Thank you for pointing these things out to us. Now I know that I've been setting my machine for way too long. 5 minutes or so would make the cleaning process much faster, rather than 20-30 minutes like I have been doing. All the other points you've made are excellent too, and I have made note of all of them. Thanks very much 👍 👍 👍
Hi! Hope the video helped. Bringing down the cleaning time will certainly bring down the risks involved. It's funny how some things like the cleaning time become standard, without anyone really know why. Keep those records clean :) Thanks for watching. Cheers. /Paul
Paul, first, thanks for this concise but expository overview of ultrasonics when it comes to cleaning records. I’ve been a huge fan of this method, and though I don’t use it at the moment (I use vacuum cleaning [VPI] with manual pre-cleaning), I’ve been researching various Usonic models over the past year, and this video is just confirmation that I need to pull the trigger on a unit sometime this year. Second, now you’re costing me MORE $$$ ;-) See you soon brother. - TONE
Hey Tone! Thanks for the compliment. I've also started with vacuum cleaning. It did everything I was looking for. Probably like you got intrigued by ultrasonic record cleaning over time. Only good things to report. Well except, your second point, it is not cheap ;) Really impressed with the results. Stay save. Stay funky. Cheers. /Paul
Check out my Video on my machine I got it on E-bay for under $100 US dollars & built the rest I can do up to 6-7 records at a time ua-cam.com/video/u3lEKbwCGQw/v-deo.html Well worth the investment
I'm thankful for this video! I've been using a VPI 16.5 for about 10 years. I've always wanted to step up to ultrasonic, but the machines were out of my price range. I'm just starting to seriously research since new ultrasonic machines are far lower in price. So any (real) information I can get on the process as a whole is VERY helpful. Thanks again!
Hi! Thanks for the comment. Great to hear the video was helpful. My precious method of cleaning was with a DIY vacuum record cleaning. It cleaned the records well and removed most of the clicks and pops. Ultrasonic takes record cleaning to the next level. All the best. Cheers. /Paul
@@XjunkieNL I have been using a VPI 16/16.5 since 1981. It worked okay and cleaned many dirty records (I have 28,500). Everyone said I could do better with the Kirmuss U.C. unit. 5 minutes, only 1.4 oz. of 70% isoprophyl to 1.75 g of distilled water, etc. sort of within your recommendation. However, after cleaning relatively clean records (15 so far), I find that they are NOISIER, more pops and ticks. They appear to have clearer, cleaner sound, better soundstage, pristine highs but at the cost of a noisier record which detracts from my enjoyment. I have a moderately high end audio system with a VPI TNT VI/SME IV modified/Dynavector 20XL L/Zesto Alllesso SUT/custom phono stages, etc. When I play records cleaned with the VPI, the pops and ticks diminish, do not accentuate. Should I dump the Kismuss UC and stick with my VPI using Disk Doctor fluid? Thanks
Hi Stephen! Thank you for sharing your experience. It shows there is not one way to get the best results. Although I'm surprised you're getting in part the advantages of ultrasonic cleaning. But also getting a negative listening experience. Have you found a reason for this? The first thing that comes to my mind is the drying. Is it maybe possible you are recontaminating the record? Probably, you've already tried it. As an experiment, let the record air dry and see if it changes the sound. Have a sunny sunday. Cheers. /Paul
@@XjunkieNL Is it best to just go straight to an ultrasonic or is it okay to start with a spin clean or simply a record label protector and a distilled water pump and do things manually? I can't decide at this point. Right now I just use a simple spray solution with a microfiber and I have a antistatic brush, that's it. But I finally have some records that really need a good cleaning that I bought used. Prior to this I was mostly dealing with new records so I've never yet really had the need to have a thorough cleaning system.
Hi. I would start with a spin clean. A cheap and easy way to clean records. Especially if you want to clean dirty second hand records. Maybe a later point in time you can see if you have a need for a ultrasonic cleaner. Cheers. /Paul
I once cleaned sunglasses in an ultrason. For 10 minutes and they came out damaged. Like they were sandblasted. So I’m hesitant to use it for cleaning softer vinyl.
Hi! Do you know if it was the coating on the sunglasses that was damaged, ot the glass itself? Opticians often use ultrasonic to clean glasses. One of the few ways to get them really clean. Thanks for the comment. Cheers. /Paul
Thank You for this video. I am a huge believer in wet cleaning a vinyl LP. I have been piqued by Ultrasonic Cleaners. I wonder if they are the greatest cleaning method. After watching this video, I have concluded that there is both a benefit and a detriment to using an ultrasonic device. I have decided to stay with my tried and true record cleaning style, warm water and a few drops of dish soap. And then a bath in the Spin Clean using distilled water. I get very clean LPs with minimal surface noise. In truth, I suspected than an ultrasonic cleaner would leave the vinyl with some pitting issues from the cavitation.
Hi Vince. Thanks for the comment. There is not method that cleans every dirty perfectly clean. You need different techniques in your toolbox. I'm sure with your method you get most of the pop and tick free. Ultrasonic has the unique possibility to get some even deeper clean. But no cleaning method is without disadvantages. Have a sunny Sunday. Cheers. /Paul
First I like your H2O model. You made this topic quite interesting. I don’t know a ton about ultrasonic but you made it very easy to understand especially for us slow people. Glad the fifth tip circled back around to the first myth. Very interesting Paul. Steve
Hey Steve. Happy to hear you enjoyed it. Hahah, you recognized the H2O model. You receive 10 extra bonus points. Tried to connect all the dots with myth number 5, nice to see you noticed. Cheers. /Paul
Science class is in session again! I wasn't sure you would still recommend ultrasonics after that intro 😉 These videos are really unique and deeply informative, thanks Paul!
Nice to see you joining class, Doug. But no giggling in the back, for my quirky H2O model, please :) Like your spot light videos, it's fun to go deep once in a while. Have a great weekend. Cheers. /Paul
Great science based approach - thank you! For dirty records I use a SME Loricraft machine. Probably even better for dirty records would be a pre-clean with the Loricraft and final clean with the an ultrasonic such as an Audio Desk machine. $$$$$ My Loricraft is relatively quiet. It takes about 15-20 minutes to clean a record if you carefully follow the directions. I have never seen a Loricraft how-to video on UA-cam that accurately shows the proper use of the machine. Fremmer has a video on the Loricraft but he rushes the process and misses important steps. Fremmer does mention using the Loricraft and following up with the Audio Desk. Thanks again for your research based video and excellent presentation.
Hi Robert. Sorry for my late response. Your comment got lost between all others. For a long time, I have used a DIY Loricraft record cleaning machine. It was great fun experimenting with it to get an optimal result. It's a fantastic machine to clean records. For very dirty records, it is still my preferred method. Thanks for watching. Have a nice Sunday. Cheers. /Paul
Thanks for this clear explanation. I'm going to make my own US cleaner. However I think I also need 2 Knosti's to pre-clean and rinse the most dirty records. In other words a lot of work. But when it works, I sit with a smile enjoying my 'repaired' records.
Hey Sjaak. Nice to see you're thinking of making your own ultrasonic cleaner. Have you seen my pre cleaning video tip? It's very effective. And you perhaps don't need an extra Knosti. Also if you have a very effective ultrasonic cleaning step, you can maybe do without surfactants. If you can leave them out, you can skip the final rinse step. Although if you have already own a Knosti why not use it :) All the best. Cheers. /Paul
@@XjunkieNL Thx. I still have a motor from my daughters disco mirrorball, so I can use that. In time I post a few pictures of my attemp. Yes I agree to use as less detergent or cleaning solvent of any kind as possible. I made that mistake in the past which I try to undo with the US cleaner.
Well I finally have to hand it to the UA-cam algorithm for steering me to a really helpful and informative video. Fascinating. I see by looking at your previous videos that I have a lot of deep diving to do. I was particularly interested in your presentation because I am on the verge of buying the Kirmuss ultrasonic machine (I am in US - East Coast), mainly due to it's attractive pricing. Will take a closer look at your video collection to help me decide. Thanks for the great vid. As they say, "hit subscribe." I did.
Thanks for the sub :) Happy to hear this video is helpful for you. If you like the Kirmuss, the iSonic P4875 could also be a nice alternative. Depending on the budget I would choose a machine with higher ultrasonic frequency. As the research paper shows there is an inverse correlation between the frequency and eroding of the surface. Have fun exploring all the different videos ;) Cheers. /Paul
@@XjunkieNL Thanks much for the suggestion on the iSonic. I'd not heard of that brand. Seems they both use 35k as their ultrasonic frequency. Kirmuss describes the 35k level as "safe." I will definitely read up on the iSonic and investigate at what levels other units are performing. Will also watch the vid again. Thanks.
The marketing material of Kirmuss says many things. Some true, some false. I'm sure the basic unit is a solid machine. The low frequency would suggest to seriously limit the cleaning times. Nothing more fun that to look and search a new toy :) Have fun! /Paul
Really interesting vid Paul... I don’t know about the science of cleaning records but I know there is always a pay off between mechanical cleaning and solvent based cleaning. A problem with using non ionic surfactantants in solution is that it needs to be “cleared” after being on the surface as a “secondary treatment”. As you said vinyl is not completely water repellant and the grooves will potentially trap both pollutants and surfactant residue. I imagine most stronger solvent solutions (eg Isopropyl alcohol with deionised water) would evaporate better at higher temperatures but are likely to soften the structural integrity of the record. I think that ultrasonic cleaning is the least invasive method, followed by deionised water which is dried at ambient temperature. Cleaning with poultices should also minimise abrasion but removing the residue is problematic.
Hey Ed! As with all things in life, nothing comes free, there is always a trade off. Like you I feel too often it is underestimated how surfactant interact and are 'searching' for surfaces. It's really needs a second cleaning step just to remove the surfactants. The biggest advances of using alcohols is that they almost completely evaporate. But again there trade offs :) Thanks for the comment. Cheers. /Paul
@@XjunkieNL at work we often use denatured alcohol to “pre-wet” cracks before injecting with consolidant adhesives as it travels much further than water and allows maximum capillary action. (Probably not relevant to records!) I think I might experiment on some albums using acid free tissue as a poultice wetted with your mix.
Hahah, everything is relevant to records, Ed :) Sounds a nice experiment. Let me know how it goes. Always curious to learn more. Have a great weekend. /Paul
I got me a Degritter. One lump sum of $2800 and my records clean themselves better than I could manually. The cleaner the record, the cleaner the stylus / brushes / record sleeves. Most importantly, the sound is crisp like a CD unless it's a bad pressing. Not being able to tell for sure drove me nuts before.
Hi! That is one cool record cleaning machine. Perhaps the best that is available in the world. Now what to do with all that time you have freed up? :) All the best. Cheers. /Paul
Hi I would like to say that I have watched quite a few thing on you tube about Vinyl records cleaning , care , ect and found you .....this is a guy I can trust ....thank you so much for your time ....the only other comment is what sort of temperature would you use ....??
Hi Richard. Thank you for the kind words! Always great to read positive feedback. Temperature wise, I personally prefer room temperature. Although ultrasonic will increase the temperature of the cleaning water. In general, it is said to limit it to a maximum of 35 Celcius (95 F). Thanks for the comment. Cheers. /Paul
What you said pretty much is what I have been doing. Except that I still use Triton X100, but I probably will stop. I do a Spin Clean rinse after the ultrasonic to get the clinging dirt off. Thanks for the video.
Hi! Thanks for the comment. Probably nothing wrong with adding a little Triton X100. Although I hope the video makes you curious what happens if you leave it out. Cleaning records is always a bit of experimenting. Cheers. /Paul
You may think I'm crazy, but I use Totally Awesome Orange cleaner from Dollar Tree. One tablespoon with 8 oz of distilled water (16/1 ratio), a couple of drops of Dollar Tree dish detergent, and one tablespoon of 99% Isopropyl alcohol. The records look and sound great after cleaning with my VPI HP17 record cleaner.
Hi Robert. I think in general us vinyl junkies are all a bit crazy ;) I can see that working. Maybe a bit aggresive. I like that you are using different cleaning agents with different characteristic. This must work any many different kinds of dirt that could be on the record. Thanks for sharing recipe. All the best. Cheers. /Paul
Good morning Alex! Hope the video was helpful. Lowering the cleaning time is a smart move. I don't think you will see a change in the cleaning result. Cheers. /Paul
Hi Gordon. This is really dependent on budget and needs. In general I would say the first thing to look at, is the power rating and number of transducers. Preferably an unit with at least 3 transducers and 150W ultrasonic power. Also try to find an unit with a ultrasonic frequency of at least 40kHz, preferably higher 80kHz or more. If you have the possibility look at the build quality. Hope this helps a little. Happy holidays. /Paul
Hello Paul, thanks for the insightful information. I’m debating myself with a Degritter since I’m kinda lazy about record cleaning :). Trying to get to a conclusion from your perspective, best way to clean a NM, VG+ or even VG record would be a the Degritter, high frequency, short cleaning time and using alcohol?
Hi! Since I was a beta tester for the Degritter. So my opinion is biased :) This is the perfect machine to get your records clean, especially if you are lazy. The technical specifications are the best in class. It cleans every record. Records graded VG or worst, I would recommend a pre clean to remove some of the surface dirt. The support and build quality of the machine is also first class. I can wholeheartedly recommend it. Hope this helps a little. All the best. Cheers. /Paul
Hi Dries! I wish I could give a recommendation. But I don't have the experience or knowledge. The power needed is directly related to the ultrasonic frequency you are using. In general too much power heats the water too quickly. Hope this helps a little. Cheers. /Paul
@@XjunkieNL Hi Paul. My US cleaner from Poland has only 50 Watt, and the result is fine. I know other machines that use 150 Watt and the Degritter even has 300 Watt, and has a maximum cleaning time of 10 minutes. I prefer a "softer" and longer cleaning time (3x 10 minutes) which might be better for my vinyl. Cheers Dries
Hi Dries. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. The softness of ultrasonic is defined by the frequency used. The frequency determines the size of the bubble. The smaller the bubble the softer the ultrasonic cleans the surface. The power determines how many bubble are the water. Not completely true, but 3x 10 minutes gives the same result as increasing the power 3x and cleaning 10 minutes. Cheers. /Paul
Hi X junkie NL, excellent video. Thank you. Do you have any views / thoughts on ultrasonically cleaning records regarding the following; 1) Location of the Transducers i.e. bottom mounting Transducers (like the typical commercial ultrasonic cleaning baths for normally cleaning jewelry, metal objects etc. suspended in a hanging basket that are also being used for cleaning records with a record spinner) or side mounting Transducers (like the Degritter Huminguru & KLaudio LP200T dedicated ultrasonic record cleaning machines) ? 2) The ultrasonic frequency used (ranging from 40kHz up to over 200+ kHz) for record cleaning ? 3) The actual power of the ultrasonics cleaning the record (with the volume of water inside the Ultrasonic Cleaning Machine playing an important part i.e. typical commercial ultrasonic cleaning baths having a large volume of water in comparison to the Degritter, Huminguru and KLaudio LP200T dedicated URCMs which have relatively small volumes of water for the actual cleaning of the record (i.e. not the volume of the water tank that feed these URCMs)) ? Reason I ask these important questions above, is I am considering going down the Ultrasonic Cleaning route for my records even though I currently thoroughly clean my records (and have been the last 10+ years) with my trusty original Keith Monks Classic Vacuum Record Cleaning Machine (which the BBC Archive Dept used to have and use) where I give my records a full pre-wash & main wash regime with the recommended Keith Monks Discovery Cleaning Fluid and the latest technology Keith Monks record cleaning brushes and then a final rinse on the Keith Monks RCM with pure distilled water vacuuming the fluid off between each of these cleaning (pre-wash, main wash & rinse) stages. And yet even after this thorough cleaning regime of my records on my Keith Monks RCM, I can still hear clicks and pops on a lot of my records (I am a critical listener i.e. I listen to most of my records on my TOTL Headphone System - a Hifiman EF1000 Amp with Hifiman Susvara Headphones linked to my CH Precision P1 & X1 Phono Stage linked to my Kuzma XL DC Turntable with Kuzma 4Point 11" Tonearm & MSL Eminent Ex cartridge) even new records that have never been played before. Therefore to remove these clicks and pops wondering and hoping that ultrasonic cleaning will remove them. Your thoughts on the above would be greatly appreciated.
Hi Mark. Thanks for watching and the comment. You will probably not like my answer. With your Keith Monks you probably have the best possible record cleaning machine to remove pops and clicks. This is based on my own experience with a DIY Keith Monks. Pop and clicks are usually caused by 'bigger' particles. Ultrasonic is not the best to remove these, especially if you can't remove them with your current washing regime, or you must be willing to use a low frequency and lots of power. Have you tried different cleaning solutions? There is not one cleaning solution that can handle every type of dirt. Ultrasonic will remove the 'small' particles. Particles that the Keith Monks can't remove. This improve the sound quality no question, but these aren't the particles that cause pops or clicks. Love your playback setup by the way. hope one day to try out a My Sonic Lab cartrigde. Have a nice Sunday. Cheers. /Paul
@@XjunkieNL HI Paul, Thank you for your informative and very helpful reply. Very much appreciated. I will try some different cleaning solutions then from other Manufacturers i.e. Clearaudio products with my Keith Monks RCM and also try some DIY cocktails and see how this goes, and do more online research & reading into Ultrasonic Cleaning for records. FY; The My Sonic Lab (MSL) Eminent Ex cartridge I have sounds great through my CH P1 Phono Stage as I am using the current / transimpedance input of the P1 which is perfect for the MSL Eminent Ex due to it's very low internal impedance.
A very good and informative video. I'm using the iSonic CS 6.1-PRO for my 78 rpm records, which are made from shellac and not vinyl. I usually clean ten at a time for 12 minutes in 25 Celsius water. Would you, for shellac which contains a certain amount of organic material, recommend a shorter cleaning time or any other adjustments?
Hej Stig. Thanks for your kind words. Personally I have no experience with 78 shellac records. In general I wouldn't suggest a cleaning time of more than 5 minutes. How did you come to 12 minutes? Maybe a pre clean could be benifical to remove some of the surface dirt. Hope this helps a little. Have a great Sunday. Cheers. /Paul
Hi Paul. Once again a very interesting subject and answers. I really enjoy my hobby of record collecting, playing and even cleaning. I just received a Degritter and can’t wait to give it a go. I remember you had one and wondered if you still use it. And if so so you use any cleaning agent or surfactants in yours. I have several new records I will clean first and I’m leaning toward not using anything but distilled water. Thanks again for all your videos. I really enjoy them all.
Hi David. Congrats with your new Degritter. You got one awesome record cleaner. You can play around, and see what works best for you. Nothing wrong with only using water. That is in part the message of this video. My Degritter is still going strong. And I'm very happy with it. When cleaning second hand records, I usually add some alcohol to the water. Have fun. Cheers. /Paul
@@paulc5358 I love my machine. I think it took my cleaning to a whole new level plus. I am able to get lab grade water and feel good using that. I’m betting your water is great to use. Not having all the contaminants to start with is a plus. Enjoy your records!
One comment - only about 1/3 of the record is immersed in the cleaner at any given moment. Running the cleaner for 5 minutes represents cleaning the whole record for only 1.67 minutes. Running it for 30 minutes really mean cleaning the whole record for about 10 minutes.
Hello Walter. I see your point. The 5 minutes I mention in the video, aren't exact science. More in general, if you don't see a direct cleaning effect using ultrasonic, my personal opinion is that you need to start thinking. Just prolonging the cleaning time can cause more harm than good. If you take into account the record rotates during cleaning, I would say an active time of 2 minutes. Thanks for the comment. Cheers. /Paul
How do we know the weight loss observed in the study was due to loss of Noryl material and not loss of dirt and debris? I would expect a clean record to weigh slightly less than a dirty one.
Hi Anthony. The paper doesn't mention if they cleaned the sample first. It does mention "there is a very clear relationship between the decreasing weight loss and the increasing ultrasonic frequency...the difference in surface erosion can be seen in the SEM pictures...the surface that is more eroded reveals more of the underlying glass fibres.". I assume they were smart enough to not use dirty samples. Cheers. /Paul
In East Germany the inner sleeve has some tips and warnings. So it said, that stereo records also when using mono loudspeaker, have to be played with a stereo cartridge, records has to be stored horizontal up to 20 records or vertical and you have to avoid temperature over 35°C.
Also... ultrasonic's do clean spectacularly, but also unevenly. They will leave a mottled surface visible under light, as the transducers do tend to localize the intensity of the clean, which will vary over the entire record surfaces, leaving a visible unevenness to the clean surfaces.... all is audibly clean, but visibly, some areas are cleaner than others
Thanks a really interesting video. When I started with ultra sonic cleaning I did not believed in those scrubbing bubbles. The thing is that i do not see anything in the bath/water. But after a interesting test with aluminium foil in the ultrasonic bath I saw the foil get destroyed with holes in 30 to 60 sec. So something was happening. It is a good test to perform now and then to ensure the effectiveness and to confirm that all the ultrasonic transducers works as they should. Another TEST is if you use very much isopropanol then the surface tension or ~25% lower density than water. In that situation we will more likely see the formation of all the bubbles implode. Yes I suspected that ultrasonic erode the vinyl. Another observation is that really noisy (clicks and pops) records when they are clean I mean actually really clean and still noisy. Even IF you try "I will keep trying clean out those not normal higher levels of noise. By make prolong the ultrasonic cleaning time to it get to normal level of clicks and pops!" That do not work even if you clean the record for 30 min (!) the clicks and pops will NOT get removed so it is not revirginize the record and ultrasonic cleaning will not perform miracles. The clicks and pops is IN the vinyl of that record nothing we can do about it for that record that is we have better and worse compounds like super vinyl and so on.. (maybe get another pressing that were done at a different record pressing plant that likely used a other mix or formula that is probably less nosy). Anyway just my own experiences and keep up the good job! :-D
Hi! I know what you mean, but those scrubbing bubbles are magical :) It's really amazing how good they work. Thank you for sharing your experience with ultrasonic cleaning. Longer cleaning times have often no effect, and maybe contribute to eroding the surface. Too bad ultrasonic can't fix pops and clicks that are pressed in the vinyl. It is always fun when you can save a bad record after cleaning. Hahah, I agree, sometimes it is simpler to buy a better pressing :) Thanks for watching. Have a great weekend. Cheers. /Paul
Thanks, Kris. It's one of things I really like about the way you clean records. I feel it's like an extended pre-clean. It also shows how much is already removed if you do it well. Hahah, as you can see still a bit obsessed with getting playable again :) Have a great weekend. Cheers. /Paul
I have observed a strange phenomenon with regards to cleaning records with this method. It appears that they have demonstrated cleaning only new and already clean vinyls! None has ever played any dirty record before and after cleaning with this method!
Hello! Nice observation. I think it mostly has to do with ultrasonic cleaning not being as much about removing clicks and pops. It is more about cleaning the inside of the groove, and gettting a purer sound from the groove. Thanks for the comment. All the best. Cheers. /Paul
Hey Paul - first one here! Great informative video - I am still using the Project VC2 cleaner - but I have been considering the ultrasonic route though - which model do you suggest or is it ok to take the DIY route? Or have I missed a video when you talk about this elsewhere on your channel?
Hey Mark! You're quick :) With the Project VC2, you have an excellent record cleaner. Ultrasonic is the next level. Also because you have full automatic units. Especially handy is you're a bit lazy ;) I myself am using a Degritter. I was a beta tester of the design. Here is link to introduction of this record cleaner ua-cam.com/video/dI6nLzBiQig/v-deo.html . They are not cheap. The DIY route could be a good alternative. Cheers. /Paul
Great and very insightful video. Thank you for doing this. So If ultrasonic is damaging the records (based on the study you cited), what is the most effective yet safe way to clean your records?
Hi! Thanks for the comment. The answer is a catch 22. Ultrasonic is the most effective method for removing dirt from the surface of a record. The most save way, is to use only distilled water. This will harm the surface the least. Unfortunately this is also the least effective way. You will have to find a balance with the method you use and be aware of possible negative effects. Cheers. /Paul
@@XjunkieNL thank you Paul. I am thinking of saving up for a Degritter which uses 120kHz and hopefully less harmful than lower frequency ultrasonic cleaners. I’d used conservatively (short clean times) could that also be a good end game solution? Thank you for your time.
As an user of the Degritter, I can say it is one fantastic record cleaner, especially if you're lazy like me ;) The study show the higher frequencies are less harmful. This sounds maybe stupid, but the cleaning time is first and foremost determined by the time it takes to clean a record :) But I think I understand what you mean, no need to clean longer as necessary. Have a nice weekend. /Paul
I use a Kirmuss for my basic cleaning, which does use higher frequencies. If the record is noticeably dirty I first clean it on a VPI. I do use a surfactant with the Kirmuss. The last step is a much smaller reservoir, less expensive ultrasonic machine. It runs at 40kHz which I don't like but I have ultra pure water for the final rinse. I only do one minute of the final rinse. I've found that the cavitation does a good job of removing trace amounts of surfactant. Apparently the cavitation helps. Since it is a very clean record all I'm after is removing the surfactant, which allows me to rinse a number of records reusing the same batch of laboratory grade water.
Hi Rick. Thanks for watching. The Kirmuss is one of the units that uses the lowest ultrasonic frequency on the market. In their opinion, higher frequencies are dangerous and could cause damage. Opposite of what the research paper says. I try not to use surfactants. Instead I use alchohol. This way, I can skip the final rinse step. I do the same as you for dirty records. First give them a pre clean, and remove most of the surface dirt. Cheers. /Paul
@@XjunkieNL Thanks for the reply. Record cleaning is so frustrating because there is really no way to have a "control". How do you really evaluate? I understand the dispute about frequency. Certainly some of what Kirmuss says is in dispute. I've noticed no degradation to sound on a very high end system but cant't say it's impossible. My frustration, especially as a largely classical listener, is not really knowing when the remaining surface noise is permanent or could be further cleaned. I sometimes use just water and alcohol in the machine as you suggest. I even got a version of a spin clean to do an immersive pre rinse, then the pure water with a vacuum machine. I may be a little nuts.... The Kirmuss does definitely open up the sound a bit, especially noticeable on classical fare. More space and more open soundstage. It's the remaining noise that is flummoxing me. Thanks again.
I understand what your saying. And it makes it even harder to limit the amount/duration of ultrasonic cleaning. When are you getting the best sound out of the groove? In my opinion every cleaning has a limit of what it can remove. Mixing different methods can help to get the record cleaner. Instead of lenghtening the duration of cleaning. But the question remains, when do you know enough s enough? /Paul
@@XjunkieNL Yes, that's the question. I wish I knew. Or put another way, when do you get to the point that there are still issues but they can't be resolved on a given disc. Plus the inability to truly compare methods is maddening. Once you clean one.... Frustrating. And I think some techniques can cause their own issues.
Hi! Thanks for wachting and the comment. Who proclaimed the Audio Desk is the most safe unit? Did they do some comparisement test? Would be interesting to know how they preformed the test. Cheers. /Paul
what about alcohol isopropanol say 10% in your water? talking about water whats better distilled or deionised? I thought about turning my disco antistat into sonic cleaner not sure what frequency now! I was going to use 40 kHz should I go higher something like 80-100 kHz
Hi! That is what I'm using. A mix of distilled water and 5% alchohol. I don't think the difference between distilled and deionised will be noticable, especially after cleaning 1 record in the water. If you have the option, go with a ultrasonic frequency of 80kHz or higher. It will make the cleaning more effective. Hope this helps a little. Cheers. /Paul
@@XjunkieNL Here one guy ask about 10% iso in the water, and you suggest 5%. To me you suggested (a thread in your comment section here that I have deleted) only 2-3%, and now you suggest 25%?
The original question is when using isapropanol in an ultrasonic record cleaner. You want to use it in a different way. When you want to use it as a cleaning solution for manual cleaning in general a much higher concentration is suggested. /Paul
I thought so, that an ultrasonic machine would erode the record's surface just as water erodes rocks. Why would it be any different with soft PVC? I intend to use compressed air to dry the records, I have a little compressor motor for tires, although I'm hesitating about that, if it would be too aggressive for the vinyl too.
Hi! I like your comparisement to water eroding rocks. It just takes time, but the surface will erode. Your idea to clean records dry quickly with compressed air, reminds me of trying to dry the record, by spinning it with a drill. Living on the edge ;) As long as you can be 100% sure there are no particles in the compressed air, why not? Probably need some serious cleaning of the feeding air. Keep me updated :) Cheers. /Paul
Water erodes rocks? Well, yes, but we're talking about hundreds, even thousands of years, so the comparison is really weak. Air compression risks embedding grit and other nastiness into the record. Much more forcefully than water on rocks. Now, with ultrasonic, we're talking about tiny bubbles pop popping ever so gently against vinyl for five minutes, or so. Maybe after 1,000 years of that, the record might be damaged. But, that hard diamond turntable stylus will gut it much more quickly.
Only just now I hvave come across your article. Interesting read Thanx. Whoever thought that applying ultrasonic cleaning at any of the accepted frequencies for 30 minutes and 100°F is going to be anything but disastrous. I'd be very worried if my records were subjected to temperatures of 100° even in storage or use. With respect, citing tests on a material "similar" to the constuent materials that make up vinyl is not particularly scientific, its more about assumptions and speculation as materials can react completely differently, even though they seem similar. Whilst I agree vinyl is not entirely hydrophobic, it does display some of those characteristics, I tried removing all static before pouring distilled water on a record and it reacts just the same. It wants to pour away and sits on the surface. In my trial and error tests only tiny amount of ilfotol is required to break water surface tension and my results are far better sonically for using than not. I also don't believe Ultrasonic cleaning is needed much once the record is cleaned properly and stored in good conditions. I don't think ultrasonics are that good at cleaning oily residues from records with just plain distilled water. I now have two Humming Guru machines, one of which I use for the clean whilst the second I use for a rinse dry but I also spritz the surface of the record with distilled water spray before it goes into the final rinse and dry. It's the only way I can keep most of the contaminants if any, picked up from the water bath surface or suspended in the cleaning reservoir away from the cleaned record. I know I could go on and on in this respect, but sonically, I have reached an optimal solution where it takes between 10-15 minutes to obtain great results on my system playback. I use a pretty resolving TT with a line contact Moving Coil cartridge which easily tells me if I have done a good job. Finally I would add I still use a knosti with "Arte du Son" fluid, if I purchase a record second hand that has bad oily contamination, before then spritzing and running through the two stage process mentioned earlier. All my judgements are based on listening, not so much the visuals. Thanks for your article. There was much to agree with, not least, that Ultrasonics have an important role, particularly in the first proper clean and enjoyment of vinyl playback.
Hi Gerald. Thank you for comment and sharing the way you clean your records. I like the way you clean your records. For very dirty second hand vinyl I too use Arte Du Son for a first clean. Sorry I don't feel I speculate with myth number one. For sure, the question is, can you extrapolate the results. The research observed that the polystyrene plastic had higher weight loss at lower ultrasonic frequencies than with higher ultrasonic frequencies. As polystyrene plastic is harder than vinyl my assumption is that vinyl will show a similar effect to ultrasonic frequencies. If the water beads up on your record it is hydrophobic. It shows the opposite, it forms a puddle. You are right with Ilfotol you get a bigger puddle :) All the best. Cheers. /Paul
Hi Paul, very interesting video. What ultrasound frequency do you use/recommend for cleaning vinyl? Presumably this method cannot be used for the solid 78 Shellac records?
Hi Rudie. Unfortunately I have no experience with 78 records. In general, if the budget allows it, I would suggest an ultrasonic frequency of 80 kHz or higher. This gives 10 times as much bubbles as 40 kHz, and the bubbles also have 10 times less energy. Cheers. /Paul
Greetings Paul, Great video and very interesting info on possible vinyl degradation with ultrasonic cleaning. My home built vacuum system, info below, seems to get whatever grime/dirt which can be removed, out. I have been looking at less expensive ultrasonic cleaners and found one for ~$250 and it will do up to 6 disk at a time; the unit is made by Vevor. No purchased yet. This will sound crazy but I plan to use the vacuum system and then check on a turntable for noise etc. second step will be ultrasonic cleaning for 5 minutes and a final cleaning with my vacuum system. this will be to clean any possible grunge from the ultrasonic system water. One huge advantage to me is you vacuum off the residual water and contaminates on a vacuum system which is NOT done on an Ultrasonic system and my thinking about a 3 step cleaning process. Most of the time, 1 or, sometimes 2 passes with my vacuum system is all that is needed. However, once in a while, the results are not as good as I would like. Adding the ultrasonic step may make a difference occasionally. Hoping !!! This sounds like nuts but most vinyl fans, self included, are a little out there..LOL I lived through the era of, "vinyl is dead and CD's are the answer." I even bought several high end CD players which were very good but the vinyl with it's flaws always seemed more musical to me. The important part of a vacuum system is good wet/dry vacuum cleaner and a vacuum wand. I bought an old platter on ebay for $10 and used a microwave rotisserie motor, free from a scrapped microwave oven. Using my table saw, I built a box to house the platter and wand and I believe it works better than anything you can buy, primarly because of the vacuum unit I bought called the BEAST. I bough mine when they were selling for ~$75 and now, new on Amazon they are ~$100. I suspect you can find a good one on epay for less. All and all I have about $120 in my vacuum unit. Others have put up videos on DIY record cleaners on YT. Here is the wet/dry vacuum I bought and it dose the job very well. www.amazon.com/dp/B074BR5RV9/ref=redir_mobile_desktop?_encoding=UTF8&aaxitk=1a6701f89da36a5e6b11d0b801279370&hsa_cr_id=5675002680101&pd_rd_plhdr=t&pd_rd_r=d1b0c7e7-c749-432b-a501-cb2bfabc8199&pd_rd_w=OM2t3&pd_rd_wg=pOKGl&ref_=sbx_be_s_sparkle_lsi4d_asin_1_img And you can spend a fortune on the various digital formats, DAC's, transports, cables bla bla bla or put on some good vinyl jazz, classical etc and life is good. Best regards, Glenn USA
Hi Glenn. Thanks for watching and the comment. That sounds as a plan! Maybe two remarks, based on my experience with both cleaning methods. Ultrasonic will clean, vacuum cleaned records, even cleaner. Ultrasonic isn't great at removing pops and clicks. It is great at getting the smallest stuff out of the groove. This will make the record sound even better. My choice would be a vacuum clean as a pre-clean. Especially a setup as you describe will get all the dirt and grit from the record. Next an ultrasonic clean as a final rinse. This way you have the best of both worlds. Just my two cents :) Cheers. /Paul
Hi Tracy. When you want to take zero risk. Keep it in the box and return it. On the other hand the Degritter is a fantastic machine that will clean your records like you never heard them before. Thanks for the comment. Cheers. /Paul
Hi, does anyone know if Humminguru is safe to use? Also would I be better off with vacuum machine because I do not want to degrade the record? It seems ultrasonic can degrade the vinyl. Thanks for your comments!
Hi James. Thanks for the comment. I have no experience with the Humminguru. In general vacuum machines clean records very well. Especially very dirty records. As far as I know there is no other method, than ultrasonic cleaning, that gets the last bits of dirt out of the groove. Cheers. /Paul
Hi Bart. I have no personal experience with the HumminGuru record cleaner. It is great news more companies are entering the ultrasonic record cleaning market. And make the method available to more people. Thanks for checking out the video. Cheers. /Paul
Hi! Maybe not the answer you expected. I don't count the number of records cleaned. I change the water every two weeks. This independently of the number of records. Have a nice Sunday. Cheers. /Paul
Hi Frank. Hahah, I would have guessed the rest of the world would have picked up on this new discovery. The molecule has a form of a frisbee ;) Cheers. /Paul
@@XjunkieNL make a 1% percent solution which last about month since it is biodegradable. We use it in our labs so I called them and they were very knowledgeable about it's application in vinyl record cleaning. I highly recommend it. And it is a lot cheaper then buying the name brands. which to be honest I think are using it in some capacity. Well give the folks a call, the older gentleman I spoke with was highly helpful
I use distilled water, a splash of Isopropyl alcohol, 8 minutes on new LPs, 12 minutes on old or very dirty LPs and water at 32 Celsius, anything above that and LPs warp, sure they spring back once cooled but still makes me nervous.
Hi! Your recipe is the same as mine. Only difference is I use shorter cleaning times. As an experiment have you ever tried shortening the cleaning time by for example 2 minutes? I would not be surprised if you get similar results as before. Thanks for watching and the comment. Cheers. /Paul
@Albee213 What is a splash of Isopropanol. How much? I wish someone can make a proper video on YT on how to hand wash LPs without much hassle. I am also lazy but I won't buy a $3000 machine to do it.
@@XjunkieNL Thanks Paul. I just ordered a Vevor us machine. Should be here on Tuesday. I plan on cleaning lps to loosen the junk in the groove before using the Vevor, and just using distilled water and a bit of heat during the us cleaning cycle, also using a variable voltage wall wort to slow it down a bit. I'll begin at 5 minotes. Then I'll use a Nitty Gritty vacuum macine to dry. Thank you for your lucid tutorials.
Cool to hear you're stepping into the world of ultrasonic record cleaning. Will add a new dimension to your records. Your cleaning procedure sounds as a good plan, Nick. Probably don't need to add any heat, as the ultrasonics will raise the temperature of the water. Have fun :) /Paul
Thank you for this great video and lots of important information. But I have a question. So you say to keep the cleaning time down to five minutes or so. But each time you clean the record you’re compounding that to five, 10, 15, 20… Isn’t that essentially doing the same thing over time as cleaning the record for 30 minutes? I look forward to your response. Thanx
Hi! You're right, if you do multiple cleanings of the same record. You are adding to the total cleaning time. If multiple cleanings are necessary, it's maybe even more important to limit the cleaning time when using an ultrasonic record cleaner. Thanks for the comment. Have a nice weekend. Cheers. /Paul
Interesting but I think a good basin type cleaning with a vacuum, rinse and vacuum will do as well as US. I think myth #6 is that US is the ultimate record cleaning method. Give me a solution of distilled water, Triton X-100 and Iso alcohol (leave off the alcohol if you want), submerge the record in a basin with goat hair brushes, spin it a few times. For especially dirty records you might want to scrub with a painter's pad first. Take a shop vac and vacuum it dry, put it in a rinse basin with distilled water, spin it a few times and vacuum it dry. If that doesn't remove the noise odds are good that it's vinyl damage not dirt particles that make it sound pop, click or hiss. That's just my opinion.
Hi Elliott. For sure ultrasonic cleaning is not the ultimate way to clean records. The method is not very suited for very dirty records. The way you clean your records will for sure get out all the dirt that may cause pops and clicks. From personal experience ultrasonic takes record cleaning to the next level for already pretty clean records. Sonically it can improve in ways I wasn't able with other cleaning methods. Thanks for comment. Always curious how other people clean their records and the results they get. Cheers. /Paul
I like your willingness to experiment. Only your own ears can convince if it makes a difference. Sounds maybe strange, take your most clean record, not the one you weren't able to get a 100% :) /Paul
Other test show that 40kHz ultrasonic cleaner do damage to record after 3-4 cleaning 6 min each. 120+kHz not. So if you wash once or maybe two times you should be ok.
Hi! I do not know how the other tests are done. Ultrasonic is a continuous process. It cleans and attacks the surface continuous. When it becomes audible, is probably also dependent on the playback equipment. As you indicated excessive cleaning times can harmful. Thanks for the comment. /Paul
Thanks a lot. I clean at 26-28 celcius arround 6 minutes. Motor spin 2,5 round Per minute. No filter yet. Activated charcoal? Techni 8:56 al artificial citron wool? What do you use in The filter, please?
Hi Mich. I make my own DIY filter. The filter material is from an aquarium store. You have also many proffesionel solutions. Thanks for watching. Cheers. /Paul
Gewoon dreft met tap water werkt prima. Wel snel zijn. Heb alles geprobeerd maar dat is het snelst en de rest krijgt het niet schoner. En er kan ook het minst mis gaan als je een goed systeem hebt.
Hallo! Zo deed ik het vroeger ook. Wel spoelde ik na met gedestilleerd water. Zonder twijfel is het een van de snelste manieren om de plaat schoon te krijgen. Nieuwsgierig wat voor borstel gebruik je. Groet. /Paul
@@XjunkieNL De gladde kant van een schuurspons. Grote probleem van ultrasone cleaner is dat ie vooral voor vingerafdrukken goed werkt. Als er echt vuil op zit moet je de hele machine schoonmaken na elke plaat die je wast. Anders zit je in het vieze water van de plaat ervoor te werken. En normaal water (niet te hard) is ok maar je moet het er wel goed en redelijk snel en goed afhalen. Alleen laten opdrogen is een probleem. Dan kan je beter wel gedestilleerd water gebruiken. Nadeel van gedestilleerd water is wel dat je het niet met druk op de plaat kan spuiten. Dus als je spoelt na normaal water met gedestilleerd zou ik dus een schone spons gebruiken om aanslag van normaal water eraf te halen. En ik werk met 2 sponzen. 1 voor aanbrengen zeep (1 drupje dreft is genoeg op natte spons) en 1 voor verspreiden zeep en zacht poetsen. Deze laatste spons maak ik geregeld schoon want komt vooral met vuil in aanraking.
terrific. thanks for the science. i built a DIY cleaner with vacuum and tergitols, and now have a VEVOR US bath to try. the rotation seems a bit fast, maybe 4 or 5 rpm, do you think it matters?
Hi Brian. Sorry for my late response, missed your comment earlier. Cool to hear you're building your own cleanig unit. In general the slower the better. The movement of the record makes the ultrasonic cleaning less effective. Although the record must rotate to get it clean. Cheers. /Paul
@@XjunkieNL the records sound better, more high end and also firmer bass. They were reasonably clean before. it is quite a treat to have better sound. My very good system no longer makes me want to change it.
Agreed totally. Like an equipment upgrade. I like the tergitols too in a mild solution. I think perhaps the stylus is more able to accurately follow the recorded sound without the tiny side trips caused by the dirt the ultrasonic removes. After a few relatively clean records are U.S., tiny amounts of crud can be seen in the tank bottom and suspended. I had worked my way up to my "lifetime" system in about 1998, one piece at a time, (Rotel rtc 850 preamp tuner rebuilt to factory spec, Schitt audio Loki eq, Bryston 3B ST amp, fanatically rebuilt SL1700 TT, Shure V15 mkiv with $250 Jico stylus, and Focal Colonne 800 towers.(excellent).) I became dissatisfied with the system but thought I had reached the end of the audio quest or my hearing was going. It used to be satisfying but wasn't anymore. By chance, thinking I had a bad cart, I found a dirty MM/MC switch, next a dirty eq switch then deoxed everything including speaker contacts. Much better, back near the way it should be. Tried a $700 Denon MC cartridge, not as good sounding as the Shure with Jico. Surprised me. Then.... imagine my shock when it sounded like a $10,000 upgrade when good records that had been cleaned were played. Of course at this stage a 10,000 upgrade is only a actual small sound improvement to the obsessed, BUT it's there! Wow. I am going to clean anything that still has pops once more for 5 min.
Great video, thanks for the insights. Any thoughts on the rotational speed of the records in the bath? My motor on my Isonic cleaner is a fast 5 rpm some say it needs to be slower. With damage possibly being done durning longer wash times, are slow rotational speeds a bad thing by slowing that moving target down?
Hi Steve. Thanks for watching. In general I would say no movement at all is the best. This is practical not feasable. Best alternative is to move as slow as possible. For the amount of time the record spend in the water, it doesn't matter if it turn fast or slow. The cleaning will be better at slow speeds. Cheers. /Paul
it looks like, the degritter is more expensive than cheaper ones as it runs at 120 kHz, cheaper ones (including converting a desktop one used to clean jewelry run at 40kHz. Which may cause damage - still to be determined with records. Looking for similar ultra sonic cleaners, there is a clear jump in price with higher frequencies. From a 100 bucks to about 1000 bucks I've considering just getting one of the cheap ones and converting it to hold lps (other people do) and now I'm wondering if that is not the right path.
Hi! I'm convinced that ultrasonic cleaning (any frequency) will most likely damage vinyl. When using the lower ultrasonic frequencies. I would take extra caution and don't prolong the cleaning time any longer as necessary. In general higher ultrasonic frequencies have also other benefits when cleaning records. Thanks for the comment. Cheers. /Paul
30 minutes of ultrasonic by 40° Celsius is not what I Would call a cleaning time which is similar the way I clean my records, rather 5 min max room temperature water no solvent so if there is wear and tear in my case it is too small to hear it back and is on par with the wear the stylus does on the groove. thx again informative and entertainment as usual 👊
Hi Anjo! You will be surprised how many people use a long cleaning time. Hahah, room temperature has really gone up the last few days. Making the cleaning proces more efficient ;) Thanks for watching. All the best. Cheers. /Paul
@@XjunkieNL by the way a longer period of cleaning of the record doesn't take away the pops and groove noise which majorly comes from jitter of the stylus but it's a first step arm cartridge adjustment is crucial.
@@anjovandijk9797 just what I said higher up in the thread. That longer times do not remove the clicks and pops. And "X junkie NL" agreed. All that I am trying to say that then we all 3 have the same experience. And probably that is the case especially when we use different machines cleaning formula and har manny years of ultrasound cleaning experience accumulated together. That is little of a sad thing when for me I had the hope that this cleaning method that I think is one of the superior ones should maybe be able to reduce more of the clicks and pops.. When I got into this.. 🎵🎶👍
Hi Anjo. I agree, probably quite a few times the record or damage on the record is blamed for bad sound. While in actual fact it is mistracking of the needle. Have a sunny evening :) /Paul
Hi Matt. The research doesn't mention how and if they cleaned the sample. It does mention "there is a very clear relationship between the decreasing weight loss and the increasing ultrasonic frequency...the difference in surface erosion can be seen in the SEM pictures...the surface that is more eroded reveals more of the underlying glass fibres.". Thanks for the comment and watching. Cheers. /Paul
Hi! I'm sure it's a great combo to clean records. Have you ever tried ultrasonics? Maybe fun to see what happens if you give a final clean with ultrasonics. Thank for watching. Cheers. /Paul
Hi! Thanks for the question. Personally I haven't a great method to clean moldy records. It is more trial and error. Most of the times repeated cleans help. All the best. Cheers. /Paul
Hi Nick. Here you will need to find a balance. A higher temperature of the water will increase the effectiveness of the cleaning process. I use a Degritter record cleaning machine that swichtes off the ultrasonics at 35 degrees celcius automatically. In general it's difficult the keep the temperature stable at a specific level, the temperature will rise as the ultrasonic pumps energy in the water. Thanks for the question. Cheers. /Paul
Hi Antonio. The study suggest the ultrasound has modified the physical surface. This due the abrasive action of the energetic micro jetting. The changes in the surface, as seen in the pictures, results in the observed weight loss. Thanks for watching. Cheers. /Paul
Pre-cleaning does seen by far the most reasonable option. If not done, one is at best putting excess of grime into the solution. It might be best thought of that we are not cleaning records but we are removing contaminants of different natures (size, etc.). Therefore, it makes best sense to use the best cleaning method for the nature of the contaminant, hence, pre cleaning. Thanks for another fine presentation!
I stopped using mine on new records after doing some listening tests. I thought I heard some dulling if the sound. I only use it on super dirty records.
Hi! Interesting to hear your experience. Would you be willing to share the setup you used? Things like ultrasonic frequency, cleaning times. Have a great weekend. Cheers. /Paul
Hi again. Depends a little. Am I patient enough to clean it first before spinning it ;) Usually I do it, when I notice the new record is static when I pull it out of the sleeve. /Paul
when starting to work ,the material used on bacterial culture i used to clean it in a ultrasonic bathtub but high temperature water and ultrasound ,the first seems not good to records and the second one couldn´t be in the same room or would get crazy with the sound coming from the machine, so this ones to clean records don´t seem to make noise ,is it really a ultrasonic machine?
Hello! The sound is in part related to the used ultrasonic frequency and the number of transducers. Higher frequency gives lower noise in the frequency band we can hear as humans. Thanks for the comment. Cheers. /Paul
Hey Teddy. Thanks! Guess what is playing in the background while I'm answering the comments? Musings In Blackness! That what a productive weekend :) Stay safe. Stay Funky. Cheers. /Paul
Hello Paul, if I just use distilled water and alcohol for ultrasonic process, do you think it is necessary to rinse it just with water after the process ?
Hi! That is the recipe I use for cleaning. The water and alcohol will almost completely evaporate and leave no residue. There is no direct reason for a rinse. Thanks for the question. Cheers. /Paul
I followed your theory about not using surfactants, I ended up wasting time, and getting dirty records, now I use it with great results, I am sure that you are a knowledgeable man, but I believe the other guys who are not scientists like you, were right.
Hi! My theory is that surfactants are not a necessity. If, like in your case, the record isn't clean, why not use some surfactant to improve the efficiency of the cleaning? Not wrong with it, but you will need to implement an extra rinsing step. Have a great Sunday. Cheers. /Paul
@@XjunkieNL Hi Paul. In this case, isn't Isopropanol a surfactant? Why does Iso need to be rinsed, when on the bottle it says it cleans e.g. electronics and leave no traces, it vaporises. Thanks for you insights. Finally found 100% distilled water at a computer store. I'm waiting for the result (records are drying atm); used your method of distilled water with 2-3% Iso and used the 100% cotton pads. After cleaning a few rounds with the pads, I put on distilled water only at the end, and used a fresh cotton pad to "rinse" it this way, and then I ended with using a dry microfibre cloth to get off most of the water so it would air-dry faster. I wonder if the microfibre cloth will add static. Have to mention that while I am doing all this the vinyl record lies on a big window-cleaning-cloth (cloth that doesn't scratch anything) - will this add static while cleaning as well?
Hi again. No isopropanol is an alcohol. It doesn't need to be rinsed off. As you mention, it vaporises almost completely. This is why it is an excellent cleaner. If you use it with the cosmetic pads I would increase the concentration to something like 25%. Cheers. /Paul
@@XjunkieNL the isopropanal or any alcohol is a surfactant because it breaks down the water tension are you disagreeing with that? And really dionised water is better than distilled it's pure that's why it's used in medical
Hi. Although maybe some properties between alcohol and surfactants are the same, the biggest difference is that alcohol almost completely evaporites. Water quality is important, but don't forget as soon as a dirty vinyl record enters the water, the water is contaminated. Thanks for the comment. Cheers. /Paul
Thanks for this Paul! One option is to use the surfactant directly on the record, (rubbed in with a brush) and then removed with distilled water before putting the record in the ultrasonic cleaned. That make sense to you?
Hi! Using surfactant directly on the record will certainly help the cleaning effect. The concentration is most probably higher on the record surface compared to adding the surfactant to the water tank. This means it will be harder to remove from the surface. A simple rinse with distilled water will not remove it. The last step with ultrasonic cleaner will probably help to remove it, but it will be in the ultrasonic bath now. Hope this helps a little. Cheers. /Paul
Hi. The Kirmuss is one of the units that uses the lowest ultrasonic frequency on the market. In their opinion, higher frequencies are dangerous and could cause damage. Opposite of what the research paper says. They seem to follow a different line of thinking. Thanks for watching. Cheers. /Paul
@@XjunkieNL Yes. As an owner of a Kirmuss machine, I am aware of its technology and the development that has been involved. It does a very good job; the only “downside” is that it is relatively slow and tedious. That said, I have been able to bring some LPs back from the scrap heap.
That's what it is all about. If you get the results you want. It's always a great feeling, saving a record that sounded crap. I believe Kirmuss is now also advising to limit the cleaning time. Which can only help any negative effect by the ultrasonic frequencies.
Hi Marty. Your comment made me smile. One thing that's great when using the Degritter surfactant, is the short drying time. When adding it, drying time is around 1:30 minutes, without it is approximately double. Thanks for watching. Cheers. /Paul
Hi, great video, made my think a bit ... In the graph showed about weight loss you might get the impression that higher Hz would be better, with lower weight loss, however, as can be seen on next page with the pictures, you clearly see that the plastic has melted. This is no surprise as the energy is higher the higher the frequenzy is. So high frequenzy is no no. As the so called glass transition temperature,when the material gets soft, is lower for PVC than PPE, should the temperature in the water be closely monitored. And why is temperature improving the cleaning? Is the ultrasonic as such improve by elevated temperatures? Or is it simply so the that the greasy stuff on the surface is easier removed due to the temperature is over the cloud point? You want to clean from grease over cloud point, like when cleaning a frying pan in hot water and not cold!! And the cloud point can be lowered by using a surfactant!!! So is there a sweet spot: Temperature, time,frequenzy and adding a good surfactant? In my proffession I come across new surfactants that are lowereing the surface tension much more than the ones, and with lower addition levels now used in these machines. I hope to find time to evaluate some surfactants coming months. Sorry for long comment...
Hi Anders. Thanks for the long comment. Main purpose of the video is to make you think :) Don't just accept the general consensus. Could it be that you mixed up the titles with the photos? It are the lower frequenties where the glass fiber is more visible. The energy of ultrasonic bubbles is depending on the size of the bubble. Smaller bubbles have a lower energy level. The higher the ultrasonic frequency, the smaller the size of the cavitation bubbles. Concerning the temperature of water. The solvent character of water is more efficitive at higher temperatures. Also cavitation is more easy at higher temperatures. If possible I like not to use surfactants. As you probably know better as me. The last part to leave a suface, before it is clean, is the added surfactant. On the other hand surfactant are a great addition to make the whole cleaning process more effective. Curious to hear about your results and what you see. Happy holidays. Cheers. /Paul
Hi Carsten. You have two great machines. Before going ultrasonic I build a DIY Loricraft, and though it was the best way to clean records. Have you ever tried to do it the other way around? Use the Loricraft for pre-cleaning and do the final clean with an ultrasonic cleaner. Cheers. /Paul
@@XjunkieNL Hello Paul, thank you for the answer. I will try it out. But I think one of the main problems after cleaning is to dry the record properly. So I have to put it back again on to the Loricraft.😉Greetings, Carsten
Die spullen om de effecten te visualiseren doen mij altijd denken aan de middelbare school haha Leuk gedaan 😜 Ik ben wel verbaasd dat ultrasoon vinyl zou kunnen beschadigen, maar is de beschadiging ook echt significant na 5 minuten?
Hahah, precies, welkom in de klas. Wel een beetje stil zijn daar achterin :) Het oppervlak wordt vanaf het moment dat je het bad aanzet aangetast. Hoeveel en in welke mate is afhankelijk van de setup. Om die reden is het waarschijnlijk het beste de tijd zo kort mogelijk te houden. Fijne avond nog. /Paul
@@XjunkieNL Meester Paullll! Ik haat maandagen! 😂 Nee maar het is wel interessant dat andere frequenties zoveel verschil kunnen maken, ze hadden in dat onderzoek ook met nog hogere frequenties moeten testen. En met wat meer vloeistof, want volgens mij was dat getest met 200 ml ofzo, dus dat geeft wel een iets ander beeld dan een flinke tank cleaning vloeistof, dat is iets van 1 liter. De hoeveelheid watts per hoeveelheid vloeistof bepaald volgens mij hoeveel energie er in de vorm van belletjes vrij komt aan het oppervlak van het vinyl. Als dat evenredig aan elkaar is, zou dus bij een platenwasser maar ongeveer een vijfde van de energie op de plaat komen.
Hahah, ik denk dat je je huiswerk niet goed hebt gedaan ;) De hoogste toegepaste frequentie was 1142 kHz. Om de resultaten te vergelijken, wordt in het onderzoek inderdaad aangeven dat dit niet eenvoudig is. Mede door de verschillende baden, vermogens en volumes die zijn gebruikt. Om die reden is alles terug gerekend naar de specifieke akoestische energie die in de tank wordt gestopt. Op basis hiervan concluderen ze dat hoe hoger de gekozen frequentie, hoe lager het gemeten gewicht verlies. /Paul
In de video zie je bij 1:55 een histogram van de gemeten data. Bij de hoogst gebruikte frequentie is er nog steeds gewicht verlies. Het lijkt erop dat er helaas geen frequentie is waarop het gewicht verlies nul is. /Paul
Hi! Funny you mention this. I'm working on a video with this subject. And comparing it to ultrasonic cleaning. Will take some more time as it's not an easy subject. Have a nice weekend. Cheers. /Paul
Why would we use ultrasonic if there was a possibility of vinyl erosion Is the benefits so great that we’re willing to be very careful and take the chance 🤔
Hi Louis. Yes you are right. Ultrasonic record cleaning gives a level of cleanliness that is not possible with other methods. At least not to my knowledge. To limit the possibility of damage, it's a balance act, and it's good to be aware of the dangers. Thanks for watching. Cheers. /Paul
Thank you for pointing these things out to us.
Now I know that I've been setting my machine for way too long. 5 minutes or so would make the cleaning process much faster, rather than 20-30 minutes like I have been doing.
All the other points you've made are excellent too, and I have made note of all of them.
Thanks very much 👍 👍 👍
Hi! Hope the video helped. Bringing down the cleaning time will certainly bring down the risks involved. It's funny how some things like the cleaning time become standard, without anyone really know why. Keep those records clean :) Thanks for watching. Cheers. /Paul
Excellent - someone who thinks and applies scientific understanding. refreshing.
Hi Daniel. Thanks! I tried to give a little substance to the video, so more people are informed. All the best. Cheers. /Paul
Paul, first, thanks for this concise but expository overview of ultrasonics when it comes to cleaning records. I’ve been a huge fan of this method, and though I don’t use it at the moment (I use vacuum cleaning [VPI] with manual pre-cleaning), I’ve been researching various Usonic models over the past year, and this video is just confirmation that I need to pull the trigger on a unit sometime this year. Second, now you’re costing me MORE $$$ ;-)
See you soon brother. - TONE
Hey Tone! Thanks for the compliment. I've also started with vacuum cleaning. It did everything I was looking for. Probably like you got intrigued by ultrasonic record cleaning over time. Only good things to report. Well except, your second point, it is not cheap ;) Really impressed with the results. Stay save. Stay funky. Cheers. /Paul
Check out my Video on my machine I got it on E-bay for under $100 US dollars & built the rest I can do up to 6-7 records at a time ua-cam.com/video/u3lEKbwCGQw/v-deo.html Well worth the investment
Afternoon Paul👋🏻always enjoy these technical vids to help us understand and take care of our vinyl better...thanks- Lis
Good morning Lis. Nice to hear you enjoy these vids. It is also fun to make them. Have a great day. Stay well. Stay funky. Cheers. /Paul
I'm thankful for this video! I've been using a VPI 16.5 for about 10 years. I've always wanted to step up to ultrasonic, but the machines were out of my price range.
I'm just starting to seriously research since new ultrasonic machines are far lower in price. So any (real) information I can get on the process as a whole is VERY helpful. Thanks again!
Hi! Thanks for the comment. Great to hear the video was helpful. My precious method of cleaning was with a DIY vacuum record cleaning. It cleaned the records well and removed most of the clicks and pops. Ultrasonic takes record cleaning to the next level. All the best. Cheers. /Paul
@@XjunkieNL I have been using a VPI 16/16.5 since 1981. It worked okay and cleaned many dirty records (I have 28,500). Everyone said I could do better with the Kirmuss U.C. unit. 5 minutes, only 1.4 oz. of 70% isoprophyl to 1.75 g of distilled water, etc. sort of within your recommendation. However, after cleaning relatively clean records (15 so far), I find that they are NOISIER, more pops and ticks. They appear to have clearer, cleaner sound, better soundstage, pristine highs but at the cost of a noisier record which detracts from my enjoyment. I have a moderately high end audio system with a VPI TNT VI/SME IV modified/Dynavector 20XL L/Zesto Alllesso SUT/custom phono stages, etc. When I play records cleaned with the VPI, the pops and ticks diminish, do not accentuate. Should I dump the Kismuss UC and stick with my VPI using Disk Doctor fluid? Thanks
Hi Stephen! Thank you for sharing your experience. It shows there is not one way to get the best results. Although I'm surprised you're getting in part the advantages of ultrasonic cleaning. But also getting a negative listening experience. Have you found a reason for this? The first thing that comes to my mind is the drying. Is it maybe possible you are recontaminating the record? Probably, you've already tried it. As an experiment, let the record air dry and see if it changes the sound. Have a sunny sunday. Cheers. /Paul
@@XjunkieNL Is it best to just go straight to an ultrasonic or is it okay to start with a spin clean or simply a record label protector and a distilled water pump and do things manually? I can't decide at this point. Right now I just use a simple spray solution with a microfiber and I have a antistatic brush, that's it. But I finally have some records that really need a good cleaning that I bought used. Prior to this I was mostly dealing with new records so I've never yet really had the need to have a thorough cleaning system.
Hi. I would start with a spin clean. A cheap and easy way to clean records. Especially if you want to clean dirty second hand records. Maybe a later point in time you can see if you have a need for a ultrasonic cleaner. Cheers. /Paul
I once cleaned sunglasses in an ultrason. For 10 minutes and they came out damaged. Like they were sandblasted. So I’m hesitant to use it for cleaning softer vinyl.
Hi! Do you know if it was the coating on the sunglasses that was damaged, ot the glass itself? Opticians often use ultrasonic to clean glasses. One of the few ways to get them really clean. Thanks for the comment. Cheers. /Paul
@@XjunkieNL The glasses were completely ruined. I left them in there too long. It was a Bandelin RK100H. 35 kHz and 320 Watt.
Thank You for this video. I am a huge believer in wet cleaning a vinyl LP. I have been piqued by Ultrasonic Cleaners. I wonder if they are the greatest cleaning method. After watching this video, I have concluded that there is both a benefit and a detriment to using an ultrasonic device. I have decided to stay with my tried and true record cleaning style, warm water and a few drops of dish soap. And then a bath in the Spin Clean using distilled water. I get very clean LPs with minimal surface noise.
In truth, I suspected than an ultrasonic cleaner would leave the vinyl with some pitting issues from the cavitation.
Hi Vince. Thanks for the comment. There is not method that cleans every dirty perfectly clean. You need different techniques in your toolbox. I'm sure with your method you get most of the pop and tick free. Ultrasonic has the unique possibility to get some even deeper clean. But no cleaning method is without disadvantages. Have a sunny Sunday. Cheers. /Paul
For me it's the best analysis I've seen so far, thank you
Thanks! Much appreciate your comment. Cheers. /Paul
First I like your H2O model. You made this topic quite interesting. I don’t know a ton about ultrasonic but you made it very easy to understand especially for us slow people. Glad the fifth tip circled back around to the first myth. Very interesting Paul. Steve
Hey Steve. Happy to hear you enjoyed it. Hahah, you recognized the H2O model. You receive 10 extra bonus points. Tried to connect all the dots with myth number 5, nice to see you noticed. Cheers. /Paul
Science class is in session again! I wasn't sure you would still recommend ultrasonics after that intro 😉 These videos are really unique and deeply informative, thanks Paul!
Nice to see you joining class, Doug. But no giggling in the back, for my quirky H2O model, please :) Like your spot light videos, it's fun to go deep once in a while. Have a great weekend. Cheers. /Paul
Great science based approach - thank you!
For dirty records I use a SME Loricraft machine.
Probably even better for dirty records would be a pre-clean with the Loricraft and final clean with the an ultrasonic such as an Audio Desk machine. $$$$$
My Loricraft is relatively quiet. It takes about 15-20 minutes to clean a record if you carefully follow the directions.
I have never seen a Loricraft how-to video on UA-cam that accurately shows the proper use of the machine.
Fremmer has a video on the Loricraft but he rushes the process and misses important steps. Fremmer does mention using the Loricraft and following up with the Audio Desk.
Thanks again for your research based video and excellent presentation.
Hi Robert. Sorry for my late response. Your comment got lost between all others. For a long time, I have used a DIY Loricraft record cleaning machine. It was great fun experimenting with it to get an optimal result. It's a fantastic machine to clean records. For very dirty records, it is still my preferred method. Thanks for watching. Have a nice Sunday. Cheers. /Paul
Outstanding video. Thank you!
Hi Austin. Thanks for the comment! Appreciate the positive feedback. Cheers. /Paul
Thanks for this clear explanation. I'm going to make my own US cleaner. However I think I also need 2 Knosti's to pre-clean and rinse the most dirty records. In other words a lot of work. But when it works, I sit with a smile enjoying my 'repaired' records.
Hey Sjaak. Nice to see you're thinking of making your own ultrasonic cleaner. Have you seen my pre cleaning video tip? It's very effective. And you perhaps don't need an extra Knosti. Also if you have a very effective ultrasonic cleaning step, you can maybe do without surfactants. If you can leave them out, you can skip the final rinse step. Although if you have already own a Knosti why not use it :) All the best. Cheers. /Paul
@@XjunkieNL Thx. I still have a motor from my daughters disco mirrorball, so I can use that. In time I post a few pictures of my attemp. Yes I agree to use as less detergent or cleaning solvent of any kind as possible. I made that mistake in the past which I try to undo with the US cleaner.
Well I finally have to hand it to the UA-cam algorithm for steering me to a really helpful and informative video. Fascinating. I see by looking at your previous videos that I have a lot of deep diving to do. I was particularly interested in your presentation because I am on the verge of buying the Kirmuss ultrasonic machine (I am in US - East Coast), mainly due to it's attractive pricing. Will take a closer look at your video collection to help me decide. Thanks for the great vid. As they say, "hit subscribe." I did.
Thanks for the sub :) Happy to hear this video is helpful for you. If you like the Kirmuss, the iSonic P4875 could also be a nice alternative. Depending on the budget I would choose a machine with higher ultrasonic frequency. As the research paper shows there is an inverse correlation between the frequency and eroding of the surface. Have fun exploring all the different videos ;) Cheers. /Paul
@@XjunkieNL Thanks much for the suggestion on the iSonic. I'd not heard of that brand. Seems they both use 35k as their ultrasonic frequency. Kirmuss describes the 35k level as "safe." I will definitely read up on the iSonic and investigate at what levels other units are performing. Will also watch the vid again. Thanks.
The marketing material of Kirmuss says many things. Some true, some false. I'm sure the basic unit is a solid machine. The low frequency would suggest to seriously limit the cleaning times. Nothing more fun that to look and search a new toy :) Have fun! /Paul
Interesting and informative. Well done, Paul.
Good morning Jeff. Thanks! Nice to see you stopping by. Cheers. /Paul
Brilliantly explained, and very thoughtful and useful myth busting.
Hi! Thanks for the comment. Great to hear you like the it. Cheers. /Paul
Really interesting vid Paul... I don’t know about the science of cleaning records but I know there is always a pay off between mechanical cleaning and solvent based cleaning. A problem with using non ionic surfactantants in solution is that it needs to be “cleared” after being on the surface as a “secondary treatment”. As you said vinyl is not completely water repellant and the grooves will potentially trap both pollutants and surfactant residue. I imagine most stronger solvent solutions (eg Isopropyl alcohol with deionised water) would evaporate better at higher temperatures but are likely to soften the structural integrity of the record. I think that ultrasonic cleaning is the least invasive method, followed by deionised water which is dried at ambient temperature. Cleaning with poultices should also minimise abrasion but removing the residue is problematic.
Hey Ed! As with all things in life, nothing comes free, there is always a trade off. Like you I feel too often it is underestimated how surfactant interact and are 'searching' for surfaces. It's really needs a second cleaning step just to remove the surfactants. The biggest advances of using alcohols is that they almost completely evaporate. But again there trade offs :) Thanks for the comment. Cheers. /Paul
@@XjunkieNL at work we often use denatured alcohol to “pre-wet” cracks before injecting with consolidant adhesives as it travels much further than water and allows maximum capillary action. (Probably not relevant to records!) I think I might experiment on some albums using acid free tissue as a poultice wetted with your mix.
Hahah, everything is relevant to records, Ed :) Sounds a nice experiment. Let me know how it goes. Always curious to learn more. Have a great weekend. /Paul
I got me a Degritter. One lump sum of $2800 and my records clean themselves better than I could manually. The cleaner the record, the cleaner the stylus / brushes / record sleeves. Most importantly, the sound is crisp like a CD unless it's a bad pressing. Not being able to tell for sure drove me nuts before.
Hi! That is one cool record cleaning machine. Perhaps the best that is available in the world. Now what to do with all that time you have freed up? :) All the best. Cheers. /Paul
Hi I would like to say that I have watched quite a few thing on you tube about Vinyl records cleaning , care , ect and found you .....this is a guy I can trust ....thank you so much for your time ....the only other comment is what sort of temperature would you use ....??
Hi Richard. Thank you for the kind words! Always great to read positive feedback. Temperature wise, I personally prefer room temperature. Although ultrasonic will increase the temperature of the cleaning water. In general, it is said to limit it to a maximum of 35 Celcius (95 F). Thanks for the comment. Cheers. /Paul
What you said pretty much is what I have been doing. Except that I still use Triton X100, but I probably will stop. I do a Spin Clean rinse after the ultrasonic to get the clinging dirt off. Thanks for the video.
Hi! Thanks for the comment. Probably nothing wrong with adding a little Triton X100. Although I hope the video makes you curious what happens if you leave it out. Cleaning records is always a bit of experimenting. Cheers. /Paul
That was wonderful and informative, Paul! I'll have to watch it again to wrap my head around the science parts. Thank you for doing this!
Cheers, Tom
Hey Tom! Thanks. Took some time to prepare this one :) A lot of small little facts are incorporated. Have a nice weekend. Cheers. /Paul
You may think I'm crazy, but I use Totally Awesome Orange cleaner from Dollar Tree. One tablespoon with 8 oz of distilled water (16/1 ratio), a couple of drops of Dollar Tree dish detergent, and one tablespoon of 99% Isopropyl alcohol. The records look and sound great after cleaning with my VPI HP17 record cleaner.
Hi Robert. I think in general us vinyl junkies are all a bit crazy ;) I can see that working. Maybe a bit aggresive. I like that you are using different cleaning agents with different characteristic. This must work any many different kinds of dirt that could be on the record. Thanks for sharing recipe. All the best. Cheers. /Paul
Well done video I have been considering but have reservations. Your video is very insightful thanks. Great job ...
Thanks for the comment, Dan. Hope the video was helpful. And showed some of the pro's and con's of this cleaning method. Cheers. /Paul
Thank you for pointing these things out to us.
Hi Mihael. And thank you for watching :) Hope the video was helpful. All the best. /Paul
and now: brace yourself for some highly educational content. nice one.
Hahah, thanks. It's fun to do these ones in a while and mix it up. Cheers. /Paul
Like yours you mean lol
Logic and Science for the win!
Hi again! Thanks for watching. Hope you enjoyed me debunking more myths ;) Cheers. /Paul
I'll definitely be lowering my cleaning times going forward, great info here paul
Good morning Alex! Hope the video was helpful. Lowering the cleaning time is a smart move. I don't think you will see a change in the cleaning result. Cheers. /Paul
Paul a highly informative video - thank you. Is there a particular brand of ultrasonic cleaner you prefer?
Hi Gordon. This is really dependent on budget and needs. In general I would say the first thing to look at, is the power rating and number of transducers. Preferably an unit with at least 3 transducers and 150W ultrasonic power. Also try to find an unit with a ultrasonic frequency of at least 40kHz, preferably higher 80kHz or more. If you have the possibility look at the build quality. Hope this helps a little. Happy holidays. /Paul
Hello Paul, thanks for the insightful information. I’m debating myself with a Degritter since I’m kinda lazy about record cleaning :). Trying to get to a conclusion from your perspective, best way to clean a NM, VG+ or even VG record would be a the Degritter, high frequency, short cleaning time and using alcohol?
Hi! Since I was a beta tester for the Degritter. So my opinion is biased :) This is the perfect machine to get your records clean, especially if you are lazy. The technical specifications are the best in class. It cleans every record. Records graded VG or worst, I would recommend a pre clean to remove some of the surface dirt. The support and build quality of the machine is also first class. I can wholeheartedly recommend it. Hope this helps a little. All the best. Cheers. /Paul
Great video. A watt recommendation would be fine. How much do you need to be effective - and how much is too much?
Hi Dries! I wish I could give a recommendation. But I don't have the experience or knowledge. The power needed is directly related to the ultrasonic frequency you are using. In general too much power heats the water too quickly. Hope this helps a little. Cheers. /Paul
@@XjunkieNL Hi Paul. My US cleaner from Poland has only 50 Watt, and the result is fine. I know other machines that use 150 Watt and the Degritter even has 300 Watt, and has a maximum cleaning time of 10 minutes. I prefer a "softer" and longer cleaning time (3x 10 minutes) which might be better for my vinyl. Cheers Dries
Hi Dries. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. The softness of ultrasonic is defined by the frequency used. The frequency determines the size of the bubble. The smaller the bubble the softer the ultrasonic cleans the surface. The power determines how many bubble are the water. Not completely true, but 3x 10 minutes gives the same result as increasing the power 3x and cleaning 10 minutes. Cheers. /Paul
Hi X junkie NL, excellent video. Thank you.
Do you have any views / thoughts on ultrasonically cleaning records regarding the following;
1) Location of the Transducers i.e. bottom mounting Transducers (like the typical commercial ultrasonic cleaning baths for normally cleaning jewelry, metal objects etc. suspended in a hanging basket that are also being used for cleaning records with a record spinner) or side mounting Transducers (like the Degritter Huminguru & KLaudio LP200T dedicated ultrasonic record cleaning machines) ?
2) The ultrasonic frequency used (ranging from 40kHz up to over 200+ kHz) for record cleaning ?
3) The actual power of the ultrasonics cleaning the record (with the volume of water inside the Ultrasonic Cleaning Machine playing an important part i.e. typical commercial ultrasonic cleaning baths having a large volume of water in comparison to the Degritter, Huminguru and KLaudio LP200T dedicated URCMs which have relatively small volumes of water for the actual cleaning of the record (i.e. not the volume of the water tank that feed these URCMs)) ?
Reason I ask these important questions above, is I am considering going down the Ultrasonic Cleaning route for my records even though I currently thoroughly clean my records (and have been the last 10+ years) with my trusty original Keith Monks Classic Vacuum Record Cleaning Machine (which the BBC Archive Dept used to have and use) where I give my records a full pre-wash & main wash regime with the recommended Keith Monks Discovery Cleaning Fluid and the latest technology Keith Monks record cleaning brushes and then a final rinse on the Keith Monks RCM with pure distilled water vacuuming the fluid off between each of these cleaning (pre-wash, main wash & rinse) stages. And yet even after this thorough cleaning regime of my records on my Keith Monks RCM, I can still hear clicks and pops on a lot of my records (I am a critical listener i.e. I listen to most of my records on my TOTL Headphone System - a Hifiman EF1000 Amp with Hifiman Susvara Headphones linked to my CH Precision P1 & X1 Phono Stage linked to my Kuzma XL DC Turntable with Kuzma 4Point 11" Tonearm & MSL Eminent Ex cartridge) even new records that have never been played before. Therefore to remove these clicks and pops wondering and hoping that ultrasonic cleaning will remove them.
Your thoughts on the above would be greatly appreciated.
Hi Mark. Thanks for watching and the comment. You will probably not like my answer. With your Keith Monks you probably have the best possible record cleaning machine to remove pops and clicks. This is based on my own experience with a DIY Keith Monks. Pop and clicks are usually caused by 'bigger' particles. Ultrasonic is not the best to remove these, especially if you can't remove them with your current washing regime, or you must be willing to use a low frequency and lots of power. Have you tried different cleaning solutions? There is not one cleaning solution that can handle every type of dirt. Ultrasonic will remove the 'small' particles. Particles that the Keith Monks can't remove. This improve the sound quality no question, but these aren't the particles that cause pops or clicks. Love your playback setup by the way. hope one day to try out a My Sonic Lab cartrigde. Have a nice Sunday. Cheers. /Paul
@@XjunkieNL HI Paul, Thank you for your informative and very helpful reply. Very much appreciated.
I will try some different cleaning solutions then from other Manufacturers i.e. Clearaudio products with my Keith Monks RCM and also try some DIY cocktails and see how this goes, and do more online research & reading into Ultrasonic Cleaning for records.
FY; The My Sonic Lab (MSL) Eminent Ex cartridge I have sounds great through my CH P1 Phono Stage as I am using the current / transimpedance input of the P1 which is perfect for the MSL Eminent Ex due to it's very low internal impedance.
It will only help to have a toolbox of tricks to clean these beautiful black round pieces of pvc :) /Paul
A very good and informative video. I'm using the iSonic CS 6.1-PRO for my 78 rpm records, which are made from shellac and not vinyl. I usually clean ten at a time for 12 minutes in 25 Celsius water. Would you, for shellac which contains a certain amount of organic material, recommend a shorter cleaning time or any other adjustments?
Hej Stig. Thanks for your kind words. Personally I have no experience with 78 shellac records. In general I wouldn't suggest a cleaning time of more than 5 minutes. How did you come to 12 minutes? Maybe a pre clean could be benifical to remove some of the surface dirt. Hope this helps a little. Have a great Sunday. Cheers. /Paul
Hi Paul. Once again a very interesting subject and answers. I really enjoy my hobby of record collecting, playing and even cleaning. I just received a Degritter and can’t wait to give it a go. I remember you had one and wondered if you still use it. And if so so you use any cleaning agent or surfactants in yours. I have several new records I will clean first and I’m leaning toward not using anything but distilled water. Thanks again for all your videos. I really enjoy them all.
Hi David. Congrats with your new Degritter. You got one awesome record cleaner. You can play around, and see what works best for you. Nothing wrong with only using water. That is in part the message of this video. My Degritter is still going strong. And I'm very happy with it. When cleaning second hand records, I usually add some alcohol to the water. Have fun. Cheers. /Paul
Just wondering How is your machine working for you? I use reverse osmosis water only in my ultrasonic machine
@@paulc5358 I love my machine. I think it took my cleaning to a whole new level plus. I am able to get lab grade water and feel good using that. I’m betting your water is great to use. Not having all the contaminants to start with is a plus. Enjoy your records!
@@davidroot298 It works for me & the water is cheap. Happy Spinning
One comment - only about 1/3 of the record is immersed in the cleaner at any given moment. Running the cleaner for 5 minutes represents cleaning the whole record for only 1.67 minutes. Running it for 30 minutes really mean cleaning the whole record for about 10 minutes.
Hello Walter. I see your point. The 5 minutes I mention in the video, aren't exact science. More in general, if you don't see a direct cleaning effect using ultrasonic, my personal opinion is that you need to start thinking. Just prolonging the cleaning time can cause more harm than good. If you take into account the record rotates during cleaning, I would say an active time of 2 minutes. Thanks for the comment. Cheers. /Paul
How do we know the weight loss observed in the study was due to loss of Noryl material and not loss of dirt and debris? I would expect a clean record to weigh slightly less than a dirty one.
Hi Anthony. The paper doesn't mention if they cleaned the sample first. It does mention "there is a very clear relationship between the decreasing weight loss and the increasing ultrasonic frequency...the difference in surface erosion can be seen in the SEM pictures...the surface that is more eroded reveals more of the underlying glass fibres.". I assume they were smart enough to not use dirty samples. Cheers. /Paul
35°C is the maximum, what a record can stand. They developed compact cassettes, that can stand more, to fit better with car stereo systems.
Hi Rob. I'm probably not the first who warped a record by keeping it in a hot car. Thanks for watching. Cheers. /Paul
In East Germany the inner sleeve has some tips and warnings.
So it said, that stereo records also when using mono loudspeaker, have to be played with a stereo cartridge, records has to be stored horizontal up to 20 records or vertical and you have to avoid temperature over 35°C.
Nice! I must check some of my records on the Amiga label. Maybe I have that inner sleeve, although I don't remember seeing it. /Paul
Also... ultrasonic's do clean spectacularly, but also unevenly.
They will leave a mottled surface visible under light, as the transducers do tend to localize the intensity of the clean, which will vary over the entire record surfaces, leaving a visible unevenness to the clean surfaces.... all is audibly clean, but visibly, some areas are cleaner than others
Thanks a really interesting video. When I started with ultra sonic cleaning I did not believed in those scrubbing bubbles. The thing is that i do not see anything in the bath/water. But after a interesting test with aluminium foil in the ultrasonic bath I saw the foil get destroyed with holes in 30 to 60 sec. So something was happening. It is a good test to perform now and then to ensure the effectiveness and to confirm that all the ultrasonic transducers works as they should.
Another TEST is if you use very much isopropanol then the surface tension or ~25% lower density than water. In that situation we will more likely see the formation of all the bubbles implode.
Yes I suspected that ultrasonic erode the vinyl.
Another observation is that really noisy (clicks and pops) records when they are clean I mean actually really clean and still noisy. Even IF you try "I will keep trying clean out those not normal higher levels of noise. By make prolong the ultrasonic cleaning time to it get to normal level of clicks and pops!"
That do not work even if you clean the record for 30 min (!) the clicks and pops will NOT get removed so it is not revirginize the record and ultrasonic cleaning will not perform miracles. The clicks and pops is IN the vinyl of that record nothing we can do about it for that record that is we have better and worse compounds like super vinyl and so on.. (maybe get another pressing that were done at a different record pressing plant that likely used a other mix or formula that is probably less nosy). Anyway just my own experiences and keep up the good job! :-D
Hi! I know what you mean, but those scrubbing bubbles are magical :) It's really amazing how good they work. Thank you for sharing your experience with ultrasonic cleaning. Longer cleaning times have often no effect, and maybe contribute to eroding the surface. Too bad ultrasonic can't fix pops and clicks that are pressed in the vinyl. It is always fun when you can save a bad record after cleaning. Hahah, I agree, sometimes it is simpler to buy a better pressing :) Thanks for watching. Have a great weekend. Cheers. /Paul
Very helpful. Thank you!
Hi Ben. Thanks for the comment. Happy cleaning :) Cheers. /Paul
Very interesting, Paul! Pre-cleaning for the win!
Thanks, Kris. It's one of things I really like about the way you clean records. I feel it's like an extended pre-clean. It also shows how much is already removed if you do it well. Hahah, as you can see still a bit obsessed with getting playable again :) Have a great weekend. Cheers. /Paul
Thanks for clear presentation.
Thanks, man! Always appreciate the positive feedback. Cheers. /Paul
I have observed a strange phenomenon with regards to cleaning records with this method. It appears that they have demonstrated cleaning only new and already clean vinyls! None has ever played any dirty record before and after cleaning with this method!
Hello! Nice observation. I think it mostly has to do with ultrasonic cleaning not being as much about removing clicks and pops. It is more about cleaning the inside of the groove, and gettting a purer sound from the groove. Thanks for the comment. All the best. Cheers. /Paul
Hey Paul - first one here! Great informative video - I am still using the Project VC2 cleaner - but I have been considering the ultrasonic route though - which model do you suggest or is it ok to take the DIY route? Or have I missed a video when you talk about this elsewhere on your channel?
Hey Mark! You're quick :) With the Project VC2, you have an excellent record cleaner. Ultrasonic is the next level. Also because you have full automatic units. Especially handy is you're a bit lazy ;) I myself am using a Degritter. I was a beta tester of the design. Here is link to introduction of this record cleaner ua-cam.com/video/dI6nLzBiQig/v-deo.html . They are not cheap. The DIY route could be a good alternative. Cheers. /Paul
Great and very insightful video. Thank you for doing this. So If ultrasonic is damaging the records (based on the study you cited), what is the most effective yet safe way to clean your records?
Hi! Thanks for the comment. The answer is a catch 22. Ultrasonic is the most effective method for removing dirt from the surface of a record. The most save way, is to use only distilled water. This will harm the surface the least. Unfortunately this is also the least effective way. You will have to find a balance with the method you use and be aware of possible negative effects. Cheers. /Paul
@@XjunkieNL thank you Paul. I am thinking of saving up for a Degritter which uses 120kHz and hopefully less harmful than lower frequency ultrasonic cleaners. I’d used conservatively (short clean times) could that also be a good end game solution? Thank you for your time.
As an user of the Degritter, I can say it is one fantastic record cleaner, especially if you're lazy like me ;) The study show the higher frequencies are less harmful. This sounds maybe stupid, but the cleaning time is first and foremost determined by the time it takes to clean a record :) But I think I understand what you mean, no need to clean longer as necessary. Have a nice weekend. /Paul
I use a Kirmuss for my basic cleaning, which does use higher frequencies. If the record is noticeably dirty I first clean it on a VPI. I do use a surfactant with the Kirmuss. The last step is a much smaller reservoir, less expensive ultrasonic machine. It runs at 40kHz which I don't like but I have ultra pure water for the final rinse. I only do one minute of the final rinse. I've found that the cavitation does a good job of removing trace amounts of surfactant. Apparently the cavitation helps. Since it is a very clean record all I'm after is removing the surfactant, which allows me to rinse a number of records reusing the same batch of laboratory grade water.
Hi Rick. Thanks for watching. The Kirmuss is one of the units that uses the lowest ultrasonic frequency on the market. In their opinion, higher frequencies are dangerous and could cause damage. Opposite of what the research paper says. I try not to use surfactants. Instead I use alchohol. This way, I can skip the final rinse step. I do the same as you for dirty records. First give them a pre clean, and remove most of the surface dirt. Cheers. /Paul
@@XjunkieNL Thanks for the reply. Record cleaning is so frustrating because there is really no way to have a "control". How do you really evaluate? I understand the dispute about frequency. Certainly some of what Kirmuss says is in dispute. I've noticed no degradation to sound on a very high end system but cant't say it's impossible. My frustration, especially as a largely classical listener, is not really knowing when the remaining surface noise is permanent or could be further cleaned. I sometimes use just water and alcohol in the machine as you suggest. I even got a version of a spin clean to do an immersive pre rinse, then the pure water with a vacuum machine. I may be a little nuts.... The Kirmuss does definitely open up the sound a bit, especially noticeable on classical fare. More space and more open soundstage. It's the remaining noise that is flummoxing me. Thanks again.
I understand what your saying. And it makes it even harder to limit the amount/duration of ultrasonic cleaning. When are you getting the best sound out of the groove? In my opinion every cleaning has a limit of what it can remove. Mixing different methods can help to get the record cleaner. Instead of lenghtening the duration of cleaning. But the question remains, when do you know enough s enough? /Paul
@@XjunkieNL Yes, that's the question. I wish I knew. Or put another way, when do you get to the point that there are still issues but they can't be resolved on a given disc. Plus the inability to truly compare methods is maddening. Once you clean one.... Frustrating. And I think some techniques can cause their own issues.
Audio Desk is most safety and best quality than any others.
Hi! Thanks for wachting and the comment. Who proclaimed the Audio Desk is the most safe unit? Did they do some comparisement test? Would be interesting to know how they preformed the test. Cheers. /Paul
I only know that Audio Desk put my vinyls hearable again, they sound much better after cleaning
In a way that is the only thing that matters. You are happy with the result, and you have great sounding vinyl :) /Paul
what about alcohol isopropanol
say 10% in your water?
talking about water whats better distilled or deionised?
I thought about turning my disco antistat into sonic cleaner not sure what frequency now! I was going to use 40 kHz should I go higher something like 80-100 kHz
Hi! That is what I'm using. A mix of distilled water and 5% alchohol. I don't think the difference between distilled and deionised will be noticable, especially after cleaning 1 record in the water. If you have the option, go with a ultrasonic frequency of 80kHz or higher. It will make the cleaning more effective. Hope this helps a little. Cheers. /Paul
@@XjunkieNL yeah I think so cheers happy Christmas
@@XjunkieNL Here one guy ask about 10% iso in the water, and you suggest 5%. To me you suggested (a thread in your comment section here that I have deleted) only 2-3%, and now you suggest 25%?
The original question is when using isapropanol in an ultrasonic record cleaner. You want to use it in a different way. When you want to use it as a cleaning solution for manual cleaning in general a much higher concentration is suggested. /Paul
@@XjunkieNL What's the point using Iso in an expensive Degritter? Ultrasonic already uses water as a surfactant as you say.
I thought so, that an ultrasonic machine would erode the record's surface just as water erodes rocks. Why would it be any different with soft PVC?
I intend to use compressed air to dry the records, I have a little compressor motor for tires, although I'm hesitating about that, if it would be too aggressive for the vinyl too.
Hi! I like your comparisement to water eroding rocks. It just takes time, but the surface will erode. Your idea to clean records dry quickly with compressed air, reminds me of trying to dry the record, by spinning it with a drill. Living on the edge ;) As long as you can be 100% sure there are no particles in the compressed air, why not? Probably need some serious cleaning of the feeding air. Keep me updated :) Cheers. /Paul
Water erodes rocks? Well, yes, but we're talking about hundreds, even thousands of years, so the comparison is really weak. Air compression risks embedding grit and other nastiness into the record. Much more forcefully than water on rocks. Now, with ultrasonic, we're talking about tiny bubbles pop popping ever so gently against vinyl for five minutes, or so. Maybe after 1,000 years of that, the record might be damaged. But, that hard diamond turntable stylus will gut it much more quickly.
Only just now I hvave come across your article. Interesting read Thanx.
Whoever thought that applying ultrasonic cleaning at any of the accepted frequencies for 30 minutes and 100°F is going to be anything but disastrous. I'd be very worried if my records were subjected to temperatures of 100° even in storage or use.
With respect, citing tests on a material "similar" to the constuent materials that make up vinyl is not particularly scientific, its more about assumptions and speculation as materials can react completely differently, even though they seem similar.
Whilst I agree vinyl is not entirely hydrophobic, it does display some of those characteristics, I tried removing all static before pouring distilled water on a record and it reacts just the same. It wants to pour away and sits on the surface.
In my trial and error tests only tiny amount of ilfotol is required to break water surface tension and my results are far better sonically for using than not.
I also don't believe Ultrasonic cleaning is needed much once the record is cleaned properly and stored in good conditions.
I don't think ultrasonics are that good at cleaning oily residues from records with just plain distilled water.
I now have two Humming Guru machines, one of which I use for the clean whilst the second I use for a rinse dry but I also spritz the surface of the record with distilled water spray before it goes into the final rinse and dry.
It's the only way I can keep most of the contaminants if any, picked up from the water bath surface or suspended in the cleaning reservoir away from the cleaned record.
I know I could go on and on in this respect, but sonically, I have reached an optimal solution where it takes between 10-15 minutes to obtain great results on my system playback.
I use a pretty resolving TT with a line contact Moving Coil cartridge which easily tells me if I have done a good job.
Finally I would add I still use a knosti with "Arte du Son" fluid, if I purchase a record second hand that has bad oily contamination, before then spritzing and running through the two stage process mentioned earlier. All my judgements are based on listening, not so much the visuals.
Thanks for your article. There was much to agree with, not least, that Ultrasonics have an important role, particularly in the first proper clean and enjoyment of vinyl playback.
Hi Gerald. Thank you for comment and sharing the way you clean your records.
I like the way you clean your records. For very dirty second hand vinyl I too use Arte Du Son for a first clean.
Sorry I don't feel I speculate with myth number one. For sure, the question is, can you extrapolate the results. The research observed that the polystyrene plastic had higher weight loss at lower ultrasonic frequencies than with higher ultrasonic frequencies. As polystyrene plastic is harder than vinyl my assumption is that vinyl will show a similar effect to ultrasonic frequencies.
If the water beads up on your record it is hydrophobic. It shows the opposite, it forms a puddle. You are right with Ilfotol you get a bigger puddle :)
All the best. Cheers. /Paul
Hi Paul, very interesting video. What ultrasound frequency do you use/recommend for cleaning vinyl?
Presumably this method cannot be used for the solid 78 Shellac records?
Hi Rudie. Unfortunately I have no experience with 78 records. In general, if the budget allows it, I would suggest an ultrasonic frequency of 80 kHz or higher. This gives 10 times as much bubbles as 40 kHz, and the bubbles also have 10 times less energy. Cheers. /Paul
Greetings Paul, Great video and very interesting info on possible vinyl degradation with ultrasonic cleaning. My home built vacuum system, info below, seems to get whatever grime/dirt which can be removed, out.
I have been looking at less expensive ultrasonic cleaners and found one for ~$250 and it will do up to 6 disk at a time; the unit is made by Vevor. No purchased yet.
This will sound crazy but I plan to use the vacuum system and then check on a turntable for noise etc. second step will be ultrasonic cleaning for 5 minutes and a final cleaning with my vacuum system. this will be to clean any possible grunge from the ultrasonic system water.
One huge advantage to me is you vacuum off the residual water and contaminates on a vacuum system which is NOT done on an Ultrasonic system and my thinking about a 3 step cleaning process.
Most of the time, 1 or, sometimes 2 passes with my vacuum system is all that is needed. However, once in a while, the results are not as good as I would like. Adding the ultrasonic step may make a difference occasionally. Hoping !!!
This sounds like nuts but most vinyl fans, self included, are a little out there..LOL
I lived through the era of, "vinyl is dead and CD's are the answer." I even bought several high end CD players which were very good but the vinyl with it's flaws always seemed more musical to me.
The important part of a vacuum system is good wet/dry vacuum cleaner and a vacuum wand. I bought an old platter on ebay for $10 and used a microwave rotisserie motor, free from a scrapped microwave oven. Using my table saw, I built a box to house the platter and wand and I believe it works better than anything you can buy, primarly because of the vacuum unit I bought called the BEAST. I bough mine when they were selling for ~$75 and now, new on Amazon they are ~$100.
I suspect you can find a good one on epay for less. All and all I have about $120 in my vacuum unit. Others have put up videos on DIY record cleaners on YT.
Here is the wet/dry vacuum I bought and it dose the job very well.
www.amazon.com/dp/B074BR5RV9/ref=redir_mobile_desktop?_encoding=UTF8&aaxitk=1a6701f89da36a5e6b11d0b801279370&hsa_cr_id=5675002680101&pd_rd_plhdr=t&pd_rd_r=d1b0c7e7-c749-432b-a501-cb2bfabc8199&pd_rd_w=OM2t3&pd_rd_wg=pOKGl&ref_=sbx_be_s_sparkle_lsi4d_asin_1_img
And you can spend a fortune on the various digital formats, DAC's, transports, cables bla bla bla or put on some good vinyl jazz, classical etc and life is good.
Best regards,
Glenn USA
Hi Glenn. Thanks for watching and the comment. That sounds as a plan! Maybe two remarks, based on my experience with both cleaning methods. Ultrasonic will clean, vacuum cleaned records, even cleaner. Ultrasonic isn't great at removing pops and clicks. It is great at getting the smallest stuff out of the groove. This will make the record sound even better. My choice would be a vacuum clean as a pre-clean. Especially a setup as you describe will get all the dirt and grit from the record. Next an ultrasonic clean as a final rinse. This way you have the best of both worlds. Just my two cents :) Cheers. /Paul
appreciate for advice, Sir !
Hi! Thanks for the comment. Have a great Sunday. Cheers. /Paul
@@XjunkieNL well, sure,
it was highly interesting !
I just bought a Degritter record cleaning machine but I haven't opened it yet. Should I just return it?
Hi Tracy. When you want to take zero risk. Keep it in the box and return it. On the other hand the Degritter is a fantastic machine that will clean your records like you never heard them before. Thanks for the comment. Cheers. /Paul
Hi, does anyone know if Humminguru is safe to use? Also would I be better off with vacuum machine because I do not want to degrade the record? It seems ultrasonic can degrade the vinyl. Thanks for your comments!
Hi James. Thanks for the comment. I have no experience with the Humminguru. In general vacuum machines clean records very well. Especially very dirty records. As far as I know there is no other method, than ultrasonic cleaning, that gets the last bits of dirt out of the groove. Cheers. /Paul
Hey Paul, thanks for the information! Just ordered a Humminguru, any experience?
Hi Bart. I have no personal experience with the HumminGuru record cleaner. It is great news more companies are entering the ultrasonic record cleaning market. And make the method available to more people. Thanks for checking out the video. Cheers. /Paul
Hey Paul, great video. Enjoyed it.
Jeff
Good morning Jeff! Thanks. Fun to see stopping by. Were you able to get that Bernard Lubat And His Mad Ducks? Cheers. /Paul
@@XjunkieNL not yet, it’s on my list.
...and the list is growing and growing. For some reason it's impossible to make a want list shorter ;)
after how many plates to change the distilled water? thanks
Hi! Maybe not the answer you expected. I don't count the number of records cleaned. I change the water every two weeks. This independently of the number of records. Have a nice Sunday. Cheers. /Paul
You hooked me with your H2O molecule 😂
Hi Frank. Hahah, I would have guessed the rest of the world would have picked up on this new discovery. The molecule has a form of a frisbee ;) Cheers. /Paul
Have you used Liquinox? I love it
Haven't used it. Even don't know it :) How do you use it? Just read the application, and it seems to attack a lot of the dirt we see on records.
@@XjunkieNL make a 1% percent solution which last about month since it is biodegradable. We use it in our labs so I called them and they were very knowledgeable about it's application in vinyl record cleaning. I highly recommend it. And it is a lot cheaper then buying the name brands. which to be honest I think are using it in some capacity. Well give the folks a call, the older gentleman I spoke with was highly helpful
Very interesting,great job.
Thanks, Mark. Hope the video was helpful. Cheers. /Paul
I use distilled water, a splash of Isopropyl alcohol, 8 minutes on new LPs, 12 minutes on old or very dirty LPs and water at 32 Celsius, anything above that and LPs warp, sure they spring back once cooled but still makes me nervous.
Hi! Your recipe is the same as mine. Only difference is I use shorter cleaning times. As an experiment have you ever tried shortening the cleaning time by for example 2 minutes? I would not be surprised if you get similar results as before. Thanks for watching and the comment. Cheers. /Paul
@Albee213 What is a splash of Isopropanol. How much?
I wish someone can make a proper video on YT on how to hand wash LPs without much hassle. I am also lazy but I won't buy a $3000 machine to do it.
The concentration depends on your cleaning method. You have to differentiate between manual and ultrasonic record cleaning. /Paul
@@XjunkieNL I asked you in the video regarding pre-cleaning, NOT ultrasonic.
@@rabarebra I paid less than $300 for one on Amazon, and I just pore some alcohol in, maybe 2/3 caps full.
Very useful information.
Hi Nick. Thanks for the comment and watching. Have a nice weekend. Cheers. /Paul
@@XjunkieNL Thanks Paul. I just ordered a Vevor us machine. Should be here on Tuesday. I plan on cleaning lps to loosen the junk in the groove before using the Vevor, and just using distilled water and a bit of heat during the us cleaning cycle, also using a variable voltage wall wort to slow it down a bit. I'll begin at 5 minotes. Then I'll use a Nitty Gritty vacuum macine to dry. Thank you for your lucid tutorials.
Cool to hear you're stepping into the world of ultrasonic record cleaning. Will add a new dimension to your records. Your cleaning procedure sounds as a good plan, Nick. Probably don't need to add any heat, as the ultrasonics will raise the temperature of the water. Have fun :) /Paul
Great video, thanks
Thanks, man. Thanks for the positive feedback. Cheers. /Paul
Thank you for this great video and lots of important information. But I have a question. So you say to keep the cleaning time down to five minutes or so. But each time you clean the record you’re compounding that to five, 10, 15, 20… Isn’t that essentially doing the same thing over time as cleaning the record for 30 minutes? I look forward to your response. Thanx
Hi! You're right, if you do multiple cleanings of the same record. You are adding to the total cleaning time. If multiple cleanings are necessary, it's maybe even more important to limit the cleaning time when using an ultrasonic record cleaner. Thanks for the comment. Have a nice weekend. Cheers. /Paul
@@XjunkieNL Hi Paul, thanks for your reply and clarifying the issue. Again excellent videos. Thank you
Interesting but I think a good basin type cleaning with a vacuum, rinse and vacuum will do as well as US. I think myth #6 is that US is the ultimate record cleaning method. Give me a solution of distilled water, Triton X-100 and Iso alcohol (leave off the alcohol if you want), submerge the record in a basin with goat hair brushes, spin it a few times. For especially dirty records you might want to scrub with a painter's pad first. Take a shop vac and vacuum it dry, put it in a rinse basin with distilled water, spin it a few times and vacuum it dry. If that doesn't remove the noise odds are good that it's vinyl damage not dirt particles that make it sound pop, click or hiss. That's just my opinion.
Hi Elliott. For sure ultrasonic cleaning is not the ultimate way to clean records. The method is not very suited for very dirty records. The way you clean your records will for sure get out all the dirt that may cause pops and clicks. From personal experience ultrasonic takes record cleaning to the next level for already pretty clean records. Sonically it can improve in ways I wasn't able with other cleaning methods. Thanks for comment. Always curious how other people clean their records and the results they get. Cheers. /Paul
@@XjunkieNL Interesting perspective. I'll take a few that I've cleaned to someone with a US and see it there's a sonic improvement. Thanks
I like your willingness to experiment. Only your own ears can convince if it makes a difference. Sounds maybe strange, take your most clean record, not the one you weren't able to get a 100% :) /Paul
Other test show that 40kHz ultrasonic cleaner do damage to record after 3-4 cleaning 6 min each. 120+kHz not.
So if you wash once or maybe two times you should be ok.
Hi! I do not know how the other tests are done. Ultrasonic is a continuous process. It cleans and attacks the surface continuous. When it becomes audible, is probably also dependent on the playback equipment. As you indicated excessive cleaning times can harmful. Thanks for the comment. /Paul
Thanks a lot. I clean at 26-28 celcius arround 6 minutes. Motor spin 2,5 round Per minute. No filter yet. Activated charcoal? Techni 8:56 al artificial citron wool? What do you use in The filter, please?
Hi Mich. I make my own DIY filter. The filter material is from an aquarium store. You have also many proffesionel solutions. Thanks for watching. Cheers. /Paul
Gewoon dreft met tap water werkt prima. Wel snel zijn. Heb alles geprobeerd maar dat is het snelst en de rest krijgt het niet schoner. En er kan ook het minst mis gaan als je een goed systeem hebt.
Hallo! Zo deed ik het vroeger ook. Wel spoelde ik na met gedestilleerd water. Zonder twijfel is het een van de snelste manieren om de plaat schoon te krijgen. Nieuwsgierig wat voor borstel gebruik je. Groet. /Paul
@@XjunkieNL De gladde kant van een schuurspons. Grote probleem van ultrasone cleaner is dat ie vooral voor vingerafdrukken goed werkt. Als er echt vuil op zit moet je de hele machine schoonmaken na elke plaat die je wast. Anders zit je in het vieze water van de plaat ervoor te werken. En normaal water (niet te hard) is ok maar je moet het er wel goed en redelijk snel en goed afhalen. Alleen laten opdrogen is een probleem. Dan kan je beter wel gedestilleerd water gebruiken. Nadeel van gedestilleerd water is wel dat je het niet met druk op de plaat kan spuiten. Dus als je spoelt na normaal water met gedestilleerd zou ik dus een schone spons gebruiken om aanslag van normaal water eraf te halen. En ik werk met 2 sponzen. 1 voor aanbrengen zeep (1 drupje dreft is genoeg op natte spons) en 1 voor verspreiden zeep en zacht poetsen. Deze laatste spons maak ik geregeld schoon want komt vooral met vuil in aanraking.
terrific. thanks for the science. i built a DIY cleaner with vacuum and tergitols, and now have a VEVOR US bath to try.
the rotation seems a bit fast, maybe 4 or 5 rpm, do you think it matters?
Hi Brian. Sorry for my late response, missed your comment earlier. Cool to hear you're building your own cleanig unit. In general the slower the better. The movement of the record makes the ultrasonic cleaning less effective. Although the record must rotate to get it clean. Cheers. /Paul
@@XjunkieNL the records sound better, more high end and also firmer bass. They were reasonably clean before. it is quite a treat to have better sound. My very good system no longer makes me want to change it.
In a way ultrasonic record cleaning is like a component upgrade. It doesn't just remove pops and clicks, it really improves the sound quality. /Paul
Agreed totally. Like an equipment upgrade. I like the tergitols too in a mild solution.
I think perhaps the stylus is more able to accurately follow the recorded sound without the tiny side trips caused by the dirt the ultrasonic removes. After a few relatively clean records are U.S., tiny amounts of crud can be seen in the tank bottom and suspended.
I had worked my way up to my "lifetime" system in about 1998, one piece at a time, (Rotel rtc 850 preamp tuner rebuilt to factory spec, Schitt audio Loki eq, Bryston 3B ST amp, fanatically rebuilt SL1700 TT, Shure V15 mkiv with $250 Jico stylus, and Focal Colonne 800 towers.(excellent).)
I became dissatisfied with the system but thought I had reached the end of the audio quest or my hearing was going. It used to be satisfying but wasn't anymore.
By chance, thinking I had a bad cart, I found a dirty MM/MC switch, next a dirty eq switch then deoxed everything including speaker contacts. Much better, back near the way it should be.
Tried a $700 Denon MC cartridge, not as good sounding as the Shure with Jico. Surprised me.
Then.... imagine my shock when it sounded like a $10,000 upgrade when good records that had been cleaned were played. Of course at this stage a 10,000 upgrade is only a actual small sound improvement to the obsessed, BUT it's there! Wow. I am going to clean anything that still has pops once more for 5 min.
thanks for the video!
Hi Jorge. Hope it helped a little to give a better understanding of ultrasonic record cleaning. Thanks for watching. Cheers. /Paul
Great video, thanks for the insights. Any thoughts on the rotational speed of the records in the bath? My motor on my Isonic cleaner is a fast 5 rpm some say it needs to be slower. With damage possibly being done durning longer wash times, are slow rotational speeds a bad thing by slowing that moving target down?
Hi Steve. Thanks for watching. In general I would say no movement at all is the best. This is practical not feasable. Best alternative is to move as slow as possible. For the amount of time the record spend in the water, it doesn't matter if it turn fast or slow. The cleaning will be better at slow speeds. Cheers. /Paul
it looks like, the degritter is more expensive than cheaper ones as it runs at 120 kHz, cheaper ones (including converting a desktop one used to clean jewelry run at 40kHz. Which may cause damage - still to be determined with records. Looking for similar ultra sonic cleaners, there is a clear jump in price with higher frequencies. From a 100 bucks to about 1000 bucks I've considering just getting one of the cheap ones and converting it to hold lps (other people do) and now I'm wondering if that is not the right path.
Hi! I'm convinced that ultrasonic cleaning (any frequency) will most likely damage vinyl. When using the lower ultrasonic frequencies. I would take extra caution and don't prolong the cleaning time any longer as necessary. In general higher ultrasonic frequencies have also other benefits when cleaning records. Thanks for the comment. Cheers. /Paul
brilliant! Thanks
Thanks! Happy to hear you liked the video. Cheers. /Paul
sensible and scientific, very good
Thanks, man. Appreciate the comment. Always trying to backup my arguments with science :) Cheers. /Paul
I LOVE this video!
Thanks! Great to hear you really enjoyed the video. Cheers. /Paul
Goed advies.
Dank! Altijd fijn om positieve feedback te krijgen. Fijne zondag nog. /Paul
Excellent!
Thanks, man! Vinyl forever :)
30 minutes of ultrasonic by 40° Celsius is not what I Would call a cleaning time which is similar the way I clean my records, rather 5 min max room temperature water no solvent
so if there is wear and tear in my case it is too small to hear it back and is on par with the wear the stylus does on the groove.
thx again informative and entertainment as usual 👊
Hi Anjo! You will be surprised how many people use a long cleaning time. Hahah, room temperature has really gone up the last few days. Making the cleaning proces more efficient ;) Thanks for watching. All the best. Cheers. /Paul
@@XjunkieNL by the way a longer period of cleaning of the record doesn't take away the pops and groove noise which majorly comes from jitter of the stylus but it's a first step arm cartridge adjustment is crucial.
@@anjovandijk9797 just what I said higher up in the thread. That longer times do not remove the clicks and pops. And "X junkie NL" agreed.
All that I am trying to say that then we all 3 have the same experience. And probably that is the case especially when we use different machines cleaning formula and har manny years of ultrasound cleaning experience accumulated together.
That is little of a sad thing when for me I had the hope that this cleaning method that I think is one of the superior ones should maybe be able to reduce more of the clicks and pops.. When I got into this..
🎵🎶👍
Hi Anjo. I agree, probably quite a few times the record or damage on the record is blamed for bad sound. While in actual fact it is mistracking of the needle. Have a sunny evening :) /Paul
This guy is a genius.👌!
Hahah, thanks! I which I was :) Thanks for the comment. Cheers. /Paul
Could the weight loss be debris that’s no longer there?
Hi Matt. The research doesn't mention how and if they cleaned the sample. It does mention "there is a very clear relationship between the decreasing weight loss and the increasing ultrasonic frequency...the difference in surface erosion can be seen in the SEM pictures...the surface that is more eroded reveals more of the underlying glass fibres.". Thanks for the comment and watching. Cheers. /Paul
A Spin Clean & Tergikleen works best for me.
Hi! I'm sure it's a great combo to clean records. Have you ever tried ultrasonics? Maybe fun to see what happens if you give a final clean with ultrasonics. Thank for watching. Cheers. /Paul
How to clean moldy old records ? Please recommend. Thanks
Hi! Thanks for the question. Personally I haven't a great method to clean moldy records. It is more trial and error. Most of the times repeated cleans help. All the best. Cheers. /Paul
Interesting video thanks! What temperature, in degrees celcius, do you recommend for cleaning solution in the ultrasonic cleaner?
Regards Nick
Hi Nick. Here you will need to find a balance. A higher temperature of the water will increase the effectiveness of the cleaning process. I use a Degritter record cleaning machine that swichtes off the ultrasonics at 35 degrees celcius automatically. In general it's difficult the keep the temperature stable at a specific level, the temperature will rise as the ultrasonic pumps energy in the water. Thanks for the question. Cheers. /Paul
Interesting video
Thanks, Raffaele. Hope it helps a little to understand the magic of ultrasonic record cleaning. Cheers. /Paul
Could the weight loss from the disc after ultrasonic cleaning be the dirt etc. and not vinyl ?
Hi Antonio. The study suggest the ultrasound has modified the physical surface. This due the abrasive action of the energetic micro jetting. The changes in the surface, as seen in the pictures, results in the observed weight loss. Thanks for watching. Cheers. /Paul
Pre-cleaning does seen by far the most reasonable option. If not done, one is at best putting excess of grime into the solution. It might be best thought of that we are not cleaning records but we are removing contaminants of different natures (size, etc.). Therefore, it makes best sense to use the best cleaning method for the nature of the contaminant, hence, pre cleaning. Thanks for another fine presentation!
Thanks for watching and the comment. I agree, pre-cleaning has a lot of benefits. All the best. Cheers. /Paul
@@XjunkieNL Thanks, Paul. I must say, your work is first rate!
I stopped using mine on new records after doing some listening tests. I thought I heard some dulling if the sound. I only use it on super dirty records.
Same here. It seems like it would be overkill to clean a brand new record in one of these machines, but that is only my opinion.
Hi! Interesting to hear your experience. Would you be willing to share the setup you used? Things like ultrasonic frequency, cleaning times. Have a great weekend. Cheers. /Paul
Hi again. Depends a little. Am I patient enough to clean it first before spinning it ;) Usually I do it, when I notice the new record is static when I pull it out of the sleeve. /Paul
when starting to work ,the material used on bacterial culture i used to clean it in a ultrasonic bathtub but high temperature water and ultrasound ,the first seems not good to records and the second one couldn´t be in the same room or would get crazy with the sound coming from the machine, so this ones to clean records don´t seem to make noise ,is it really a ultrasonic machine?
Hello! The sound is in part related to the used ultrasonic frequency and the number of transducers. Higher frequency gives lower noise in the frequency band we can hear as humans. Thanks for the comment. Cheers. /Paul
Thanks for the info!
Hey Teddy. Thanks! Guess what is playing in the background while I'm answering the comments? Musings In Blackness! That what a productive weekend :) Stay safe. Stay Funky. Cheers. /Paul
@@XjunkieNL ❤️Bro, I really appreciate you listening! ☺️
Great vibe. You clearly put some though in it. Made me stop and listen to the story.
@@XjunkieNL Thanks! That is what I was going for. 🤙🏾
Hello Paul, if I just use distilled water and alcohol for ultrasonic process, do you think it is necessary to rinse it just with water after the process ?
Hi! That is the recipe I use for cleaning. The water and alcohol will almost completely evaporate and leave no residue. There is no direct reason for a rinse. Thanks for the question. Cheers. /Paul
I followed your theory about not using surfactants, I ended up wasting time, and getting dirty records, now I use it with great results, I am sure that you are a knowledgeable man, but I believe the other guys who are not scientists like you, were right.
Hi! My theory is that surfactants are not a necessity. If, like in your case, the record isn't clean, why not use some surfactant to improve the efficiency of the cleaning? Not wrong with it, but you will need to implement an extra rinsing step. Have a great Sunday. Cheers. /Paul
@@XjunkieNL Hi Paul. In this case, isn't Isopropanol a surfactant? Why does Iso need to be rinsed, when on the bottle it says it cleans e.g. electronics and leave no traces, it vaporises. Thanks for you insights. Finally found 100% distilled water at a computer store. I'm waiting for the result (records are drying atm); used your method of distilled water with 2-3% Iso and used the 100% cotton pads. After cleaning a few rounds with the pads, I put on distilled water only at the end, and used a fresh cotton pad to "rinse" it this way, and then I ended with using a dry microfibre cloth to get off most of the water so it would air-dry faster. I wonder if the microfibre cloth will add static. Have to mention that while I am doing all this the vinyl record lies on a big window-cleaning-cloth (cloth that doesn't scratch anything) - will this add static while cleaning as well?
Hi again. No isopropanol is an alcohol. It doesn't need to be rinsed off. As you mention, it vaporises almost completely. This is why it is an excellent cleaner. If you use it with the cosmetic pads I would increase the concentration to something like 25%. Cheers. /Paul
@@XjunkieNL the isopropanal or any alcohol is a surfactant because it breaks down the water tension are you disagreeing with that? And really dionised water is better than distilled it's pure that's why it's used in medical
Hi. Although maybe some properties between alcohol and surfactants are the same, the biggest difference is that alcohol almost completely evaporites. Water quality is important, but don't forget as soon as a dirty vinyl record enters the water, the water is contaminated. Thanks for the comment. Cheers. /Paul
Hmm… contact angle if 80deg doesnt repel water? Not the most wettable surface ive seen…
Hi Stevie. You're are right, a record is not the most wettable surface, but water does wet the vinyl. Thanks for watching. Cheers. /Paul
Thanks for this Paul! One option is to use the surfactant directly on the record, (rubbed in with a brush) and then removed with distilled water before putting the record in the ultrasonic cleaned. That make sense to you?
Hi! Using surfactant directly on the record will certainly help the cleaning effect. The concentration is most probably higher on the record surface compared to adding the surfactant to the water tank. This means it will be harder to remove from the surface. A simple rinse with distilled water will not remove it. The last step with ultrasonic cleaner will probably help to remove it, but it will be in the ultrasonic bath now. Hope this helps a little. Cheers. /Paul
The Kirmuss machine is about the same prices as the VPI and has been developed to be effective and safe.
Hi. The Kirmuss is one of the units that uses the lowest ultrasonic frequency on the market. In their opinion, higher frequencies are dangerous and could cause damage. Opposite of what the research paper says. They seem to follow a different line of thinking. Thanks for watching. Cheers. /Paul
@@XjunkieNL Yes. As an owner of a Kirmuss machine, I am aware of its technology and the development that has been involved. It does a very good job; the only “downside” is that it is relatively slow and tedious. That said, I have been able to bring some LPs back from the scrap heap.
That's what it is all about. If you get the results you want. It's always a great feeling, saving a record that sounded crap. I believe Kirmuss is now also advising to limit the cleaning time. Which can only help any negative effect by the ultrasonic frequencies.
Since you are using the Degritter with no surfactant, how long do you have the drying time set to for a medium wash ?
Hi Marty. Your comment made me smile. One thing that's great when using the Degritter surfactant, is the short drying time. When adding it, drying time is around 1:30 minutes, without it is approximately double. Thanks for watching. Cheers. /Paul
@@XjunkieNL Thank you very much for this information, fellow Degritter'er ;)
Enjoy your record cleaner. It is one great machine.
Hi, great video, made my think a bit ... In the graph showed about weight loss you might get the impression that higher Hz would be better, with lower weight loss, however, as can be seen on next page with the pictures, you clearly see that the plastic has melted. This is no surprise as the energy is higher the higher the frequenzy is. So high frequenzy is no no.
As the so called glass transition temperature,when the material gets soft, is lower for PVC than PPE, should the temperature in the water be closely monitored.
And why is temperature improving the cleaning? Is the ultrasonic as such improve by elevated temperatures? Or is it simply so the that the greasy stuff on the surface is easier removed due to the temperature is over the cloud point? You want to clean from grease over cloud point, like when cleaning a frying pan in hot water and not cold!!
And the cloud point can be lowered by using a surfactant!!!
So is there a sweet spot: Temperature, time,frequenzy and adding a good surfactant?
In my proffession I come across new surfactants that are lowereing the surface tension much more than the ones, and with lower addition levels now used in these machines. I hope to find time to evaluate some surfactants coming months.
Sorry for long comment...
Hi Anders. Thanks for the long comment. Main purpose of the video is to make you think :) Don't just accept the general consensus. Could it be that you mixed up the titles with the photos? It are the lower frequenties where the glass fiber is more visible. The energy of ultrasonic bubbles is depending on the size of the bubble. Smaller bubbles have a lower energy level. The higher the ultrasonic frequency, the smaller the size of the cavitation bubbles. Concerning the temperature of water. The solvent character of water is more efficitive at higher temperatures. Also cavitation is more easy at higher temperatures. If possible I like not to use surfactants. As you probably know better as me. The last part to leave a suface, before it is clean, is the added surfactant. On the other hand surfactant are a great addition to make the whole cleaning process more effective. Curious to hear about your results and what you see. Happy holidays. Cheers. /Paul
I only use my ultrasonic cleaner for pre-cleaning . Then the Loricraft is doing the final......
Hi Carsten. You have two great machines. Before going ultrasonic I build a DIY Loricraft, and though it was the best way to clean records. Have you ever tried to do it the other way around? Use the Loricraft for pre-cleaning and do the final clean with an ultrasonic cleaner. Cheers. /Paul
@@XjunkieNL Hello Paul, thank you for the answer. I will try it out. But I think one of the main problems after cleaning is to dry the record properly. So I have to put it back again on to the Loricraft.😉Greetings, Carsten
Die spullen om de effecten te visualiseren doen mij altijd denken aan de middelbare school haha
Leuk gedaan 😜
Ik ben wel verbaasd dat ultrasoon vinyl zou kunnen beschadigen, maar is de beschadiging ook echt significant na 5 minuten?
Hahah, precies, welkom in de klas. Wel een beetje stil zijn daar achterin :) Het oppervlak wordt vanaf het moment dat je het bad aanzet aangetast. Hoeveel en in welke mate is afhankelijk van de setup. Om die reden is het waarschijnlijk het beste de tijd zo kort mogelijk te houden. Fijne avond nog. /Paul
@@XjunkieNL Meester Paullll! Ik haat maandagen! 😂
Nee maar het is wel interessant dat andere frequenties zoveel verschil kunnen maken, ze hadden in dat onderzoek ook met nog hogere frequenties moeten testen. En met wat meer vloeistof, want volgens mij was dat getest met 200 ml ofzo, dus dat geeft wel een iets ander beeld dan een flinke tank cleaning vloeistof, dat is iets van 1 liter.
De hoeveelheid watts per hoeveelheid vloeistof bepaald volgens mij hoeveel energie er in de vorm van belletjes vrij komt aan het oppervlak van het vinyl.
Als dat evenredig aan elkaar is, zou dus bij een platenwasser maar ongeveer een vijfde van de energie op de plaat komen.
Hahah, ik denk dat je je huiswerk niet goed hebt gedaan ;) De hoogste toegepaste frequentie was 1142 kHz. Om de resultaten te vergelijken, wordt in het onderzoek inderdaad aangeven dat dit niet eenvoudig is. Mede door de verschillende baden, vermogens en volumes die zijn gebruikt. Om die reden is alles terug gerekend naar de specifieke akoestische energie die in de tank wordt gestopt. Op basis hiervan concluderen ze dat hoe hoger de gekozen frequentie, hoe lager het gemeten gewicht verlies. /Paul
@@XjunkieNL Ik vraag me af of het een asymptoot is of dat je boven een bepaalde frequentie gewoon 0 gewichtsverlies hebt.
In de video zie je bij 1:55 een histogram van de gemeten data. Bij de hoogst gebruikte frequentie is er nog steeds gewicht verlies. Het lijkt erop dat er helaas geen frequentie is waarop het gewicht verlies nul is. /Paul
This seems like good advice, but I'd feel more confident if I consulted my astrologist first.
Hi! Smart move. You can't be too careful with these things ;) Thanks for watching. Cheers. /Paul
Would love to have your ideas on record vacuum cleaners. Just asking’
Hi! Funny you mention this. I'm working on a video with this subject. And comparing it to ultrasonic cleaning. Will take some more time as it's not an easy subject. Have a nice weekend. Cheers. /Paul
Why would we use ultrasonic if there was a possibility of vinyl erosion
Is the benefits so great that we’re willing to be very careful and take the chance 🤔
Hi Louis. Yes you are right. Ultrasonic record cleaning gives a level of cleanliness that is not possible with other methods. At least not to my knowledge. To limit the possibility of damage, it's a balance act, and it's good to be aware of the dangers. Thanks for watching. Cheers. /Paul