Record cleaning

Re: Record cleaning

Postby LarryRS » Thu Jul 20, 2017 2:55 pm

suntea wrote:Anyone use ear protection when using a 16.5? I have used one for 15 years and always put my fingers over my ears when I turn it on. Any suggestions for over the ear protection? Looking for something somewhat small but want it to fit over the ears.



I have an MW-1 which I understand is quieter than the 16.5 but I do use a set of over-the-head hearing protectors if I am cleaning a bunch of records, like a batch of records that I have just ultrasonically cleaned. The ones I use are commonly available in hardware stores for use when lawnmowing, chainsawing, etc.

LarryRS
User avatar
LarryRS
Newbie
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 6:10 pm

Re: Record cleaning

Postby babybird » Thu Jul 20, 2017 3:46 pm

Absolutely I use ear protection. As a rule its a set of headphones obtained at the hardware or home center stores. Don't recall the DB attention but it makes a huge difference. Sometimes I will also use the foam ear plugs, also available at the home centers, i.e. Lowe's or equivalent. They are a bit quieter but not as comfortable. At this age I tend to be very careful with my ears. When working in my shop I always use either of the above or sometimes both in combination which really quietens things down.

Hope this helps.

PS, I've got the Cyclone no idea if its louder or as loud as the 16.5
babybird
Senior Member
 
Posts: 230
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 6:54 pm

Re: Record cleaning

Postby suntea » Thu Jul 20, 2017 5:31 pm

My 16.5 measures over 90 DB on an iphone app. Not the best tool to use, but it is relatively loud. Looks like there are some inexpensive noise cancelling, over the ear protectors to be had.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Classic 3, Dynavector XX2 MK2, McIntosh 2300 Preamp, McIntosh MC402 Amp, McIntosh MVP861 disc player, Dali MS5 Speakers, REL Strata 3 woofer
User avatar
suntea
Senior Member
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 1:22 pm

Re: Record cleaning

Postby Letsmakeadeal » Tue Oct 31, 2017 11:52 am

Ready to rock and roll as soon as the Triton X-100 arrives...

If anyone is doing room temperature cleaning or making up record cleaning solutions, I have a Brand New Unopened Quart of Triton X-114 available for cheap (not for use in heated Ultrasonic environments)
Attachments
20171031_104032_resized.jpg
20171031_104032_resized.jpg (343.43 KiB) Viewed 264 times
20171031_103937_resized.jpg
20171031_103937_resized.jpg (408.54 KiB) Viewed 264 times
User avatar
Letsmakeadeal
Senior Member
 
Posts: 369
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 3:42 pm

Re: Record cleaning

Postby spinblackcircle » Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:17 pm

Looking forward to your thoughts on the setup. Probably my next purchase.
VPI Prime/Grado Reference Master, VPI 16.5 RCM, Audio Research LP1, Audio Research VSI60, Martin Logan Electromotion ESL, ClearDay and Audio Sensibility Cables
User avatar
spinblackcircle
Senior Member
 
Posts: 530
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2014 3:09 pm
Location: Boston, MA

Re: Record cleaning

Postby Mr_Putty » Fri Nov 03, 2017 4:56 pm

I have just read the info in this link: http://www.tmasc.com/qa%20process.htm.
Humbling but very informative. It has me wondering if there are some basic cleaning steps that have not been considered. This is just me wondering what I would want in a cleaning system. Since DI is considered highly desirable as a cleaning and rinsing fluid, maybe I should use water that has been gravity filtered from one of the Sawyer (brand) type of new water filters that can be purchased at REI, for example. The article also states that rinsing is very important and that warm water is much better than cold or moderate temperature water. So my ideal cleaner might be an ultrasonic tank that uses DI water and flushes the record surface with warm water as the record is being cleaned, (as it rotates out of the cleaning solution), before it is immersed into the USC for the second and additional times. The higher frequency UCS would seem to be less damaging and perhaps only a few minutes would be needed in the cleaner. A second identical setup would be used for rinsing. Below are some comments from the article mentioned.

"Use of DI Water for parts cleaning and washing
Using DI water for precision parts cleaning is important because:

Since all or most of its mineral content removed it is very hungry to acquire minerals from your parts which is commonly the dirt and contaminates on the surface of your parts.
Ultrasonics are able to cavitate more effectively which an absense of particulates in the DI water.
Since there are no minerals in DI water, it leaves no residue on your parts, so you have no water spotting after parts dry.
DI water will remove any remaining detergent, alkaline cleaning chemistry or soaps from your parts when to rinse parts.
Alkaline cleaning solutions, soaps and detergents perform better is solution with DI water as the detergent is not wasted in converting the mineral content of the water (as explained above), all of its cleaning action can be directed to the part.
Since all contaminates have both organic and inorganic components and they typically increase the conductivity of DI water, a part cleaning system can be set up with conductivity probes to monitor the final rinse of the product in an ultrasonic tank. The final rinse process can be automatically set based on the conducitivity measurements and programmed to introduce more DI water to achieve the proper desired level."

All this has me wondering if a pre soak for a few minutes in a DI-detergent-filled water tank would be a good idea, before using the USC tank? A crude analogy would be pre soaking (with cleaner) a driveway before power washing. Does anyone recommend this pre soak suggestion?
BTW that photo looks like a great system to use.
Mr_Putty
Jr. Member
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:44 am

Re: Record cleaning

Postby Mr_Putty » Fri Nov 03, 2017 5:08 pm

I use hearing protection a lot in woodworking. Woodcraft, Lowes and Home Depo all have hearing protection choices. The cheap ear-surrounding type work well and are pretty comfortable. I find them much more convenient than the in ear type and not particular about dust. Been using the same pair for years.
Mr_Putty
Jr. Member
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:44 am

I am a believer

Postby Letsmakeadeal » Fri Nov 03, 2017 7:43 pm

spinblackcircle wrote:Looking forward to your thoughts on the setup. Probably my next purchase.


I used Rushton's formula but substituted Triton X-100 for Tergitol

Now that I am an expert :D in Ultrasonic Cleaning after cleaning three records..Just kidding of course!

Here is my take on it all.

Does it perform miracles? No
Does it fix scratches? No
Does it substantially improve otherwise undamaged but dirty and noisy records? That would be one big! Hell Yes :D :D :D

This was my Guinea Pig: (Picture Below)
An eBay looser with a scratch across tracks 2&3 side 1...Noisy, ticks, pops and bad groove noise everywhere else.

Process: Prewash with MoFi Deep Cleaner on Loricraft PRC-4. I knew this was a lost cause so I started at 37khz...First US pass 4 min at 37khz (1 turn) then at 80khz for 13 minutes - 3 more rotations at about 35 Centigrade - :) Result> Moderate improvement. Still scratches ruin it but much quieter. Not yet what I would consider acceptable as a keeper though. It was a noisy sample to start with..Well, what the hell:

15 minutes more at 37khz with Sweep enabled & about 40 Centigrade. The water just keeps getting hotter and hotter...Better let it rest a while....

Finished all test runs with two rinses as per Rushton's instructions on the Loricraft.

Now we are in the ball park..Side 1 still pretty much unusable because of the scratches. Otherwise it was much quieter. I decided to play side 2 and it is now quiet as a church mouse. I wish I had listed to side 2 after the first run..Dang it. A gigantic improvement though.. :mrgreen:

Second record up for test is a brand new Classic Records "Kind of Blue" I only played it partly one time previously because the lead in song on side 1 has more ticks and pops than a bag of microwave popcorn and the rest of it is permeated with ticks and pops as well. The PRC-4 had no positive affect on these issues in prior attempts to clean it. No wonder Classic Records is out of Business.....I was so PO'ed...Still am

I ran the regimen on it same as with the First LP....It is a junker...Bad pressing and nothing I can do about it. Apparently this is fairly common with the 180gram 33.3rpm Classic pressings of "Kind of Blue". QUIEX - What a joke! I needed a miracle on "Kind of Blue" that did not come even with the US Process. :oops:


3rd test was a nice undamaged LP with a little bit of noise. Now it is CD quiet and the cat's meow....I am very impressed.
So I am sold on the process and look forward to weeding out the junk and finding the Gems in my collection.....I am starting a pile of hopeless give aways....If this process doesn't fix them nothing will!.

I have much more to learn and many records to clean, but I am finally up and running...

Thanks Rush!
Attachments
20171103_152134_resized.jpg
20171103_152134_resized.jpg (354.13 KiB) Viewed 171 times
User avatar
Letsmakeadeal
Senior Member
 
Posts: 369
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 3:42 pm

Re: Record cleaning

Postby rl1856 » Thu Nov 16, 2017 2:37 pm

First Post.

I now use a US cleaner.

I constructed a DIY US machine using a Chinese sourced 10L US box, and the vinyl stack. Total cost about $400. I regard my results as 2 steps forward, 1 step back.

Previous method was Spin Clean fluid and scrub, followed by a Nitty Gritty Vac Dry. This method gave great results, but records still retained a low level of noise- though overall noise level was considerably reduced.

Current method is Spin Clean scrub, distilled water rinse, US clean using Rushton's formula, at 1 rev per 3 min / 5 rev over 15 min, distilled water rinse, then Nitty Gritty Vac Dry.

From the first US cleaning cycle I noticed accumulation of debris in the Spin Clean tank AND accumulation of debris in the US tank. A surprising amount of debris in the US tank in fact. Where did the debris come from ? The grooves presumably- and represents debris NOT removed by the Spin Clean.

Sonic results were mixed, with a bias to great. Noise floor was markedly reduced- in many cases to a level below the noise floor of my system. In many cases I could hear fade outs descending all the way down to either an arbitrary cut off to silence, or descending into the noise floor of my system. The low level shhhhhh/swish sound I sometimes heard disappeared. Damage remained and in some ways was more noticeable against a quiet background. I theorized that over time, a layer of dirt and debris becomes bonded to the groove walls of LPs. This layer remained impervious to the Spin Clean/Vac. The addition of a 15 min US cycle was enough to remove much of this embedded debris layer. Along with a lower noise floor I heard better transient response, cleaner midrange, and more extended HF response. I also heard an increase in low level ambiance cues- air around musicians and instruments, cleaner brass and string instrument decays.

On the other hand, I notice more tics and pops the closer I get to the inner groove of the LP. I am unsure if this is a failure of the US machine in effectively cleaning near the top surface of the tank, or a problem with my Nitty Gritty machine in failing to pull all remaining effluent out of the grooves. More experimentation is needed to get past this issue.

My conclusion after about 2 months of experience is the addition of US cleaning is a definite and noticeable improvement.

Just my experience.
rl1856
Newbie
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2017 2:29 pm

Re: Record cleaning

Postby Packgrog » Thu Nov 16, 2017 4:11 pm

You can probably just skip the Spin Clean altogether. I doubt it's helping much. I've actually switched to just using the ultrasonic first, after damaging a record trying to pre-clean it on an automated Nitty Gritty, and having a stuck bit of grit wear a groove in between two songs. I feel like a Spin Clean could be even worse in that regard.

I find it odd that you get more noise at the end of records. I generally have more at the beginning, as the outer edge is where there's usually more groove damage from shifting around in the sleeve. But I do concur with your finding that some clicks become more prominent after good ultrasonic cleaning, as the general haze that used to make the clicks less prominent has been reduced. I wonder if your issue with greater noise at the end of records is due to alignment issues, either with your current setup, or with whatever the records hand been played on previously.
VPI Scout Jr., Audio Technica AT33PTG/II, Phoenix Engineering Falcon w/ DIY Arduino Uno Tachometer, Audio Sensibility Impact SE Phono Cable, Musical Surroundings Nova Phonomena
User avatar
Packgrog
Senior Member
 
Posts: 157
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2016 2:37 pm

Previous

Return to Harry's Corner

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

x