|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
67.160.232.181
Cleaning evolutionWhen I first started back into vinyl, I hated cleaning records and thought that it was an unnecessary ritual designed to keep the obsessive compulsives busy rather than twiddling their thumbs and eating their own hair.
When I got a few really dirty records that I liked, then I tried just swiping them with isopropyl and ammonia and drying them with tissue. That seemed to help the dirty records but did nothing for the records that looked good already, so I never cleaned the records that looked good already. I pretty much ascribed the the occasional British notion that the stylus cleaned the groove, rather than the obsessive compulsive notion that the needle acted as a tiny acetylene torch etching the nasty dirt and particles and fusing them into the groove forever. If the "acetylene torch" theory held up, then records could never be cleaned and this was obviously not the case.
The Music Angle article on cleaning (a paradise for OC) gave me a headache, and appeared designed for the OC to have hours and hours of ritualized fun with record cleaning and appeared designed to sell as many expensive record cleaning fluids as possible.
A couple of weeks ago, I finally got ahold of a large ultrasonic medical cleaner on ebay for $20 and shipping. This is the only cleaning device that ever made sense to me from a theoretical standpoint, the vacuums etc. just seem silly. I spritz with solvent, wipe and spread the solvent with guaze and use the ultrasonic for the rinse only tap water (soft) at room temperature spinning the record twice up to the label for a total of about five to ten seconds or so of immersion, and then pat dry with terry cloth and polish with tissue. I know that this will drive the OC's crazy, but it only takes about two and a half minutes per record and it is ready to play. I just don't have time and patience for the lengthy cleaning rituals. Yes, the label gets some moisture but dries very quickly with no apparent harm.
Anyway, the addition of the ultrasonic rinse has rendered the equivalent of a cartridge or turntable upgrade on just about all records that have been cleaned this way. The results range from the very noticeable on vinyl that looks good to the eye to a "Lazarus" effect on moribund vinyl, rendering the fidelity and groove noise enormously improved. Of course, groove damage is not reversed, but it seems that about two thirds of vinyl noise on uncleaned records is not physical damage.
Anyway, the bad news is that I now feel obligated to clean all of the records, even new ones. My speculator speculates that even new records have "groove schmutz", whether it be separating medium or whatever from the factory. This may prevent full fidelity playback, but also may actually protect the grooves as well. The records are not fully released for fidelity playback until they are cleaned in some manner. I have tried this on over a hundred records now and the results are consistent, and I have done a few before and afters with new, sealed vinyl, and the results seem consistent.
Discussion, flames etc?? I know that record cleaning is one of the topics that causes vinylphiles to send letter bombs and take hostages. I got a hysterical e-mail a couple of years ago over my quick cleaning method without the ultrasonic from a guy in Europe who said that I was slaughtering my vinyl, although I can't determine that I have ever done anything that has harmed the records in any way. The ultrasonic does seem to lift whatever is in the grooves away very quickly with the solvent.
Follow Ups:
If the previous owner played a dirty album they literally ground the grunge into the bottom of the groove area and there it remains impacted into the vinyl.Ultrasonic will not remove this material. It has a physical bond to the vinyl that is not broken by ultrasonic action.
Ultrasonic will remove the light dirt, but unless you utilize vinyl cleaning agents in the bath you will not remove the oxidation that builds up on vinyl over time.
I have tried ultrasonic and I have tried pressurized water jets. These still do not dislodge the impacted debris.
Luckily, I have found some wonderful 1 mm upholstery velvet that provides gentle scrubbing action to removes a great deal of the impacted debris. It is not perfect. Some albums are still noisy but are playable.
Mechnical scrubbing action is a more successful way to break the impacted material loose as well as remove the surface oxidation from the vinyl substraight.
I'll provide a link to somebody else's post
- http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=vinyl&n=51571&highlight=ultrasonic&session= (Open in New Window)
Oxidation builds up on vinyl over time? How? When? What is/are the oxidation product(s)? Can you give me a reference to the scientific/technical literature dealing with this phenomenon?Don't worry about dumbing down your response, because I do know a little about polymer chemistry. But obviously there's something important here that I've missed.
Or is this just one of the many urban myths being repeated around the web ad nauseum?
In my experiences most records that look clean and sound dirty are actually damaged and nothing can help them.IMO if an audiophile takes care and only buys vinyl that appears to be clean they really don't need much more than a record brush. Of course this also depends on whether or not their replay system accentuates surface noise or not.
That all being said I one time I owned a VPI 16 and it made records sound cleaner. I'd say it reduce surface noise 90%. I didn't think this was enough to improve the play grade, and I was disappointed because the records I thought most would benefit from the cleaning showed no improvement as they were actually damaged.
Recently I bought a VPI 17 because I am selling records on eBay and it's nice being able to offer a vacuumed record for sale. But this thing seems to remove 99.9% of the surface noise and every record (except the damaged ones) end up play graded at least a grade higher after a cleaning.
I follow this with a distilled water rinse on my Nitty Gritty 3.0. My cleaning solution in the ultrasonic tank is Labtone(or Woolite Original), 10% Isopropyl Alcohol, just a couple drops of Triton X-114, and steam diltilled water.After looking at the record through a microscope, the ultrasonic cleaner does just as good as light scrubbing with a brush. There is always a debris pile at the bottom of the ultrasonic tank. I was told by a record dealer in Taiwan that they even prefer the ultrasonic cleaner in order to avoid scratching the record with the dirt and brush combination.
My ultrasonic cleaner avoids getting the label wet due to the special record holder and clamp. The only problem I have is reclaiming the cleaning solution, as there is no drain at the bottom of the stainless steel tank. I vacuum out the cleaning solution with a hand pump, then filter the solution through a coffee filter device into a plastic gallon jug.
I wish that I could give people information on this ultrasonic cleaner specially designed for LPs, but the manufacturer does not sell outside of Taiwan. It cost $400 Us. Bill.
But the drain at the bottom is really convenient and the tube can also be used to fill the machine back up. I guess it would require some experimentation to determine if the ultrasonic is used best for actual cleaning or just rinsing, but using it for just rinse seems to do the trick as far as I can tell.
Exactly as per our discussion below, '.. rig a fixed "spindle" pin on the edge of the ultrasonic bath so as to locate a 'label-safe' position for the lp, easy to find every time out ..'Can't speak for cleanser / solvent sequence, but it's got to be a better answer for the rinse sequence. Looks brilliant from here. Kind of a rinse with intent ...
*
groove
Your approach seems to make sense. Just what type of solvent do you use? You indicate that you "spritz" the solvent onto the record. Is this from a spritz bottle or an aerosol can filled with some magic solution that really does the cleaning? Please advise.Thanks
Despised by many, is simply 20 percent ammonia, 30 percent isopropyl and 50 percent water in an ordinary windex type spray bottle. Expensive, rare, and exotic, I admit, but you just can't cut corners here.
Actually, any solvent of choice that you would want to spread or brush on the vinyl surface would do. Most on this board probably wouldn't let ammonia or alcohol anywhere near their records, but it works for me.
I also have a large ultrasonic (Branson) cleaner that I use to clean circuit boards, switches, pots, etc. as part of my modification service. I do not consider it acceptable for LP cleaning. For it to work well cleaning records, the LP would have to be left in for too long, imo.
Records need the brush to dislodge embedded debis. Vacuuming removes it all before evaporation can occur. I'm not saying the ultrasonic is useless, just that it is not fast enough. Of course solvents can speed it up, but they are not suitable for LP cleaning.
just my opinion,
doggy
It takes about three minutes from taking the record out of the jacket to putting it on the table the way I do it. Spray the solvent on the record, distribute with guaze, ultrasonic with a couple of spins then terry cloth and polish with tissue. The ultrasonic doesn't take long at all, again as a rinse, the solvent and dirt seem to be lifted away and distributed into the wash bath very quickly. I don't estimate that any part of the record is in contact with the ultrasonic for longer than ten seconds. I imagine you could go overboard and leave it in as long as you want, but the improvement is already quite noticable with a short rinse cycle. As I said, my goal is quick and effective which it seems to be.
When I first got it, I put a dirty fork into it. I noticed that the particulate matter lifted off the surface very quickly in a kind of cloud.
As a rinse nothing could be better, that's true. Ultrasonic cleaners were developed to clean inside very tight clearances, such as in bearings (without disassembly). It is pretty amazing to see how well it cleans metal watchbands and eyeglasses for example. For those I use a squirt of Dawn and a dash of isopropyl alcohol.
Damn, just when I wheeled in my new fifty-five gallon drum of white glue......This is one of the first 'new' cleaning methods posted around here that makes good real-world sense.
Couple questions-- wouldn't it be simple enough to substitute common store-bought distilled water, which is pretty universally accepted to leave less rinse debris, rather that the tap water mentioned ?
What's the story with "ultrasonic medical cleaners", for those who may be unfamiliar ? Are they meant as a final rinse with water, or intermediate, with cleansers ?
Are there grades of machines up or down from basic, are they commonly available ?Oh, and re the label getting wet, would it be feasible to rig a fixed "spindle" pin on the edge of the ultrasonic bath so as to locate a 'label-safe' position for the lp, easy to find every time out ?
Thanks,
J.
Welcome to Adobe GoLive 6
By way of illustration.
I imagine you could use any fluid you want in the ultrasonic. I use it for rinse, not solvent, you would have to fill it with solvent to make it useful that way but it appears to me to be unnecessary. It seems to accomplish everything it is going to accomplish as a rinse bath only. The records go in slightly "hydrophilic" and come slightly "hydrophobic" on the surface. Using tap water, I can drain and fill it with the tube attached very quickly.
I am not familiar with the broad range of ultrasonic cleaners, this one appears to be a quality item and it hurts my finger when I put into the water when it is on.
because the tub needs to be large enough( this one is 9 by 11 and 13 inches corner to corner) this one will not accomodate a spindle. If you are more careful than me, you can probably minimize label wetting. The record is hand spun twice in the solution while the ultrasonic is going. I imagine there might be models that have a 13 inch dimension that could accomodate a spindle but I don't know which ones.
This one was a clearance on ebay for $20, but yes, they can cost up to hundreds of dollars.
Thanks, very informative.I only asked about cleanser use because I was just wondering if the orig medical use was for solvent or rinse.
It makes total sense to use, in Lp cleaning, specifically for the final H20-only rinse.
And that final rinse practically everybody (a misnomer in record cleaning) regards as perhaps the most critical step.In the meantime I've had a look round the net and there are "tabletop" --like yours-- ultracleaners but made for "long instruments" available with what looks like a perfect Lp-length slot in the top, like a toaster.
Ultrasonic cleaners (UC) are also used in the jewelry industry; I learned to use one in my father's jewelry store. A few things. UCs are designed for cleaning, 'tho there's no reason not to use it just for rinsing. Depending on the use, there are hundreds of cleaning solutions that include flocculants (minerals or compounds that cause the stuff that comes off the surface to clump up and fall to the bottom of the tank)-- there's probably several perfectly safe for vinyl.The idea of mounting the record on a spindle to suspend the record vertically in the solution is a good one, and any decent commercial UC
should take no longer than a 30 seconds per section. Anyway, you've inspired me to try out my father's old UC, which has cleaned everything from wedding rings to carburetor parts.
Seems to me that putting anything other than clean, purified water into the UC cleaner--
---as specified in original post -- would risk 'polishing down' groove modulations.That starts to veer off into untested, unreliable territory.
For my records , at least.
That size is about $800. Good one.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: