New Ultrasonic Machine Raises Eyebrows

tima

Industry Expert
Mar 3, 2014
5,778
6,820
1,400
the Upper Midwest
If you have records that bad you probably need to add a little hepastat. If that still doesn't work you need something that can break down a biofilm. In that case you need enzymes with it. I am not certain where to buy enzymes on their own. Pomegranite juice would work but I don't know how problematic rinsing it and the sugars would be - I would test it first. I suspect if its easy to clean off then you could spread it on the disc and let it sit for a few minutes before cleaning with your iso, hepastat, & surfracant mix in the sonic machine.

Along with some IPA and a touch of Ilfotol, I tried Hepastat in my DYI USC but stopped using it. With only IPA, Ilfotol and 2.75 gal of distilled water I measured dissolved solids at 0000ppm. Adding Hepstat takes the total solution to 0028ppm - too much gunk for my comfort level. Tank runs through a 0.35 micron 'polishing' filter during operation.

As to David's comment on heavily soiled records, I believe the trick with a USC is to use a lower then a higher frequency. I run 10 minutes at 37kHz 60% power then 10 minutes at 70-80kHz 80% power. Max power is 330W. All this at 33° C. My USC allows varying time, frequency and power as appropriate. I clean 5-6 records at a time.

I used a Loricraft PRC-3 for over 10 years, mostly with AIVS cleaners (my review) including enzymes. I ran an an AudioDesk for 4 years. I believe you can get a record as clean as it can get with a point-nozzle vacuum and mild agitation to keep particles suspended in fluid, but that approach is very time consuming, messy, low on efficiency, and may take multiple iterations.

Current results are as good or better than I found with a point nozzle vacuum. I use the Ellington test to gauge results.

Ultrasonic frequency may correlate with particle size removal.

effectiveness-of-particle-removal-relative-to-frequency-courtesy-of-ic-knowledge-llc(1).jpg
 

Folsom

VIP/Donor
Oct 25, 2015
6,024
1,490
520
Eastern WA
How much did you ad? The conclusion I've seen is a very small amount. But if you're dealing with records that don't have bio issues, it really isn't necessary. AIVS looks like it could be pretty useful, with the enzymes in it.
 

tima

Industry Expert
Mar 3, 2014
5,778
6,820
1,400
the Upper Midwest
How much did you ad? The conclusion I've seen is a very small amount. But if you're dealing with records that don't have bio issues, it really isn't necessary. AIVS looks like it could be pretty useful, with the enzymes in it.

The 0028ppm solution reading included 1 Teaspoon of Hepastat (~ 5ml) in 2.75 gallons (~10.4L.)

Yes, AIVS works quite well for manual cleaning as does Walker Prelude.
 

bonzo75

Member Sponsor
Feb 26, 2014
22,444
13,474
2,710
London
Ok, so if I but some really old used vinyl, where a seller saying NM might have inadvertently given an Ex or lower, what is the best way to clean it? How long will you put it in an audiodesk or will you just do one clean with Loricraft?

What cleaner will you use?

Will this change if you bought a brand new sealed reissue?
 

tima

Industry Expert
Mar 3, 2014
5,778
6,820
1,400
the Upper Midwest
Ok, so if I but some really old used vinyl, where a seller saying NM might have inadvertently given an Ex or lower, what is the best way to clean it? How long will you put it in an audiodesk or will you just do one clean with Loricraft?

What cleaner will you use?

Will this change if you bought a brand new sealed reissue?

I don't associate how a record grades with how clean or dirty it is. I examine the record with good light to get a sense of its cleaning need. New, newer, less dirty records often need less time.

In your example, I'd use something with a surfactant in its solution. Based on examination I'd judge/guess how much time to take with an automated method. You can always do another cycle. One of the fun questions is when do you stop cleaning? Sometimes if its a record you really want to be clean, you'll try extra in hopes that 'one more cleaning' helps, though if done right, it usually doesn't.

With manual cleaning you can gauge as you go, doing as many iterations as needed - or - leaving solution on for a longer time. I found keeping a record covered in solution with continual light agigtation for longer times than you'd expect can be beneficial - see my AIVS review for examples. The thing with AIVS or Prelude or similar is there can be / are multiple steps with different cleaners.
 

stereonut8

New Member
Jul 12, 2018
20
1
1
I'm new to the forums, but I've been researching this subject for the last 2 years. Currently I use a hand vac process, scrubbing first with Rushton's formula, then 2 rinses with distilled water. The water beads up on the second rinse, so I know I need 2. My results are good, but what a PIA! And it got worse this year when we got a Collie who strongly objects to the sound of a vacuum. I have toyed with the idea of a DIY ultrasound machine, but I have doubts as to weather the improvement, if any, would justify the expense. $500 buys a lot of vinyl and I'd still have to do the 2 vac rinses. So if anyone knows a cheaper, easier way...

On the subject of LAST, I stopped using it since I adopted my current system; but before I used it on a good LP I tested it on a particularly cacophonous Joan Baez that I inherited. After treating and playing a few times I examined the stylus with a 1000x USB microscope and it was pristine. I re-checked periodically until I was quite convinced it was safe. LAST is pretty effective - I did hear sonic improvement-, but I get better results with my current process. I've not tried combining them; but I have re-washed LPs I used LAST on that were still noisy, probably pitted vinyl. Rewashing with the Rushton formula did not make anything better. I've been thinking about trying a very hard auto finish on a pitted LP as an experiment. I'm not sure what kind of applicator or buffer I'd need to make sure all the excess finish is removed from the grooves, though.

The absolute best stuff I ever used was called Sound Guard. LP's I treated 40 YEARS AGO are still dead silent!!!! I wish I could that s*** again!
 

DaveyF

Well-Known Member
Jul 31, 2010
6,129
181
458
La Jolla, Calif USA
I'm new to the forums, but I've been researching this subject for the last 2 years. Currently I use a hand vac process, scrubbing first with Rushton's formula, then 2 rinses with distilled water. The water beads up on the second rinse, so I know I need 2. My results are good, but what a PIA! And it got worse this year when we got a Collie who strongly objects to the sound of a vacuum. I have toyed with the idea of a DIY ultrasound machine, but I have doubts as to weather the improvement, if any, would justify the expense. $500 buys a lot of vinyl and I'd still have to do the 2 vac rinses. So if anyone knows a cheaper, easier way...

On the subject of LAST, I stopped using it since I adopted my current system; but before I used it on a good LP I tested it on a particularly cacophonous Joan Baez that I inherited. After treating and playing a few times I examined the stylus with a 1000x USB microscope and it was pristine. I re-checked periodically until I was quite convinced it was safe. LAST is pretty effective - I did hear sonic improvement-, but I get better results with my current process. I've not tried combining them; but I have re-washed LPs I used LAST on that were still noisy, probably pitted vinyl. Rewashing with the Rushton formula did not make anything better. I've been thinking about trying a very hard auto finish on a pitted LP as an experiment. I'm not sure what kind of applicator or buffer I'd need to make sure all the excess finish is removed from the grooves, though.

The absolute best stuff I ever used was called Sound Guard. LP's I treated 40 YEARS AGO are still dead silent!!!! I wish I could that s*** again!

If you want to try a treatment to your LP's ( which BTW, I would NOT recommend on pristine vinyl, only on older somewhat noisy vinyl), I would suggest Gruv Glide. It works very well once the LP is cleaned to knock back a lot of groove noise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stereonut8

stereonut8

New Member
Jul 12, 2018
20
1
1
If you want to try a treatment to your LP's ( which BTW, I would NOT recommend on pristine vinyl, only on older somewhat noisy vinyl), I would suggest Gruv Glide. It works very well once the LP is cleaned to knock back a lot of groove noise.
I have heard it's formula is very similar, if not the same as Sound Guard. Your recommendation helps. I'll give it a go.
 

Hi-FiGuy

Member Sponsor
Feb 23, 2015
2,235
754
385
The absolute best stuff I ever used was called Sound Guard. LP's I treated 40 YEARS AGO are still dead silent!!!! I wish I could that s*** again!

I still get compliments to this day on my LP's treated with Sound Guard and how good they sound and still do not need to be cleaned and are static free.
The stuff was the shite.
It came back a few years ago there was a company making it but they have since stopped, 10 years ago I think.
It is what has me considering Last as I picked up a Dire Straits collection treated with it and they sound amazing and dead quiet.
Goove Glide I am struggling with pulling the trigger on.

https://www.adelcom.net/SoundGuardRecordCare.htm

I just called and left a message to see if it ever will be produced again, update when I hear.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: stereonut8

Barry2013

VIP/Donor
Oct 12, 2013
2,305
487
418
Essex UK
I started a thread a few weeks ago on the Kirmuss having been very tempted by it at a show price.
Afterwards I had increasing doubts about its lack of a drying facility and the need to dry by hand with a cloth and to do a final manual clean. I concluded that if I bought the Kirmuss I would soon find it too much trouble and end up not using it.
Fortuitously Bonzo 75 had a refurbished and unused Audiodesksysteme that I was able buy from him at almost the same price as the show price Kirmuss.
I am now working my way through cleaning my record collection and it is very effective. Very glad I bought it because even with its drying facilityit is still a time consuming job and replacing the original sleeves as well as cleaning the records means more than a two hour stint with about 20 records at a time is the comfortable limit.
I hate to think about using a Kirmuss.
Marc I know is very pleased with his Degritter but they have run into problems with their water tank and they say it will take them until January to have the problems fixed.
I believe ease of use and effectiveness should be the prime considerations in deciding what to buy. Ultrasonic models with drying seem to me to be the best choice and that the extra cost is well justified.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bonzo75

spiritofmusic

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2013
14,606
5,415
1,278
E. England
Barry, the Degritter is a totally new design, and the water tank issues became apparent at the beta testing stage that I've been part of. This stage is specifically allocated to highlight issues that need to be ironed out ahead of the final production units being sold. I'm sure this is par for the course for other beta tester products.

Glad the ADS is working out for you.
 

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