Disappointing Ultrasonic

how clean is your house
Allsop
member
member
Posts: 75
Joined: 28 Jul 2016 16:40

Disappointing Ultrasonic

Post by Allsop » 05 Mar 2018 17:04

First few runs of my Ultrasonic and I have to say mixed results.

I still hear cracks and pops so I assume this must be actual groove damage

I used Distilled Water used for car batteries and so on and 20 drops of tergikleen. Tank heated to 41.6 and ran for 20 mins.

Have to say the rinsing is ESSENTIAL and even with a rinse I struggled to get the marks off my vinyl, in the end I had to hand clean with Keith monks fluid and vinyl vac.

So yeah, mixed reactions. It did wonders for one track for others really cannot say i hear a difference from my hand clean method with keth mnks fluid and vinyl vac.

How disappointing especially after all that money

readargos
senior member
senior member
Posts: 751
Joined: 21 Feb 2014 16:59
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Disappointing Ultrasonic

Post by readargos » 05 Mar 2018 23:48

Thank you for sharing your experience. I'm sorry the results aren't what you hoped - at least not yet. Did you buy a "professional" machine like Audiodeske or KL Audio, or is this a DIY assembly?

I'm not saying you can't get good results from a DIY assembly, but the pro machines have been vetted. In theory, you're paying to get all the advantages of the experience of the designers who built the pro machines - the frequency, the length of exposure, the rate of spin of the record, and, in some cases, the convenience of drying. Ditto with the fluids. There are no magic fluids, but it will have been developed in conjunction with the machine, and has probably gone through iterations.

For a DIY assembly, there is going to be a a learning curve, and developing a workflow process, just like learning how to get good results from a vacuum RCM.

I've also heard it said the Ultrasonic machines can make a record sound worse, the idea being it reveals the record for what it is.

ripblade
long player
long player
Canada
Posts: 1093
Joined: 05 Oct 2008 19:51
Location: Toronto, Ontario

Re: Disappointing Ultrasonic

Post by ripblade » 15 Mar 2018 00:28

I experimented with a DIY setup a few years ago. Tried various cleaners, times, temps, etc., even brushes to sweep the record as it rotated. I had some good results, but it depended mostly on the application of the cleaning agents more than the US cleaner.

Overall, I think they're overrated. Mechanical scrubbing works better in most cases. US cleaning is fine for records that are a little dusty, but that's about it, IME.

I use a Loriclone when I'm lazy, and a Gem Dandyclone when I also need to take a shower. :wink:

uniman4
member
member
Posts: 103
Joined: 23 Aug 2017 02:57

Re: Disappointing Ultrasonic

Post by uniman4 » 15 Mar 2018 07:02

I agree and disagree. I dont think ANYTHING cleans vinyl as well as ultrasonic, and it's probably not that close.

That is where it ends tho, and the variables begin. Solution? How do u dry? on and on it goes.

Nothing is perfect, but ultrasonic is the best step 1 in the vinyl cleaning process. The problem is there about 10 steps in that process.

BTW, finally get my DIY one is a couple weeks, we shall see. Better be good, i had to trade my brother a GMG Smoker for it. He claims it's insane, but what would he say?

Only thing i don't like already? It will dry by fan, most do. Right there, that's a variable where it can go all wrong. I imagine little fans get pretty darn dusty, right? Clean your vinyl, dirty fan blows crap right back on it.

Saw online where after ultrasonic cleaning one model then had an autovac. That is probably the only way to really do it.

tckmet
member
member
United States of America
Posts: 249
Joined: 24 Dec 2012 10:35
Location: Cuyahoga Falls Ohio

Re: Disappointing Ultrasonic

Post by tckmet » 15 Mar 2018 10:21

From what I have heard is that the transducers are at the bottom of these high price cleaners instead of coming from the side and you do no get the full complete cleaning benefit you should, when I was considering building one and was inquiring from a company that manufactured and was selling their cleaners and sent them an image of a tank with a record holder and rotation device that was being sold on ebay and they stated that the suface has to be angled so you get the benefit of the ultra sonic cleaning from the transducer and even had a device that would angle the surface that you needed to clean to benefit.

Anyone care to interject and help???
I may need a re-education also if I am wrong.

tlscapital
long player
long player
Belgium
Posts: 2008
Joined: 27 Sep 2015 14:27
Location: Brussels, Belgium

Re: Disappointing Ultrasonic

Post by tlscapital » 18 Mar 2018 16:31

DIY an ultra-sonic tank should be no issue if your know your maths there and how to assemble all those electronics parts. But count me out there. So the idea to buy a "good" one is/was there.

The rest around I could build. So I've been looking out some and the first issue with the ultra-sonic tank alone is that you'd need it to work up to 60Hz in order the clean in the higher frequencies.

Those are rarer and most of the time sold to the medical pros. The tattoo guys'N'dolls have most of the time the mere common 40Hz ones... Those 60Hz ones when you do see them are pricey on top !

That set me back and made me drop the idea to look out for one at the moment. It's an interesting adventure and those "ready" made ones are expensive and sorry, but IMHO not convincing.

Understanding that you need one that can heat up with a solid vacuum to suck up all the residue at once, it should take quite some time, fiddling, money and juice to get your DIY proper one running.

I took note of the most credible critics I could find on the matter and to my surprise once you have those 3 crucial elements in control, the rest is just to find out how you can optimize the process.

So those sacred '3' are the ability to dish out up to 60Hz continuously, steady heated water in the tank and keep it so and to have an efficient vacuum to pick-up all the residue off at the end.

All the rest like the products you mix within the scale free water, the rotation speed of the roast and the timing you leave the pizzas in the tank are less crucial to get real results.

I am not saying they are not relevant. I have understood through reading pages of reviews that those last '3' need adjustments and work-out trials while the first '3' are capital.

ripblade
long player
long player
Canada
Posts: 1093
Joined: 05 Oct 2008 19:51
Location: Toronto, Ontario

Re: Disappointing Ultrasonic

Post by ripblade » 18 Mar 2018 18:36

tckmet wrote:From what I have heard is that the transducers are at the bottom of these high price cleaners instead of coming from the side and you do no get the full complete cleaning benefit you should, when I was considering building one and was inquiring from a company that manufactured and was selling their cleaners and sent them an image of a tank with a record holder and rotation device that was being sold on ebay and they stated that the suface has to be angled so you get the benefit of the ultra sonic cleaning from the transducer and even had a device that would angle the surface that you needed to clean to benefit.

Anyone care to interject and help???
I may need a re-education also if I am wrong.
Aiming the transducers towards the playing surfaces is probably ideal, but not absolutely necessary in my experience. Much like how sound from a single speaker bounces around a room and can be heard anywhere within it, the waves from the transducers reaches all around the tank. Not with the same efficiency mind you, but it's not like the process doesn't work at all unless done correctly.

Shadowman82
senior member
senior member
Posts: 820
Joined: 17 Feb 2012 22:47

Re: Disappointing Ultrasonic

Post by Shadowman82 » 21 Mar 2018 20:18

What about the Clear Audio Double Matrix machine ? I hear it's a vacuum based RCM but with a vibrational component . Would that give better results than a standard vacuum based RCM or is that just snake oil ?

seamonster
long player
long player
Posts: 1011
Joined: 31 Mar 2013 17:50

Re: Disappointing Ultrasonic

Post by seamonster » 24 Mar 2018 14:00

Here is a post from Packgrog -

"Also, I emailed Dave, the owner of TergiKleen, over the weekend about our discussion here. He told me that the directions posted here were a mistype on his part, and asked me to share the updated version of the directions (I can't upload the PDF via the forum software, though, so sorry about the jpgs). He confirmed what he'd told me back when I first tried it: 10-drops per gallon is ideal for Ultrasonic tank mixture. Further dilution as per those other directions is too little. No matter what, you still need to rinse after using Tergitol."

ripblade
long player
long player
Canada
Posts: 1093
Joined: 05 Oct 2008 19:51
Location: Toronto, Ontario

Re: Disappointing Ultrasonic

Post by ripblade » 24 Mar 2018 17:28

Shadowman82 wrote:What about the Clear Audio Double Matrix machine ? I hear it's a vacuum based RCM but with a vibrational component . Would that give better results than a standard vacuum based RCM or is that just snake oil ?
I thought it was just a double sided machine? Dunno....

You mentioned a vibrational component. That reminded me of someone who dropped an electric toothbrush into a bucket of water, along with a record for a soak as the brush buzzed along. The result after a few minutes was much better than one might expect from such a simple setup!

Shadowman82
senior member
senior member
Posts: 820
Joined: 17 Feb 2012 22:47

Re: Disappointing Ultrasonic

Post by Shadowman82 » 30 Mar 2018 17:22

Yeah no at least one Clear Audio RCM does have a vibrational component as well as vacuum suction . That's actually pretty neat with the electric toothbrush . I think if you had only something something like a spin clean that would be a good idea to try .

ripblade
long player
long player
Canada
Posts: 1093
Joined: 05 Oct 2008 19:51
Location: Toronto, Ontario

Re: Disappointing Ultrasonic

Post by ripblade » 30 Mar 2018 17:55

^ I have to admit I'm tempted to try it myself. High frequency hydraulic pulses alternately force liquid into the soils then pulls them away (push-pull). Basically, stirring the fluid around rather letting it sit idle, all without the possible risks of cavitation.

Need good label protectors, though...and a means to rinse and vacuum dry.

albertan
member
member
Posts: 133
Joined: 11 Jan 2011 14:21
Location: Edson, Alberta

Re: Disappointing Ultrasonic

Post by albertan » 24 Apr 2018 08:11

As an owner of an Audio Desk ultrasonic record cleaning machine I sympathise with Allsop, the original poster. I had a choice between a Loricraft PRC 6 and the Audio Desk. There is virtually nothing to separate them cost-wise. I chose the Audio Desk based on many stunning reviews. My own experience with this Teutonic wonder makes me question what the reviewers' found so awe inspiring. Each little bottle of cleaner goes for about 25 Canadian dollars. I went through 5-6 in my first 90 records because they sounded worse after the were cleaned ultrasonically. Things were not going well.

I did find that if I re-cleaned them with a Spin Clean and on my old vacuum record cleaner, with heavy rinses with distilled water after each cleaning stage, my records were sounding better than ever. It seems as though the ultrasonic bombardment loosened the material stuck in the grooves but did not remove this junk. These records were all previously cleaned, and yes, the first albums cleaned were the toughest customers. Things were still not adding up as I was working much harder to clean my records than ever.

At the 90 record mark, I cleaned the lips that hold and wipe the records with a soft cloth and warm, soapy water. I then went over these wipers with the same cloth that had been rinsed and ridded of all soap. The washing and rinsing of these wipers removed oil from these wipers that was coating the records. I replaced the rotating cloth rollers and filter and started cleaning again.

I clean the record on the Audio Desk. Then I place the record in a Spin Clean machine that is filled with distilled water a 1\4 of an inch (6 mm) higher than the fill line. and rotate the record several times in each direction twice. There is only distilled water in the Spin Clean. The Spin Clean fluid is not used. I am simply rinsing the records. After a dozen ultrasonically cleaned records have gone through the Spin Clean machine for a rinse, the amount of debris floating in the Spin Clean machine or resting on the bottom is impressive. I have never rinsed more than a dozen ultrasonically cleaned records without changing out the brushes and the water in the Spin Clean bath.

So Allsop, I would recommend that you try this rinsing method. The Spin Clean brushes seem to dig into the record grooves and the results are not only audible, they are visible as well. The records shine.

There is so much sediment in the Spin Clean I wash it with soap and water to get rid of the stuff. It is so tenacious that it does not always just rinse away. I wash the Spin Clean brushes and cloths in the clothes washer in hot water with a tablespoon of detergent and 2\3's of a cap of bleach. The rinse is with cold water.

After playing with this machine I really have to wonder about the impartiality of audio reviewers. Indeed, even their ability to hear. Without a rinse the high frequencies are noticeably reduced. Much like the hearing of an old audio reviewer. If I had to do it over again, I would have gone for the Loricraft PRC 6.

tlscapital
long player
long player
Belgium
Posts: 2008
Joined: 27 Sep 2015 14:27
Location: Brussels, Belgium

Re: Disappointing Ultrasonic

Post by tlscapital » 24 Apr 2018 13:07

albertan wrote:As an owner of an Audio Desk ultrasonic record cleaning machine I sympathise with Allsop, the original poster.
I've been browsing some on the net but couldn't find at what frequency this machine works. Do they say if it works at 40 or 60 Hz in the user's manual ?

ilyavictoria
member
member
Posts: 84
Joined: 26 Feb 2015 04:02

Re: Disappointing Ultrasonic

Post by ilyavictoria » 25 Apr 2018 04:42

albertan wrote:As an owner of an Audio Desk ultrasonic record cleaning machine I sympathise with Allsop, the original poster. I had a choice between a Loricraft PRC 6 and the Audio Desk. There is virtually nothing to separate them cost-wise. I chose the Audio Desk based on many stunning reviews. My own experience with this Teutonic wonder makes me question what the reviewers' found so awe inspiring. Each little bottle of cleaner goes for about 25 Canadian dollars. I went through 5-6 in my first 90 records because they sounded worse after the were cleaned ultrasonically. Things were not going well.

I did find that if I re-cleaned them with a Spin Clean and on my old vacuum record cleaner, with heavy rinses with distilled water after each cleaning stage, my records were sounding better than ever. It seems as though the ultrasonic bombardment loosened the material stuck in the grooves but did not remove this junk. These records were all previously cleaned, and yes, the first albums cleaned were the toughest customers. Things were still not adding up as I was working much harder to clean my records than ever.

At the 90 record mark, I cleaned the lips that hold and wipe the records with a soft cloth and warm, soapy water. I then went over these wipers with the same cloth that had been rinsed and ridded of all soap. The washing and rinsing of these wipers removed oil from these wipers that was coating the records. I replaced the rotating cloth rollers and filter and started cleaning again.

I clean the record on the Audio Desk. Then I place the record in a Spin Clean machine that is filled with distilled water a 1\4 of an inch (6 mm) higher than the fill line. and rotate the record several times in each direction twice. There is only distilled water in the Spin Clean. The Spin Clean fluid is not used. I am simply rinsing the records. After a dozen ultrasonically cleaned records have gone through the Spin Clean machine for a rinse, the amount of debris floating in the Spin Clean machine or resting on the bottom is impressive. I have never rinsed more than a dozen ultrasonically cleaned records without changing out the brushes and the water in the Spin Clean bath.

So Allsop, I would recommend that you try this rinsing method. The Spin Clean brushes seem to dig into the record grooves and the results are not only audible, they are visible as well. The records shine.

There is so much sediment in the Spin Clean I wash it with soap and water to get rid of the stuff. It is so tenacious that it does not always just rinse away. I wash the Spin Clean brushes and cloths in the clothes washer in hot water with a tablespoon of detergent and 2\3's of a cap of bleach. The rinse is with cold water.

After playing with this machine I really have to wonder about the impartiality of audio reviewers. Indeed, even their ability to hear. Without a rinse the high frequencies are noticeably reduced. Much like the hearing of an old audio reviewer. If I had to do it over again, I would have gone for the Loricraft PRC 6.


How do you dilute it?

Post Reply