My Ultrasonic Record Cleaner

[Mike Reed]

Interesting research project, Bernard. I note that you currently use a ratio of approx. 4:1 water to IPA ; marginally weaker than that, in fact, and as the ratio used by many RCM users is between 3:1 and 5:1, I wonder why you're thinking of reducing the IPA content.

There's a lot of interest in ultrasonic record cleaning, due, no doubt to its supposed superiority over wet-vac. machines. However, for me, there's (currently) a major flaw, and that's by having to air-dry records. Not only (presumably) do you have to have a purpose-made rack which doesn't touch the playing surface, but you're allowing air-borne dust etc. to alight on the freshly cleaned record. Also not sure how you know when full evaporation has taken place prior to sleeving. Furthermore, is all the detritus extracted during the process mixed with the fluid as opposed to being extracted by vacuum on a standard RCM ?

I may well have the wrong idea about some of these functions, but at the mo' I can see the disadvantages but not the overriding merits unless saving time is one.

[YNWaN]

I’ve yet to personally clean a record with an ultrasonic bath but I have used one to clean a whole bunch of other stuff and I can tell you, without any shadow of doubt, that it is profoundly more effective than any brushing, scrubbing or vacuuming - even if very aggressive and volatile cleaning agents are used.

[guy]

Hi Mike,

I am sure that Bernard will be in a better position to answer your questions (my only experience in ultrasonics are using ultrasonic probes to disperse PVC emulsions many years ago and,more recently, watching the effect of a small bath on my wife's jewellery).
However, I think it must be safer to reduce flammable volatiles content to a minimum in the cleaning solution (not sure that the IPA is even necessary to be honest) as the ultrasonics could cause fast formation of a flammable vapour around the bath.
The reason that I am not sure that IPA is needed is because the effect of cavitation together with a good surface active agent (emulsifier) would lift any dirt particles from the surface of the record and keep them in suspension.

I have been very interested in this thread - I just need to persuade my wife to let me buy a bath!
My only suggestion for improving the process would be to spray the cleaned record with distilled water from a "plant sprayer"? (perhaps IPA mix to speed evaporation?) to rinse off any remaining emulsifier at the end of the process.


Guy.

[Mike Reed]

Thanks, Mark and (neighbour ?) Guy. I'm posing these caveats out of pure ignorance, but am swayed by your conviction that the actual process is superior (however applied). As a VPI user, I can only compare what I do know with what I envisage about ultrasonic cleaners. As I mentioned, I can't understand why the drying process, which I find very important, can't be incorporated into a/the machine, thus presenting a viable all-round superior product.

There is no way that I'd clean records and leave them out to dry for 10 to 15 minutes. Certainly, with an IPA mix, that drying process is more efficient with the record in a horizontal position (in my case, this is by short-term evaporation), whereas rack drying, to my mind, can only be done (almost) vertically.

I have a local audiophile DIY friend who is also interested in making his own machine. As he builds amplifiers, DACs, phono stages and speakers as a hobby, I respect his enthusiasm for ultrasonics and shall refer him to this thread and Bernard's research.

[Clive]

It might be overkill but I feel an RCM used to dry records would be useful. It could also be used for the initial clean of very dirty records such that too much cr@p doesn't pebble dash the grooves in the US cleaner.

[YNWaN]

Thanks, Mark and (neighbour ?) Guy. I'm posing these caveats out of pure ignorance, but am swayed by your conviction that the actual process is superior (however applied). As a VPI user, I can only compare what I do know with what I envisage about ultrasonic cleaners. As I mentioned, I can't understand why the drying process, which I find very important, can't be incorporated into a/the machine, thus presenting a viable all-round superior product.

There is no way that I'd clean records and leave them out to dry for 10 to 15 minutes. Certainly, with an IPA mix, that drying process is more efficient with the record in a horizontal position (in my case, this is by short-term evaporation), whereas rack drying, to my mind, can only be done (almost) vertically.

I have a local audiophile DIY friend who is also interested in making his own machine. As he builds amplifiers, DACs, phono stages and speakers as a hobby, I respect his enthusiasm for ultrasonics and shall refer him to this thread and Bernard's research.

I think a drying method could be incorporated, it just makes the whole thing more elaborate - will have a think

[Yomanze]

I think a drying method could be incorporated, it just makes the whole thing more elaborate - will have a think

Probably easier to buy a 'vinyl vac' attachment for your hoover & just do it after the clean on a jig.

[Mike Reed]

Probably easier to buy a 'vinyl vac' attachment for your hoover & just do it after the clean on a jig.

Wonder how long the soggy bags would last ? Extraction of contaminated (i.e. post cleaning) fluid is one thing, but a period for evaporation, to my mind, is mandatory. This can be 1 minute or 5 depending on mix and ambient temperature. CLIVE's point about 'pebble-dashing' may hold water too. (Excuse pun).

[Yomanze]

Can’t see it being a problem with, say, a Henry.

[YNWaN]

Personally I doubt the 'pebble dashing' comment is relevant as the particle size is really very tiny and so are the forces being applied.