that the alcohol is more likely to evaporate than the other elements in the solution. I will add more isopropyl if I'm adding water to the tank to top it up, maintaining the 5% solution of isopropyl that I'm shooting for. I typically do not add more of the Triton/Hepastat base solution, however.
Thanks for the question!
Rushton,
Thanks for the detailed reply. Makes sense. Guess I'll have to see how frequently I can get around to cleaning and decide whether to keep it in the tank or drain and store.
Happy to say the pump works perfectly. I was concerned it may not have enough oomph to push the solution through the 1 micron filter, but it is more than adequate. And I was pretty impressed with what came in the box: pump, two brass barb fittings, two compression washers, two hose clamps, the wall-wart power supply, and even a roll of teflon tape. :) Not bad for $25. Very quiet, and was just warm to the touch after running for 30 minutes.
So I'm off to the races, and plan to do some cleanin' and listenin' tomorrow.
nt
The filter is a Pentek 5" filter. It comes in 1/4", 3/8" and 1/2" ports any of which will work. Choose what best matches the pump you are able to find. I'm using this 3/8" port version:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0014C5D64/The pump bcowen found and that he shows in his photo above is a Bayite brand DC pump. His is the least total cost implementation I've seen and easy to obtain! See https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01G305PK0/
Edits: 10/22/16 10/22/16
Thanks Rushton. I bought the exact same filter housing with the 3/8" ports. Works perfectly. Filter link below for Alaskahiatt.
nt
nt
Great to know about another pump that will work in this configuration! Thanks, bcowen.
I have been using Triton X-114, Propanol-1, Labtone, and steam distilled water with my old Nitty Gritty 3.0. I once tried Quaternary salts and distilled water by itself many years ago, but that didn't work. The quaternary salt solutions I used were in the picture below. The SD43 is readily available for me at our large electronics store in town, but I am sure the Radio Shack brand is long gone. All of Radio Shack stores locally are gone anyway.
I have used my Taiwanese ultrasonic machine (picture below) with the cleaning solution mentioned above, but my machine is far from convenient. It does only one record at a time, and it must be manually turned. I have to pump out the water with a hand pump after 9 records, and I pass that water through a coffee filter and into a gallon jug for storage. I also give the ultrasonic cleaned record a rinse with a solution of steam distilled water and 5% alcohol. I found that straight distilled water would not spread out adequately over the record surface without the alcohol.
I have a friend that just purchased the same tank and record turning apparatus as yours, so I will talk to him about the cleaning solutions that you are using. I believe that he is only using distilled water at this time, as he doesn't have a vacuum cleaning machine.
It is interesting that Photo Flo 200 is a nonionic surfactant just like Tergitol and Triton X100. Tergitol, like Photo Flo, also contains a couple other glycol compounds. In the early 60s record cleaning expert Cecil Watts used a photographic wetting solution(probably Photo Flo) for cleaning records.
Please send me an email where you purchase the Taiwan made sonic cleaner. It's perfect for a design I have in mind THX
VINYLY CRAZED
Thank you, alaskahiatt. I appreciate you sharing the process you've used for quite a while. Good stuff. It's interesting the Photo-Flo has always been such a mainstay of diy formulas over the years and is now being more and more warned away. The chemist posting in Audio Kharma thread I referenced in my essay had this to say about Photo Flo:"Photoflo is a mixture of mainly Propylene glycol and a smaller amount of octylphenoxy polyethoxyethyl alcohol. Guess what the latter essentially is? Triton! The former is not really necessary (it's what keeps things moist, making films look and rinse spot free)..." [ Link ]
and
"Photoflo is not recommended because it is mostly propylene glycol (up to 30%, while the surfactant alcohol is merely 5%) which is a coating agent and may remain on your album even after the water washes (i say MAY because nobody seems to have done the study on vinyl records, but it is well-documented as coating on films)." [ Link ]
The glycol is the reason many formulas are dropping it these days. Why use something that is basically Triton when you can get pure Triton much less expensively and not have the glycol to deal with.
Edits: 10/21/16
purchase it easily at a Kodak or a Photo store. Pure chemical grade products in the last century were hard to locate before the internet, and, I believe, in some cases only available to institutions. I was able 15 or 20 years ago to find a chemical supply company on the internet in order to purchase my bottle of Triton X-114. I only learned of Triton X-114 by reading Laura dearborn's book "Good Sound."
I now have a warning for Triton X solutions that arose two days ago. When I went to my hifi accessory shelf to locate something, I discovered that the Triton X-114 bottle had been leaking from some hole in the soft plastic bottle used by the chemical supplier. At first I thought it was one of the turntable oils stored on the shelf, but the fluid washed off in water and produced suds. I then noticed the bottle of Triton X-114 was only half full. As you know, only a little of the Triton X products are used in cleaning solutions. There was no way that the 250ml bottle should have been only half full. So, I have transferred all of the remaining Triton solution to a glass jar and hope I don't have to handle all that clean up again. It was very hard to remove the Triton solution from all the other items that were sitting on the shelf. All the paper goods including small boxes were thrown away. I hope my septic system will be okay.
Since nothing on my accessory shelf was sharp, I am guessing that the nonionic surfactant in Triton X-114 finally ate a hole in the soft plastic bottle after all these years. I will continue to use Triton compounds for cleaning, but I will make sure that they are stored in glass jars from now on.
My bottle of Triton is only a couple years old, but who knows how long it sat in someone's stock before I bought it. Think I'll get a glass bottle for it just to be safe. It sits in on the top shelf of a closet, and the mess that would result from a leak would be pretty ugly.
Yikes! Thanks for sharing this. I'd not heard a similar story of the plastic container failing over time. You say the container is a soft plastic. Do you know whether it is HDPE or something else?
Laura Dearborn was always an amazing independent thinker and explorer in audio. Here's just another example.
Tomorrow, I will put lots of water in the bottle and confirm where the leak occurred.
Thanks, that's a relief. All of my Tergitol came in high density (HDPE) bottles, recycle code 2. I'm hoping that's a bit more durable.
two vertical cracks that were not next to any seam. The once flexible plastic seemed to have become very brittle. I am not certain whether that was the problem of aged plastic or the effect of the triton surfactant on the plastic. I any case, I am using a glass bottle now and will be in the future.
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: