tima's DIY RCM

tima

Industry Expert
Mar 3, 2014
5,778
6,820
1,400
the Upper Midwest
I bought the 3ml Calibrated Eye Dropper pipettes Neil mentions, and 1 pint of Tergitol 15-S-9 from Talasonline.com ($21.75 + ship) The calibrated pipettes graduated in 1,2 and 3 ml are a perfect tool for adding Tergitol to a tank - very nice, thanks for the suggestion Neil. I emptied the tank of its water+ILFOTOL solution along with the filter cannister. Filled tank and cannister with fresh distilled water then degassed the tank for 20 minutes. Then I added 2ml of Tergitol 15-S-9 to the tank and ran the pump. I can report that 2ml Tergitol in the 12.75 liter tank yields a small amount of foarm, nowhere near as much as the ILFOTOL I had been using (albeit with good result.) Fwiw, 1ml of Tergitol 15-S-9 showed no foam. Now I'll clean 4 records with three RD spacers between. Results later.

part 1: First cleaning with Tergitol 15-S-9 ...

DSC02009-s.JPG

DSC02022-s.JPG

Add ~ 2ml of Tergitol 15-S-9 to ~12.75 Liters of distilled water:

DSC02017-s.JPG

I don't have a comparable picture using ILFOTOL, but it presented a greater amount of 'air' in the foam that caused it to billow more above the surface.
 

tima

Industry Expert
Mar 3, 2014
5,778
6,820
1,400
the Upper Midwest
part 2: First cleaning with Tergitol 15-S-9 ...

This photo was taken about 3/4 of the way through a 20 minute wash cycle. 10 min at 37kHz, 10 min at 80kHz. The foam dispersed as shown. It confined itself to the left half of the records where the filter outflow resides. Based on Neil's information I speculate the 2 ml of Tergitol S-15-9 should get beyond the CMC (critical micelle concentration) achieved by the amount of ILFOTOL I had been using to yield a greater detergent function. Iow, beyond lowering surface tension, more soap is available for cleaning. I also speculate that an equivalent amount of ILFOTOL would result in way too much foam, even going over the edge of the tank.

One minor note: when I used the ILFOTOL I originally had the filter outflow tubing just above the water's surface. I speculate this contributed to increased foaming. I change the downward pointing tube to reach about 2/3 of the way into the tank. The agitation from the filter return probably contributes to foaming.

DSC02001-s.JPG

Into the rinse tank for 10 minutes at 37 kHz ...

DSC02015-s.JPG

Whatever foam (if any) was carried over on the records disbursed quickly ...

DSC02012-s.JPG

As I lifted the records out of the tank the solution sheeted off of them, leaving very few droplets on their surface. I put them on the Kuzma RD spindle base at a 45-degree angle to dry. That happens in my audio room which is warm from the 45 minute equipment warmup. (Clean records while equipment warms up!) The records dry reasonably quick, though I didn't time that.

The crucial test is listening... One of the records I cleaned had already been through a similar cycle but with ILFOTOL as the surfactant. It was purchased used not long ago and with that first cleaning I was rather disappointed to find the record (which came from overseas) was way too noisey - to the point that I probably would not play it often although the performance itself was excellent. The second cleaning using the Tergitol considerably improved the record's listenability - I will guess over half the noise I first heard was gone - actually more than half. I have no hesitancy to play it as I choose. I'm quite tickled with that result. Thanks to Neil and David for your help!
 

tima

Industry Expert
Mar 3, 2014
5,778
6,820
1,400
the Upper Midwest
The crucial test is listening... One of the records I cleaned had already been through a similar cycle but with ILFOTOL as the surfactant. It was purchased used not long ago and with that first cleaning I was rather disappointed to find the record (which came from overseas) was way too noisey - to the point that I probably would not play it often although the performance itself was excellent. The second cleaning using the Tergitol considerably improved the record's listenability - I will guess over half the noise I first heard was gone - actually more than half. I have no hesitancy to play it as I choose. I'm quite tickled with that result. Thanks to Neil and David for your help!

A quick note of confirmation. The above account may not be a one-off or exception. Of the batch of four LPs cleaned with Tergitol I played another well used, somewhat noisey, record previously run throught the same cycle but with ILFOTOL. That record came out very close to noise free, equivalent to a new unplayed record. While twice cleaning a record increases the liklihood that it is cleaner, I was quite surprised at this end result.

The adoption of ultrasonic rinsing along with Tergitol 15-S-9 in the wash tank may prove a genuinely significant advance - at least for me. If these results continue I may end up raising my own standard about what is possible.

Will continue gathering examples.
 

dminches

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2011
3,409
2,794
1,410
A quick note of confirmation. The above account may not be a one-off or exception. Of the batch of four LPs cleaned with Tergitol I played another well used, somewhat noisey, record previously run throught the same cycle but with ILFOTOL. That record came out very close to noise free, equivalent to a new unplayed record. While twice cleaning a record increases the liklihood that it is cleaner, I was quite surprised at this end result.

The adoption of ultrasonic rinsing along with Tergitol 15-S-9 in the wash tank may prove a genuinely significant advance - at least for me. If these results continue I may end up raising my own standard about what is possible.

Will continue gathering examples.

Tim, I am in the same boat you are. Unless Neil (or you) come up with something different, I consider my setup complete.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tima

Neil.Antin

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2021
312
284
70
68
Tim, I am in the same boat you are. Unless Neil (or you) come up with something different, I consider my setup complete.

For now, with the systems you have, there is not much more you can do for the cleaning process. However, a few suggestion; and their cheap:

I use UV light inspection after the 1st cleaning. I clean all records the same way; and after drying before sleeving I do a quick ~5 sec UV light inspection. Most records will have a few surface fibers/lint that fall onto the surface while drying and those are just lightly brushed away with Amazon.com: Kinetronics Anti-Static Microfiber Cloth, 10x18-Inch Tiger Cloth: Camera & Photo . For records that are not clean - there will be very very fine, just pin points of fluorescence that are in the groove(s) - they are put aside for a 2nd more thorough cleaning. The book Chapter IV discusses and shows pictures from UV light inspection.

The UV light I use is Alonefire SV003 10W 365nm UV Flashlight Portable Rechargeable Blacklight Flashlight Scorpion for Pet Urine Detector Resin Curing with Aluminum Case, Charger, 18650 Battery Included - - Amazon.com. A new cheaper version with a USB-C charge port is Alonefire SV005 395nm 10W LED UV Flashlight Blacklight Portable USB-C Rechargeable Black Light Pet Urine Detector with Aluminium Case, 18650 Battery Included for Pet Stains Hunting Marker Check - - Amazon.com. There is no difference in wave-length; its a typo they are both 365nm.

The very very fine, just pin points of fluorescence that are in the groove(s) are likely atmospheric aerosols (lots of info available such as Lecture25.pdf (gatech.edu) that are in the ambient air that get onto/into the record during pressing and/or packaging; most record pressing plants are not clean rooms. These atmospheric aerosols are mostly inorganic particles and while many are <0.1 micron, quite a few are between 0.2 and 2.5 micron. During normal use the record is exposed to your resident atmosphere for just a few seconds before play. Once in rotation, the air currents developed above the record should be sufficient to prevent deposition of these very fine/light particles..

The 80 kHz of the Elmasonic and its high power are great for removal of these fine particles. But as I wrote in the book, The paper "Adhesion and Removal of Fine Particles on Surfaces, Aerosol Science and Technology, M. B. Ranade, 1987 (38) shows for aluminum oxide particles, the force (acceleration) required to remove a 10-micron particle is 4.5 x 10^4 g’s, a 1-micron particle is 4.5 x 10^6 g’s and a 0.1-micron particle is 4.5 x 10^8 g’s so removing very small particles is difficult. Also, the particles may be in layers - so the cleaning process has to work its way through the layers which will not be uniform across the record.

For records after your normal cleaning process that are not visibly clean - and it takes some experience to best interpret what you are seeing with UV, or are noisy, the 2nd cleaning process can use the same time constraints but clean only a maximum of 3 records. This should improve the cavitation intensity on the record and get the best particle removal you can.

Hope this is of some help,
Neil
 
  • Like
Reactions: tima and dminches

tima

Industry Expert
Mar 3, 2014
5,778
6,820
1,400
the Upper Midwest
I use UV light inspection after the 1st cleaning.

Thanks Neil for bringing this up along with information on atmospheric aerosols.

For the past year I am using the:

Alonefire SV003 10W 365nm UV Flashlight Portable Rechargeable Blacklight Flashlight Scorpion

you mention. As one might expect it works best in a dark room.

DSC02026-s.JPG

DSC02023-s.JPG

One of my records. Particles show up as bright specks using the UV flashlight.

Seeing something like the above on a just cleaned record, I prefer to use a record brush rather than a cloth. My brush of choice is the Analog Relax Anti-Static Brush. I purchased this direct from the Analog Relax store in Japan. It is also available on Amazon. Imo, this is a superior brush to others I've tried. (I've tried quite a few.) Using it, many of the particles revealed under UV get wiped away. Bill Hart reviewed this brush on his Web site The Vinyl Press. Outrageously pricey, but it works well.

Analog Relax record brush.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Neil.Antin

Folsom

VIP/Donor
Oct 25, 2015
6,024
1,490
520
Eastern WA
My personal choice for brushes.

The GEM Dandy finally showed up after being stuck in a wharehouse for awhile. Initial impressions is that it can in fact clean more than an ultrasonic. I need to clean more discs before I conclude too much. I'm not using the Groove lube at all.
 

advanced101

VIP/Donor
May 3, 2017
247
178
233
Where is the best/ cheapest place to buy the Tergitol online in the US?
 

dminches

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2011
3,409
2,794
1,410
Where is the best/ cheapest place to buy the Tergitol online in the US?

 

advanced101

VIP/Donor
May 3, 2017
247
178
233
Thanks! A lot cheaper than buying a larger supply.
 

Neil.Antin

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2021
312
284
70
68
My brush of choice is the Analog Relax Anti-Static Brush. I purchased this direct from the Analog Relax store in Japan. It is also available on Amazon. Imo, this is a superior brush to others I've tried. (I've tried quite a few.) Using it, many of the particles revealed under UV get wiped away. Bill Hart reviewed this brush on his Web site The Vinyl Press. Outrageously pricey, but it works well.

The Analog Relax brush uses "VI.8.c COREBRID™ B®: A hollow acrylic fiber that is filled with a conductive material manufactured by Mitsubishi Chemical™. This fiber is 0.03 mm (0.0012”/~30 ?m) diameter and its electrical resistance measures between 1 - 10²? cm.". Furutech also uses Corebrid and there is now 57 Powers - Amazon.com: 57 POWERS Record Cleaner Brush Dust and Static Elimination COREBRID-B: Home Audio & Theater

I have used with little success: "VI.8.b THUNDERON®: An extremely soft acrylic fiber that has been chemically bonded with a layer of copper sulfide. This outer layer becomes a part of the host fiber itself, which precludes the 'flaking' problem experienced by other conductive fibers. The fiber diameter is available in two diameters, 0.07 mm (0.0028"/~70 ?m) and 0.11 mm (0.0043"/~110 ?m). Its conductive layer is a super thin 300-1,000 (angstroms). Thunderon® has an electrical specific resistance of 10¹ - 10²? cm.”.

Both brush materials have similar electrical resistance and are mostly acrylic which is soft and does fracture (sideways) like carbon fiber. The big difference is the bristle diameter, the Corebrid is 30 um while the Thunderon is 70 um. The small diameter bristle may be better at picking up particles whereas the larger diameter Thunderon not as well. FWIW - my experience with carbon fiber which is thinner (7.6 um) but much stiffer is the same as NASA - "VI.8.d....Although there was only one carbon bristle brush tested, it had by far the poorest performance.”.

I guess a Corebrid brush may be in my future.

Thanks,
Neil
 
  • Like
Reactions: tima

tima

Industry Expert
Mar 3, 2014
5,778
6,820
1,400
the Upper Midwest
The Analog Relax brush uses "VI.8.c COREBRID™ B®: A hollow acrylic fiber that is filled with a conductive material manufactured by Mitsubishi Chemical™. This fiber is 0.03 mm (0.0012”/~30 ?m) diameter and its electrical resistance measures between 1 - 10²? cm.". Furutech also uses Corebrid and there is now 57 Powers - Amazon.com: 57 POWERS Record Cleaner Brush Dust and Static Elimination COREBRID-B: Home Audio & Theater

I have the Furutech ASB-1 brush that incorporates COREBIRD-B. It seems well made. It expects you to put a finger on its metal band to provide grounding. The product is oriented to brushing a record rather than sweeping it as one does with a traditional record brush. The brush portion of the ASB-1 covers only a portion of the record and its fibers are very soft amd flexible similar to a sable artist brush. The Analog Relax brush has shorter and stiffer fibers; one lets the record rotate beneath it, then sweep it off the record. Upon acquiring the Analog Relax brush I rarely use the Furutech.

One of my eccentricities is to afix on my rack a piece of painter's tape roughly 6" in length. I briefly touch whatever brush I'm using to it to remove lint or whatever is on the brush. This keeps the brush clean. I"ve been doing this for at least ten years and thus far nothing indicate transference from the tape to the brush or to the record.
 

Stacore

Industry Expert
Feb 23, 2017
641
196
180
Gdańsk, Poland
stacore.pl
Hi guys,

Having been here for some time. I see that you are advancing the art - thumbs up for your great job!

Since the art has developed, I'd like to consult with you my cleaning technique if you permit.

Hardware: GT Sonic 6L, 150W, 40kHz machine + 0.5um filter+ 1rpm motor for rotation. At most 3 Lp's at the time, as evenly spaced as possible. The standing waves clearly visible in all spaces. The filter pump is a small 12V unit 240l/h max. Silver coils in the tubing for desinfection.

Cleaning solution: 5% IPA + 0.05% Tergitol 15-S-7

The procedure:

*1st step: Vacuum pre-clean on Okki Nokki using the cleaning solution. I apply the solution only once, do a biderectional scrub (2 revs each direction) using Keith Monks brush then vacuum.

*2nd step: USC with the above cleaning solution @ ~75% power, 33-35C, 20mins, 1rpm rotation (first degass for 10mins, filter before the batches, currently have 7-10ppm TDS) <-- the motor could be slower but cant find one with 1/3rpm @230V

*3rd step: Vac rinse on Okki Nokki. First two rinses with a high purity DI using Osage brush to distribute the water. Then two more rinses with a 3% ethanol. Final vacuum to dry (2 revs) + air dry.

Brushing at the TT before playing - Ramar brush (an excellent tool IMHO)

Storage: Nagaoka 102 or Goldring Exstatic sleeves. After placing the record in the sleeve, I blow ionized air with an ion blower inside the sleeve (tricky with Nagaokas) to remove residual static.

Any comments? The procedure is tedious, esp. the rinsing cycles (4 cycles per side). I'm considering getting a second US unit for rinsing.

Thanks,
Jarek
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: tima

Neil.Antin

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2021
312
284
70
68
Hi guys,

Having been here for some time. I see that you are advancing the art - thumbs up for your great job!

Since the art has developed, I'd like to consult with you my cleaning technique if you permit.

Hardware: GT Sonic 6L, 150W, 40kHz machine + 0.5um filter+ 1rpm motor for rotation. At most 3 Lp's at the time, as evenly spaced as possible. The standing waves clearly visible in all spaces. The filter pump is a small 12V unit 240l/h max. Silver coils in the tubing for desinfection.

Cleaning solution: 5% IPA + 0.05% Tergitol 15-S-7

The procedure:

*1st step: Vacuum pre-clean on Okki Nokki using the cleaning solution. I apply the solution only once, do a biderectional scrub (2 revs each direction) using Keith Monks brush then vacuum.

*2nd step: USC with the above cleaning solution @ ~75% power, 33-35C, 20mins, 1rpm rotation (first degass for 10mins, filter before the batches, currently have 7-10ppm TDS) <-- the motor could be slower but cant find one with 1/3rpm @230V

*3rd step: Vac rinse on Okki Nokki. First two rinses with a high purity DI using Osage brush to distribute the water. Then two more rinses with a 3% ethanol. Final vacuum to dry (2 revs) + air dry.

Brushing at the TT before playing - Ramar brush (an excellent tool IMHO)

Storage: Nagaoka 102 or Goldring Exstatic sleeves. After placing the record in the sleeve, I blow ionized air with an ion blower inside the sleeve (tricky with Nagaokas) to remove residual static.

Any comments? The procedure is tedious, esp. the rinsing cycles (4 cycles per side). I'm considering getting a second US unit for rinsing.

Thanks,
Jarek
Jarek,

Your 1 rpm spin speed is fine with 3 records maximum; limited benefit of spinning slower.

Your chemistry is good for pre-cleaning with your vacuum-RCM, but may be a bit concentrated for your final ultrasonic cleaning. Item to consider is that 15-S-7 has a low cloud point and with the 0.05% (500 ppm) you do risk having some come out of solution during heated ultrasonic cleaning and the high concentration (almost 15 times the critical micelle concentration) makes it difficult to rinse. You should be able to reduce the 15-S-7 concentration to 0.015 to 0.0.25% and still get fully wetting and detergency.

The alcohol in the heated ultrasonic tank is going to evaporate from the bath water over time, and if you run the bath for any length of time, you probably do not have 5%. There are alcohol hydrometers that can monitor the alcohol concentration such as VWR® Isopropyl Alcohol Hydrometers, Traceable to NIST | VWR. Record Note - in my book Precision Aqueous Cleaning of Vinyl Records-2nd Edition - The Vinyl Press I incorrectly state that alcohol forms an azeotrope (evaporates with water), this is only true at concentrations >50%.

What are the details (name & model #) of the pump & filter so I can determine if the filter is 0.5 um nominal or absolute and see the pump curve to determine how much flow you are actually getting and from that along with the tank volume (6L) tell you how long you need to filter between batches to get adequate filtering.

Not sure why you are ultrasonic cleaning for 20 min. Given the pre-clean you are doing, ~10 min at 1 rpm should be fine especially if you increase power to 100%. At 75% that is only 112W, and that is not much power for that tank size. Your unit is not very powerful, so you really do not want to reduce power. Consider the Elamsonic that has >300W, and the KL Audio that had 200W in a much smaller volume. However, if you are determined 20 min is required disregard this comment.

If you reduce the 15-S-7 concentration as I suggest above, you should not require the many rinses you are currently doing. You may do fine with just your two DIW rinses or two DIW+3% ethanol, but not both.

Hope this is of some help, Good Luck.
Neil
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: Stacore and tima

Bill Hart

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2012
2,683
174
1,150
I'm glad to see Neil here. He's got a lot of valuable information for us, and offers it without ego or some commercial agenda.
One of the things that has plagued me, despite a fairly rigorous cleaning regime, is dots and other surface detritus from a previous cleaned record that appear when I pull it from the inner.
I have found that a lot of inners shed. Even the fancy ones. I am currently down to the round bottom Japanese style -very flimsy but leaves less stuff on the record and the MA Records inner, which is woven plant material. (Expensive, but who cares, right?- I'm being little facetious but recognize that those inners are not cheap).
I have a hate relationship with brushes-- they can push this surface lint (for lack of a better word) into a nice line but you are told to push the collected lint sideways, either to the outside rim or inner label area. I don't think this is good even if it is doing no damage to the groove area because you aren't necessarily removing it.
The Analog Relax brush seemed more effective when new- it does discharge the static (mild) that makes this stuff cling to the record surface-- dust motes, skin shed, liner shed, whatever, and thus easier to brush off, but even that is an incomplete solution. Short of re-cleaning a record, I use an air puffer (Giotto's Blaster- get the Large size for more blow) and a piece of good silk. Neil turned me on to that Tiger Cloth and it does work- it may leave a smudge but I don't want to pronounce that as the last word until I use it more.
Yes, I have good HVAC filters, use a HEPA filter in the cleaning area (but not in the listening room) and under bright light, can see all the nasties even from an otherwise very clean record. I don't let the vinyl discolorations (plate out problems in the manufacture) or unhearable scuffs (I buy mostly stuff made close to 50 years ago, on average) or other irregularities in copies bother me (warps I deal with using an Orb made Furu DF-2). Still, the surface crap is a pain. I may try a bench top ionizer to be used in combination with the cloth, brush, etc. (A charge can be pretty minimal and still sufficient to bind those lint particles to the surface even though the record doesn't behave as static-laden).
Yes, I clean the platter, the area around the table and am about as OCD as one can be and not own the top floor of a Vegas hotel.
Hi to my friends here. It's a long road and it ain't done yet. :)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: pcosta and tima

tima

Industry Expert
Mar 3, 2014
5,778
6,820
1,400
the Upper Midwest
Any comments? The procedure is tedious, esp. the rinsing cycles (4 cycles per side). I'm considering getting a second US unit for rinsing.

Thanks,
Jarek

Hi Jarek - thanks for the update on your cleaning process.

Neil's offers solid information on the suitable quantity of Tergitol.
I'd take him up on his offer to evaluate your pump and filter.

What rotesserie do you use with your USC tank?

Looking over your procedure it must, as you say, be tedious. If using the Okki-Noki vacuum is anthing like I experienced with the Loricraft vacuum, I'll speculate that it is at least somewhat messy. Do you leave the cleaning fluid on the record before vacuuming it off? Does fluid from the B-side get on the clean and dried A-side?

For me the less I handle records the better.

Each of us has their own approach and tolerance for the amount of manual record handling we're willing to undertake and amount of time we're willing to spend. I encourage consideration to get a second USC for rinsing. This is where the rotisserie comes into play. Imo the key to using a rinse tank is how simple it is to move records from wash to rinse without having to dismount and remount records on a rotisserie. I also like to run the rinse tank through its own filter to help leave only clean water on the record so records can air dry without the need to vacuum and avoid the manual record handling that goes with that.

I have not heard the idea to blow ionized air into the record sleeve to avoid static. That sounds very interesting. Can you say more on this?
 

tima

Industry Expert
Mar 3, 2014
5,778
6,820
1,400
the Upper Midwest
Hi to my friends here. It's a long road and it ain't done yet.

Hi Bill - nice to have you drop in. Come by more often.

Can you gauge an age after which your Analog Relax shows less effectiveness?

I'm not aware of inner sleeve shedng. Do they shed without records in them?
 

Stacore

Industry Expert
Feb 23, 2017
641
196
180
Gdańsk, Poland
stacore.pl
Jarek,

Your 1 rpm spin speed is fine with 3 records maximum; limited benefit of spinning slower.

Your chemistry is good for pre-cleaning with your vacuum-RCM, but may be a bit concentrated for your final ultrasonic cleaning. Item to consider is that 15-S-7 has a low cloud point and with the 0.05% (500 ppm) you do risk having some come out of solution during heated ultrasonic cleaning and the high concentration (almost 15 times the critical micelle concentration) makes it difficult to rinse. You should be able to reduce the 15-S-7 concentration to 0.015 to 0.0.25% and still get fully wetting and detergency.

The alcohol in the heated ultrasonic tank is going to evaporate from the bath water over time, and if you run the bath for any length of time, you probably do not have 5%. There are alcohol hydrometers that can monitor the alcohol concentration such as VWR® Isopropyl Alcohol Hydrometers, Traceable to NIST | VWR. Record Note - in my book Precision Aqueous Cleaning of Vinyl Records-2nd Edition - The Vinyl Press I incorrectly state that alcohol forms an azeotrope (evaporates with water), this is only true at concentrations >50%.

What are the details (name & model #) of the pump & filter so I can determine if the filter is 0.5 um nominal or absolute and see the pump curve to determine how much flow you are actually getting and from that along with the tank volume (6L) tell you how long you need to filter between batches to get adequate filtering.

Not sure why you are ultrasonic cleaning for 20 min. Given the pre-clean you are doing, ~10 min at 1 rpm should be fine especially if you increase power to 100%. At 75% that is only 112W, and that is not much power for that tank size. Your unit is not very powerful, so you really do not want to reduce power. Consider the Elamsonic that has >300W, and the KL Audio that had 200W in a much smaller volume. However, if you are determined 20 min is required disregard this comment.

If you reduce the 15-S-7 concentration as I suggest above, you should not require the many rinses you are currently doing. You may do fine with just your two DIW rinses or two DIW+3% ethanol, but not both.

Hope this is of some help, Good Luck.
Neil

Hello Neil,

Your knowledge is amazing, thank you so much for the comments!

1. Got the point on the concentration, will prepare a new mix with 0.02% S7

2. IPA concentration - how critical is it to keep 5%? What if drops to say 3%? I though this is rather arbitrary

3. The pump is a cheap small unit:


Zdj?cie 29.08.2021, 12 51 52.jpg

The filter is a polyprop filter FilterLogic SP10M005. I think this is something local, cannot find any data on the 0.5um rating. I'd assume its a lesser rather than the better. To give you some idea, I needed about 10h filtering to bring TDS from initial 11ppm to 7ppm (cleaning in the mean time 12 vinyls).

4. Got the point on the power, will increase to 100%, 10mins. Back at the time when I was starting US, there was a fear too much power may affect high frequencies.

Once again, thank you so much Neil, this looks like almost 50% time reduction per batch of 3 LPs.

Best,
Jarek
 

Stacore

Industry Expert
Feb 23, 2017
641
196
180
Gdańsk, Poland
stacore.pl
Hi Jarek - thanks for the update on your cleaning process.

Neil's offers solid information on the suitable quantity of Tergitol.
I'd take him up on his offer to evaluate your pump and filter.

What rotesserie do you use with your USC tank?

Looking over your procedure it must, as you say, be tedious. If using the Okki-Noki vacuum is anthing like I experienced with the Loricraft vacuum, I'll speculate that it is at least somewhat messy. Do you leave the cleaning fluid on the record before vacuuming it off? Does fluid from the B-side get on the clean and dried A-side?

For me the less I handle records the better.

Each of us has their own approach and tolerance for the amount of manual record handling we're willing to undertake and amount of time we're willing to spend. I encourage consideration to get a second USC for rinsing. This is where the rotisserie comes into play. Imo the key to using a rinse tank is how simple it is to move records from wash to rinse without having to dismount and remount records on a rotisserie. I also like to run the rinse tank through its own filter to help leave only clean water on the record so records can air dry without the need to vacuum and avoid the manual record handling that goes with that.

I have not heard the idea to blow ionized air into the record sleeve to avoid static. That sounds very interesting. Can you say more on this?
Hi Tima,

Thank you for your questions.

1. What I use is a half-DIY machine from Audio Revita just because the guy is in my city. It has it's own simple rotesserie.

2. I skipped leaving the cleaning liquid to soak to save on time. I pour it and start working with the brush straight away, then vacuum. For preclean it is quick, rinsing is the most tedious but Neil pointed to the light :)

3. I use an extra mat for the wet side, so the finished dry side touches dry and clean platter of the machine only. No prob with that.

4. Yes, second USC for rinse sounds like a great idea.

5. We have a point ionizing blower mounted above the TT's, model ION 6421a. We use it while dry brushing and handling LP's just before/after the playback. I also used to dry LP's after cleaning under it but now just blow a bit of the ionized air into the sleeve.

Recently we start installing stat traps to reduce ion blower use and the ozone production https://www.tnt-audio.com/clinica/stat_trap_e.html (we use 12um steel rather than carbon brush as it is many times better conductive albeit more expensive).

Cheers,
Jarek
 

dminches

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2011
3,409
2,794
1,410
I am in the camp of once the LP has been rinsed in my tank and dried the only thing that touches the surface is the inner sleeve and the stylus. I try to never brush the record surface if I can avoid it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Neil.Antin

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing