tima's DIY RCM

[theaudiogeek]

Hi Neil

The pre-clean indeed does improve the audio quality and lowers the background noise. Thanks to you and @tima. Wondering if I add "ACID WASH (Alconox/Citranox) " before the Ultrasonic cleaning step? Does it hurt or unnecessary? This is just a curiosity question based on my own personal finding after performing the pre-clean using Alconox/Liquinox ?

Am I over complicating the cleaning process?

Thanks

 

[Neil.Antin]

Hi Neil

The pre-clean indeed does improve the audio quality and lowers the background noise. Thanks to you and @tima. Wondering if I add "ACID WASH (Alconox/Citranox) " before the Ultrasonic cleaning step? Does it hurt or unnecessary? This is just a curiosity question based on my own personal finding after performing the pre-clean using Alconox/Liquinox ?

Am I over complicating the cleaning process?

Thanks

The Liquinox can clean those soils that can challenge UT with just nonionic surfactant, so its complimentary to your process. The acid step is targeting the small particles where UT excel. But adding the acid step to the pre-clean step adds just a few minutes. So, it's no great inconvenience. However, Citranox is now only available in 1-gallon size https://www.amazon.com/Alconox-Citr...hvlocphy=&hvtargid=pla-4584070155431421&psc=1. And there is not a lot of other uses for the Citranox.

There is the alternative distilled white vinegar + nionionic surfactant (see book Chapter III), but it's not the same as the Citranox which has two acids that complement themselves. If you have 2 UT tanks, I do (EDIT) not see any benefit of the distilled white vinegar. The Citranox 'may' improve some records. But I think you are well into diminishing returns. If it was me, I would leave well enough alone in your circumstance. But if it leaves you with the dangling question of what if, only you can resolve that.

Take care,
Neil

 

[theaudiogeek]

The Liquinox can clean those soils that can challenge UT with just nonionic surfactant, so its complimentary to your process. The acid step is targeting the small particles where UT excel. But adding the acid step to the pre-clean step adds just a few minutes. So, it's no great inconvenience. However, Citranox is now only available in 1-gallon size https://www.amazon.com/Alconox-Citr...hvlocphy=&hvtargid=pla-4584070155431421&psc=1. And there is not a lot of other uses for the Citranox.

There is the alternative distilled white vinegar + nionionic surfactant (see book Chapter III), but it's not the same as the Citranox which has two acids that complement themselves. If you have 2 UT tanks, I do see any benefit of the distilled white vinegar. The Citranox 'may' improve some records. But I think you are well into diminishing returns. If it was me, I would leave well enough alone in your circumstance. But if it leaves you with the dangling question of what if, only you can resolve that.

Take care,
Neil

Thank you Neil!

 

[tima]

The Citranox 'may' improve some records. But I think you are well into diminishing returns. If it was me, I would leave well enough alone in your circumstance. But if it leaves you with the dangling question of what if, only you can resolve that.

Two comments ...

I think we should feel free to experiment within reasonable boundaries. An extra step may help a few records even though it does not make it to the regular protocol.

The fun question has always been 'when do you stop cleaning?'

 

[theaudiogeek]

Two comments ...

I think we should feel free to experiment within reasonable boundaries. An extra step may help a few records even though it does not make it to the regular protocol.

The fun question has always been 'when do you stop cleaning?'

Agreed.. I was asking based on my own experience with the pre-clean process. I was simply amazed at how some of the records sounded.

 

[treitz3]

Two comments ...

I think we should feel free to experiment within reasonable boundaries. An extra step may help a few records even though it does not make it to the regular protocol.

The fun question has always been 'when do you stop cleaning?'

When the LP is clean and one pleces it on the LP platter to play?

Then enjoy....

Tom

 

[tima]

When the LP is clean and one pleces it on the LP platter to play?

Then enjoy....

Tom

I follow the Ellington rule: when it sounds clean it is clean.

 

[treitz3]

I have no clue who he is.....but I so agree with him.

Those that don't know? Well, they don't know.

Tom

 

[hifilife]

Here are a few photos of an ultrasonic RCM that I built in 2017. I don't think I've ever shared these anywhere, so why not post them here.

https://imgur.com/DuoQfVL

 

[Neil.Antin]

Two comments ...

I think we should feel free to experiment within reasonable boundaries. An extra step may help a few records even though it does not make it to the regular protocol.

The fun question has always been 'when do you stop cleaning?'

Tim,

If the UT tanks in use were other than the Elmasonic P-series, that may be a different story. And since you really cannot tell which record would benefit from the acid, the only way to know is to use it on all records. But if you tried to qualitatively access the benefit of adding acid to the pre-clean process, and reclean a record that was cleaned with the existing pre-clean and UT, was it the acid that helped or the 2nd UT cleaning? And in the case of Citranox its more than just an acid it's also essentially a diluted form of Liquinox. Note for those reading, adding Liquinox to vinegar (I tried it) forms a cloudy emulsion and I would not use it.

There is no end to experimentation, but the Edisonian trial and error method is not very efficient, but for those that want to experiment, more power (and patience) to you.

Take care,
Neil

 

[tima]

There is no end to experimentation, but the Edisonian trial and error method is not very efficient, but for those that want to experiment, more power (and patience) to you.

That's basically what I was saying ... go ahead and experiment if you wish.

On occasion I will do a second cleaning if the first did not produce sufficient results. Sometimes it pays off, sometimes it makes no difference.

I am thinking of recalcitrent records. How far one goes is a test of desire and, as you say, patience.

I remember when I used the Loricraft and tried third cleanings. There is true patience for you. No matter how much I wanted a particular record to be cleaner, there are limits -- hence my question on when one stops. Sometimes I tried two different regimens, Lloyd Walkers Prelude system and AIVS, both use enzymes, as documented in my review from 2011. That eventually led me to acquire a second hand Audio Desk machine which led me to build my own. Sixteen years of experimentation ...

 

[tima]

Here are a few photos of an ultrasonic RCM that I built in 2017. I don't think I've ever shared these anywhere, so why not post them here.

https://imgur.com/DuoQfVL

I can see the video by clicking on it but not the .jpg pictures. You should be able to post those using the picture widget in the menu.

What you made is very cool. Can the spindle with records be removed from the arm?

 

[hifilife]

I can see the video by clicking on it but not the .jpg pictures. You should be able to post those using the picture widget in the menu.

What you made is very cool. Can the spindle with records be removed from the arm?

Thanks! The spindle can be removed by loosening a set screw, but I have never needed to do that.

I wonder if anyone else can see the pictures. I have posted pics like this in the past without issue.

 

[tima]

I have no clue who he is.....but I so agree with him.

Those that don't know? Well, they don't know.

Tom

That would be Duke Ellington who said "if it sounds good it is good."

 

[tima]

Here are a few photos of an ultrasonic RCM that I built in 2017. I don't think I've ever shared these anywhere, so why not post them here.

I can see the .jpgs now -- thanks. I admire the work you've done here.

 

[hifilife]

I can see the .jpgs now -- thanks. I admire the work you've done here.

Thank you! It was a fun project.

 

[Neil.Antin]

Thank you! It was a fun project.

The spinner is very impressive. Beautifully designed and over-built down to the flush mount fasteners, and very nicely machined. I notice you are using a motor with a gear drive - what is the rotating speed?

 

[hifilife]

The spinner is very impressive. Beautifully designed and over-built down to the flush mount fasteners, and very nicely machined. I notice you are using a motor with a gear drive - what is the rotating speed?

Thanks, I appreciate it! I use a PWM controller to slow the motor to 3 revolutions over about 11 minutes which is one cleaning cycle. It won't spin much slower than that, but it's capable of spinning much faster than what's needed for this application.

Is 3 revolutions over about 11 minutes still the recommended rate? I believe that was thought to be optimal when I built it years ago. It seems to work well for me.

 

[Neil.Antin]

Is 3 revolutions over about 11 minutes still the recommended rate? I believe that was thought to be optimal when I built it years ago.

That works out to (11-min/3-revolutions) = 1-revolution every 3.67-min (1/3.67) = 0.27-rpm. For a low powered tank that's OK but for high powered tanks like Elmasonic about 0.5-rpm is the target speed. In high powered tanks, go too slow and you risk damage.

 

[hifilife]

That works out to (11-min/3-revolutions) = 1-revolution every 3.67-min (1/3.67) = 0.27-rpm. For a low powered tank that's OK but for high powered tanks like Elmasonic about 0.5-rpm is the target speed. In high powered tanks, go too slow and you risk damage.

Thanks! What specs indicate a high powered machine?

Also- Are you saying that 0.27 RPM for 11 minutes in a high powered machine risks damage but 0.5 RPM for 11 minutes in a high powered machine does not risk damage? I am trying to understand what is more important when it comes to damage. Total time or submerged time per revolution.