tima's DIY RCM

[rDin]

Well, I recleaned four cracklers using a hot vinegar step and it made no difference to crackle. The record did, however, sound cleaner, but

PS/Has your friend tried Liquinox? Keep in mind that dish detergents are probably the worst possible cleaner to use for a record - they contain moisturizers that are added to protect your hands. Yes, Dawn is good for cleaning oil from water-fowl, its gentle enough and the moisturizers help to not harm the animal - but this is not what you need to clean a record. The better alterative for those dead-set on doing the DIY chemistry is to use a name-brand clear, fragrance-free liquid laundry detergent that has surfactants and enzymes and other additives to keep soil suspended and are relatively easy to rinse.

Not yet. He's just started record cleaning so is "winging it" with whatever products he has at hand, which is how he decided to try a hot wash. Necessity is the mother of invention!

I've just ran an experiment on four "cracklers" with warmed vinegar/ilfotol and found it did nothing to improve what I'd already achieved with the three step clean I use. I flushed my RCM through with water afterwards to remove/dilute the vinegar, so at this point I'm not convinced it has any benefit for me.

 

[Neil.Antin]

A question I asked myself long ago when I first started cleaning records is: when do you stop?

If I just clean it one more time will I finally remove that noise on side B?

Tim,

Your Elmasonic has a number of variations such as power and pulse that 'may' be beneficial for 'some' records. If the record is objectionably noisy, then it may be worth a try using a more aggressive method. But as @rDin has said, recleaning using the same exact process is unlikely to have any benefit.

Neil

 

[Neil.Antin]

Well, I recleaned four cracklers using a hot vinegar step and it made no difference to crackle. The record did, however, sound cleaner, but

Not yet. He's just started record cleaning so is "winging it" with whatever products he has at hand, which is how he decided to try a hot wash. Necessity is the mother of invention!

I've just ran an experiment on four "cracklers" with warmed vinegar/ilfotol and found it did nothing to improve what I'd already achieved with the three step clean I use. I flushed my RCM through with water afterwards to remove/dilute the vinegar, so at this point I'm not convinced it has any benefit for me.

How much ilfotol did you add? Did the acid solution spread-out and wet the record immediately?

Neil

 

[Neil.Antin]

I've just ran an experiment on four "cracklers" with warmed vinegar/ilfotol and found it did nothing to improve what I'd already achieved with the three step clean I use. I flushed my RCM through with water afterwards to remove/dilute the vinegar, so at this point I'm not convinced it has any benefit for me.

Given your cleaning process - vacuum-RCM w/Liquinox; then 40kHz UT, then 120kHz UT Degritter; the fact that the heated weak acid wash did not do anything is not a big surprise. A quick brush with a weak acid is not going to remove what your process has not already accomplished/removed. I am not using UT, so I use chemistry and manual cleaning to get similar results.

Neil

 

[rDin]

How much ilfotol did you add? Did the acid solution spread-out and wet the record immediately?

Neil

0.5ml in a 200mL bottle. Possibly too much but, yes, it wet no problem.

 

[Neil.Antin]

0.5ml in a 200mL bottle. Possibly too much but, yes, it wet no problem.

0.5ml in 200ml would result in about 250 ppm nonionic surfactant; so enough to get the DWV to wet the record and have some detergency - you did not add too much.

 

[rDin]

Record cleaning has been a fascinating journey of discovery, and one which has significantly elevated my level of satisfaction with and connection to my vinyl collection

 

[rDin]

Neil, I now have Citranox available. What do you recommend as the best % mixture for manual work?

 

[Neil.Antin]

Neil, I now have Citranox available. What do you recommend as the best % mixture for manual work?

Use at 1% (10ml/L) to 1.5% (15ml/L).

Use Citranox with nitrile gloves. Be careful with the concentrate; it is an acid (ph 2.5), and stronger than distilled white vinegar; Citranox_tech_bull.pdf (alconox.com).

My experience is that the Citranox at 1.5% will foam less than the Liquinox. The Liquinox is a better detergent and for best results, I use it first and then use the Citranox for its acid capability - "Contains acid ingredients for high performance removal of metal oxides, salts and inorganic residues". The surfactants added to the Citranox lower the surface tension (32 dynes/cm) for wetting and the light foaming helps to lift debris.

I have found the Citranox most effective for used records. The accumulated junk in the grooves is a combination of everything. I use Citranox for all new records, but the effects are not as dramatic.

Good Luck,
Neil

 

[Folsom]

Well having machine that do more than one would be a start...

 

[Neil.Antin]

well......just got my newly acquired by me 3000 classical record collection put away. the last couple of days, i've cleaned (on my KLaudio RCM) and listened to about 40 records. so today at work i have had time to review my record cleaning strategy going forward. these used records seem to be in great shape, mostly various levels of dust. but hardly played. no mold or nefarious stuff on surfaces i've seen so far.

i had noticed Tima's comments on my collection thread......



about cleaning. which brought me to this thread today. my view is if you are listening and cleaning at the same time, you don't have to be too 'zen'.

i read the first few 5-6 pages of this thread, not sure my make-up fits with any DIY approach. although i can see that the highest level of clean is only attained with that approach.

i do feel a need to add at least one more RCM unit, the idea that having two solid units allows me twice the speed at times i want that, and also takes the pressure off my long-term KLaudio (which works great and Peter the designer/builder is a local friend, if it does break).

not sure i need the Loricraft PRC4i approach (i've owned 2 different Loricraft's over the years), as i don't seem have really knarly looking records, so maybe the Degritter RCM would be the best one to get for my choice. Audiodesk 2020 Pro X? or Loricraft?

faced with 3000 records to clean, my priorities will be minimum cleaning efforts, very, very, good results, and listening while i'm cleaning. so far with my first 40 records from this collection, i'm more than satisfied.

thoughts?

if my post is a distraction to this thread, happy to delete it, and find a better spot to post it.

Given your priority - listening and cleaning at the same time - you have limited your options to reasonably quiet processes. With that priority, and understanding from your other post, that the records you obtained are in decent shape (nothing that would classify as exceptionally dirty), and you have obtained acceptable results with your KL Audio, my opinion is that the Degritter is your best option. It operates at 120kHz & 300W (the KL Audio is 40kHz and 200W) and unlike KL Audio has some water filtration so if the records are not exceptionally dirty you should be able to clean 15 - 20 records before refreshing the distilled/deionized water (DIW)and it only uses 1.4L vs 2.5L for the KL Audio.

You can buy a spare water tank for the Degritter which allows one for cleaning (the Degritter cleaner is a wetting agent if you use it) and then swap in the DIW tank for rinsing; it extends the cleaning cycle but for those records that a little extra, it will help. The Degritter comes with a 2-yr warranty and the company is very responsive and it has an excellent operator's manual - Degritter-manual-v2.2-ENG.pdf. You will see that the cleaning and drying times are similar between the KL Audio and the Degritter. One item to note, the Degritter "Heavy" clean cycle will if used serially (every record, one after another) force the unit into a cool-down period. The 300W of power and only 1.4L water heats the water pretty quickly.

The Audiodesk 2020 ProX is mostly a manual scrub machine. The ultrasonic power is only minimal. The Degritter is a powerful machine and the 120kHz is quiet and 120kHz is excellent for small particle removal. The 120kHz produces a cavitation bubble that is smaller than a 40kHz machine but produces more bubbles. The KL Audio 40kHz would be better for surface oils and finger prints, but is limited because it cannot use any cleaning agent. The Degritter allows use of a cleaning agent - just needs to be low foaming; and some people do well with just adding only 2.5% isopropyl alcohol.

Beyond the Degritter you step up to what @tima and @dminches have put together. They are cleaning 6 records at time using the German-made Elmasonic P120 dual-frequency 37/80kHz for cleaning, with a Kuzma spinner (RD Ultrasonic Record Cleaning kit - Kuzma Professional Turntables, Tonearms and Accessories) and pumped 0.2 absolute filtration and a Elmasonic S120 single-frequency 37kHz for DIW rinse, with a Kuzma spinner and pumped 0.5 filtration; and air dry. If you go back to Page 18 of this post - entry #342 https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/timas-diy-rcm.26013/post-733751 @tima has posted photos of his cleaning system. He has a rack that the skewered 6 records can dry. This system is designed for best achievable cleaning at high throughput, and even this has some limits with the tank water heating so @dminches has been testing a radiator to keep the tank cool enough to allow serial processing. However, this dual-filtered ultrasonic tank, high throughput system its unlikely to meet your listening and cleaning at the same time, without installing some kind of soundproofing panels around the cleaning system.

Otherwise, congratulations on your haul; 3000 records are a lot of records.

Hope this is of some help to you,

Neil

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Thank you Neil,

you will note that i had deleted my post above an hour ago, likely while you were writing your thoughtful response. the reason is that i started looking into Tim's DIY approach, and the more i looked, the more it seems like something i want to do.

and since i already have my super easy to use (simultaneous listen and clean option) 'quick' KLaudio, i can simply invest in the Kuzma RD + Elmasonic P120H approach. i have a kitchenette in my barn with a countertop and sink where that could reside just down the hall. so then i would have the choice based on the quick choice, or the big clean approach. some of the DIY stuff gets me out of my comfort zone of techie-dom, but so what. i'll have to be patient and learn a little. right now, that's how i'm leaning.

again, thank you for your response.

 

[Neil.Antin]

Thank you Neil,

you will note that i had deleted my post above an hour ago, likely while you were writing your thoughtful response. the reason is that i started looking into Tim's DIY approach, and the more i looked, the more it seems like something i want to do.

and since i already have my super easy to use (simultaneous listen and clean option) 'quick' KLaudio, i can simply invest in the Kuzma RD + Elmasonic P120H approach. i have a kitchenette in my barn with a countertop and sink where that could reside just down the hall. so then i would have the choice based on the quick choice, or the big clean approach. some of the DIY stuff gets me out of my comfort zone of techie-dom, but so what. i'll have to be patient and learn a little. right now, that's how i'm leaning.

again, thank you for your response.

Mike,

The inherent problem with ultrasonic cleaning is the bath management - do you replace frequently or do you filter? Otherwise, after a few records, the bath is dirty and you are trying to clean records with dirty fluid. Waiting for the bath to look dirty is way too late. You are not getting the record as clean as you could - and that can sometimes be an epiphany. @Bill Hart who also uses a KL Audio, uses a Keith Monks for pre-clean and then the KL Audio as the final clean; so, the record is pretty clean by the time it gets to the KL Audio.

Given you setup with a kitchenette, instead of filtering you can take the brute-force approach. Install a deionized/demineralized water system - any competent plumber can do it. They are not complicated; it's a resin column such as DI Rinse Pro 50 Spot Free Rinse System and at the outlet you install the same cannister/filter @tima & @dminches is using (0.2 micron absolute). If your tap-water (freshwater) is good (low total dissolved solids-TDS) the resin column should produce ~2000 gallons of DIW. These DIW resin columns are common with car collectors to ensure they get a spot-free rinse.

If you just use the one Elmasonic P120H (no rinse tank) each tank refill is ~3.2 gallons. If instead of filtering you drain and refill for every cleaning batch of 6-record, ~2000 gallons = ~500 tank refills and if you are cleaning 6 records at a time = 3000 records. Add a rinse UT tank, and your good for ~1500 records before having to recharge the resin. Once the resin in the column is exhausted (install a TDS meter to monitor) it can be removed and replaced with fresh resin. The only disadvantage to refreshing the UT bath for each batch is that you need to first run the degas cycle, so it adds some time to the overall process.

So, there are options on how this can be installed.

Neil

 

[dminches]

I am happy I added the rinse tank. Now I don’t have to worry about any residue left after the wash cycle.

Neil also referenced the aluminum radiator I added which allows me to do unlimited cleaning in the wash tank since I can keep the solution under 32 degrees Celsius. There doesn’t seem to be any interaction between the solution and the radiator, evidenced by no appreciable change in the TDS readings.

 

[Bobvin]

Mike,

The inherent problem with ultrasonic cleaning is the bath management - do you replace frequently or do you filter? Otherwise, after a few records, the bath is dirty and you are trying to clean records with dirty fluid. Waiting for the bath to look dirty is way too late. You are not getting the record as clean as you could - and that can sometimes be an epiphany. @Bill Hart who also uses a KL Audio, uses a Keith Monks for pre-clean and then the KL Audio as the final clean; so, the record is pretty clean by the time it gets to the KL Audio.

Given you setup with a kitchenette, instead of filtering you can take the brute-force approach. Install a deionized/demineralized water system - any competent plumber can do it. They are not complicated; it's a resin column such as DI Rinse Pro 50 Spot Free Rinse System and at the outlet you install the same cannister/filter @tima & @dminches is using (0.2 micron absolute). If your tap-water (freshwater) is good (low total dissolved solids-TDS) the resin column should produce ~2000 gallons of DIW. These DIW resin columns are common with car collectors to ensure they get a spot-free rinse.

If you just use the one Elmasonic P120H (no rinse tank) each tank refill is ~3.2 gallons. If instead of filtering you drain and refill for every cleaning batch of 6-record, ~2000 gallons = ~500 tank refills and if you are cleaning 6 records at a time = 3000 records. Add a rinse UT tank, and your good for ~1500 records before having to recharge the resin. Once the resin in the column is exhausted (install a TDS meter to monitor) it can be removed and replaced with fresh resin. The only disadvantage to refreshing the UT bath for each batch is that you need to first run the degas cycle, so it adds some time to the overall process.

So, there are options on how this can be installed.

Neil

Or give me a ring, my company has been doing RO / DI water systems for 20 years, with .2 micron absolute filter. So the water you start with in your cleaner(s) will be, typically, greater than 10 meg-ohm resistivity. If you are recirculating the water, you will only remove suspended materials, any contaminants that become dissolved will need other approaches for removal.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Mike,

The inherent problem with ultrasonic cleaning is the bath management - do you replace frequently or do you filter? Otherwise, after a few records, the bath is dirty and you are trying to clean records with dirty fluid. Waiting for the bath to look dirty is way too late. You are not getting the record as clean as you could - and that can sometimes be an epiphany. @Bill Hart who also uses a KL Audio, uses a Keith Monks for pre-clean and then the KL Audio as the final clean; so, the record is pretty clean by the time it gets to the KL Audio.

Given you setup with a kitchenette, instead of filtering you can take the brute-force approach. Install a deionized/demineralized water system - any competent plumber can do it. They are not complicated; it's a resin column such as DI Rinse Pro 50 Spot Free Rinse System and at the outlet you install the same cannister/filter @tima & @dminches is using (0.2 micron absolute). If your tap-water (freshwater) is good (low total dissolved solids-TDS) the resin column should produce ~2000 gallons of DIW. These DIW resin columns are common with car collectors to ensure they get a spot-free rinse.

If you just use the one Elmasonic P120H (no rinse tank) each tank refill is ~3.2 gallons. If instead of filtering you drain and refill for every cleaning batch of 6-record, ~2000 gallons = ~500 tank refills and if you are cleaning 6 records at a time = 3000 records. Add a rinse UT tank, and your good for ~1500 records before having to recharge the resin. Once the resin in the column is exhausted (install a TDS meter to monitor) it can be removed and replaced with fresh resin. The only disadvantage to refreshing the UT bath for each batch is that you need to first run the degas cycle, so it adds some time to the overall process.

So, there are options on how this can be installed.

Neil

Or give me a ring, my company has been doing RO / DI water systems for 20 years, with .2 micron absolute filter. So the water you start with in your cleaner(s) will be, typically, greater than 10 meg-ohm resistivity. If you are recirculating the water, you will only remove suspended materials, any contaminants that become dissolved will need other approaches for removal.

thanks Neil and Bob,

i'm in the process of replacing the current kitchenette counter-top that has legs and utility sink, with built in cabinets with a nice sink and granite counter top. so i will wait for that process to be done before i bring in all this hardware. in the meantime i will slum it with the KLaudio. there is no hurry, the records are not going anywhere. but this does look like the way to go. and i can examine the best water supply/filtering plan. and maybe when the sink/faucet is installed i'll have a plan for this included. up till now i have been anti-DIY in hifi. just not fun for me. but i guess i can change.

or; on further considerations.......do the Bill Hart approach and buy a Loricraft PRC4i (Keith Monks type design) as the pre-clean to the Klaudio......if i chicken out. my wife supported the new counter-top and expects it to look nicer (even though my barn is my man-cave). if i add this industrial process to this area i'll have to deal with her about it. the real world rears it's head.

in any case, Bob, i will talk to you about this. you are the expert.

 

[tima]

thanks Neil and Bob,

i'm in the process of replacing the current kitchenette counter-top that has legs and utility sink, with built in cabinets with a nice sink and granite counter top. so i will wait for that process to be done before i bring in all this hardware. in the meantime i will slum it with the KLaudio. there is no hurry, the records are not going anywhere. but this does look like the way to go. and i can examine the best water supply/filtering plan. and maybe when the sink/faucet is installed i'll have a plan for this included. up till now i have been anti-DIY in hifi. just not fun for me. but i guess i can change.

or; on further considerations.......do the Bill Hart approach and buy a Loricraft PRC4i (Keith Monks type design) as the pre-clean to the Klaudio......if i chicken out. my wife supported the new counter-top and expects it to look nicer (even though my barn is my man-cave). if i add this industrial process to this area i'll have to deal with her about it. the real world rears it's head.

in any case, Bob, i will talk to you about this. you are the expert.

Mike - I did not see your now deleted original post on this thread so I may be missing information from you.

Wrt Bob's comments, I'm guessing that he is offering a system to manufacture DI water (de-ionized water), which is water that has all its positive or negative charged particles (ions) removed. Such a system will give you purified water to fill a RCM tank. Most of us are using distilled water from the grocery store which is also purified water. A home-based manufactory means you don't need to lug jugs back to your barn. (You can also use home brew DI water for a spotless rinse for your car.)

Once water is used to clean records it will get dirty. That is why the system I (and @dminches) use includes an 0.2 micron absolute filter on its wash tank - any particle suspended or dissolved that is 0.2 micron in size or larger is trapped in the filter. When a record is removed from an RCM it will be only as clean as the water it came from. There is also the possiblity of surfactant particles or other 'stuff' clinging to the record so an ultrasonic rinse tank is included. That coupled with the Elmasonic P120 wash tank yield what is imo a very clean record - I will say it is a system that cleans optimally for a reasonable throughput.

I think the question for you is: do you want to clean one record at a time? That is why I mentioned an alternative in your 3000 collection thread - when using a Klaudio was proposed. The Klaudio is a single slot machine. The Klaudio uses no soap. I do not believe one can clean a record well without soap. To the people who claim good results with the Klaudio, I will ask: what else have your tried? The Degritter uses surfactant but it only cleans one record at a time. You can do a rinse with it by changing out its wash water tank for one with purified rinse water (also with Klaudio), but you're still doing one record at a time. The Loricraft machines (PRC-3 or 4) work fline but take even longer as you clean only one side at a time and they are v. messy to use. (I own a PRC-3.)

My approach had two goals: optimal cleaning and decent throughput. And it minimizes manual record handling. It is probably overkill if you only need to clean one record at a time. Otherwise once you adopt a set protocol it will allow cleaning of 10-12 records in 40-50 minutes depending on choice of tank cycle times. Or work at whatever pace suits your style.

If you have questions, this thread has people willing to help.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Tim, fyi, the post #571 above by Neil does contain my deleted post.......which once i opened my mind to your direction and saw it was not that undoable, seemed an actual option for me, so that post was not where i was at.

tima's DIY RCM

Well, I recleaned four cracklers using a hot vinegar step and it made no difference to crackle. The record did, however, sound cleaner, but PS/Has your friend tried Liquinox? Keep in mind that dish detergents are probably the worst possible cleaner to use for a record - they contain...

www.whatsbestforum.com

now i just need to step back and ponder the WAF aspects of it before i dive in.

doing a pre-wash with a Loricraft with 'soap', then the KLaudio to finish, being a less efficient but potentially as effective, alternative. and i have the space just outside my room now to do it; at one point in the past i did have three RCM's there.....the KLaudio, Audiodesk and Loricraft.

it's simpler. but....just one at a time, and the Loricraft process is messy and very tedious. doing that 3000 times is hard to get my head around. no one button perfect way to have pristine vinyl.

i do appreciate all the helpfulness and information on this thread. i think Bob's processes might be more involved than deionization, but i'll have to find out. we are friends. it's his business.

btw; point me to your post where you talk about adding a second (love the picture) wash tank. i'd like to read about it without having to find it.

 

[Kingrex]

Mike,

The inherent problem with ultrasonic cleaning is the bath management - do you replace frequently or do you filter? Otherwise, after a few records, the bath is dirty and you are trying to clean records with dirty fluid. Waiting for the bath to look dirty is way too late. You are not getting the record as clean as you could - and that can sometimes be an epiphany. @Bill Hart who also uses a KL Audio, uses a Keith Monks for pre-clean and then the KL Audio as the final clean; so, the record is pretty clean by the time it gets to the KL Audio.

Given you setup with a kitchenette, instead of filtering you can take the brute-force approach. Install a deionized/demineralized water system - any competent plumber can do it. They are not complicated; it's a resin column such as DI Rinse Pro 50 Spot Free Rinse System and at the outlet you install the same cannister/filter @tima & @dminches is using (0.2 micron absolute). If your tap-water (freshwater) is good (low total dissolved solids-TDS) the resin column should produce ~2000 gallons of DIW. These DIW resin columns are common with car collectors to ensure they get a spot-free rinse.

If you just use the one Elmasonic P120H (no rinse tank) each tank refill is ~3.2 gallons. If instead of filtering you drain and refill for every cleaning batch of 6-record, ~2000 gallons = ~500 tank refills and if you are cleaning 6 records at a time = 3000 records. Add a rinse UT tank, and your good for ~1500 records before having to recharge the resin. Once the resin in the column is exhausted (install a TDS meter to monitor) it can be removed and replaced with fresh resin. The only disadvantage to refreshing the UT bath for each batch is that you need to first run the degas cycle, so it adds some time to the overall process.

So, there are options on how this can be installed.

Neil

I already have whole house water filtration of a 20 micron filter, then a.carbon tank, then a bone char tank. If I just put a 2 micron filter at my clean sink, would that work. Or is the DI rinsepro also removing minerals I am not getting out?

 

[Neil.Antin]

i think Bob's processes might be more involved than deionization, but i'll have to find out. we are friends. it's his business

Mike:

Under-sink Reverse Osmosis/Demineralized Water (RO/DI) are very common, and compact - people with salt-water reef fish tanks use them as do many small labs - here is a simplified diagram 6-stage-aquarium-dual-di-system-diagrams.png (735×735) (maxwaterflow.com) as an example. With you installing a new sink now is the time to consider installing one so you can size the sink cabinet accordingly. @Bobvin can provide details and dimensions.

Just for clarification, maintaining the water in the UT tank at near ultra-pure is not necessary; its overkill. Most of what is removed from the record is either insoluble (particles) that is easily filtered or may for used record be soluble cleaner (detergent) residue most of which is often nonionic. @tima & @dminches monitor their tank bath with a simple TDS meter such as Amazon.com: HM Digital 716160 COM-100 WATERPROOF PROFESSIONAL SERIES Combo Meter, 7", White/Purple : Industrial & Scientific and replace the bath when it reads about 5 ppm. Water with 5 ppm TDS if 3-ml dries on the record will leave a film equal to 0.00052 microns - inconsequential.

No matter what process you decide, with 2960 records to clean, having a readily available source of good quality water is going to save you many trips to the grocery store buying gallons of distilled water and schlepping them to the barn and then disposing of the gallon jugs.

Good Luck
Neil