advertisement


ultrasonic record cleaner

karma67

pfm Member
so i have finally bit the bullet and bought one!
just waiting for the water to heat up for my first go. i bought the US unit,filter system and record motor assembly all for under £200.

K7wkIi2.jpg
 
Do you know what the frequency of the bath is? Does it say on it? The lower then the safer for the records.
 
according to the burb its 40KHZ

You'd be much better off with 20 kHz I'm sorry to point out. I'd suggest that you keep the wash cycle short (say 5 mins max and once only) to avoid damaging the records.

This is very helpful

 
well for every post telling you not to,theres one telling you its ok.

quoted from diyaudio https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...-record-cleaner-what-frequency-to-use.276858/


What Frequency to Use and more

As a builder of Ultrasonic Cleaners (a former employee of Sonix4, now independent), I may offer a few insights.


It is true, there have been no reports for damage to vinyl records using the mass-market, Chinese 40khz Ultrasonic Cleaners. They do make a good, inexpensive option for cleaning your Record Collection.


The cavitation bubble formed by a 40khz unit is much larger and more powerful than those of a higher frequency (60khz, 80khz, 120khz, 135khz).


When the cavitation bubble implodes, it releases a jet stream and heat. The larger bubble releases a larger amount of power and heat (10,000 degrees kelvin, according to scientific reports, in minuscule amounts).



The 40khz cavitation bubble is too large to penetrate the record groove, but all ultrasonic cleaners rely on the jet stream to dislodge any debris.
The smaller cavitation bubble of a higher frequency cleaner can form inside the groove, next to debris and dislodge it.


Higher frequency Ultrasonic Cleaners generate MORE cavitation bubble than lower frequency units. More bubbles, more implosions, better cleaning coverage.


I frequently get asked which frequency is the best for cleaning vinyl records. I recommend the following:
If you collect albums that are in poor condition, such as mold or water damage, the the lower frequencies (40khz or 60khz) are the better option. (Many collectors buy from flea markets, estate sales, etc).
If your collection is already in good condition (finger prints and dust), then the higher frequencies would better suit the collector (80khz, 135khz).


Cleaning solution is vital. There are many formulas, but I personally recommend TergiKleen (or a formula similar) because it is archival and used by the Library of Congress for recorded materials.


Carefully monitor the heat in the tank, also. Even though the Heater may turn off the heating element, the act of cavitation will continue to release heat, which will cause the solution to go above the cut-off point! Heat will warp and destroy vinyl records.


To address the issue of cost, I say this: It costs me more than 3X for parts alone than what a Chinese Ultrasonic Cleaner costs! In my opinion, they are deliberately undercutting American Manufacturers.



Hope some of this helps.
-Louis

Vibrato, LLC.
 
Personally, I found the workflow using OTS cleaners too arduous and the results no better than a good vacuum clean.

I suspect a properly designed machine that combined cavitation cleaning, vacuum drying and automated fluid management would be the way to go.
 
Personally, I found the workflow using OTS cleaners too arduous and the results no better than a good vacuum clean.

I suspect a properly designed machine that combined cavitation cleaning, vacuum drying and automated fluid management would be the way to go.

That's interesting, I was just thinking how much simpler / more consistent these machines could be to use because there's no manual brushing involved.

They certainly look like you get more for your money than the standard 'MDF box with bits of tuppaware' vacuum cleaner.
 
That's interesting, I was just thinking how much simpler / more consistent these machines could be to use because there's no manual brushing involved.

They certainly look like you get more for your money than the standard 'MDF box with bits of tuppaware' vacuum cleaner.
You do. I just wasn't convinced it provided significantly better results than a vacuum cleaner and it used gallons of fluid. The Fluid goes rancid pretty quickly once it's contaminated and needs replacing frequently.
 
Personally, I found the workflow using OTS cleaners too arduous and the results no better than a good vacuum clean.

I suspect a properly designed machine that combined cavitation cleaning, vacuum drying and automated fluid management would be the way to go.

The KLAudio machines seem to be the business - but they're about $6000 or so.
 
Hi Louis, that certainly looks good. I had a new Chinese 40 khz unit but I quickly sold it on because I was disappointed with the results. I now use a second hand British multi frequency unit which is an improvement but it lacks a heater or drain facility so its pretty basic. Your filtration unit looks very impressive, could you please expand on what you used for this as thats my next cleaning unit upgrade. Thanks in advance Paul
 
Do you even need a heater for cleaning LPs
I find 300w of ultrasonic power going into mine heats it up too much (above 33degrees) and I have to let everything cool down for half an hour every hour or so
 


advertisement


Back
Top