Ultrasonic Record Cleaning Machines $300.00

[Deleted User]

Awhile back I had posted a thread http://forum.polkaudio.com/discussion/172654/diy-ultrasonic-record-cleaning-machine/p1 on my custom record cleaning machine that I had made at work. There was a hand full of people (@msg @vmaxer @vcwatkins @voltz @MrBuhl @Toolfan66 @MikeReeter) on the forum that had interest in having me make them one. So I did and they were very well perceived. Not only were they impressed by my craftsmanship but by the over all result of the cleaning process and how well it actually works. Since my last run of these a lot of people have caught wind of my deal and want one. There have been a couple people locally and a slew of people who have joined the forum just to contact me. Well after about three months of this it’s finally time to do another run.
For those of you who don’t know about or how ultrasonic cleaning works, it’s actually quite simple. It’s the use of high frequency vibrations within a liquid that create microscopic cavitation bubbles that implode on contact with the submerged item(s). With these imploding bubbles they pull contaminates out and away from the smallest spots and crevices. That’s why this process is used to clean dental/medical equipment, tattoo equipment and jewelry.
So as you could imagine this has to be the ideal way to clean your vinyl. In the opinion of myself and other audiophiles…it is. I actually will not drop my needle on a record that hasn’t been ultrasonically cleaned. And it’s because this process removes all the dirt and debris that has built up in the grooves over the years or even decades. With an added cleaner (in this case isopropyl alcohol, de-natured alcohol or Titan X) it’s also able to remove the thin film of oil that’s used in the process of pressing vinyl records. Not to mention this is the best way to remove static.
For those of you that have looked at investing into an ultrasonic record cleaner you’ve first noticed the price. Which seems to range from about $1,000 to upwards of $3,000. They’re also the people who have built their own. Some of them are made from wood, pvc pipe and some are even made out of some nice clear acrylic. But as far as my research has pulled up I’m the only one that has built one out of steel and stainless. With building your own it’s obviously going to be the cheapest route.
Since I work as a welder/machinist I’m offering my services to build you one like I did the other 7 people. Since I’m the one solely involved in the making of these the price is able to stay very low. And that $300 gets you the chassis, motor, transformer, toggle switch, hardware, two 6oz eye drop bottles, spacers and the end clamps. But this will arrive to you all assembled.
All you need to purchase is the ultrasonic tank (you can find one on ebay for $120 to $250), a cleaner like de-natured alcohol, couple gallons or distilled water and some Kodak photo-flo.
Unfortunately there is one downside to this bargain. It will probably take me over a month to build these. Because I already work around 56 hours a week and I’m doing this all on my free time. So I try and stay late after work a few times a week to get a couple hours in on them. If you have interest in purchasing one of these units please PM me. I’m trying to get minimum order of 15, and the deadline is this coming Wednesday 12/14/16.


That's the ultrasonic cleaner and Mike's vacuum cleaner he uses to dry.

schwarcw

Nice job! Maybe some of your pilot users will post some of their impressions. I am interested.

voltz

It works great and pretty easy to put together and he made changes along the way to improve as we tested ours and reported what we like and what could help.

I normally do 2 at a time and think he made a change on spindle so 3 at a time should be simple. I like to have 2 ready to go on towels while I'm cleaning 2 - then I hand dry and then vacuum dry with my VPI record cleaner and put in new sleeves or good sleeves! was doing 8-10 a hour this way ... results compared to my VPI alone is it makes then a little cleaner & perceived to be quieter to my ears!

I then pour the liquid I'm using through a strainer with a coffee filter added to clean the solution for reusing! you will want about 3 gallons on distilled water with 1 1/2 for solution and some on hand to replace what will evaporate.

Mike Reeter

I would like to chime in and give a nod to Brian and his Machinist skills. The kit we received was/is exceptional. The device is very adjustable and simple to set-up, the spacers that are included have a very good "seal" that keep the labels dry.

I use the USC as a first step in my cleaning routine, letting the cleaner do its thing for 10-12 minutes. I then remove the vinyl and lay flat on a towel and slightly dry one side with a micro-fiber cloth, put that side down on the VPI 16.5 and do a vigorous rinse, flip and repeat.

I feel like my Vinyl is as clean as I can possibly get it with the use of the USC and VPI, although I don't think you would need an additional cleaner to have pristine Vinyl with the USC, I just use mine as I already had it. And you know, you have to be a little anal to enjoy Vinyl

I can recommend Brian's workmanship and the USC without hesitation.

schwarcw

Thanks Mike and Voltz for your observations. Any info on the assembly time? How about some dimensions? I appreciate a little detail. I am definitely interested.

muncybob

I'm sure the vinyl looks better, but for those that had existing RCM's prior to the ultrasonic adventures...is there a noticeable difference in the sound? I'm currently slowly drudging through my collection manually using an enzyme concoction for cleaning and while I'm sure it's an improvement I wonder how much better they could possibly sound.

pongshi

muncybob wrote: »

I'm sure the vinyl looks better, but for those that had existing RCM's prior to the ultrasonic adventures...is there a noticeable difference in the sound? I'm currently slowly drudging through my collection manually using an enzyme concoction for cleaning and while I'm sure it's an improvement I wonder how much better they could possibly sound.

I have huge vinyl collection and I am intrigued. I run an Okki Nokki right now it does a very nice job, but if this is better, I would be interested. I too would like to hear feedback from folks who have used both types of cleaning machines.

jonicont

Count me in. PM sent

[Deleted User]

schwarcw wrote: »

Thanks Mike and Voltz for your observations. Any info on the assembly time? How about some dimensions? I appreciate a little detail. I am definitely interested.

The over all size is like 22" by 14" I don't remember exactly. Unfortunately I left my prints at home. But this unit will fit any 6L or 10L tank that's under 11" tall. This go around I'm taking care of all the assembly. It'll be ready to run out of the box.

maingey

If you don't have a table cleaner like pictured and explained how else would you properly dry the record?

[Deleted User]

maingey wrote: »

If you don't have a table cleaner like pictured and explained how else would you properly dry the record?

I use a plastic dish rack and let them drip dry. With the Kodak photoflo there really isn't a whole lot of water left on the record when you pull it out. So it usually takes one of my records 15min to dry.

[Deleted User]

o.k. I find finger prints about the hardest thing to completely remove.
The best I can do right now is to put drops of photo-flo right on the problem
area and let it sit. There are also other strange things from LP to LP.
How does the ultra sonic do w/ problem children?

voltz

Red, I handle the Ultra sonic cleaned vinyl with some micro cloths and after the cleaning and and can' say I've ever seen a finger print left on them as i don't worry about bare hand touching them to load.

I have several towels spread out on the table and sit the wet vinyl on the towels - then I wipe the top side with another cloth - flip and do the other side (which almost has nothing on it - then straight to my VPI record cleaner for a quick vacuum - done

Bob The ultra sonic cleans better then I have been able to do with just the VPI - but is it worth it ? for me yes as I feel I am really getting some more junk out of these grooves... if you Don't have anything yet this is better then my $600 VPI

[Deleted User]

Thanks voltz.
o.k. my record cleaner upgrades the vinyl 1/2 to a grade.
Maybe better bass as well.
So this machine takes it up a ____ .

muncybob

Thanks for the info guys. Now I hafta get the Mrs on board.

pongshi

I am almost there. Could you possible post a video of set-up and this thing in action? A before and after would be great. I am not form Missouri, but I would like to see the process.
Thanks

[Deleted User]

This is BTW. Thanks for the opportunity!

pongshi

Okay, I didn't realize you had a video in the old thread. I am in.
Thanks

msg

voltz wrote: »

Red, I handle the Ultra sonic cleaned vinyl with some micro cloths and after the cleaning and and can' say I've ever seen a finger print left on them as i don't worry about bare hand touching them to load.

I have several towels spread out on the table and sit the wet vinyl on the towels - then I wipe the top side with another cloth - flip and do the other side (which almost has nothing on it - then straight to my VPI record cleaner for a quick vacuum - done

Bob The ultra sonic cleans better then I have been able to do with just the VPI - but is it worth it ? for me yes as I feel I am really getting some more junk out of these grooves... if you Don't have anything yet this is better then my $600 VPI

I've been working so much the past several months that I've not had a chance to set mine up.

I plan to run mine similarly to Mike and Darryl. I have a cheaper VRCM than they do, the 3D printed one from CanFab. It makes a difference on its own for sure, but wasn't quite to my satisfaction, so when Brian posted up with his URCM, I immediately asked whether he'd be interested in building these for people. Next thing we knew, we had a list of a few early adopters, and he got to work. Build quality is beautiful. The kit is very clean and pro. I am extremely pleased with the opportunity for a turnkey solution, because there's no way I could ever have built anything like this myself and probably wouldn't have bought a commercial URCM. I mean, look at what you get for your investment with Brian - this is very cheap for getting into URCM.

I have some records that I've been unable to get as clean as I'd like with VRCM alone, and I, too, think that URCM combined with VRCM as a finishing step will be a fantastic combination, though VRCM step may be completely unnecessary. I'm viewing it more just as a faster drying idea.

Even without the vacuum step, the process Brian details with the Photoflo solution seems to yield great results. Those microfiber cloths Darryl mentions are also a great final step - the VPI cleaning solution cleans records and leaves them static free, even after wiping with a microfiber cloth.

There's also been some discussion on tank solutions, and we can post those recipes here or on another thread, or invite any interested parties to the Conversation. IIRC we ended up talking about a solution of 99% isopropyl and Triton-X with Distilled water, and Darryl's detailed filtration process for storing the cleaning solution after use.

Here are a few links to useful accessories/products for getting started.

Triton-X


99% Isopropyl Alcohol


VPI Record Cleaning Solution


Ultra-plush MicrofiberCloths Chemical Guys MIC_506_12 Professional Grade Premium Microfiber Towels, Gold (16 in. x 16 in.) (Pack of 12)


Kodak Photo-Flo 200 Solution, 16oz

voltz

^^^^^
Nice one Scott

I have also bought some Triton X-100 and going to try a different cleaning solution if I can remember what Scott & I figured out for the correct mix... I know not to add to much alcohol or it can be flammable

I had to put up my USC for awhile and when I start again during my Christmas break I'll try the Triton (replaces the photo-flo I think as it neutral charged? )

hoping Scott wrote this all done

[Deleted User]

forget it. I'm going digital.

muncybob

Has anyone found a reasonably priced tank that operates at 60 khz instead of 40?

maingey

What is the difference in cleaning ability of the two frequencies?

[Deleted User]

@msg showed me a great article

http://sanfranciscoaudiophilesociety.com/forums/topic/observations-about-cleaning-lp-records-ultrasonically/

Basically the higher frequencies will create larger bubbles. But mine and others concerns are that how violent is that bubble burst? Because if you go to crazy with this you can actually damage your records.
So I've stuck with 40khz and have been pleased.

[Deleted User]

any thoughts on the ratio of Triton-x to water in the solution?

Nightfall

ER308L wrote: »

@msg showed me a great article

http://sanfranciscoaudiophilesociety.com/forums/topic/observations-about-cleaning-lp-records-ultrasonically/

Basically the higher frequencies will create larger bubbles. But mine and others concerns are that how violent is that bubble burst? Because if you go to crazy with this you can actually damage your records.
So I've stuck with 40khz and have been pleased.

According to your link higher frequencies create smaller bubbles that clean with less energy making it safer as well as getting into the grooves better.

Higher ultrasonic transducer frequency increases the number of bubbles and, correspondingly, decreases the energy released by each bubble. That is a good thing! Lower individual bubble energy lowers the risk of eroding the surface of the vinyl. Moreover, smaller bubbles can fit into smaller crevices – the vinyl surface is cleaned more gently and more thoroughly as the transducer frequency rises.

Most ultrasonic LP record cleaning systems use a 40 kHz transducer. Cost rises as transducer frequency rises. If you want safer, go higher in frequency and in cost. For instance, the individual bubble cavitation energy from a 40 kHz transducer is about 3x greater than that of a 60 kHz transducer and 10x greater than that of an 80 kHz transducer.

msg

rednedtugent wrote: »

any thoughts on the ratio of Triton-x to water in the solution?

I found some info we were sharing around in The Conversation re: the coordination for Brian's gen1 build. Just added you to it. It all started after a thread Brian found over on AK re: record cleaning. I'm going to go ahead and post some of that info here for any others who may be interested. Maybe we should start/add to another thread on this? I imagine some people have some thoughts on recipes? Brian, if you prefer to keep it separate, cool with me, and we can ask Ken to adjust later.

ER308L wrote:

So I was doing some research on a photflo substitute. When I came across this thread, and it's very interesting. I'm definitely going to order some that Triton X-100. Unfortunately I didn't necessarily find a direct store bought substitute for photoflo.
http://audiokarma.org/forums/index.php?threads/record-cleaning-youre-doing-it-wrong.689430/

voltz wrote:

Read as much as I could... here the last part by the chemist dude on that thread and the key was using the Triton-X with alcohol 1st to dissolve it... as it wont break down in large amounts of water.

These are what he listed for his mixture:

• .0.5% Triton = 3.5ml
• 10% IPA (99% type) = 70ml
• 90% water = 630ml

"First, mix the Triton and IPA together by stirring until the Triton is fully dissolved. Then add the water. Job done. I'm no expert, but that's what I'm doing now." (he said this)

Now is this a good mixture for our 6L tanks for Ultra-sonic cleaning?

msg wrote:

I was reading that same thread yesterday too, but didn't get as far as you, Darryl.
I'm going to try the Triton X-100 as well.

Someone posted on that same thread asking about PhotoFlo, and the chemist said that PhotoFlo contains Triton X, as well as a wetting agent, which he said was unnecessary. I was a little confused by that, because I thought that's what we were looking for. I'm not sure what the difference is between a surfactant and a wetting agent. Chemist guy said surfactant=detergent, but not sure whether detergent also = wetting agent.

According to CD, the overall concentration of Triton is recommended to be 0.1% - 0.5%, as Darryl notes above, so for our 6L (6000 ml) bath, if my math is correct based on 6L, I think these are the quantities to make a solution of approximately 6,606ml - 6,630ml, which should leave some extra, depending on what it actually takes to fill the tank.

• Triton X-100: 6ml to 30ml
• 99% Alcohol: 600ml
• 6L of distilled water

I think I read that, filled to the top, the tank most of us have holds 6.5L?
Perhaps it would make sense to up the quantities here slightly in order to have extra solution mixed in the proper ratio for topping up. Maybe mix for 7L?

Another question I have is, how do we store 6 - 7L of solution when not in use?
Are you guys saving your distilled water jugs for this, and using Darryl's funnel/screening method? Darryl, what was it you used, again? Plain old coffee filter?

I haven't found any detailed information yet on filtration, have any of you?
Obviously, we'd want something that's not trapping any of our chem additives. Coffee filter first rinsed in boiling water should be fine, wouldn't you think? (just going off a personal coffee prep step, so as not to impart coffee filter taste)

msg

Nightfall wrote: »

According to your link higher frequencies create smaller bubbles that clean with less energy making it safer as well as getting into the grooves better.

That was just "a" link, not anything I posted in evidence of a point one way or another. It was an article I happened across that spurred the cleaning frequency question for me, though I forget why I went looking. I think I just stumbled across that article while reading up on URCMs in general.

I've never used one of these things before though, so I have no idea what's best, and can't remember any spec info from any other URCMs I looked at at the time.

At any rate, I think Brian found that transducers are replaceable, and available in different strengths and frequencies, so one could experiment. Or you could buy a tank with a different transducer right off. Main thing that got me into this was Brian's fab work on the chassis for holding and spinning the records, and for a turnkey opportunity. He did all the parts and operating research for his prototype build. I'd have no idea what to do to get one of these going without him building them.

Good discussion here.

[Deleted User]

Nightfall wrote: »

ER308L wrote: »

@msg showed me a great article

http://sanfranciscoaudiophilesociety.com/forums/topic/observations-about-cleaning-lp-records-ultrasonically/

Basically the higher frequencies will create larger bubbles. But mine and others concerns are that how violent is that bubble burst? Because if you go to crazy with this you can actually damage your records.
So I've stuck with 40khz and have been pleased.

According to your link higher frequencies create smaller bubbles that clean with less energy making it safer as well as getting into the grooves better.

Higher ultrasonic transducer frequency increases the number of bubbles and, correspondingly, decreases the energy released by each bubble. That is a good thing! Lower individual bubble energy lowers the risk of eroding the surface of the vinyl. Moreover, smaller bubbles can fit into smaller crevices – the vinyl surface is cleaned more gently and more thoroughly as the transducer frequency rises.

Most ultrasonic LP record cleaning systems use a 40 kHz transducer. Cost rises as transducer frequency rises. If you want safer, go higher in frequency and in cost. For instance, the individual bubble cavitation energy from a 40 kHz transducer is about 3x greater than that of a 60 kHz transducer and 10x greater than that of an 80 kHz transducer.

Top be honest I've only scanned this awhile back. I'm just going off of the two ultrasonic cleaning guys at audio fest told me. The guy out in the hall warned me that jacking up the frequencies and over cleaning are the two killers with this method. now that I've actually forced myself to finally read the article it makes sense. But I don't know...

pongshi

I have been away from the forum. Payment sent

Willow

Pardon my lack of knowledge but how do you keep the label dry so it doesn't peel? I went back up and saw the centre piece. But does liquid ever make its way to the label?