tima's DIY RCM

[Neil.Antin]

Otherwise, note that unit in the operating manual Section 6.4, it has a specific Degas mode and during degas, the Sweep or Pulse mode can be active at the same time.

My error, as @tima says, the manual https://www.elma-ultrasonic.co.nz/w...07/P-series-Operating-Instructions.pdfSection 6.4, page 20, states Degas cannot be operated simultaneously with sweep and pulse.

Let me rephrase the question: what does pulse mode bring to the cleaning process that might be beneficial and worth experimenting with?

As @tima said: Pulse mode -- "the ultrasonic effect is increased by 20% through an increase in the amplitude of the ultrasonic signal. Advantageous for the removal of tenacious contaminations."

As the book says: The paper Adhesion and Removal of Fine Particles on Surfaces, Aerosol Science and Technology, M. B. Ranade, 1987 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, as particles get smaller, the force to remove increases exponentially. The 80-kHz mode is intended to clean very small particles, but as the kHz increases, the bubble size decreases, and the energy released by the cavitation/implosion event, decreases. So, you want to leverage every advantage you can to obtain the best cleaning performance.

 

[rDin]

A little fun with the 3D printer. Can leave the TDS meter reading the water (obviously not while ultrasonics are running) while I mess about with other stuff. Can supply the .stl file if anybody interested. Couldn't attach here as not a supported file type.

 

[rDin]

Some data and observations, which you hopefully find interesting.

Oh, and my 2nd P60H is now here, so I have my rinse tank

TDS meter: using the tank heater I went from 20C to 40C in the tank, watching the meter at each 1C step and it remained constant throughout, suggesting the temperature compensation on the HM is good. The meter is accurate, but can be slow to settle, sometimes needing 60 seconds or more depending on temperature differentials between air and water.

Degassing - using the TDS meter, I've noted that degassing at 80kHz takes 30 minutes to get the TDS meter to a stable number. I've taken this to mean that this is how long degassing takes... Have talked with Neil in the past about why degassing might change TDS, and I don't think I can say with confidence that seeing a stable TDS means degassing is complete or not, however, subjectively, I'm getting much better cleaning results with this long degas approach. After degassing, the water is around 25C - and after the ultrasonics, it's 35-36C.

I've run 40 minute cycles at 37kHz PULSE mode with no obvious issues either to vinyl or sound quality. Any longer than that and water temps are too high. But I think the 37kHz pulse mode is safe to use and may be beneficial in cleaning due to higher power.

I'm currently going with a 30 minute 37/80 @ 100% power wash (will probably switch to pulse moving forward). I know Tim is using 2 x 10 minutes, but I'm not using surfactant. I also think that using 37/80 throughout the wash gives the best possibility to remove rocks as well as polish the grooves. Tim's approach, with surfactant, is 20 minutes of cleaning, so I'm compensating with the additional 10 minutes due to no surfactants and this approach is giving consistently great results.

The rinse I'm doing 15 minutes 80kHz PULSE mode. Tim, I think you use 37kHz for the rinse? Is there a reason for that? Given that rinsing is more about removing residues(?) it seems that the higher frequency rate would be better for the job?

The above is resulting in deeply clean records, and any noise that is left behind sounds very cleanly noisy - the ticks and clicks have great clarity(!) One of the striking things I keep hearing is how much deeper, cleaner and better focussed the bass comes out from longer cleaning... soundstage wide open and airy. Very nice indeed.

There's just one thing that's bothering me though - I think that the last inch or so of the record grooves aren't cleaned as well. I've noticed on a few records increased noise just as the record finishes. Silent backgrounds up to that point and then some increasing gravel for the final couple of minutes. Tim, have you noticed any issues close to the deadwax? I need more testing here to confirm and then to try and resolve... using PULSE or maybe even SWEEP might prove helpful here. Or maybe it's time to reintroduce surfactants now that I have tanks that I can keep clean.

Anyway, thrilled with the machines and happy to move on from the Degritters and Kirmuss [to] something more robust and practical.

 

[mtemur]

Silent backgrounds up to that point and then some increasing gravel for the final couple of minutes.

If those discs are cut at Acoustech and pressed in RTI, I can tell you that it’s not because of ultrasonic cleaning. I don’t know why but there is a problem with RTI pressings especially the old ones. Noise becomes prominent at the lead out groove. Only on the silent grooves close to deadwax.

 

[tima]

Tim, I think you use 37kHz for the rinse? Is there a reason for that? Given that rinsing is more about removing residues(?) it seems that the higher frequency rate would be better for the job?

Yes, that's correct, rinsing at 37kHz. I use an Elma S-120 for my rinse tank which does not have dual frequency but otherwise supports the same features as the P-series tanks. I believe there is a size equivalent to your P60 in the S-series. Last time I looked the S models are roughly half the price of the P models.

Tim, have you noticed any issues close to the deadwax?

Not as a function of cleaning. Be sure your water level slightly reaches into the run-out area if possible.

You probably know this ...
When approaching the end of a side, distortion can be a function of incorrect tracking force or a misaligned stylus. The groove is narrower and this may be the area where you hear the climax of a movement or work.

Otherwise, thanks for your report. Very informative.

 

[rDin]

Not as a function of cleaning.

Thank you. I'll keep an eye/ear on things.

When approaching the end of a side, distortion can be a function of incorrect tracking force or a misaligned stylus

Indeed. As this cartridge was set up and mounted by JR @ WallyTools, I'm confident this isn't inner groove distortion. And, besides, it has only been a few records out of many - perhaps they just needed longer or a 2nd run through - but one was enough to draw my attention...

 

[rDin]

I've run 40 minute cycles at 37kHz PULSE mode with no obvious issues either to vinyl or sound quality.

OK, I now need to roll this comment back. I have now seen damage at PULSE power, and lower. I'd noticed this on the Degritter too. Sometimes the edge of a record will come out looking like it's shed some coating and the edge is whitened and feels ragged to touch. I put this down to contact with rollers in the Degritter but I've now seen this with the Elma too which doesn't have any contact points. Further testing seems to suggest that the higher power is stripping transient edges (most notable by high frequency dulling). With my previous PULSE tests the stripping had already been done by to my test records by previous ultrasonic cleans and no further damage was being done, so I concluded incorrectly that PULSE was safe. I'm going to refer to this as "ultrasonic smoothing". It seems that once smoothing has taken off the transient edges no further damage occurs, or if it does it's not really audible.

So, I then took some records and ran various long runs at different powers and even saw damage at 80% power. 70% power, so far, seems ok.

I then took the opposite approach - starting at lowest power (30%) and long runs (40 minutes) for a much gentler approach. This has proven to be very successful in the sense that I'm getting some of my best sounding results so far in terms or soundstage openness and air AND high frequency detail = no smoothing! However, ultrasonics always seem to struggle with removing "rocks" that cause clicks, and even more so at lower power. The combination of manual cleaning first to get rid of rocks and then a long and low power ultrasonic bath gives impressive results and will be my approach while I investigate the power setting further.

Lots of possibilities here: my RPM is too low. My run times are too high. Bath temperature may be softening records exacerbating smoothing. etc. Intuitively it feels like the long and low approach is safest - the low power removes any risk of damage and the longer duration gives the machine the ability to do the work.

I'll be watching for any further edge damage at these low powers and as long as I don't see any I'll probably keep upping power until I start to notice any issues. But really wanted to warn that PULSE isn't safe to use in the way I'd described.

 

[Neil.Antin]

But really wanted to warn that PULSE isn't safe to use in the way I'd described.

What was your PULSE operating mode: Was it 40-min @ 80% power-PULSE and 37-kHz noting that you do not specify what is "water temps are too high". If so, 37-kHz yields far greater cavitation implosion energy than 80-kHz or 120-kHz and 40-minutes is far greater than anyone else has been using, and the edge of the record is closest to the transducers where the cavitation energy will be the highest. Or has the 'damage' been noted while rinsing (separate UT tank) at 15-min at 80-kHz and PULSE mode?

I've run 40 minute cycles at 37kHz PULSE mode with no obvious issues either to vinyl or sound quality. Any longer than that and water temps are too high. But I think the 37kHz pulse mode is safe to use and may be beneficial in cleaning due to higher power.

The rinse I'm doing 15 minutes 80kHz PULSE mode.

 

[rDin]

PULSE here was 40 minutes @ 100% power. I wanted to "stress test" I aim to keep my water under 36C. Anything over that risks records warping - you can see some start to deform around this temp.

As mentioned, I've seen the same edge damage occur in the Degritter which has side firing transducers and much shorter durations, and often cooler water. Not to mention the ongoing battle with veils/dulling in that machine. I don't recall seeing this issue in the Kirmuss, but not 100% certain.

With testing, have also seen edge damage using non-Pulse mode in the Elma and lower overall power, eg 80% and 80kHz, but yes 30 minute durations and warm water. As noted, 70% looks ok - I haven't yet seen same damage...

Either way, damage is damage, and so I'm now looking for the safety threshold by coming from the bottom of the power range and working upwards. Warm water and longer duration definitely brings better results and so it's a case of trying to find a power that is guaranteed to be safe and effective no matter the duration (within safe temperatures), rather than using a power that is unsafe and can only be used with truncated sessions...

 

[Marcus]

With testing, have also seen edge damage using non-Pulse mode in the Elma and lower overall power, eg 80% and 80kHz, but yes 30 minute durations and warm water. As noted, 70% looks ok - I haven't yet seen same damage...

I can confirm the same results, so I decided to clean only with 60% power on 37kHz and 70% power on 80kHz (never in Pulse mode) and the same 10-min duration. Maybe I'll extend cleaning duration for 5 min on each mode...

 

[tima]

I do a 10 minute wash cycle at 37kHz at 80% power. Then, a 10 minute wash at 80kHz at 100% power. Both using Standard Mode. 20 minutes total with final temperature ~32°F - 35°F. My rinse cycle is done at 37kHz in an Elma S120.

While I do not dispute either @rDin or @Marcus comments, after several years of using the Elma P120 I have not seen the edge wear described by rDin ("whitened and feels ragged to touch".) Your reports are appreciated.

My inclination is to say do not use Pulse Mode at 100% power for 40 minutes. Pulse Mode produces intermittant bursts of ultrasonic activity likely at a higher wattage; I understand these bursts as going beyond 100% of Standard Mode. While I have tried Pulse Mode in the past for 10 minutes, now the only time I use Pulse Mode is on a a second or third consecutive cleaning of the same record that I hope to improve past first cleaning results. That happens- rarely.

Fwiw, vinyl formulation have varied across all years of the LP and across vinyl pellet manufacturers. "Oil crisis" years, when we were encouraged to wear sweaters, saw particularly poorer vinyl quality.

edit: rDin, would you post a picture of a record with edge wear? thnx.

 

[rDin]

Fwiw, vinyl formulation have varied across all years of the LP and across vinyl pellet manufacturers. "Oil crisis" years, when we were encouraged to wear sweaters, saw particularly poorer vinyl quality.

Indeed. Which means we cannot be sure of the quality of the vinyl before cleaning and that using high power MIGHT damage it. So, better to come from a lower powered, and totally safe approach? That you haven't seen edge damage suggests your approach is perfectly fine for your use case, but as I want longer runs I need to resolve this.

edit: rDin, would you post a picture of a record with edge wear? thnx.

Incredibly hard to get good focus with phone, but here you are. I have to say the image looks a lot worse than I see with my eye! My concern here is that if that is happening at the edge, what is happening in the grooves. And could this be the source of the veiling I've been hearing all these years when using ultrasonics: ultrasonic smoothing (maybe "sanding" is a better word??)



This is Dexter Gordon A Swingin' Affair on Blue Note 80 (https://www.discogs.com/release/15075870-Dexter-Gordon-A-Swingin-Affair)

I like this as a test record as the first track has incredibly clean and clear high frequency material and so you can use it for veil testing. I have many copies of this record and all the edges look good apart from the one I abused with PULSE.

As noted, I've seen the same with the Degritter and its side firing transducers, so I don't think directionality of waves is the issue here: it's the power.

My ears are telling me that a 30 minute wash with 37/80 kHz at 30% power sounds amazing - I'm getting an open soundstage like never before (because the high frequency information necessary for air and soundstage was previously being sanded and lost?). Worth a try?

 

[Neil.Antin]

Lots of possibilities here: my RPM is too low.

What rpm are you using? The https://www.cleanervinyl.com/store/p126/EasyOne.html spinner is reported as havng a spin range of RPM control (~0.2 - 5 RPM).

As noted, I've seen the same with the Degritter and its side firing transducers, so I don't think directionality of waves is the issue here: it's the power.

But the required power is proportional to the kHz; higher kHz requires higher power. From the Elmasonic P60H literature, the peak power is many times that of the DG - https://www.elma-ultrasonic.com/fil...lgeraete/Elmasonic_P/PP_Elmasonic_P60H_EN.pdf. What I said above was not about the directivity, but the distance from the transducers to the record.

The tank depth for the P60H is 151-mm. The tank depth for @tima P120H is 240-mm https://www.elma-ultrasonic.com/fil...geraete/Elmasonic_P/PP_Elmasonic_P120H_EN.pdf. The record in a P60H will be much closer to the transducers than a P120H.

If you want to use higher power with P60H, you probably need to increase the rpm to closer 1-rpm.

However, the KLAudio UT with side firing 200W and 40-kHz and a smaller tank (~770-ml) than the DG (1400-ml), no one has ever addressed what you are seeing. But again, your duration is quite high.

Otherwise, I am not sure what to make of the record edge photo. I have 'felt' many of the lower Blue Note record edges and noted that they were not smooth; very ragged. When I final dry the record with the Kinetronics Tiger Cloth, it will catch on ragged edges. I usually use that as an indicator that the pressing is not that great. What does this record and its edge look like under UV light?

 

[rDin]

What rpm are you using?

0.5 RPM

If you want to use higher power with P60H, you probably need to increase the rpm to closer 1-rpm.

That's easy enough to test.

However, the KLAudio UT with side firing 200W and 40-kHz and a smaller tank (~770-ml) than the DG (1400-ml), no one has ever addressed what you are seeing.

There was the issue of "black shards" in the early days of the original KLAudio. Note, I haven't seen any "shards" on records whose edges get damaged.

Otherwise, I am not sure what to make of the record edge photo.

I guess I've seen this effect 30+ times over a couple thousand records (Degritter), so not common at all, but it happens.

But again, your duration is quite high.

I don't think duration is the issue. My guess is that susceptible records would see this effect on "normal" durations.

What does this record and its edge look like under UV light?

I'll check it and the other copies of that record I have... [edit]This record appears pristine black under UV; looks like virgin vinyl. Damaged edges reflect the UV light and look bright[/edit]

For now, 30 minutes 37/80 @ 30% power 0.5RPM is providing exceptional results, so I'm inclined to continue with this approach for now while I listen for a while.

 

[tima]

Incredibly hard to get good focus with phone, but here you are. I have to say the image looks a lot worse than I see with my eye! My concern here is that if that is happening at the edge, what is happening in the grooves. And could this be the source of the veiling I've been hearing all these years when using ultrasonics: ultrasonic smoothing (maybe "sanding" is a better word??)

Thanks for the photo. The video appears as not available; maybe check its permissions?

I am surprised to see that edge wear -- it certainly looks substantial and anomalous, to be frank. As noted you've experienced the 'issue' with two different tanks which have different power ratings and different cavitator positions. You note that you do not experience edge wear at 70% power, presumably on the Elma. ~30 incidents out of 2000 cleanings.

Evidence gathering: Perhaps check your filter to learn what it captures. And monitor TDS at, say, 5 minute intervals. Is it seen after washing alone or in conjunction with rinse? I don't recall seeing the parameters you adopt for the rinse tank but I might have missed that. Does the issue appear specific to particular record labels?

as I want longer runs I need to resolve this.

Yes. Perhaps construct a set of experiments using different time lengths, different power settings and different temperatures. This would take sacrificial records and some tedium.

Would you consider doing multiple cycles of shorter durations and time for the tank water temperature to lower?

Neil's observations are helpful. It would be good if we could come to some guidelines that say "don't go beyond these limits".

For now, 30 minutes 37/80 @ 30% power 0.5RPM is providing exceptional results, so I'm inclined to continue with this approach for now while I listen for a while.

Good. Is this in Standard Mode?

 

[rDin]

Video works for me. Here's the YouTube link: www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kj_C7cpcQ4

You note that you do not experience edge wear at 70% power, presumably on the Elma.

Yet... and yes, I'm exclusively using Elma now. Degritters/Kirmuss all boxed away.

Evidence gathering: Perhaps check your filter to learn what it captures.

I'm not filtering here - just dumping water and refreshing as required. For rinsing I'd use 80kHz and 100% power previously, but will drop that now. Haven't thought that far ahead just yet while I focus on the wash stage...

This would take sacrificial records and some tedium.

Tedium is just a state of mind - no problem with that And, as noted, I have plenty of test records available and a willingness to sacrifice!

Would you consider doing multiple cycles of shorter durations and time for the tank water temperature to lower?

If I could see/hear a benefit from doing so. I used to do this with the Degritter, for instance to help stop the machine over heating.

Is this in Standard Mode?

Yes. No more PULSE.

We want two outcomes - best cleaning results - no damage (edge, or high frequency loss).

And even though there's likely an optimal approach, there are a lot of variables: Duration. Water temp. Transducer power/frequency. RPM. I'd be happy to settle with a non-optimal approach, eg long duration / low power, if it gets the results I want.

Neil's observations are helpful.

That's an understatement.