the home of the turntable

Disappointing Ultrasonic

how clean is your house

Re: Disappointing Ultrasonic

Postby Lowlander2 » 30 Jun 2018 07:37

Shadowman82 wrote:Sounds to me like an Ultrasonic machine doesn't necessarily give you better results than a vacuum one .


My ultrasonic machine just does the job. Every time. The results are generally slightly better than with my Keith Monks and they are repeatable. What doesn't come off after a first three to five minute run and an optional second one minute run, just won't come off.

And I can completely skip the what compound of snake oil would I apply with what kind of South American mountain goats hair brush and let it soak for how long before I vacuum and make a second run with another mixture that may or may not contain alcohol before a final rinse in clean room conditions, then flip the record and start over.

Nah, just push the button and do something else.

CU,
Low
Lowlander2
member
member
 
Posts: 152
Images: 9
Joined: 16 Jan 2015 10:57
Location: The Palatinate

Germany

Re: Disappointing Ultrasonic

Postby ripblade » 30 Jun 2018 15:32

Shadowman82 wrote:Sounds to me like an Ultrasonic machine doesn't necessarily give you better results than a vacuum one .

There are no free rides. What plagues the record varies; U/S is fine for the light, easy stuff....you have to roll up your sleeves to clean out the tougher problems.
ripblade
senior member
senior member
 
Posts: 997
Images: 0
Joined: 05 Oct 2008 19:51
Location: Toronto, Ontario

Canada

Re: Disappointing Ultrasonic

Postby Sunwire » 30 Jun 2018 18:22

I have the AudioDesk machine.
I have never used a vacuum machine.
I'm pretty happy with it. I was fortunate to purchase it at a substantial discount. It was a customer return that was refurbished with full warranty.
It was far more than I ever imagined myself spending on such a thing, even at the discount.
But it makes the cleaning process so quick and easy, I haven't regretted it for a minute.
It won't really clean off fingerprint grease very well, and I don't want to contaminate the cleaning fluid with a lot of dirt, so I usually blow off loose dust with compressed air, then do a quick initial wipe down with distilled water and paper towel if there is substantial additional dust (this is rare) and I will used 90% isopropyl alcohol on a paper towel to wipe off visible fingerprints and run around the edge where the record has always been handled, even if there are no visible fingerprints.

I'm generally satisfied with how clean the records turn out.
I have not heard the "miraculous" improvements in the sound of already clean records that some reviewers report. But pops and ticks are reduced quite a bit.

The removal of static charge is a big plus.

I don't touch the record with anything after cleaning (no more carbon brush). I just blow off dust I see that settles on the record before play. I'm in a 140 year old wood/brick/plaster schoolhouse with 5 cats and an old forced air furnace. It gets dusty.

My plan is to clean, record, and then sell most of my vinyl, keeping only a couple hundred (maybe) truly special records out of about two thousand or so. I figure the machine will largely pay for itself by allowing me to charge an additional dollar or two for cleaned records.
Sunwire
long player
long player
contributor
 
Posts: 1383
Images: 5
Joined: 07 Oct 2004 21:54
Location: New York

United States of America

Re: Disappointing Ultrasonic

Postby Sunwire » 30 Jun 2018 18:23

By the way, the ultrasonic units run at 40-60 kiloHertz, not 40-60 Hz. :)
Sunwire
long player
long player
contributor
 
Posts: 1383
Images: 5
Joined: 07 Oct 2004 21:54
Location: New York

United States of America

Re: Disappointing Ultrasonic

Postby Shadowman82 » 30 Jun 2018 19:24

I think to get the real gunky stuff out you probably need to apply quite a bit of elbow grease . This could be why some people feel that a RCM where you have to do the scrubbing manually gets better results than one where the machine does it for you .
Shadowman82
senior member
senior member
 
Posts: 467
Joined: 17 Feb 2012 23:47

Canada

Re: Disappointing Ultrasonic

Postby Sunwire » 01 Jul 2018 17:22

The Audio Desk machine does not clean the run out groove or dead wax area of the record. Just watch it. That part doesn't even get in the fluid.
Sunwire
long player
long player
contributor
 
Posts: 1383
Images: 5
Joined: 07 Oct 2004 21:54
Location: New York

United States of America

Re: Disappointing Ultrasonic

Postby Shadowman82 » 02 Jul 2018 00:10

That's quite possible , I wouldn't know since I do not own a ultrasonic machine . I do always get that part on my VPI since I have to scrub by hand . And yes I did add alcohol to my VPI fluid .
Shadowman82
senior member
senior member
 
Posts: 467
Joined: 17 Feb 2012 23:47

Canada

Re: Disappointing Ultrasonic

Postby poutrew » 04 Jul 2018 04:54

What we need is a machine that shoots high velocity jets of warmed cleaning fluid directly at the record - kinda like how a car wash cleans gunk off a car, or a dishwasher cleans dirty dinner plates. Just protect the labels and run the machine through a 5 minute cycle...
poutrew
member
member
 
Posts: 31
Joined: 31 Mar 2017 06:18

United States of America

Re: Disappointing Ultrasonic

Postby Shadowman82 » 04 Jul 2018 23:44

The problem with heat and Vinyl is always that it could cause warping .
Shadowman82
senior member
senior member
 
Posts: 467
Joined: 17 Feb 2012 23:47

Canada

Re: Disappointing Ultrasonic

Postby vinylredders » 13 Jul 2018 09:00

I recently invested in a vinyl stack & 14L ultrasonic tank.
Solution is distilled water isopropanol & ilfotol according to accepted wisdom.
Rinse with distilled water only in a spin clean.

Can only clean records reliably singly; the 4 at a time feature of the vinyl stack, though temptingly time-saving, simply does not work. I have had some good results - but only one at a time after 20 mins in the tank. Other old records just stay crackley; I guess its possible there is damage to the record that is simply not visible & that I am expecting miracles. They've all been cleaned first in the spin clean.

The DIY ultrasonic approach is simply too much of a faff; so many critical steps & variables to go wrong; for the money I've spent I could have bought a decent vac machine & I wish I had.

There are some respected opinions suggested US clean followed by vac rinse ie using both methods is the most effective option; I'm thinking of getting a vac machine (life is too short!) and using both methods for those stubbornly crackley records.
vinylredders
 
Posts: 1
Joined: 13 Jul 2018 08:43

United Kingdom

Re: Disappointing Ultrasonic

Postby FrauGrimhild » 05 Aug 2018 19:11

If I was you, mate, I'd concentrate less on the finer point of micro-cavitation dynamics and more on enjoying your music!
FrauGrimhild
 
Posts: 3
Joined: 19 Jul 2017 20:32

United Kingdom

Previous

Return to Record Cleaning and Storage