ARCHIVED FORUM -- March 2012 to February 2022READ ONLY FORUM
This is the second Archived Forum which was active between 1st March 2012 and 23rd February 2022
I am in the agonizing process of investing in Ultrasonic record cleaning equipment. I will presume I'm not the only person who has gone to yet another expense. My question is not whether the base equipment (40 kHz) is worth it - I will assume some portion of my collection will benefit from a quick whack in the grooves - but whether it's worth going the "extra" mile: 132 kHz and other added frills.
I can't help but think that a good, healthy CD-4 must have especially tiny parts that the plain old 40 kHz bubble can't reach very well, leaving some gunk (or whatever lurks in those miniscule corners) in those miniscule corners.
Am I correct that, having purchased dozens of Quad LPs from Used Vinyl stores, flea markets, Ebay, etc., I should forget the microfiber brush and get with the water tank? If so, will the low-end 40 kHz model do, or should I trade in one of my Peugeot 405s (that's a car) for the high-end 132 kHz tank and all the goodies?
Tell me I'm not the only person who hates to hear those little clickety-clacks on the quiet segments on my favorite Miles Davis. Thanks,
jack
Hi Jack,
I can't help you more than saying that if I had room and budget for one of those machine, I would try it.
But as you've asked: No, we're at least two peoples who hates to hear those little clickety-clacks on the quiet segments on any favorite record.
Why I replied is because I've always wondered if those clicks and pops were also related with surface scratching. Not deep scratches, but those inevitable ones you 'll find on any old record, because years of in and out from sleeves not always the best ones like nowadays or because the disc was lying around on a carpet floor believed to be so soft…
In that case, I think no ultra-sub-electro-sonic machine will change anything.
I've carefully looked at noisy grooves with those Chinese USB microscopes that works quite well for that purpose (and some others),and often, there is no dust to see.
(Peugeot 405s? Really? in the US? Please email me about that!)
Regards
I’m always a bit sceptical- if you’ve the cash to spare for a cleaner then go for it, but isn’t the snap-crackle-and-pop all part of the vinyl experience? If you want faultless high res noise free audio wouldn’t a decent SACD be the best option? Personal I didn’t see the point but if it will add to your enjoyment of the system and you can afford it go nuts!
Just make sure you report back so we can all be jealous!
wishing you all the best for Christmas/religious holiday of choice and the New Year!
I regularly us an Audio Desk Pro and feel the combination of both physical and ultrasonic contact works best. CD4 records actually have wider grooves not narrower ones than stereo records so I don’t believe you’ll get an advantage simply based on bubble size. Not all sporadic record noise is due to record cleanliness, but fortunately this is something that is easy enough to try with a company that has a reasonable return policy.
Treat yourself with a Sugarcube from Sweet Vinyl.
Martin
Thanks for all your replies. On Ebay yesterday, I found an untlasonic cleaning tub with necessary mechanical parts to "dip & rotate" for $250 including tax, which is about four hundred dollars less than the really nice system would cost me, so I have ordered the lesser of the two. It should be able to do what I think I want to do. I will report back when I have an idea whether it's worth the effort, much less the money.
Re: SACD - no, I've long been on the side of "Vinyl is warmer", etc. And, anyway, I have 52 Stan Kenton records (admittedly only two LPs were released in Quad), so I fall on the "Geezer" side of the listening curve.
Truth is, I've always tried to keep my records as pristine as possible. I am driven to ultrasonic, and there can be no turning back. I just don't feel any kind of brush, microfiber cloth, or whatever will get everything off the grooves. Liquid and magic vibrations are the only possible way to heavenly brilliance. I guess this will be my Xmas present to me. Six records at a time!!!
Dillen:Treat yourself with a Sugarcube from Sweet Vinyl. Martin
Well, the box arrived and it seems pretty much as I expected/hoped it would be. Maybe a little less slick and automatic as the more expensive unit, but I think I'll be happy with it. Now I await arrival of the computer fan that I will mount on my LPs swimming pool. I'll have to design some sort of mounting bracket, but I think it should be doable. So here's my next question.
I read somewhere of some folks putting some sort of "additive" into the water (okay, I'm not really sure why). Other than simple dishwashing detergent, some people mentioned a Kodak product normally used in film processing. Anyone know what I'm talking about? Okay, again - I don't know what I'm talking about.
Anyone know? Beuhler? Beuhlet?
Thanks,
What you are looking for is called a surfactant (wetting agent) that reduces water tension allowing it to more easily adhere to surfaces and in the case of record cleaning allow it to get into the groove bottoms. You only need about 2 drops per gallon of water. I would recommend a pure surfactant versus soaps which contain substances you don't want on your records since you are air drying. One such is by ilford.
Surfactant! That's the word I was looking for!
The product I was thinking of is Kodak PhotoFlo. I'm not familiar with Ilford, but thank you for suggesting them - their website has a number of things that might come in handy.
I might be able to avoid shipping costs, etc., if I stop at a photo store close to home. I live near Rochester, NY, the home of what once was the gigantic photo company known as Kodak.
Thanks for your help.