tima's DIY RCM
- Thread starter tima
- Start date
The above is how I see a record made. My understanding is the release agents are in the vinyl mix. If there is no such anything in the vinyl process, then my believing that washing a brand new record and it sounds better is me lying to myself???? Then there is no reason to wash a new record. Open it up and play it?
The ability of the record to release from the stampers is inherent to the composition of the record, and the RCA patent does address this as 0.4% of an esterified montan wax. The wax also acts as a mold release. When the record is removed from the press without the lubricating effect of the montan wax ester in the compound, the grooves of the record are sometimes fractured, torn, and deformed by the removal. These faults in the groove produce noise on playback. Montan wax ester at the stated percentage is compatible with the resins and is homogenized into the surface of the record at the normal pressing temperature. If more than the stated amount of the montan wax ester is used, the excess amount is not absorbed into the surface of the record. Its presence results in non-uniformity in the surface of the record, particularly as related to the friction between the stylus and the groove. This non-uniformity produces noise when the record is played. Some of the many forum discussions on removing mold release may actually be associated with excess lubricant. But a well pressed record with a good vinyl should have no mold release on its surface.
New records are not clean. They are produced in a factory that is not clean by a country mile - they are not cleanrooms. The background ambient can have varying levels aerosols that consist of particles and hydrocarbon vapor produced by the pressing machines (that use lubricants for the many moving linkages and pivots) and the personnel working there and many of the record sleeves shed particles especially paper sleeves. QRP is probably the cleanest from the videos I have seen, but in a recent video I saw concrete floors where the paint (sealant) has worn-off leaving bare concrete which can become a source of particles. And many old European factories do not have air conditioning so in the summer outside air with all its natural aerosols (and truck exhaust) are inside. Any and all of these contaminants can get onto the record from the time it is pressed to the time it is finally packaged and sealed and if the record has any static charge, it will be even worse, it's a dust magnet (of which in a factory there is no lack of). Again, these record pressing factories are not cleanroom.
Rex, I know you know this, so for other readers a brief tout ...
Tima's DIY
Dual frequency ultrasonic tanks
High throughput
.2 micron water filtering
Easy rinsing
Air drying
Reduced record handling
Cleaner records
There are two downsides:
A. The cost of higher quality ultrasonic tanks and rotisserie. (Pumps and filters are relatively inexpensive.)
B. The horizontal space needed to contain the system.
The message being: clean your new records before you play them. Once a modulation or scratch in the groove occurs, cleaning cannot fix it.
My best most expensive record was damaged in the past. Cleaning brought out the surface noise. Lots or crackling. Hey, its a 1966 and played many times I'm sure. Kind of sucks. Cost me $600. Even damaged its a nice version. Newer issues have the midrange pumped up and don't sound as flowing. Its mostly the outer edges that sound damaged. The inner are more clean. I bet whoever owned it grabbed it by the edge with dirty hands and the junk on their skin ate into the record over the years.
I'm moving onto the record doctor brushes and going to see if they work better. I still have some crackle in some records. I am being told it is probably imbedded grime and it should release. I remember Neil talking about needing good agitation to create foam that curls the edges of contaminants.
I still believe the Kirmuss is a good ultrasonic to clean a record. Probably better than most. It just might take more work than anticipated with a record that has real imbedded grime.
I want to try some other cleaners too. Can someone reiterate the amount of Liquinox and Tergitol 15-S-9 to mix with water. I have the 2 bottles in my shop ready to go. I am not sure where the happy numbers landed. I would be spraying a mist of the solutions on, using a Record Doctor brush, rinsing, then putting into the ultrasonic. The Kirmuss Ultrasonic only has 1.4 oz of 70% alcohol in the water. No other chemicals.
Thanks
Rex
I still believe the Kirmuss is a good ultrasonic to clean a record. Probably better than most. It just might take more work than anticipated with a record that has real imbedded grime.
I want to try some other cleaners too. Can someone reiterate the amount of Liquinox and Tergitol 15-S-9 to mix with water. I have the 2 bottles in my shop ready to go. I am not sure where the happy numbers landed. I would be spraying a mist of the solutions on, using a Record Doctor brush, rinsing, then putting into the ultrasonic. The Kirmuss Ultrasonic only has 1.4 oz of 70% alcohol in the water. No other chemicals.
Thanks
Rex
Last edited:
Neil, the sponge looks thicker than the distance between my records but I probably should measure. I use the Kuzma rotisserie but with 2 spacers in between records as opposed to one.
Just checked. 1 1/4". The sponge looks like it is 1 3/8" thick.
How much space is there between your records?
I though Neil was saing for me to use the sponge when hand cleaning to wipe off the water before using a micro cloth to dry the record at the end of cleaning. Are you trying to use it while the ultrasonic is running? Are you trying to use it when moving a batch rom one machine to another?
Not while it is running. After the cleaning and rinsing I put the spindle of 5 records in the holder to dry.
Attachments
-
D358F0B2-8201-4F96-B7DF-25541A4954D4.jpeg
Hi Rex
Here is a guide I got a while back that talks about the Liquinox and Tergitol 15-S-9 t mix I can't vouch for it I still have purchased my Ultrasonic cleaner. But I have started using the Liquinox in a spray bottle as a pre-wash with my VPI RCM I really like it. I was using the AIVS Ultimate Cleaning Kit I like this a lot better and it going to save me money in the long run.
David,
The sponge measures 1-5/16" thick (your guess was very close - good eyeballing). As @Kingrex said, I use it with a manual process (with label protector) where I have complete access to both surfaces.
Take care,
Neil
FWIW, the attachment - Rushton Paul: My DIY Approach to the Ultrasonic Cleaning of LPs , makes no mention of Alconox Liquinox, but this free book does - Precision Aqueous Cleaning of Vinyl Records-3rd Edition - The Vinyl Press.
Rex,
For spray cleaning with the Record Doctor brush as a manual pre-clean step: prepare the Liquinox as 0.5 to 1.0% solution (5-10 ml/L). But you need to rinse the record with water to get the Liquinox off the record. You want to work the brush back & forth fast enough to develop foam, but you do not need to bear-down on the brush. Let the agitation and chemistry do the work.
The Tergitol 15-S-9 in the manual procedure is used as the final clean-step, but in your case, you are using the Kirmuss UT for the final clean.
However, for the Kirmuss, you may find that adding 5 to 6 drops of Tergitol 15-S-9 to the Kirmuss bath can improve the cleaning. At 5 to 6 drops, it should lower the water surface tension enough to wet the record, and allow the water to drain faster from the record to speed up drying. At this very low Tergitol 15-S-9 concentration, you should be able to skip a post-clean rinse. BUT, if you are adding IPA , you want to add the Tergitol 15-S-9 first, let it dissolve (which will be fast) then add the IPA, otherwise, the Tergitol will not dissolve very quickly.
FWIW: The 1.4 oz of IPA = 41-ml/6000-ml = ~0.7%. This is not much, and it does not do much. Its no where near enough to act as a anti-bacterial/fungal and its not enough to change the water surface tension to any significant amount.
Good Luck,
Neil
Thanks for the link, Neil. I guess if you don't have a Groovemaster you could use an RCM for the rinse process but you would be only cleaning one side at a time.
See the book Chapter XIII that details a vacuum-RCM cleaning process using most of the same chemistry (Liquinox and Tergitol 15-S-9) used by the manual process but in lower concentrations with rinse steps in-between steps.
My first round of hand washing was not very helpful. I have 2 records that still have a lot of crackle, pops and clicks after the Kirmuss process. I brought the records back to the clean station and did 2 sets of brushing with the Liquinox for about 2 minutes a side. In between I rinsed the record under the Zero water tap, then put it in the ultrasonic for 5 minutes. The ultrasonic bath has 6 drops of Tergitol in it. After the second 5 minute ultrasonic, I run the recored through the spin clean with just fresh Zero water. Then I wipe it with the tiger cloth and set it in the rack to finish drying. I did not notice any reduction in noise on the record. If it did reduce it, it was not an appreciable amount.
I am thinking of trying a brush with smaller bristles, but I remember somewhere in this thread that no matter how small a birstle I find, its not going to be small enough to go into the record groove. That the foam and the pressure of fast agitation forces the water into the groove and the foam curls the contaminants and make them release.
I am thinking of trying a brush with smaller bristles, but I remember somewhere in this thread that no matter how small a birstle I find, its not going to be small enough to go into the record groove. That the foam and the pressure of fast agitation forces the water into the groove and the foam curls the contaminants and make them release.
Plain & simple - after the cleaning process you have used - deep manual pre-clean with Liquinox followed by UT, the records are damaged. A shorter bristle bush is not going to help and what you said is correct "That the foam and the pressure of fast agitation forces the water into the groove and the foam curls the contaminants and make them release.". What is causing the noise is damage to the record surface that no amount of cleaning can fix/remove.
IV.10 Records that have been precision cleaned can still sound – for want of a better term – bad; clicks, pops, hiss, and distortion. There are any number of reasons such as following, but no amount of cleaning is going to fix these physical defects.
IV.10.1 For new records: Poor recording.
IV.10.2 For new records: Problems with the stamper. The stamper prepared during the plating process may have defects. It may have been prepared dirty so that the surface has the impressions of very fine/microscopic particulate. The stamper may have been overused and is now deteriorated and/or shedding metal particles that are embedded in the record.
IV.10.3 For new records: deficiencies with the record formulation. Repressed material may not have the same qualities as virgin material. The material blend can be out of tolerance leaving the record with an inconsistent surface.
IV.10.4 For new records: deficiencies with the pressing. Incorrect pressing heat, pressure and time can leave un-filled areas. Incorrect pressing cooling and time can result in material pulled during separation leaving microscopic defects. Note: It is not uncommon for a clean new record to sound noisy for the first few plays. This is not uncommon. There are often microscopic burrs left from the pressing process, and the first few plays essentially ‘burnish’ the surface, removing the burrs.
IV.10.5 For new and used records: Obvious deep scratches. Very light surface scratches are often of no consequence. For used records, many light surface scratches may indicate use of once popular automatic changers that could play a stack of many records.
IV.10.6 For used records: Groove damage such as trenching from conical and elliptical stylus as shown PACVR Figure 4 and Figure 5. Groove damage can also be from an over-worn stylus. The article The Finish Line for Your Phonograph Stylus…, by Mike Bodell, May 23, 2019 (47) addresses this in detail. In this case the stylus carves/chisels away the side-wall ridges. Shibata and other advanced profile stylus can sometimes bridge the trench made by conical and elliptical stylus. However, damage caused by Shibata (or equivalent) is likely “terminal”.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |