Ultrasonic Cavitation & Cleaning Explained

Neil.Antin · Apr 30, 2024

abeidrov said:
This is very helpful, thanks a lot!

On another subject. I‘ve come across this video:

The guy claims, that he killed a record as a result of 12 cleaning 5 minute cycles in Humminguru machine. That got me very worried, as I’ve just cleaned several very expensive records and probably did between 8 and 10 5 minutes cycles in Kirmuss. I wanted to be very thorough The tank in Kirmuss is much larger compared to the one in Humminguru, but still, do you think that 8 or more cycles in Kirmuss can actually damage a record?

Thanks in advance,
Aziz

Aziz,

@tima has good points but let me provide some other info.

The HG uses a very small tank (~400-ml) and the two transducers are mounted one on each side of the record and very close to the record. The Kirmuss is just an iSonic UT tank P4875-NH+MVR5 | iSonic® Ultrasonic Vinyl Record Cleaner for 5-LPs, 2Ga – iSonic Inc. with three bottom firing ~60W transducers with a custom slot-spinner. iSonic has little technical details other than the those with the heater have a total power draw of 380W (probably 200-220W for the heater and ~160-180W for the transducers), and some of these transducer ratings are shall we say optimistic. These two machines are very different.

I believe that video says he cleaned the record in the HG something like two-dozen sequential times. He says the record was damaged. I do not recall if he said exactly what record was damaged (it can make a difference as I will explain). If the record is actually damaged, there may be some visible damage to the very smooth surface of the run-out groove area. That smooth area has the same 'smoothness" (technically the surface roughness) as the groove. If you have ever used a FIX WARPED RECORDS | Vinyl Flat or similar and overheated the record, the smooth surface of the run-out groove area takes on an orange peel type finish and the record sounds how it looks.

So, we have this one data point using the (HG) equipment completely contrary to how it's supposed to be used and not IAW with manufacturer's procedures and the HG has a very good operators manual - HumminGuru_HG01_Owner_s_Manual_English_Version.pdf (shopify.com). And I recently wrote at the Steve Hoffman Forum:

Let me pose a question, is doing many sequential cleanings in a very short period of time the same as doing the same number cleanings in smaller groups spread across weeks, months or years? How a material reacts to many repeated impacts/shocks (from cavitation implosion energy) in short period of time is different than when a small of group of repeated impacts/shocks applied over a much wider period. It has to do with the impact/fatigue resistance properties of the material. So, it's premature to extrapolate that what happened in this one 'test' is predictive of the record's total allowable number of impacts/shocks (from cavitation implosion energy) that may be accumulated over its life such as cleaning the record 3 to 4-times over many months or years. Based on the experience of users who have performed repeated cleaning over time with 37-kHz UT machines (Elmasonic P-series dual frequency 37-kHz and 80-kHz) and 40-kHz UT machines is that no damage is experienced. Note that many uses have modified their cleaning processes which cause them to reclean their record and have accumulated ultrasonic exposure to the record far exceeding 60-min.

Additionally, note that there are some flies in the ointment to say and that is the variability in the record material that could affect its impact/fatigue resistance properties, and the initial condition of the record. If the particular record surface is deficient in a manner that alters its impact/fatigue resistance properties, then the results of doing many sequential cleanings in a very short period of time can vary. In which case, there can be no conclusion drawn as whether the HG test results will occur with every record, nor that the DG test will occur every record. Note that two of the same records, can have different material properties; it's the nature of the record composition and the additives added. Variations in the proportions and in the pressing time, temperature and pressure can all lead to variations in the record's final properties.

So, did you damage your record by using applying 8-10 five-minute cleaning cycles with a 30-min break in-between. Very unlikely. The Kirmuss iSonic unit is not that powerful a unit and the records are not that close to the transducers.

abeidrov said:
I always get the white foam and keep repeating the cycles hoping it will diminish after the next one, but it does not change.

Something is wrong, but exactly what is wrong hard to pin-down because no one knows what is in his secret sauce. If you watch this video starting at time 21:00, Axpona 2023 Video Coverage Begins Here | Tracking Angle, the records that Fremer provided are old RCA label records. The RCA record formula starting from the early 1960's used a cationic surfactant to coat the vinyl pellets. But in this case, it provides an inherent reservoir and is leached to the surface in a controlled fashion, ref: article Anti-Static Phonograph Records, G. P. Humfeld, begins page 18 1960-10-11.pdf (worldradiohistory.com). Anionic and cationic surfactants are generally incompatible if mixed at the right proportions, a white tacky residue can form.

In his patent application (which to my knowledge has not been awarded) Universal Ultrasonic Record Cleaning Device And System KIRMUSS; CHARLES BRUNO [KIRMUSS; CHARLES BRUNO] (uspto.report) he describes "...applying, via an applicator, an ionizing surfactant to the recording media,...". So, is the Kirmuss cleaning spray an anionic surfactant reacting with the RCA cationic anti-static vinyl? Or is it a positive charge cationic surfactant that just so happens to react with the RCA record formula? By his writing, the spray appears to contain a positive charge cationic surfactant. Cationic surfactants are very hygroscopic (that is what makes them useful as anti-static agents). But after all is said and done, using something that may be reacting with the surface or intentionally leaves a film on the surface somewhat contradicts the whole cleaning process noting that cationic surfactants are not very good cleaners and want to bond to the record surface and are then not easily removed by rinsing.

Not to belabor this point, but rigorous art conservationists are not going to risk valuable art items using mystery cleaners. And I take the same approach. I am not going to use or recommend any cleaning agent that I do not know the ingredients and even then, I will do my own analysis (review of all available test literature) to determine if there is any material compatibility risk which is why the book has a separate chapter on nothing more than Material Compatibility. This follows one of the three tenants of cleaning - Do No Harm.

Anticipating your next question, are you harming a record by repeatedly applying his 'process' trying to get the record to stop reacting to his cleaner, I wish I could give a firm answer. Have you rinsed your brush with distilled/demineralized water (DIW) and verified that if using only the brush with DIW no white foam appears? You need to make sure you can isolate the problem to casual factor. If you isolate to his spray, does this happen with all records or some records? If it occurs with all records, it could be a problem with that batch of cleaner noting that to get to you it has travel quite a distance. If it occurs with only some records - what's the vintage and history of ownership. If the record is contaminated with surfactant residue from years of say DISCWASHER™ usage 1498409355778615785-03951841 (storage.googleapis.com) using his spray cleaner is probably not the best way to remove that residue. You need something with a lot more cleaning ability which is why I address in the UT pre-clean step using a nonionic surfactant at full strength for wetting and detergency plus 2.5% IPA. However, for really 'gross' records, this is when manual-sink pre-clean with more aggressive (but neutral pH) detergents like the Alconox Liquinox I discuss in the book come in.

As I have said far too many times, in this area, the Devil is in the Details. And as a caution, recall what Inventor Nikola Tesla said of the Edisonian trial & error method (Edisonian approach - Wikipedia) "[Edison's] method was inefficient in the extreme, for an immense ground had to be covered to get anything at all unless blind chance intervened and, at first, I was almost a sorry witness of his doings, knowing that just a little theory and calculation would have saved him 90 percent of the labour"

Take care & stay well,
Neil

Packgrog · Apr 30, 2024

Neil.Antin said:
And as a caution, recall what Inventor Nikola Tesla said of the Edisonian trial & error method (Edisonian approach - Wikipedia) "[Edison's] method was inefficient in the extreme, for an immense ground had to be covered to get anything at all unless blind chance intervened and, at first, I was almost a sorry witness of his doings, knowing that just a little theory and calculation would have saved him 90 percent of the labour"

I think it's fair to say that most of us end up following this approach out of pure ignorance. We're all just trying to figure it out, few of us have your aptitude with the chemistry and physics behind it, and there's decades of misinformation out there for us to wade through. In fairness, your book is quite extensive and challenging to get through, while being an invaluable resource. Your simplification of it here for general consumption has been a godsend as well.

So please take this as both an expression of gratitude for your efforts, as well as a plea for your continued patience. It's a lot for most of us to process. But we're all getting better music out of the efforts!

Neil.Antin · Apr 30, 2024

Packgrog said:
I think it's fair to say that most of us end up following this approach out of pure ignorance. We're all just trying to figure it out, few of us have your aptitude with the chemistry and physics behind it, and there's decades of misinformation out there for us to wade through. In fairness, your book is quite extensive and challenging to get through, while being an invaluable resource. Your simplification of it here for general consumption has been a godsend as well.

So please take this as both an expression of gratitude for your efforts, as well as a plea for your continued patience. It's a lot for most of us to process. But we're all getting better music out of the efforts!

Thank-you for the complement. It means a lot. It's nice to know that my efforts are appreciated.

This article awad-reprint II (crest-ultrasonics.com) (which was written in 1998) is only 6-pages and maybe be easier to 'assimilate' and reflects what is written in my book (but not everything).

Take care & stay well,
Neil

tima · Apr 30, 2024

Excellent article Neil - thanks for sharing that. Loved that "but not everything".

From Reiner Gläss's pioneering efforts circa 2010(?) through the numerous offerings of today, including those from KLAudio and Degritter who burst on the scene around 2020(?) we are presented with an abundance of new tools that simplify and automate the task of cleaning a record. And, all the parts are out there for making an optimal higher throughput effort through DIY.

Between the efforts of yourself Neil, John Fuchs (rip - see 10 years of monthly archives) and scientists such as Dr. Awad, we find ourselves in a golden age of ultrasonic record cleaning knowledge. Ultrasonic applications have been found in industry for years. The hardware to clean a record is pretty simple. With the knowledge in Neil's book now we know and continue to learn how to put those modern machines to their best use for cleaning records! And we know better how to evaluate options and assess alternatives.

Attached is an article titled "Ultrasonic Cleaning - Fundamental Theory and Application." Some folks just want to know how to operate their RCM and that's fine. While Neil's writing can be dense and extraordinarly thorough, I urge we the beneficiaries of his work to do a little work on our own. Getting a grasp on the basics of how ultrasonics work will make it easier to understand what Neil is saying and why .... and we won't need continuouly to start over at the top .... and we will ask better questions. His work goes so much futher with information on the chemistry involved in cleaning because he applies it in the context of the hardware available to the record collector. A little theory aids the understanding and the practice.

Neil.Antin · May 2, 2024

tima said:
Attached is an article titled "Ultrasonic Cleaning - Fundamental Theory and Application."

Tim,

Just for info, that article is a condensed version of this article: https://www.er-emergency.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/F.-John-Fuchs-Blackstone-Net-Ultrasonics.pdf,

and John Fuchs also wrote another article that goes into some deeper issues - https://nmfrc.org/pdf/sf2002/sf02t01.pdf.

However, his writing is every bit as dense and thorough as mine. Otherwise, if not previously made clear, I knew John Fuchs and we had a multi-hour conversation - catching up so to say, about a year before he died. We were all part of the DoD-NASA-Industry group that was working back in the 1990's to eliminate CFC solvents (that were banned by the Montreal Protocol) from precision cleaning, developing mostly aqueous (water) based alternative processes.

Take care,

Neil

PS/During our last conversion, the topic of consumer use of UT for record cleaning was discussed, and he said he had used UT to clean his records 50-yrs ago. The big UT players were aware of the record cleaning market, but their focus these days are the 6 & 7-figure systems used for high throughput and mega-sonics.

tima · May 3, 2024

Neil.Antin said:
Tim,

Just for info, that article is a condensed version of this article: https://www.er-emergency.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/F.-John-Fuchs-Blackstone-Net-Ultrasonics.pdf,

and John Fuchs also wrote another article that goes into some deeper issues - https://nmfrc.org/pdf/sf2002/sf02t01.pdf.

However, his writing is every bit as dense and thorough as mine. Otherwise, if not previously made clear, I knew John Fuchs and we had a multi-hour conversation - catching up so to say, about a year before he died. We were all part of the DoD-NASA-Industry group that was working back in the 1990's to eliminate CFC solvents (that were banned by the Montreal Protocol) from precision cleaning, developing mostly aqueous (water) based alternative processes.

Take care,

Neil

PS/During our last conversion, the topic of consumer use of UT for record cleaning was discussed, and he said he had used UT to clean his records 50-yrs ago. The big UT players were aware of the record cleaning market, but their focus these days are the 6 & 7-figure systems used for high throughput and mega-sonics.

Thanks for those two articles, Neil. Cool info on JF - and you.

Neil.Antin · May 3, 2024

tima said:
Thanks for those two articles, Neil. Cool info on JF - and you.

Tim,

You do realize that my book references John Fuchs and some of his articles. If you use the search function and type in Fuchs, you will get five hits with either direct links to his article or reference to an article that has a number in parenthesis that cross-links to list of references in the back of the book that then has direct link to the article. Otherwise, the list of references in the back of the book has links to most of the articles or books that I used in my research for the book.

Take care,
Neil

abeidrov · May 9, 2024

Neil.Antin said:
@abeidrov,

I am going to give you an answer that comes right out of this free book Chapter XIV- Precision Aqueous Cleaning of Vinyl Records-3rd Edition - The Vinyl Press which discusses a cleaning process using two UT tanks, one for pre-clean and the other for final clean/rinse.

Pre-Clean with Kirmuss UT:

Use Tergitol 15-S-9 at 0.025% with 2.5% alcohol in distilled or demineralized water (DIW). If there is too much carryover to the DG (you will see it as foam), cut the Tergitol 15-S-9 back to 0.0150%. If you cannot purchase Tergitol 15-S-9 in Moscow, you can substitute Polysorbate 20. When preparing cleaning solutions, add the surfactants first then add the alcohol.

When preparing this cleaning solution, you are better off preparing 1-gallon jugs. Pour off about 200-ml DIW to make room for the alcohol. Assuming your-1-gallon container is UK/EU sized = 4546-ml. 0.025% Tergitol (or Polysorbate) is (0.00025)(4546) = ~1 ml (close enough). Disposable 3-ml pipettes are good for adding this amount. Calculate the amount of alcohol as addressed in the book VIII.8.7, so if using 70% IPA, (2.5%/70%)(4546-ml) = 160-ml (close enough).

Cleaning process time is enough to get an equal number of revolutions for total accumulated time of about 5-10-min. If the record spins about 1.5-rpm, the minimum time is 6-min which equals 9 full rotations, or 8-min for 12 full rotations.

Note: The Tergitol concentration above is a little bit higher than what @tima uses, and this is intentional since the Kirmuss UT does not have the power or options the Elmasonic P-series has.

Note: You could apply the above cleaning solution directly to the record with a brush. That is not very convenient, and it compromises what the UT can do - chemistry will improve the cleaning process (just not too much chemistry). I perceive what your goal is a smooth fast process. Put the record in the Kirmuss spinner, spin for 6-8 min; remove and final clean/dry with the DG (Medium is about 3-min clean time + dry time).

Note: Not knowing what is in the Kirmuss cleaning solution I make no recommendations for its use, and the 40-ml of 70% IPA does very little.

Final-Clean with DG UT:

From Table XXIII Nalgene™ Dropper Bottle Use for Degritter™ & Humminguru™, use the first row - No-rinse with minimal wetting and little or no foam., 25-30 ppm, (0.0025-0.003%) with 2.5% IPA or just use 2.5% IPA.

Cleaning Process time for the DG is MEDIUM, drying is variable based on your ambient humidity/dewpoint.

Note: 2.5% Alcohol is safe, the flashpoint (~57C) is well above anything you would experience - see the book Figure 36 – Alcohol + Water Flashpoint Temperature.

Note: Alcohol will evaporate from water faster from than the water evaporates, but the Kirmuss and DG are not open tanks, and you are not filtering for extended bath life. DIY UT with fine filtration, the bath can last upwards of a month.

Good Luck,

Neil

Hi Neil, I hope you are well.

So far, no luck finding Tergitol, but I’ve found Polysorbate 20. It’s cheap and easy to source. Is there a big difference between the two regarding cleaning effectiveness?
Also, if I am lazy and do not want to have a pre-cleaning cycle, could I just use the recommendation from the first or second rows of the table and use just one heavy Degritter cycle? Using the first row formula, I should add just 3,5 ml using a disposable pipette and 50ml of 70% IPA. Hopefully, my calculations are correct.
Another thing: I do not have 2 Degritter tanks yet, hopefully I will receive the second tank in 5 weeks. But for now I could use just one cleaning solution batch per record, then wash the tank with a tap water after each cleaning cycle and fill it with fresh DIW for rinsing. Could it work?

Thanks in advance,
Aziz

Packgrog · May 9, 2024

OK, time to ditch the ultrasonic entirely. It's damaging everything, even with 0.6rpm for 24 minutes. It did remove a couple of clicks that the liquinox/rinse/linquinox again/rinse/tergitol/rinse process didn't remove, but it's added background noise to the outer grooves. Time to bin this DIY setup entirely, I think. Worth noting: I did do an additional rinse/vac pass after the ultrasonic cleaning.

I am using the 5mL/L Liquinox and 0.5mL/L Tergitol 15-S-9 dilutions now. Definitely foaming during agitation. Not sure if it's enough, but I clearly need to get rid of my old ultrasonic and try to return to rotisserie if possible.

tony22 · May 9, 2024

Well this is disturbing!

Packgrog · May 9, 2024

tony22 said:
Well this is disturbing!

This is from a Sonix IV 60kHz, bottom-firing tank. Something side-firing like the Degritter is likely better.

Neil.Antin · May 9, 2024

abeidrov said:
Is there a big difference between the two regarding cleaning effectiveness?

No there is not a big difference between them.

abeidrov said:
Using the first row formula, I should add just 3,5 ml using a disposable pipette and 50ml of 70% IPA. Hopefully, my calculations are correct.

The 50-ml of 70% IPA = 35-ml 100%/1400-ml = 2.5% - so that's right on.

The first row for the DG is 1-drop of 100% concentrate, and the para XIV.8.5 above the table says "However, the inexpensive and readily available Nalgene Dropper Bottle delivers a near very precise 0.04-ml per drop...". So, that 1-drop is only 0.04-ml. Your 3.5-ml is way off if all you are adding is to achieve 0.003%. You really cannot use a pipette for this very low level (0.003%). Just use a clean eyedropper (rinse with DIW before use) and add 1-drop or dilute the Polysorbate 20 as specified by Note 3 and then add 4-drops. Just remember, add the Polysorbate 20 first and then the IPA.

abeidrov said:
Another thing: I do not have 2 Degritter tanks yet, hopefully I will receive the second tank in 5 weeks. But for now I could use just one cleaning solution batch per record, then wash the tank with a tap water after each cleaning cycle and fill it with fresh DIW for rinsing. Could it work?

The first-row is a very low concentration no-rinse formula. The need for rinsing is purely voluntary. However, people will sometimes clean a batch of records (stack them in a dish rack) and then rinse them which is essentially what you are addressing. One item, for best results, after rinsing with tap-water, spray the tank inside with DIW dump and then fill with DIW. FYI - you can save the cleaning solution. Filtering through a paper coffee filter is not bad and that way you can extend the cleaner use to ~20-records.

Take care,
Neil

Neil.Antin · May 9, 2024

Packgrog said:
This is from a Sonix IV 60kHz, bottom-firing tank. Something side-firing like the Degritter is likely better.

Edit - Delete - What is the depth of the tank from the water level to the bottom of the tank? I missed your prior edit showing that the record is ~1.5" from the bottom.

Did you reclean the records with your vacuum-RCM and then recheck the record?

What are the records name/label/age you are showing?

Where you using just DIW in the UT tank?

Did you measure the tank temp after 24-min?

For the before UT measurement was these just cleaned with the your vacuum-RCM?

For the after UT measurement was these the only records cleaned, or had other records been cleaned previously with the same bath?

Packgrog · Monday at 7:56 AM

Neil.Antin said:
Edit - Delete - What is the depth of the tank from the water level to the bottom of the tank? I missed your prior edit showing that the record is ~1.5" from the bottom.

Yep, should be roughly 1.25" to 1.5" from tank bottom.

Neil.Antin said:
Did you reclean the records with your vacuum-RCM and then recheck the record?

Not yet. Just got back from a trip, so I'll try this as time allows, just in case.

Neil.Antin said:
What are the records name/label/age you are showing?

Yaz - Upstairs at Eric's, side 2. Would have to check the specific stamper, but seems like an original (if not "first") pressing from 1982.

Neil.Antin said:
Where you using just DIW in the UT tank?

Distilled water with AIVS Enzymatic Concentrate for Ultrasonic Machines, diluted to suggested level. As stated, I did also follow it up with a rinse pass afterward.

Neil.Antin said:
Did you measure the tank temp after 24-min?

No, but I'd started at 80F, so I assume end temp to be about 90F.

Neil.Antin said:
For the before UT measurement was these just cleaned with the your vacuum-RCM?

They'd been cleaned a few days prior with the Liq/rinse/Liq/rinse/Terg/rinse process. The double initial wash was due to what looked like remaining oily marks after the first cleaning pass.

Neil.Antin said:
For the after UT measurement was these the only records cleaned, or had other records been cleaned previously with the same bath?

I washed this record on its own rather than with a second record, yes, out of a hope that I could limit the number of records damaged and offset any potential for overloading the tank with too much to clean. I guess it had the opposite effect.

abeidrov · Monday at 8:52 AM

As I said in my previous post, I had to do a separate rinsing cycle after adding 2ml of Degritter solution due to excessive (to my eyes) foaming. I also washed Degritter with several short cycles and one maintenance cycle with fresh DIW before starting medium cycles with records for rinsing. And immediately I noticed some foam in the water and on records as I was rinsing them! So, if you switch water tanks as Degritter recommends, you would have even more cleaning substance getting to your rinse tank with each cycle.

I’ve ordered a second tank, but now I am not sure I need it. I think a better process would be to do a batch of cleaning first, without drying or maybe add just one minute of drying, put your records on a drying stand, wash your Degritter thoroughly with several cycles of fresh DIW, wash you filter, wash your water tank. And then, put all the previously cleaned records through a rinse cycle with DIW plus IPA with proper drying. And you do not need a separate water tank to do it. What do you guys think? Does it make sense?

Neil.Antin · Monday at 2:42 PM

Packgrog said:
Yep, should be roughly 1.25" to 1.5" from tank bottom.

Not yet. Just got back from a trip, so I'll try this as time allows, just in case.

Yaz - Upstairs at Eric's, side 2. Would have to check the specific stamper, but seems like an original (if not "first") pressing from 1982.

Distilled water with AIVS Enzymatic Concentrate for Ultrasonic Machines, diluted to suggested level. As stated, I did also follow it up with a rinse pass afterward.

No, but I'd started at 80F, so I assume end temp to be about 90F.

They'd been cleaned a few days prior with the Liq/rinse/Liq/rinse/Terg/rinse process. The double initial wash was due to what looked like remaining oily marks after the first cleaning pass.

I washed this record on its own rather than with a second record, yes, out of a hope that I could limit the number of records damaged and offset any potential for overloading the tank with too much to clean. I guess it had the opposite effect.

Thanks for taking the time answer all my questions.

The dilemma is trying narrow down what caused the increase in noise in the outer grooves. It easy to blame the UT, but that may not be cause or the only cause. But, @rDin who has and has used the Kirmuss UT ~6.5-L machine which is 35-kHz and ~180-watts (the Kirmuss does spin faster ~1.5-rpm) for single record cleaning in his cleaning regime as pre-clean step before his Degritter and has done spectral analysis same as you, to my knowledge never saw the difference you saw with 60-kHz and 100-W.

*Was the record composition a contributing factor? Here are the Discog details of the record - https://www.discogs.com/release/2447172-Yaz-Upstairs-At-Erics. Some records can have various amounts of regrind; and depending on the quality of regrind the composition/properties of the record can be different. Some very poor regrind that is sourced from returned records can have pieces of the label (the machines punching out the labels were not perfect)- you can often see this with UV light - the record shows up as is a kaleidoscope of colors. But there is discussion in older magazines where pressing plant managers said that ~10% of regrind made for a better pressing but caveated that by saying when they used their own regrind from records they pressed of similar composition.

*Was the enzyme cleaner a contributing factor? If you reclean the record using your vacuum-RCM process and the noise goes away, then the enzyme was the likely cause. If the noise does not go away, that does not absolve the enzyme cleaner, since the record composition could be a contributing factor. The enzyme protein could have found something in the record composition to breakdown. I can't say that this likely, but how enzymes work can have unpredictable results.

Please keep us advised of what happens when you reclean the record with just your vacuum RCM process.

Take care,
Neil

Neil.Antin · Monday at 2:49 PM

abeidrov said:
And immediately I noticed some foam in the water and on records as I was rinsing them! So, if you switch water tanks as Degritter recommends, you would have even more cleaning substance getting to your rinse tank with each cycle.

Your experience varies quite a bit from the experience of others.

*What are you cleaning? Are these new records, or your older records that are now being recleaning?

*If these are your older records, how did you clean them in the past?

*Did you ever use something like the Discwasher Pad and its cleaner (that would wet the pad) for general record maintenance?

The context of these question is to determine if your records are the source of the foam from prior cleaner residue. If so, then the Degritter separate rinse tank process has its limits.

Take care,
Neil

abeidrov · Monday at 3:06 PM

Neil.Antin said:
Your experience varies quite a bit from the experience of others.

*What are you cleaning? Are these new records, or your older records that are now being recleaning?

*If these are your older records, how did you clean them in the past?

*Did you ever use something like the Discwasher Pad and its cleaner (that would wet the pad) for general record maintenance?

The context of these question is to determine if your records are the source of the foam from prior cleaner residue. If so, then the Degritter separate rinse tank process has its limits.

Take care,
Neil

My point is simple, it’s about the usefulness of the Degritter 2 tank cleaning option and process. Let’s say you have 5 records to clean and 2 water tanks. You can enable 2 tank cleaning option and switch tanks while you clean each record. Or, you can clean all the records without drying, wash the machine and filter, and then rinse and dry them using either the second tank or just the first one after washing. In my opinion, the second way is a better one, as it allows to wash your Degritter and filter between cleaning and rinsing.

Packgrog · Monday at 8:36 PM

Neil.Antin said:
Thanks for taking the time answer all my questions.

The dilemma is trying narrow down what caused the increase in noise in the outer grooves. It easy to blame the UT, but that may not be cause or the only cause. But, @rDin who has and has used the Kirmuss UT ~6.5-L machine which is 35-kHz and ~180-watts (the Kirmuss does spin faster ~1.5-rpm) for single record cleaning in his cleaning regime as pre-clean step before his Degritter and has done spectral analysis same as you, to my knowledge never saw the difference you saw with 60-kHz and 100-W.

*Was the record composition a contributing factor? Here are the Discog details of the record - https://www.discogs.com/release/2447172-Yaz-Upstairs-At-Erics. Some records can have various amounts of regrind; and depending on the quality of regrind the composition/properties of the record can be different. Some very poor regrind that is sourced from returned records can have pieces of the label (the machines punching out the labels were not perfect)- you can often see this with UV light - the record shows up as is a kaleidoscope of colors. But there is discussion in older magazines where pressing plant managers said that ~10% of regrind made for a better pressing but caveated that by saying when they used their own regrind from records they pressed of similar composition.

*Was the enzyme cleaner a contributing factor? If you reclean the record using your vacuum-RCM process and the noise goes away, then the enzyme was the likely cause. If the noise does not go away, that does not absolve the enzyme cleaner, since the record composition could be a contributing factor. The enzyme protein could have found something in the record composition to breakdown. I can't say that this likely, but how enzymes work can have unpredictable results.

Please keep us advised of what happens when you reclean the record with just your vacuum RCM process.

Take care,
Neil

That's indeed the closest listing I can find for my copy. Side 2 has the "SPAR" part in very faint etching in the runout groove. I just did a second cleaning with just the Tergitol 15-S-9 0.5mL/L dilution followed by a rinse pass. Looks pretty much identical to the "after_ultra" file. So that noise is there. It's not extreme enough to be unlistenable, but that ultrasonic cleaning definitely added background hiss for the first few seconds of the album. Ah well, it wasn't an expensive copy, nor particularly rare (unlike the promo pressings I've ruined with boneheaded heavy-handed cleaning).

Don't know if the enzyme cleaner would be a problem. If so, wouldn't that be a problem throughout the record rather than just the outer grooves? I used the recommended dilution level from AIVS, so *shrug*.

It does seem at this point that it would be wisest for me to just stick with the now more reliable Liquinox and Tergitol dilutions, and if 2 cleanings doesn't take care of it, just move on and accept that I'm not going to get more out of the record. It's tough for me to do, when I've gotten improvements in the past after switching up my cleaning solutions, but it seems this is as good as I'm going to get at this point.

Neil.Antin · Monday at 9:21 PM

Packgrog said:
. So that noise is there. It's not extreme enough to be unlistenable, but that ultrasonic cleaning definitely added background hiss for the first few seconds of the album.

What exact model of Sonix4 do you have? This was a USA made UT tank and this is best info I can find https://www.interguidedental.com/equipment/instantsearch/result/?q=sonix and https://www.dentalcompare.com/1186-SearchResults/?search=sonix . The operator's manual makes no mention of kHz - https://c1-preview.prosites.com/106982/wy/docs/Installation_Guide-Sonix.pdf

Ultrasonic Cavitation & Cleaning Explained

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Industry Expert

Attachments

Well-Known Member

Industry Expert

Well-Known Member

VIP Donor

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

VIP Donor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

VIP Donor

Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads