|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
76.171.170.23
In Reply to: Cleaning Evolution (Long) posted by cjfrbw on May 5, 2007 at 12:23:32:
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.
Follow Ups:
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: