Don’t know what “residue” you’re concerned about but I’m sure you’ve found a method that pleases you. If you care to, please share your cleaning routine.
1 Like
I mean the cleaning fluid residue including the removed dirt.
My way of doing it mainly means two major aspects within a vacuum cleaning. The one is self-evident for ultrasonic cleaning, but not for vacuum cleaning, it is to leave the fluid on the record for a longer time before vacuuming., so the dirt better dissolves.
The other is typical for vacuum cleaning but not for ultrasonic cleaning: to remove dirt with brushing. What I try to improve there is using a brush with thinner bristles than usual and ,difficult to describe, use a very intensive two directional movement which lets the fluid/air mix treat the grooves more intensively. Optionally afterwards a run with a microfiber brush. The following vacuuming then is self-evident for those cleaners.
The longer soaking, the more intensive mechanical brushing and certainly the suction is quite effective.
Both, vacuum and ultrasonic cleaning certainly have their advantages, but the pass on the mechanical AND the suction process means some nameable limitations for a standard ultrasonic cleaning imo.
1 Like
I like my audio dealer because they only carry products they believe in and will drop products if something else better comes along. They never used to sell record cleaners, but took on the Degritter. Personally, my Loricraft was the best investment I made in vinyl.
My AutoDesk Glass Cleaner leaves residue?
If that is true I cannot detect a problem with it.
Have you had actual experience with a machine like mine?
1 Like
First, the Autodesk is the only one which includes a mechanical treatment of the record, which probably makes it more effective than other ultrasonic cleaners, it just got a quite bad rep in several forums regarding reliability, but that’s another topic. Regarding the residue topic, I think this will be nothing you actually notice directly after a clean, it’s rather a point of logic, that the pure drying off the contaminated cleaning fluid in the grooves is not optimal. Quasi as if you would not wash your plates with water after using rinsing agent. Something will stay, even if not directly noticed.
Regarding my experience, I indeed know the Autodesk from a trial at the very beginning when it was released and it was fine, just as any other cleaning machine is, when having no direct comparison and cleaning slightly dirty records. With single other machines I made different experiences also with heavily noisy records and depending on the contamination of the record, most left some noise somewhere.
What I personally noticed, is, that some of the heavier dirt simply can’t be removed without a mechanical step.
For experiences with similarly dirty records and multiple machines, I rely on someone who has a lot of experience and options to try and for whom ultrasonic cleaning is not a new hype, but age old practice on highest level. I also wondered, that he preferred the best mechanical options to the ultrasonic finally.
I’d like to add, that I don’t think ultrasonic cleaning doesn’t make sense, it can help, where normal cleaning can’t. What I just say is, that pure ultrasonic cleaning alone, without mechanical step and without suction is rather inferior then a mechanical/vacuum clean on high-level. To do both its certainly the best one can do.
1 Like
I agree. I have a pad that I place really dirty records on and I use harsh chemicals and elbow grease to work them over. Then I rinse them off and run them through the ultrasonic. I don’t believe I need another machine, my hand and arm know just how to get the nastiest stuff out. I have a friend who has a very expensive mechanical and vacuum system that looks quite nice. But manual heavy cleaning will do for me.
And also, I use reverse osmosis water in my Ultrasonic machine. I think you overstate the problem with the tiny amount of surfactant might cause. But I admire your dedication!
(and the added chemical is used by choice. One could choose not to use it and many choose not to.)
1 Like
Hey, seems you’re even more dedicated 
To be honest, I am possibly one of the least dedicated here when it comes to the frequency I clean, which is just in case of noisy records.
When the ultrasonics showed up, I really thought about needing one, because it seemed very easy and promised a totally different quality of cleaning. Then the relativating comments increased and my laziness to do the double treatment, which would be necessary to have really better results, won.
1 Like
Interesting point but incorrect as far as I can tell.
Try taking another look at how ultrasonics like the Degritter actually work–if you care to.
1 Like
I’m aware that all ultrasonics filter the water during cleaning, which certainly optimizes the dirt still present, but still leaves the chemicals (if not plain water is used) in the fluid in place.
I do not claim absolute correctness for what I say and have no problem if it is simply seen as my opinion. I think, if we talk about microscopic level, which we do in this case, the difference between leaving a bit of dirt together with a drying fluid in the grooves to me seems worse than sucking it all out. Fortunately this can easily be done after an ultrasonic cleaning, it just needs an add. step and a second machine.
1 Like
When one is sucking it all out, how does one prevent the part of the vacuum that makes contact with the record–which is necessary for effective sucking, from becoming contaminated with debris?
1 Like
On this day 10 years a go, you joined this forum. Happy cake day, and many returns of the day in good health.
2 Likes
This contact (before and after the suction gap) is another microfiber brush, which indeed picks up the debris that isn’t sucked away and should be wiped (by hand or somehow differently) after each cleaning. You see there’s a lot of mechanical cleaning steps involved which are not present in a ultrasonic cleaning. But therefore the ultrasonic effect has it’s different merits.
1 Like
I used the LP on a Pad and Nasty Chemicals with hard manual effort routine tonight.
A five dollar value!
Only problem is the Nasty Chemicals cause me to faint. Then I have to start all over.
1 Like
Stage 3, my current cleaning regimen for all new unplayed records. Note that used records may need the clean, rinse, repeat regimen until satisfactory results are obtained.
The method I use is somewhat labor intensive. Many on this thread may find it less than practical. I do not own a LoriCraft, Degritter, Humminguru, AutoDesk Glass Cleaner, KLAudio or Kirmuss. My method does employ an Isonic Ultrasonic bath, and is somewhat similar to the Kirmuss unit with out the peripheral tools, special solution(s) and lab coat.
Basically records receive a visual inspection followed by an initial dusting with a Nitty Gritty record brush and/or an AudioQuest carbon fiber brush.
Records are then placed on a rotisserie, up to 3 at a time, and given an initial wetting of 36 - 60 seconds in the ultrasonic bath, with the ultrasonics off.
Records are then given a ten minute ultrasonic bath.
The Ultrasonic Cleaner is a rather generic Isonic P4875 II running at 35khz. It provides for optional fluid heating, which is not used. I should note, this is not an endorsement of the Isonic per se.
Following the ultrasonic cleaning a brief air drip dry is provided for, typically 3 minutes.
As the record surfaces are still wet a follow-up on a VPI 16.5 RCM, with a brief brushing using the rather stiff VPI brush for three rotations. The records are then dried on the VPI. The VPI vacuum pick-up tube is then cleaned.
The record is moved to a second VPI 16.5 RCM where it is given a deionized water rinse. Fortunately I have access to extremely pure DI water.
The records are then dried on the second VPI 16.5 RCM.
The VPI vacuum arm is then cleaned.
The newly cleaned and dried record is then placed in a rice paper sleeve, placed in the record jacket which is then placed in a mylar sealed outer record sleeve.
The record is then added to my Discogs record inventory.
1 Like
Stage 4: My home brew cleaning fluid.
This fluid is based on the fluid used by the Library of Congress with minor modifications. I have found it to work quite well. It has limitations in removing, oils or gummy substances, which require special attention that is beyond the scope of this entry.
The Ultrasonic Brew:
7 pints de-ionized water, one may substitute distilled water.
1 pint 91% Isopropyl alcohol. In the past I have used lab grade alcohol, but found little benefit over the more available 91% variety.
Several (3-4) drops of Kodak photo-flo 200 wetting agent (surfactant).
At times I cut the fluid, with additional DI water, up to 50% adding an additional drop of photo-flo 200 as necessary.
For used records I typically clean them initially with a VPI 16.5 RCM followed by a DI water rinse.
The Used Record Brew, for an initial VPI 16.5 clean and scrub prior to ultrasonic cleaning:
6 pints de-ionized water, one may substitute distilled water.
2 pints 91% Isopropyl alcohol.
3-4 drops of Kodak photo-flo 200 wetting agent (surfactant).
The fluid in the Ultrasonic cleaner is filtered as needed, usually after 9-15 records (one session) and changed after 60 records. I typically find paper dust suspended in the cleaning fluid from the original paper record sleeves.
I am considering an alcohol free ultrasonic cleaning solution using DI water and as little photo-flo as possible (1-2 drops to a gallon), but have yet to do it.
New record sleeves are typically MoFi, QRP from Acoustic Sounds, or Diskeeper antistatic sleeves. Sometimes referred to as rice paper. I have also used a rice paper 12" inner sleeve that incorporates an outer paper sleeve, sturdier IMO, from Sleeve City. These may no longer be available. Currently I am purchasing the QRP sleeves from Acoustic Sounds in Bulk (500 pcs), but prefer a sturdier antistatic sleeve.
I have not tried the Nagaoka sleeves, which may be an equivalent alternative.
1 Like
Is this supposed to inspire people to get back into vinyl???
4 Likes
Stage 5: What the Rickie Lee Jones session told us. The initial reveal and why we returned for a second round.
Hopefully, this will answer Jazznut’s question in thread entry #42 below. YES, most definitely YES. Joking aside, I’ll summarize initial impressions from my first listen with the PVF process on Rickie Lee Jones - It’s Like This, Show Biz Kids.
What I heard, and confirmed by my friend Thomas who was also present. The first listen to Show Biz Kids was on the verge of being painful compared to what we had been listening to earlier. Sure, neither of us are necessarily fans of Rickie. I included a link for those unfamiliar with the song. Bring yer Steely Dan T-shirts…and get outrageous.
Show Biz KIds _ Rickie Lee Jones
Regarding the sound. The song opens with a triangle followed by a simple double bass line. The triangle sounded as if it was held tightly in a fleshy hand, with a distinct hard metal on metal sound. The double bass did not sound full and round as I thought it should. Bloated on the lower end and lacking in definition. Example, just before Rickie comes in there is a quick and short bass line that sounds blurred, lacking definition that I would normally associate with the double bass. Rickie then comes in with the vocal line, After closin’ time, at the country fair, I detect the El Supremo at the top of the stairs…
I begin to loose interest in the song, thinking typical Rickie Lee Jones, and audiophile pablum. There is an intolerable glaze riding on the top of Rickie’s vocal, and it hurts my ears, seriously it hurts. Thomas looks at me rolls his eyes, and gives me the let’s get rollin’ look as it’s cocktail time, or we find a local Green Room. We listen through the song and remain quiet. Reflecting on the initial sound and using a Harry Pearson, yes that HP, visual analogy it was as if we were viewing a morning sunrise through cracked glass window with a morning frost starting to burn off.
Jonathon then places the PVF cleaned LP on the turntable, and we’re off. YEOW!
he triangle sounds magnificent with the sound of ringing metal trailing off into silence. The double bass sounds like a wooden hollow instrument with all the gorgeous resonance associated with the instrument. Fingerings are clear but not exaggerated. Both instruments sound a if they are being played in the room. Rickie comes in with her signature rounded voice as if recovering from a slight head cold. The lyrics are clean clear and distinct. We do not need to strain to understand her, and her inflection conveys the essence of the song. For a visual analogy clean clear glass viewing a smokey night club scene, with a low lit spot on Rickie surrounded in blue cigar smoke. Metaphorically, yeah, I’ll have another Lagavulin.
So after this my skeptical side kicks in big time. All this from record cleaning. No way, absolutely no way. Thomas and I commit to return with familiar music to try once again. I offer up the possibility to “borrow” my daughter’s KOB MoFi UHQR LPs, which they have yet to listen to.
Returning to Jazznut’s question to RonP in line 42 of this thread - can you hear a difference after cleaning an Acoustic Sounds LP? To my ear, the answer before this experiment has typically been yes. Exceptions being faulty LPs which were promptly returned. It does beg the question for Jazznut, what has been your experience in cleaning an Acoustic Sounds LP? If you have not tried it why not, and maybe, quoting Charlie Parker, Now’s the Time.
A lot of unanswered questions have resulted regarding this initial listening experience. Most importantly just what am I getting with high priced vinyl, and why is there such a dramatic difference from a “cleaning”?
Hopefully, those that collect and listen to vinyl enjoy the thread, and maybe there will be one or two take always for you. I promise there is more to come, as my intent is to present as a “Serial”. Is there an absolute correct answer no, just sharing my experience. By the way, I too enjoy digital be it CD, streaming or from a server. I have been collecting vinyl since the late '60’s, so there is that. Vinyl is my core, spiritually as well as physically. It needn’t be yours, and I respect that.
1 Like
It’s up to the individual. As always, I appreciate your supportive comments.
*
I should add I never left, and possibly there are (1) others who have not left as well, (2) have returned, (3) are considering returning or (4) are entering the vinyl world. I am not implying it is for everyone. There seemed to be some interest, so I thought I’d take the time to share. BTW, regarding (4) I am that guy in the record store who gifts records to the younger newbie record collector(s) or turntable buyer(s). I try to promote our hobby and music, more or less paying it forward out of respect for those who assisted me on my journey in the past.
3 Likes
That’s all great. But, the rituals that vinyl either requires or at least need to work best are so much more than most sane people would want to deal with. I love vinyl. It was my favorite medium in the 70’s and 80’s. But, with the DACs available today…and if you spend the time tracking down the best digital masterings, you can mostly get on equal footing with vinyl sound quality for a hell of lot less money and headaches. Without having to worry about the medium wearing out or having to deal with the Rice Krispies effects…or OCD cleaning…or getting up to switch sides.
I respect the hell of people willing to put the work and money into playing vinyl well. It’s just every time I see posts like yours I am strongly reminded I am not one of those people anymore…
1 Like